Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux is About to Lose
mpawlo writes "Wired ran an interesting piece by Russ Mitchell in the latest issue of the magazine. Mitchell focus on the so called war between Microsoft and Linux and why Linux will have a hard time winning such a war, and especially in respect of the desktops. The article was only available in the paper issue, but is now also available online."
when Linus Torvalds says they arent even fighting them?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
No more MS Os's on the Desktop ?
Or Linux Everywhere ?
Both sound bad, what we want i guess is
a competitive playing ground for OS designers.
We dont want the best the greatest the fastest,
we want something usefull and workable or atleast i do.
Linux is usable for me at the moment,
i dont care who wins or who is in war.
Quazion.
Desktop computing? Don't they know? The war is over. Microsoft has won.
Well, yes, but it's far more sudden than the author makes out. I think a lot of us believed that the Linux desktop could compete after Microsoft was broken up or destroyed for the monopoly that it is.
Now that the government has surrendered, he has a good point.
Linux is dying...
Someone had to say it!:)
------
Sig
1) Users are used to ms-windows. they are all old dogs and refuse to learn new tricks.
2) Linux based companies cant make money. nope. never.
i thought we've heard this before?
... hi bingo
But he fails to acknowledge the reality that sometimes a linux desktop makes real business sense. Yes, that market is small, and yes if you're looking at it as a war, Microsoft has won. However, in the words of Phil Jackson, "You are only a success for the moment you achieve something."
Users do want simplicity and ease of use. And it is also true that Linux can't give them this right now. But it's even more true that this can change.
Go Lakers!
... but I think the 10- or 50-year outlook isn't so clear. Yes, for now Dell has dropped Linux from their computer line, but that may not stay that way. I personally think that the 'Ghandi-esqe' approach that open-source has (i.e. the passive resistance thing - not pushing to sell), not to mention the fact that there is no single company behind it, makes it an invincible force in the long run. Maybe Windows will stay ahead of Linux forever... but that will take a lot of running from a horse that will surely get tired.
"Free beer tends to lead to free speech"
You see, the consumer doesn't really care if the harder-to-use OS is more stable. They don't even know what stable really means.
To use the paltry 1.5% of shipments of Linux for desktop environments to disqualify Linux as a contender for the desktop shows how little the writer knows about Linux. And the writer worked for Red Hat? Please, somebody hit her with a clue-bat. The amount of shipments tells nothing about the installed base and for desktops you can rest assured that the number of shipments should be multiplied by a _much_ larger amount than with server-shipments exactly _because_ of the reduced licensing cost it can bring for workstations! Don't bother to read the piece, it's useless and shouldn't even have been posted here especially since it's a day old.
Karma? What's that again?
Karma? What's that again?
Here's a comment from my tech-illiterate wife: "Get that damn Linux installed -- I'm sick of this s**t from Microsoft!"
If my wife, of all people, is asking for an alternative to M$'s stuff, then there really is some hope. Linux may never get beyond a 10% desktop share, but just giving up because there's no good spell checker for Linux is silly.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
The technician who didn't bother to backup her
data files should have been fired on the spot!
This is totally unacceptable behavior.________
Lots of people who can program need Linux desktop apps. They will write them, and they will eventually be far better than Office. End of story.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
I don't see any reason to be concerned about what this individual is saying. We all know some people care about linux and some give it a bad name. Myself it is a great idea, a revolution if you will and I intend to use it regardless of the desktop numbers.
... hi bingo
Linus is just undergoing a transition phase. It will become the most popular OS in 3rd world countries and some notable 1st world (Germany) in five years. Watch and see!
Linux is written by geeks, for geeks.
MS/Windows is written by geeks and business types, for business types... and geeks. Who controls the pursestrings in the enterprise?
Which OS spends millions on UI design? As long as Linux continues to move ahead with fragmented windowing systems, it'll continue to fail to compete with Windows on the desktop.
If you've learned nothing else from models, it's that sometimes it's better to be pretty than smart.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
This was posted yesterday or the day before on Linuxtoday, and the thing I really didn't understand is not why people keep posting articles like this that claim to explain why Linux will never succeed, but why editors don't correct the headlines.
Very, very little of this article is about why the author thinks linux won't succeed on the desktop - what it is about is why Linux isn't *currently* on the desktop.
Sure, for example, we don't have an Office killer *currently*, but where exactly does he explain why we can never have one? Nobody can seriously be so conned by Microsoft as to believe that we'll always be playing catch-up. Obviously there will come a point (very soon, IMHO) when Linux word processors have every function most users could possibly want - just because Word adds new extraneous features every release doesn't mean those are necessary, and certainly doesn't mean people use them (or would miss them in a Linux equivalent).
I'm just constantly bemused how people seem to make the inference from 'linux isn't currently on the desktop' to 'linux will never be on the desktop'. There may be some good reasons why this might be, but this article certainly doesn't offer any conclusive ones as far as I can see.
Seems to me that there will come a point where a free operating system can do everything current OSes do, so the intuitive step is to ask 'Why when that happens will people pay for an OS instead?' - surely the burden is on people claiming linux will never win the desktop to answer that, even if that time is a year off or whatever.
It seems that the article is motivated by an anger towards the fringe lunatics. This is too bad -- wiping a hard drive and installing linux on it isn't a linux problem, it's a stupid fucking employee problem.
As for whether or not Linux is going to lose on the desktop, time will tell. It's staying on mine, but I don't do any word processing that other people need to see. I do find it funny that the writer considers the competition for the desktop a bad thing, and writes it off as duplication of effort. I suppose there's an argument for that, but you might as well say that Darwinism is a duplication of effort when it comes to evolution -- the only other recourse is to accept being stagnant or having your evolution determined for you. No thanks.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
It sounds like Russ Mitchell is airing intraoffice politics to the world. Perhaps there is more than one agenda here. However, the high profile of Wired make his gripe a point worth addressing.
Michael Lucas did this quite well in his recent article on Selling BSD (as an idea) to managment. The short of it is to behave well and act mature even if you're not.
Perhaps this is a call to raise the bar on the various "Certified [RH/SuSe/etc] Engineer" exams. I know more than one MSCE that nearly earned a free trip down the stairs. I'd hate to see that start happening to the corresponding Linux techs.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Unfortunately, I think the desktop is the passenger train of the golden age of railroads. You don't do it because it brings in the cash money. It's a mindshare thing. How else can you explain microsoft's now-dominance in the server market? They didn't do it by ignoring user-friendliness, that's for sure.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
C'mon, this article is crap. Evidence that Linux is not suited for the dekstop: a guy in a black t-shirt formatted someone's laptop, and Applixware didn't know the word website. I have used Linux as my primary OS for years, and have never had either problem shake my resolve for Linux. In fact, a guy in a black t-shirt never even came near to my computer.
There are several word processors available for linux, such as Word Perfect and Star Office. Just because one word processor didn't know one word doesn't mean linux is done for.
between the desktop and the server.
The way open source development works you scratch
you own itch. If you need better server support
you do that, if you need better desktop clients
you do that.
This is no crusade against Microsoft. It is a better way of developing software.
That since linux isn't there now, it can never be?
If anything is to be learned from the last 5 years of OpenSource, is that it is very dynamic and can play catch-up very quickly, usually measured in weeks.
We need an idiot version of linux. When you can fully run and configure a linux system without VI, Emacs, Pico, cat, grep - and do it all through a consistant well-thoughtout GUI will be the day that linux is ready for the corporate & home desktop.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Windows suffers in two areas: reliability and usability. Obviously, Linux is quite good w.r.t. the former, but not so good w.r.t. the latter. Windows seems to crash everytime I'm really doing something important. Linux has only crashed on me once in my entire life (remarkable, I'll admit).
However, usability is king with users. Most users who have seen Windows for the first time simply can't figure it out because it doesn't map to their mental model of how the system should work. Double-clicking? Minimize a window? Right-click to bring up "hidden" actions? Click "Start" to find the "Shutdown" command? These things are counter-intuitive to any beginner, and even seasoned veterans are confused when a new version of Windows comes out due to MS's inability to adhear to their own standards. This is an area that Linux could have capitalized on, but unfortunately developers were too interested in developing GUI's for developers... not the average Joe.
This is why Linux will "lose the battle." You can point to monopolies and such as long as you want, but in the end the user makes the decision what he or she wants, and the user will say that the switch to Linux doesn't offer enough benefits to justify a shift.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - E.W. Dijkstra
I have to wonder why this article was written. Linux desktop distribution numbers are difficult if no impossible to tabulate accurately, as recent events at The Linux Counter have shown. So, the fact that the majority of PC's aren't shipping with Linux is not really relevant. I buy a laptop from Gateway, I get Windows XP, if throw it in a drawer and install RedHat, and approximately 2 people are aware of this, if you count my wife. Linux currently provides all the functionality I need, and is only getting better. I still use NT and 98 on 2 machines, but these are not my primary machines. The point is, due to the nature of the beast, a statement the Linux is about to lose or has lost is not one that can be backed up without a massive statistical display of dubious authenticity. Simply FUD?
You are not the customer.
Sounds like this guy is just upset because some holier-than-thou tech deleted his data and rightfully so. The guy has a bitter taste in his mouth, thus the article
The Anti-Blog
But what that article fails to take into account is the very rapid rate of development happening in the Linux desktop community. Very soon Gnome 2.0 and KDE 3.0 will be released, which are both major steps in their respective projects. What has Microsoft put out lately? Windows XP with the Luna interface, which after having played with, I can definitely say I'm not impressed (Mac OSX is still the best eye-candy).
The point is, Linux is usable, but still in development. At the rate that support for linux is snowballing and more and more people get onboard, Linux will be as good or better than M$ in, I'd guess, about two years.
I know it costs money but my recollection of WP is that it is pretty good. Why not use that on a linux box? I think it costs less than word anyway.
I do not understand this "war" for supremacy in the OS world. If Linux users are concentrated on winning, they should direct their energy on writing good, bug-free code, not only on the OS, but the apps as well!
Address the complaint. Speedie's complaint was about the apps. The Linux kernel is relatively stable. Let's create some stuff to go with it.
The way to win a thorugh a superior product, not saber-rattling.
I heartily advise anyone, who hasn't already, to listen to Bill Gates give a speech. He is a megalomaniac and a charismatic one, besides, buy you really have to pay attention to what he says between the lines. It is very intimidating to hear his version of the future, one in which there really is no competition, but a utopia run by your best and well meaning friends, microsoft.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This article is a highly-edit version of the one in wired magazine. I read the whole thing the last time I was in B&N. Let me tell you, the guy that wrote this article is an idiot. Most of the inane points he made in the full article are moot points at best. His main beef is that linux can NEVER be a desktop competitor. He cites much of his experience on lack of experience. I wish I could remember the article better, but I recommend you all read the whole thing. This guy praises the kernel and says we should stop wasting our time developing GUI's and GUI tools. Now, it's true that the kernel is perhaps the best thing we've done (or is Apache the best thing?) but Linus himself said that kde was one of the greatest accomplishments of the year. If we quit now, and we give in to bickering amongst ourselves, we will lose. I guarantee that. So stop inner-fighting and keep cranking out those GUIs, those streaming audio and video players, all those things that make windows more convenient for the average user, because face it, we all know someone who is very computer-literate, and is aware the linux is superior, but doesn't want to run it because he/she can't play game X/watch video format Q/use telephony Y to call mom and dad over the internet/can't quite get those excel sheets to embed in those imported MSword docs quite right...and the list goes ON and ON and ON. My girlfriend is one of those people. These people like linux, they enjoy linux, but without the right tools, they will continue to simply NOT use it. Let's continue to WIN the fight.
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
...and we should immediately conclude with the question are we lacking in any way from a server operating system perspective?
Linux as a server remains very strong; Samba can emulate a PDC, free Sybase is an MS-SQL Server 6.5 lookalike, complete replacements for an Exchange server are available, and Linux supports the whole family of UNIX server protocols. There is simply no excuse for Windows in the datacenter from a basic OS-functionality perspective.
True, there have been significant weaknesses. ext2 has been a problem for some time, but this is (close to) getting fixed (it would really help if the distributions would coordinate some of their work). I wish ipfwadm/ipchains/iptables would stop changing. We still suffer from significant fragmentation, which is most dangerous, for it is fragmentation that severely damaged commercial UNIX.
So is fragmentation the biggest danger in the server space? Are there even greater risks?
As far as the desktop market goes, no one in Linux is serious about desktop market share unless and until a major distribution releases a "Win32" edition with layered WINE optimized for running Windows binaries.
I do wish that we could get serious.
Speedie needed to use Microsoft Word because the Linux word processors at her disposal were saddled with spellcheckers so abysmal they caused more problems than they solved, skipping over misspelled words and offering bizarre alternatives for words spelled correctly.
Strange...that's my experience with the Microsoft spell checker. Or with any other spell checker. None of them are perfect; nor are they intended to be a crutch. They're just tools to help find typos.
A decade later, Linux is lauded as a technical success. But as a business, it's a flop.
Why do we insist on measuring everything by the dollar value?
What if all the mental energy, the rage on Slashdot message boards had been concentrated on building solid business models in enterprise computing?
That's strange; the impression I got from the whole article was that of some junkie posting a rant on a bulletin board. I don't see him out developing the next greatest platform, and yet he pans others for doing exactly what he does.
Microsoft will beat Linux on the desktop because they control the way PC's are installed at the manufacturer. Linux will Never surpass Microsoft, unless their grip over the Major manufactures, with the secret OEM licence, is broken.
Eg, hypothetically, Microsoft could just about to release a new OS, called M$ Shite - This will be worse than MSDOS, Take ages to boot, be non-gui, bugger up the HD's boot patition table so that only a Low Level format will put things right, and only run MS branded crippleware, and not allow any other software installs. Unfortunetely, they are also strongarming the Manufactures to preinstall this next generation software, so that every PC sold from BESTBUY, or PCWORLD, without exception, will come with it pre-installed.
I wonder how many people will still stick with the OS their PC came with, in this situation regardless, 30%? 40%, maybe even 50%. Many people do not know the difference between the OS and the Computer, and don't even realise that they can change, and wouldn't even know if they would want to.
I like how he leads off with an example of ONE asshole who removes Windows at every opportunity. Clearly, this is representative of the entire Linux community. (That was sarcasm.)
He then goes on to discuss the battle between Linux and Windows on the desktop. This is interesting, because regular readers of Slashdot know that it's the server market that is the battleground. Maybe we just don't know as much as good old Russ.
He points to projects like Gnome and KDE to support his claim that Linux developers hunger for the desktop. Well, this is arguable. However, he lambasts them by saying that these developers should spend their time "developing kick-ass development platforms". You know, Russ, more sophisticated window managers make it easier to use computers, even for hard-core developers. Isn't it nice to stop worrying about your window manager and the application base start worrying about doing something productive on your computer?
Somebody else take over here. I am sure I made some broad generalizations and I apologize, but Russ has his head so much farther up his ass than I.
I feel all warm and tingly. You should try some Russ bashing.
Linux will most likely never die, because it is an excellent platform for development, and it makes a killer server box
The desktop 'scene' will be mixed and quite possibly dominated by Windows products for a while, but as people become more aware of Linux and its advantages, and more developers choose to
write code for Linux and other *nix clones, this situation might change.
Yes, it's true that M$ officials bash Linux and free software in general every chance they get, but that just means that _they_ see it as a threat, esp. as more and more folks lose interest in MS software due to MS's inability to provide well-tested and secure software for mission-critical apps, such as web servers, etc..
blarg.
--- sig moved for great justice.
who cares if microsoft has won the desktop? I know ill keep running linux, and I wont see any bsods, as long as linux keeps evolving ill be as happy as a hindu cow. =)
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
Ok. Let's see.
I have an OS (SuSE Linux 7.3) that does absolutely everything I want. It is easy to install, and it does not come with any legal crap. I can use it to develop applications, and even my girlfriend and my mother can use it to browse the net, write E-Mail and write simple letters. That is all they want from a computer.
And now I am supposed to install WinXP and put up with all that crap from microsoft just because Linux lost the "war for the desktop"? We are not even fighting a stupid war.
And I don't care what this guy says. Linux with KDE and StarOffice is good enough for maybe 90% of all enterprise computer users.
regards,
Androgynous Howard
does this guy even say anything we haven't heard before? He just makes the same gripes about linux that eveyone else has already been making. Granted, he's right about those gripes, but really, does this guy say anything new.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Yeah,...untill Linux can offer that kewl paper clip help icon corporate morons *oops* managers won't see the real potentia of linux.
What they all don't realise is that we do not code for the desktop in an effort to destroy Microsoft (well, some do). We code for the desktop because we do not want to use Microsoft on OUR desktops. That is the reason why people code for what they want to code for. Most open source coding is not funded. We do it to write software that WE WANT TO USE!
Isaac Connor
Ten, twenty years?
In the future when we think ``computer'' we won't picture a big beige box under the desk with wires running all over the place, and another big box with a beam scanning back and forth across a piece of glass.
If Linux lost the desktop PC, that's fine, 'cause the days of the desktop PC dinosaurs are numbered.
The computers of the future are smaller, faster, and cheaper--Three words NOT in Microsoft's vocabulary.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The fact is, Linux doesn't exist in the same space as Windows. It's not created solely to make a profit for a corporation. It's also not being improved for the general benefit of "customers". It's being modified by very clever yet self-serving individuals and small groups to suit their particular needs. Some want to clone Windows and Office, and others just want generic office tools. This flies in the face of almost all for-profit software companies, but again, Linux isn't playing that game so it doesn't matter to Linux's long term success.
The two most common things in the Universe are dark matter and stupidity.
It's refreshing to see that somebody has finally written an insightful article on the Linux/M$ battle that wasn't complete flamebait. Geez!
Communism was just a red herring.
Linux is to Microsoft what Osama is to US. A fantical religious mindset against a tyranical materialistic culture.
Who will win this contest? If history is correct in prediciting the future, imperial Rome was overcome by the barbarians and the Christians. It is only a matter of time for US and Microsoft.
War? What, I thought this was a relatively free market? Aren't we allowed to continue competing even if Microsoft has over 90% marketshare?
</sarcasm>
This is utterly stupid, of course Microsoft has "won" any supposed war, they have a friggin monopoly. By this logic of there being a "war", Microsoft had already won before Linux was even written.
The point of Linux, however, isn't to break Microsoft's monopoly, it is to simply be a good operating system. IMO, it is that.
Unlike a war, there is no beginning and there is no end. We can all keep trying as long as we want... barring some serious draconian legislation that makes open source software illegal.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The guy has no clue. On page 1 or 2, he says that you can't get drivers for linux. It's sooooo hard. (never mind the fact that any real distribution these days detects just about everything right on install).
Then later (page 4) he says "Linux is effectively a commodity and can be made to work on any hardware system."
Reconcile those two, if you can. I can't.
That should net at least 15 minutes of laughter per workday. God bless Slashdot.
I'd love to see if your "tech-illiterate wife" is happy with her choice.
So she's fed up with Microsoft, but why does she want Linux? Would she know Linux from *BSD from OS X?
If we Linux folks give up on the desktop, we will eventually have to give up on the server, unless the states and the DOJ get really wise about remedies.
As it stands now, the biggest single factor, by far, driving Microsoft server technology into the enterprise is the fact that Microsoft desktops want to talk to Microsoft servers. Jeremy Allison made this point on the LinuxToday talkbacks for this article, that the reason Exchange gets pulled into companies is because Outlook (part of office, and so bundled everywhere) has to talk to Exchange to do calendaring and scheduling. Exchange 2000, at least, needs to talk to ActiveDirectory. ActiveDirectory and Windows 2000 really, really want to absorb the DNS function (or else you're stuck with either a lot of manual overhead to manage the SRV records, or else you have to enable Dynamic DNS updates with a total lack of security because Microsoft doesn't support any open DDNS standards, they simply use the ActiveDirectory ACL's for security..)
See how that works? It's like dominoes, and Microsoft is supremely willing to set them up and knock them down.
Even though we spent 5+ years developing Ganymede, we're getting massive pressure on us to adopt ActiveDirectory because that's what Microsoft says Windows 2000 really needs, and because the protocols that Windows 2000 uses to talk to its directory services are proprietary and non-documented.
Microsoft is like a cuckoo bird, that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. The eggs hatch, and out pop the baby cuckoos, who then proceed to shove all the other eggs out of the nest.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
clearly, as someone you runs linux on my desktop almost exclusively, i'm a bit biased however:
"The Linux desktop offers very little that could be considered plug-and-play. Linux drivers, the software that connects a computer with peripherals like printers and CD burners"
i own a samsung ml-4600 laser printer and a plexwriter... and have never had any trouble installing or using either... no additional hacking was required.
"Want to use a digital camera? Don't bother with Kodak if you're running Linux."
again... jphoto supports my kodak dc4800 flawlessly.
"Creative's Soundblaster?"
my boxen have sblive! 5.1 and sblive! respectively and insmod emu10k1 is all it takes (in fact redhat 7.1, when i tried it, even knew to do that automagically)
the article's main point, about lack of desktop applications for linux is a valid one. people, particularly in an office environment, want to just go with what they know... and that is of course M$ Office. however, i think the strides being made are certainly positive for linux. i've been playing with the latest openoffice builds and they are incredibly impressive. and really, in most offices, if a user can run a word processor, spreadsheet application, send email, and perhaps create a presentation that is all most office workers ever use. and if they can do it with star/open office on linux for a *fraction* of the cost (even if they license staroffice and buy redhat support) of windows + office... i certainly think they'll go for it... and staroffice 6 is only so far away.
microsoft shows no sign of focusing just on desktops, why should linux focus just on servers? programmers good at UI / desktop applications are not always good with server level apps and vice versa. if people want to spend time writing desktop drivers and gui apps... more power to them! and i love them for it =)
Hasn't that issue been out for more than a month, I read it an didn't really like it. The main driving point is a lack of word programs with good spell checking.
Anyway, is this 'war' going to be like the US-China 'Hacker' war of May?
forget it.
If only he'd deleted her Microsoft applications, Windows, given her the $$$ cost of the apps and OS back, and most importantly NOT DELETED HER WORK FILES!!!
Did she have a backup?
Baz
Actually, what I got out of the article on Wired (print version) is that he works extensively with Linux (he worked at RedHat), and thinks it is technically superior. But he thinks that OS wars and flames, and (he specifically mentions) /. Rage are counter productive to the movement.
He says that if Linux slowly eroded the MS base, it would win. But instead you have guerilla IT departments go through and trash peoples computers, and make linux-ites look like a bunch of freaks.
He specifically mentions an incident at RedHat where a biz. person had some Excel documents. The documents had some heavy duty macros and whatnot which would not work under any of the linux competitors. She installed Excel. She had an issue with her drivers or whatnot, and when she got the computer back from IT, excel was gone, along with her documents. The IT guy said it was her fault for being a traitor to linux.
Summary of article : Linux is great, but the long haired freaks are gonna make it lose.
My favorite browser! (Yeah, I know it's not OpenSource, but it does rule.)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Someone modded this up to 5 as interesting? Sheesh.
It occurs to me, that given the nature of people going with what they've been trained on, that it's no surprise that Windows is the "common desktop".
But to suggest that Linux fails to compete is just dull-witted, at least.
My surprise is that everyone is expecting Linux to be some sort of polished UI system in well under 10 years (consider the desktop 'development' really only took off in the last couple years--sorry FVWM doesn't count), when it took $billions, and a lot longer, for MS to even approach polished.
Imagine a world where Linux desktop development had even 1/100th of the budget that MS spends...
I subscribed to Maximum Linux last year. After a year of not sending me an issue, they started sending me Wired (with this article in the front) instead, saying that ML was cancelled. huh
Sometimes I like to create software. Linux ensures that the libraries I use are not going to be yanked. I use linux for programming.
Sometimes I like to play games. Not to tinker with X86 config files, modelines, mouse wheel settings or what have you. I just want to load up and play a game. Windows 98.
I have 3 domains. So I like to have web,mail,dns,mailing list sw,ldap services running for all of my domains with a side dish of quake or battlenet servers so I can play & host games (above). Linux has all of this software plus the OS on a single cd. It won't tell me I need new hardware, it won't tell me I have to upgrade, I won't get charged.
Most of the time I just like to have my time on the net, irc, browsing, writing documents, looking for a job, remotely ssh'ing to help others' setups, downloading mp3s, etc... I am usually doing this all at the same time. I'd prefer my machine didn't spill up or blue screen when I am working. Linux does this all with one CD, a single for this all. And I'm not charged. All I have to do is to contribute with others' efforts in this arena. The more I use it, the easier it becomes to help.
Everyone at work uses NT, most all documents that come my way are doc, xls or pps. I courteously review them and if I must correspond, the I return the document in html or xml format.
A difference in the multitude of systems out there and compatibility issues really suck. But it is really for the best. I don't want to give up my games. I am glad that lots of people use computers these days. These people that use MS or AOL just wouldn't be able to do it otherwise. There must be a package(distro) out there that installs everything that this type of user wants. No questions asked, just installs and configures multimedia, web, mail and office in one fell swoop.
We are very close to arriving in this area. But hey, linux is a multi-group effort. If it has to be better in one area than another, then I am glad that linux is the king of network services.
There are a lot of assumptions to be made before agreeing with the article. First of all you have to assume that Microsoft will continue to produce what people are prepared to accept. Then you must assume that they will continue to make changes that Linux software must track accordingly, if it wishes to offer the same features that desktop users are familiar with.
But what if the second assumption is thrown out the window and Linux produces something different, and better? It's a huge 'if', sadly, because ground-breaking technology is not always so apparent in the Open Source/Free Software world.
It is not too unreasonable to assume that developers will continue to play catch-up.
Given how tricky many people find Word etc. to use it is not too unreasonable to expect Microsoft to find room for improvement either, giving Linux apps something new to chase.
The desire to see people move away from developing the desktop to enterprise software is really hoping for too much.
It forgets that developers will generally tend to scratch personal itches. If they want something to be written they'll help in doing so.
Many developers want neat tools on their desktop and supplying the needs of business is not foremost in their minds. You can't expect them to move across readily.
I agree with the article, but regret doing so. Like most people I'd love to have it proved wrong eventually.
open source is an alternative that gives users more power to control their computing environment than closed source software does, but it is *NOT* a war!
We need to stop describing stuff in such combative terms. That's part of what turns businesses off and prevents them from trying open source software. Businesses view people who talk about software choices as war as a bunch of loons. If you want to get linux on the desktop, point out that it is a high quality, low cost alternative to the software they are currently using. Give specific examples that match their current products.
Remember, this is not war, noone will die over this.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Russ Mitchell seems to believe there is a strategy comittee somewhere making decisions about how to fight Microsoft. In fact everyone who writes OSS does it for the fun of it or to "scratch an itch".
Considering the success of KDE/Gnome in the community the whole article is pointless. Why taking away 1.5% of computer users favourite environment? 1.5% doesn't sound much. But 5 Million users definitelly justify the effort.
-Rudiger
...don't they count? Wasn't IBM just fined for it's Linux add campaign, and arent' they pumping millions of dollars into development. Just because there aren't ads on TV or in Teeny Pop magazines touting the 'new look' of the desktop, doesn't mean that there aren't serious corporate backers of Linux, on bother server and desktop.
take your sig and shove it
Why is the desktop and what's running on it always referred to as a "war"? And what does "Microsoft has won." mean? Does it mean that right at this point in time they dominate? Yes. Does it mean they will dominate next year? Maybe. 5 years? 10 years? It certainly doesn't mean that we've quit and gone home because there are still desktop environments that are being developed and improved continuously that Microsoft doesn't own or contribute to.
To make broad statements like this seems a little silly to me when its applied to things like technology and open source. Technology (and the desktop) is always evolving and evolution implies a change both in what is dominating and how.
Wars and battles are discrete things that refer to a point in time and imply that once its over its over. Technology wars can only be fought between corporations and are only won when one corporation gives up or goes under. When applied to open source that comparison just doesn't work. Stop equating the changes in desktop technology to a battle and lets discuss it in terms of where it should be going and how we're going to meet the needs of people using them tommorrow. Evolution will take over.
Here here!! As some else has pointed out "You are only a success for the moment you achieve something." Phil Jackson
Imagine a day when you buy a computer, plug it in, and it can dual boot windows-linux out of the box...
Boot into linux, and you have a usable system.
Boot into Windows, and it asks you for your credit card number so it can charge you $99 for a license to use it.
You can keep the system dual-booting, or tell one OS that it can delete and take over the other partition.
If users *really* have a CHOICE, and could SEE the cost associated with windows (instead of paying a 'tax' on every computer), linux will gain desktop space.
Lets write to the justice department... THIS should be the 'settlement' imposed on Microsoft.
The illustrious author confuses the entire movement with the actions of a few. To proclaim the entire movement wrong because of a misguided tech is paramount to blaming all of Islam for the actions of a few members.
On the other side of this, he cites our strengths as our weaknesses. He looks at our variety and sees nothing but undirected thought and confusion. Where Microsoft has a directed mission when it comes to the desktop, Linux has many ways of attacking the same problem. Are we wrong? I beg to differ. We allow different desktops for different people and different personalities.
I honestly believe that projects like LTSP in combination with Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot with XP are going to bring a new revolution on the workplace desktop. IT managers who are in the know are going to realize that a better solution is available and are going to take advantage of it.
Linux on the desktop is far from dead, and projects like Gnome and KDE are only making the experience better. IMHO the author is dead wrong.
Yes, but until someone without this wimpy "live and let live" mentality comes along and goes for MS' jugular, Linux will live in the obscurity of the geek community and backoffice server types. Having something that's good means nothing if nobody else knows it's good, just ask any independent filmmaker or musician.
- Josh
Linux people are so goddamn elitist. When a person asks for help these elitist replies, "read the goddamn manual". This has turn a lot off people of Linux.
Some friends here run a server farm for a school district. They switched to Linux on ALL their servers. They say that the maintenance required with Linux is far less. And, of course, there is no software upgrade cost. A Microsoft sales person called and asked why they had not done any business recently.
It seems to me that the reason for Microsoft's increased abusiveness is that every top Microsoft executive has plenty of experience seeing 5 years ahead. They know they don't have long. So, they want to gouge everyone as much as possible now.
The referenced article says that Linux can compete in the server market. You can be sure that, if there are people on staff that know Linux, there will be constant attempts to put Linux on desks.
The article said, Linux boosters insist that if free downloads and pass-arounds were counted, that figure would be even higher; and they're probably right.
Probably??? Certainly.
Conversely, Linux managed only 1.5 percent of shipments in the desktop market in 2000. And that sliver is unlikely to grow in 2001.
Except, of course, the Chinese and Thai and maybe Indian governments are switching to open source software, partly because they are afraid of possible back doors in U.S. software. Only the governments of 2 billion people. And some state and city governments in the United States. And... And...
Desktop computer users care about what they can do on their machines. They want reliability, simplicity, access to popular software, and the ability to communicate easily with other users.
More nonsense. Many work users have computers dedicated to one task. If they don't want that one task to crash, if they don't want Bill Gates coming around and deciding on new ways of abusing them, they can do what?
As for its programs, Windows and Word sometimes drive me nuts.
Is that because they are buggy and quirky, and have numerous security risks due to low-quality source code?
Secret U.S. hostile action tries to enhance oil profits. See the new section, "Avoid the common mistakes" in What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
I bought a copy of Redmond linux... they need more nic drivers, but otherwise ....not bad.
WINE and SAMBA, preconfigured. KDE set up to look like the famous desktop.
sweet.
Making an idiot version of linux is not a job for idiots. with SAMBA ready to recognise the rest of the network, it just might work.
I read the print version of this article, and while I enjoyed it, it has serious problems.
First, he suggests that everyone would be better off if Linux (or any other open-source alternative) just gave up on trying to create a competitive desktop to Windows. The situation with BE makes it clear that there can be no commerical alternative to Windows that can succeed because of the MS monopoly, so open source solutions are IMHO the only choice. He suggests that Microsoft's Windows is and will always be the only choice on the desktop for consumers, and that trying to work on alternatives is a waste of time. In other words, let's just accept that MS are a monopolist and not try anymore. Having seen where KDE has come from in the last 3 years, I beg to differ.
He also states that "The Linux desktop offers very little that could be considered plug-and-play.". He goes on to talk about the lack of drivers for scanners and digital cameras, not exactly the kind of peripherals everyone has with their PC. At any rate, I've installed hundreds of Windows and Linux PCs, and I can say with confidence that Linux is in fact more plug and play on hardware it supports than Windows is. With the 2.4 kernel, this situation is improved.
With Windows, I install the hardware, boot the machine, install the driver, reboot the machine. Hopefully it'll work, and to be fair usually does. With Linux, I install the hardware, boot the machine. No fiddling with obnoxious drivers, no reboots.
I've been very impressed with a distro like RH 7.1 in this regard. In my experience, a standard networked office PC is far easier to install with RH 7.1 than any Windows PC. Less time less hassle. As for digital cameras, I know a few who would beg to differ on their ease of installation in an OS like Win 98.
Anyway, the article hasn't convinced me it's time to cede to Windows. Since I've used and supported both, I'd say that Microsoft's success will continue depend on the bundling of software like Windows Media and IE, not on its superior hardware support.
To all you desktop developers out there - keep up the great work!
If the linux comunity keeps following what Ghandi has teach us all, it will survive. And will win!
We don't need to attack M$ products, we are better then they are, and we don't need to kill them, they will die alone if they don't change.
Let's not worry about this, it's the best we can do for the linux survivor.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
The only evidence against linux desktop I saw was a bad spellchecker. Frankly, given the rapid rise in usability of Linux software, if the little things are the best that the author can criticize, then MS is in deep trouble. It may be winning individual software battles today, but it is still losing the war. I think this article reflects a classic problem with one person analyzing a huge, multiheaded monster like Linux development as a whole. There are already HUGE amounts of people devoted to server development. Taking all the people on desktop and throwing them at the server side is not going to add all that much. Instead, Linux is battling a multifront guerilla war, and I think it is doing well. This guy falls into the "lets fight one front at a time" mental trap. Who cares if there aren't a bazillion Linux companies out there? We only need one or two decent ones anyway. And that's more or less what the market has settled on.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
What if all the mental energy, the rage on Slashdot message boards had been concentrated on building solid business models in enterprise computing? Just how big could Linux get?
god this just makes me so full of RAGE I just want to post about it!!! I thought slashdot was the birthplace of most of these ideas??
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
This is one thing that MS is still working on after 20 years, with occasional interferance from marketing, and which they occasionally get right. Of course, their marketing department has often shaped what people want, but that is another story.
If Linux evangelists insult the people they are trying to convert, then people will not convert. If they ram it down the throat of someone, then they object, just like people object against MS.
Remember, to do better than MS you do not have to be as good as MS. You have to be many times better.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I stoped reading right there. This is anything but unbiased journalism, it's just a rant. Nothing to see here, move along!
Linux is indeed the Bin Laden of operating systems. That's the problem in a nutshell.
And BTW, I'd rather live in a "tyrannical materialistic culture" than have Bin Laden define my cultural environment.
In the end there will be a great battle between good and evil, and evil will probably win.
We live in an ironic version of a capitalist society. In capitalism, the goal of a corporation is to become a monopoly, which we have laws against. It's all very silly. You are penalized for success.
Of course, Microsoft is guilty of much more than attempting to become a monopoly; They're using their near-monopoly status to fuel bad trade practice. Everyone engages in it to some degree, but they don't seem to have any sphincter control and it causes them some problems.
Linux is sort of like the pagan religions; Microsoft (In this analogy, Catholicism) came in and told everyone how it was going to be. Linux pretends to believe them (WINE, Samba, et cetera) but it still practices its own ways. Microsoft thinks it has achieved domination, though of course there is a threat to their rule. Of course, where the analogy breaks down is that in our real life system we have direct intervention (In the form of the DOJ) to limit Microsoft's power. They're not doing as good a job as I'd like to see, but they're helping.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yeah, a couple of years ago Wired crowed about the soaring stock market and how it would never end because things were "different now." I think you can almost take Wired pronouncements, reverse thm, and have a pretty good look at the future.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I guess the print version is different than the on-line version. This isn't the story at all. The only incident he mentions about "guerilla IT" is the one at RedHat. And it had nothing to do with Excel, it was Word she was using. Plus, all this was on the first page (which makes me thing you didn't read the whole article)
Doug Alcorn
"You are only a success for the moment you achieve something."
Phil Jackson
"Seems to me that there will come a point where a free operating system can do everything current OSes do, so the intuitive step is to ask 'Why when that happens will people pay for an OS instead?' - surely the burden is on people claiming linux will never win the desktop to answer that, even if that time is a year off or whatever."
Most people don't now what success entails!
no word processor = rubish operating system
The problem has caused even Rob Malda, the founder of Slashdot, to sound the alarm. Malda, known by his nom de net, CmdrTaco, can get down and dirty himself. So when CmdrTaco's own troops provoke his disgust, you know there's a serious problem.
"Why Linux Won't Ever Be Mainstream" is the name of the controversial article he posted on Slashdot in July. It attracted more than 1,300 comments in a matter of hours. His two major points: Computer companies have shown little interest in helping Linux succeed in the consumer market; and, that's due in no small part to the bad attitude of the in-your-face Linux subculture.
Malda's rant recounts his attempt to find a USB device driver on the Web that would link his new HP scanner with Linux. In the process, he made a "shocking discovery": People were posting nasty messages aimed at HP. The messages, he said, were "just plain mean. HP employees are called bastards and assholes." One especially delightful post: "HP seems to be smeeling &##91;sic ] Gates' asshole rather than coming out of it. Beware, HP, Linux is going strong and unless you recognize that and properly support your hardware under Linux, your are going to Piss in your pants one day." This is not an isolated case. "I see it on Slashdot all the time," Malda wrote.
Most open source veterans take rabid flaming in stride. But that's not necessarily the case among the legions of open source volunteers showing up fresh from companies like IBM, HP, SGI, Motorola, and Compaq - not to mention their bosses, many of whom reserve judgment on the very idea of open source software. Which is why Alan Cox - effectively the COO for the Linux kernel development project and the man Torvalds refers to as his alter ego - wants the business community to know that the kernel team is a small and separate group with little if any real connection to the ideologues and the flamers. "There is actually very little overlap between the people doing software development and
One point that I felt this author completely missed the boat on was that developing to the desktop is a "waste of time" because the war is lost.
Even if the war is lost (a point which I am not necessarily conceding, but...), it is not a waste of developer resources to develop a desktop.
Think of the people who write code for these servers running Linux. Think of all of the web developers. Personally, as a Linux developer, I find that a good desktop system helps me to do my work. Someone, somewhere, is going to need (or at least find useful) a desktop on Linux if that person is developing for Linux.
Sure, you can develop in the console all the time, but isn't it much nicer to open up GVim or XEmacs and use multiple windows? Isn't it helpful to have a good window manager?
So, while Linux may never win the desktop "war", I completely disagree that writing desktop applications and management software is a waste of time. I use it. I love it. Kudos to the GNOME, KDE, WindowMaker, et al. folks for taking the time to build things that get used, even if they aren't winning any wars.
When Maximum Linux magazine went out of business, they transfered my subscription to Wired. I read that article in the first issue I got. Because of its quality, and the fact that Wired is 90% ads, I now just dump them in the trash, still in the plastic.
The author seems to believe that the key for survival of Linux is to focus on what is does best *now* (server tasks) and hardly put any resources at all on improving what it doesn't do so well (desktop).
I'm totally of the opposite opinion. The key to Linux's success so far has been it's openness and flexibility, all steaming from the fact that it's a free operating system and developed/improved jointly by a large number of developers with different goals in mind. Why stear away from that winning path?
In nature we have two different approaches among animals and plants, the specialists and the generalists. Normally it's the generalists that draw the longer straw when sudden changes in the environment occurs, although they are at a disadvantage under long periods of stability.
What the author of the article doesn't seem to understand is that the free software movement is like a pack of small and furry rhodents in a world of big and impressive but slow dinosaurs (Microsoft, SUN, Oracle, IBM etc). We're not playing at all along the same rules as a normal company. Focusing entirely on what you do best might be the right approach for a company that has scarce resources and need to think about the short-term returns in order to stay in business.
Linux and the rest of the free software movement on the other hand has virtually unlimited resources (there's a limited amount of skilled programmers, but they have virtualy unlimited time to get the product out the door, a delay is not game over) and therefore is the diversity a good longterm strategy that will pay back wastly in the long run. We can afford to run many diverse projects and that is our best guarantee of staying in the business longterm. That way we are also increasing our chances to be early in the next quickly expanding field and take the lions share of the next big thing. We will simply be there before it makes business sense.
Concentrating to much on what we do good right now is the recipe for failure in the long run. My conclusion is that the author simply doesn't understand that Linux isn't a company and therefore plays according to a different set of rules.
The author spends lot of space discussing, how futile it is to catch up with such a strong leader, and that innovative products and killer apps are needed. He even cites some marketing manuals.
What he totally misses, is the fact, that usuable word processors, spreadsheets etc. are needed as support for any killer application that may appear, even if they aren't as shiny as MS-Word. They just need to be usable, so that people can reasonably consider switching to Linux.
Another point he doesn't make is, that all those wonderful applications he calls innovative, like Word, Excel etc. were pretty bad when they came out . I remember the early versions of MS-Word, and compared to Word Perfect or XyWrite it was pretty bad. And early Excel versions were pieces of garbage, compared to Lotus 1-2-3 or Symphony.
Only after they spent some time catching up, and the leaders in the field got fat and complacent, they became the bright landmarks of office software they're today.
Now that many Linux distro's have LDAP authentication it would be nice if there was good software to manage it. A program that would manage all the attributes that various programs (e.g. Apache WebDAV, or Samba 2.2.2) need.
What about rest of the systems in the enterprise? It would be nice if distro's shipped with Openview like management programs (maybe OpenNMS?) that monitor systems. Tell the sysadmin the health of the various systems (Linux or even Windows?) in the enterprise. This is why a friend of mine *loves* Compaq Windows server systems. The problem is that no Linux software takes advantage of all the feedback that Compaq systems have.
What would be really cool is an open source SNMP project that allows users (or the vendors themselves) to make the bitmaps of the systems with the blinky lights (e.g. Cisco's web management apps). People really like the ability to "see" systems remotely. With a powerful management system it would make managing machine in the enterprise more attractive to Windows admins.
Basically he says that people should stop working on the Linux desktop because it has no hope of replacing windoze. As a Linux desktop user, sure i'd like to see everyone switch, but even if they don't i still want a good high quality desktop on a real O/S. Just because we may never make windows go away, is no reason to stop working on alternative packages.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Even if the monopoly lawsuit succeds in splitting MSFT into an OS and Apps company (which is unlikely), there is no real commercial threat to Windows. And it is impossible for any company to pay enough developers to build any new threat. No VC will back a business plan set on taking out Windows. MSFT neutralized IBM by sidetracking them with OS/2, and MSFT has Apple by the jewels with Office and Explorer.
With that said, Linux desktop is not only the best alternative, it's the ONLY major force out there in today's market. and MSFT's own licensing issues are forcing people to check alternatives, and Linux is one HECK of an alternative.
I do marketing so I am 100% the case when it comes to "business-user/office productivity suite user". Viability of KDE as a desktop? The usuability is there. Adminstration does need to be addressed, but that's IT's responsibility anyways. I can see why some people would get stuck installing new applications, but IT should be pushing out supported applications anyways.
My job depends on producing documents that other people use, but I invisibly use my Linux laptop in a dept and a business environment dependent on Office. And in reality, I don't see ANY lack of functionality using StarOffice. In fact, I think that StarOffice's presentation package is easier to use that PowerPoint, with 2 caveats (1) you need TrueType fonts compatible with Windows and (2) the animation tools and autoshape tools don't work well.
Other than that, KDE+Kmail+StarOffice has everything you need for a viable business desktop, and I expect that trend to grow instead of shrink
"Microsoft is like a cuckoo bird..."
Excellent points.
Bush's education improvements were
No Linux company has figured out how to build a profitable business around open source software.
Didn't Red Hat show a profit last quarter?
-- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
Half the stories on slashdot are posted the day before on linuxtoday.com
I see this type argument in desktop wars too. Isn't the open source development model all about individual needs and preferences. What is the guarantee that if Project X was not undertaken all the developers would have worked on Project Y.
This movement is a mass movement. I was reading Mark Twain's "Life on Mississippi". The river makes its path, all efforts to guide it and control had only limited success. This river is also making its own path. If the path leads to a popular desk top, so be it. It looks like it is doing so.
yAthum UrE yAvarum kELir All the places are our place, everybody is our kin. (A Tamil Poet - 2000 years ago)
Linux as a desktop in the office environment is another matter. Using either thinclient or desktop machines, linux can be installed, set up and administrated by a relatively small team of unix admins for a much cheaper total cost of ownership compared to a MS office solution.
In a business environment, applications such as Word and Excel can be replaced by one of the suites available on linux (StarOffice for example, and hopefully soon, KOffice!). Outlook facilities such as shared calendars and contacts are available using any one of a number of web based.
KDE and GNOME are both straight forward to use (I'm a KDE person myself, happy b'day btw KDE!) and can be set up securely by the sysadmins (Another important aspect to consider!).
Also, when a company expands past being able to stick to wintel servers, you've already got the expertise to look after larger Sun/HP unix systems with very little extra training! (I've gone from being a Linux admin to a Solaris admin with no training yet... I've been too busy to actually take the courses and haven't needed to yet!)
http://www.22balmoralroad.net/ http://www.tinynetworks.co.uk/
Exactly!
You should multiply it by something like 0.17!
We can not trust shipment numbers, we should measure usage. Web browsing is something we can easily measure. http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/October/os.p
Perhaps you, not the original article author, should be disqualified.
The only thing this kind of articles is good for, is generating flames. Is anyone interested in the conclusion that Linux lost the desktop? Would it have any impact on what we do every day? Even if George Bush said it? Well, I use Linux on my desktop and I don't care what anyone thinks about that. I'm grateful for all the work that has been done on Linux' desktop. I am very glad with it and I mean it.
I think this Wired article was wasted time. Thank you.
I don't like this statement one bit. An analogy I would present is PalmOS vs. WindowsCE. Palm clearly had "won this war", but it clearly wasn't "OVER." WindowsCE is making slow progress in market share, and will probably overtake PalmOS eventually (opinion! I own a Palm, love it)
I think the Desktop fight is a good fight and can be won by Linux. Everyone loves an underdog, but not everyone will fund one.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
The print and on-line versions are the same. Please reread the on-line article. Pay particular attention to page 3, paragraphs 4 though 7.
Then his grin would have been answered with "Hit the street right now. You're FIRED."
Issues of OS "treason" or "loyalty" are secondary to getting one's job done in ANY company, and vaping a user's OS and legitimate data files without authorization is NEVER an appropriate action for an IT support person. This isn't an example of Linux fascism, but rather one of a loose cannon of a technician who is a danger to the company.
Any info on how that scene actually played out?
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
...and they've been trying for years. Linux attempts to compete with Office have so far not given Microsoft any reason to take them seriously, but if the Linux apps ever did become a serious threat you shouldn't think for a moment that MS will continue to stand still (as I feel they've been doing since at least Office 97). Remember Netscape? MS is perfectly capable of ignoring something for a long time, then suddenly turning their massive firepower on it when they feel the time is ripe to do so. They just haven't felt that the so-called Linux alternatives to Word, Excel, etc. have been worth wasting bullets on...yet.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
And in other news, fiction writers world-over have layed down their pens and quit. With King, Grisham, and a handful of others having 98% of the bookshelf space, other writers have realized the lost the Bookshelf War. This columnist suggests they all shift to tech writing, a market where freelace talent has a chance to compete. Said Random House on all this, "Sounds good to us! After all, if you don't control 100%, why bother?"
A.
We're at war with Microsoft?! Holy cow, no-one ever tells me anything!
Free clue to all would-be Web journos: when Linux made that comment about "world domination" all those years ago: he was joking. Really. He was pulling your wire. Jerking your chain. Taking the Michael. Extracting the urine.
'Kay? 'Kay.
No doubt it's a waste of brains and time to even bother refuting this windy gibberish, I'd like to make a few points.
No-one has made money out of Linux and everyone who tries goes to the wall. To paraphrase Bill Hicks: non-Linux businesses go to the wall every day. Bob Cringely has reckoned that 90% of all businesses fail. The Linux has no innate monopoly on business smarts.
A sizeable population of Linux advocates are foul-mouthed social inadequates. Again, so what? I had invective-laden ZX Spectrum/ C64 flamewars with my mates when I was eight years old. While there is a human race, there will always be bigots. Is it impolite? Yes. Is it unprofessional? Surely. Does it amount to two tugs of a dead dog's mickey in the long run? Nope.
It's a war between Microsoft and Linux out there. Oh get a grip, you solipsistic little nonentity. Try to see beyond the VDU on your desk for a minute; in the light of recent events, your inflation of a trend within the IT sector to the status of a war are laughable and tasteless. Sure, there are the windbags on both sides of this MS-vs-Linux thing who read earth-shattering importance into everything, who think installing Linux on their PCs is some sort of subversive act. Nonsense.
I use Linux because it suits my needs. I also use Windows and MacOS. I don't feel any desire to conquer the world. I don't feel like I'm part of some "war for the desktop". No sane person does.
One wonders why WiReD bothered printing this giddy nonsense in the first place. Could it be that no self-respecting techie reads WiReD even though it likes to think of itself as the official organ of tech culture? Is that acid green they favour in their layouts really the colour of sour grapes?
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win."
-Mohandas Gandhi (I'm not sure whether he was referring to the open source movement 8-)
Bush Lies Watch
I remember reading this article in Wired the day after I went to Linus' talk for the Computer Museum History Center about the origins of Linux.
Someone asked a question about whether he really thought that Linux would end up on the desktop. He explained that he always thought of Linux as a desktop OS primarily, and a server OS second. He said that it might take years, but eventually Linux would emerge as a large presence on the desktop.
I think his argument was that the stability and availability of the software, in addition to increasing support and customisability, makes it more likely to get into the home as the technology continues to mature.
The way he talked about it all, I found his opinion very convincing, and when I read this article the next day by some random journalist, I actually felt somewhat amused by all the doomsaying contained within when contrasted to the thoughts of the man behind it all.
[insert witty quote here]
And the name of the publication is "Wired"?
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Regarding the Spell Checker comment, I can remember the days before the spell checker, when you either learned to spell, or learned to 'grep dict' and find the correct spelling yourself. I hope Linux Desktop tools don't get hurt trying to kow-tow to user weeknesses produced by Microsoft Tools. Maybe there's a better way.
I'm not saying a spell checker is an unnecessary crutch, just that in general too much emphesis is being placed on MS features, without understanding their real need. "Becuase MS has it" is not a need.
[Whiney Voice]Oh! Oh! Where are the nested queries! This tool SUX because there are no nested queries![/Whiney Voice]
M@
Krispy Cream is people
Why does everyone think that Linux is 'at war' with Microsoft?
Microsoft is about coddling the masses, Linux is about choices and options for the power users.
As long as there are power users who don't like Microsofts condescending "your dumb, we're not, do it our way" control-freakish mentality, there will be Linux.
It might not be a huge user base, but it will be by the geeks, for the geeks.
DOS is dead, and no one cares...
If there's a Bourne Shell, I'll see you there
IMHO, the recent news seems to me that the war is really just starting.
Largo's city installments (on desktop)
Bounderstag considering Linux
StarOffice ten times faster than MsWord
KOffice usable.
WinXP payed by SUSCRIPCION (think rampant recession)
US Congress talking about mandatory backdoors (are you french, german, chinese?)
And low levels of new computer's buy: user's are becoming more computer literated than ever.
Everything make me think: now Linux is going to became a real threat on desktop.
Bye
I'm so glad that this has been posted to Slashdot! I'd been meaning to write a letter to Wired about this but was too lazy to get it done before the next issue came out....
The article has the Open Source movement all wrong. The author treats the Linux desktop issue as if it were IBM versus Microsoft, not Open Source versus Microsoft.The author spends most of the article lamenting that the Open Source movement is wasting its energies worrying about the desktop, when Microsoft owns it.
To put things in more pompous terms, the author spends a lot of time bemoaning the opportunity cost of spending time on the Linux desktop, and claiming that this time should all be spent on the server market.
This shows a total failure to understand the Open Source movement. The Open Source movement is not Open Source, Inc. Linus, Eric, RMS, or whoever is your pick for Open Source, Inc. CEO can't just say "yo! KDE-boy, toss in the towel on this desktop thing and spend more time on the server!" or "yo! I know you want to make a totally excellent system for tracking your MP3's, but you should be improving Apache, instead!"
People write Open Source software because they want to improve the tools that they use all the time. People who use desktops will want to improve the desktops and people who use servers will want to improve servers. And those people are not fungible --- they can't just be reassigned. And I think ESR's spot-on in the book when he talks about the fact that a lot of the quality of good Open Source software comes from the fact that people can't be reassigned to projects they don't give a rip about. People are passionate about the software they write, so they try to make it good.
The author's failure to understand this key fact about Open Source makes his whole perspective into nonsense.
The article might make sense as an argument about what Open Source packagers should be doing, but even there, the packagers are largely driven by software producers.
so when they start charging $200 a month to use windows and your average moron has no money left, there will be less idiots tying up bandwidth for the rest of us. fuck 'em! :)
damn right, i'm elitist!
Why does Linux have to be "at war"... I mean, that and this guy's obvious slant... He claims there's no photoshop on Linux... Huh? I don't think he realizes that the rules of business don't apply here.
Case in point - was discussing this article w/ a guy at work who's Linux ignorant (not dumb, or anything - just doesn't know much about it) -- He: Oh I agree with the article, I mean, if Linux were ANYTHING... a blip on the radar screen, don't you think M$ would have bought it like THAT?
That's what this article reminds me of. Someone got pissed somewhere along the line, and now we're losing the war.
Guess it's time for me to stop using Linux because I appreciate it philosophically as well as technically.
--Mastard
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
All this work, and ... it doesn't matter. Desktop computer users care about what they can do on their machines. They want reliability,
check
simplicity,
getting a heck of a lot better---linux is worlds simpler than it used to be
access to popular software,
This seems extremely short-sighted to me. How can linux desktop software become "popular" until linux desktops become more popular? cygwin, maybe?
and the ability to communicate easily with other users.
check.
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
I read the original article (bigger than the online version) and I can only say it was a very flawed piece.
He started of recounting the story of some jerk tech. admin that deleted Windows and all other files off one of his companies staff laptops and installed linux. He then used this as one of his arguments as to why Linux wasn't going to succeed. How clever is that?
These are the facts as far as I can see them:
A new process has come in to the world. That process is called the open source development model. This allows commercial quality software to be developed by diverse entities around the world. These entities can be individuals, public bodies and governments or companies with an interest in the particular piece of software. Each can make a small contribution to a larger project. The software created is often distributed for free.
Because of this, it is very unlikely that there will ever be an Open Source software company with Microsoft's level of turnover. However, Open Source Software is not dependent upon any particular company for its success and is not reliant on anyone making a particularly great profit from it. More important are the savings that people can make from it.
The Open Source Development model has only really gained momentum over the last few years. In that time, some projects have demonstrated an increadible rate of development. Although it is true to say that many Open Source project still lag behind their commercial equivalents, the rate of progress of these projects suggests that this won't be the case for long.
Microsoft makes the majority of its profits selling an office suite and several operating systems.
It is now trying to change its licensing model to one of rental, rather than one-off payment, because the software is just about mature and there is increasingly little incentive for most businesses and organisations to upgade. The change makes Microsoft software an on-going cost for businesses, even though new releases do not add much in terms of essential new functionality for most busnesses.
Therefore, Microsoft's core business - the products that make most of its profits - are under threat from a new process. Just as new processes during the industrial revolution completely destroyed certain previously profitable businesses, so will new processes, such as the Open Source Development model, destroy certain types of buiness. Microsoft is likely to be one of those buinesss. In the long term, it is impossible for any business to seriously compete with free equivalent products.
Arguments like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", "Dell decided not to ship Linux on the desktop", "What about support?" are all short term issues. Think big picture. Think long term. Think worldwide. Think fundamentals.
Microsoft is doomed unless it can radically change its business to something completely different, and maintain it current turnover levels, which from where I'm sitting looks like a practically impossible trick to pull off.
And hey, I'm typing this in IE on Windows 2000, I'm not a Microsoft hater. It's just I think the world is changing and there's not much Microsoft can do about it.
Evertime I use windows, I think, damn, this sucks, linux won.
I don't think anyone is disputing that Microsoft has won the majority of desktop users, but the issue is, who cares?
Just look what happened to Netware -- it was the kind of server-only OS the author is asking Linux to become. Of course, their marketing is to blame, and independent developers didn't want to write software for it, but look at it from this point. Would you use the OS which requires another OS, Windows, to be managed?
Some people just don't get it: Linux is not about market share, Linux is not about wining anything, Linux is not about profits.
;-) ) but it is there for you to try.
Linux is about choice.
The day one gets tired of MS you can try something else: it can or can't be what you want or need (I don't need an spell checker for instance, you people can suffer my English
Does it work for you? Great, you are welcome. It does not? Bad luck, let us know and we will try to help. Can you program? Can you translate? Can you write documentation? Then would you like to help improve the thing?
And what is the brilliant alternative? Do nothing? Is this person suggesting to abandon the project of desktop computing in the hands of a company that has been deemed acted ilegaly? Uh, no thanks. In particular poor countries can't afford this alternative.
If there are companies and individuals out there trying to make a living out of Linux, great. If they can't make money that means their busniess models are flawed, not that Linux is flawed.
It is really an insult to the intelligence of many brilliant people to assume that the Open Source programmers will never manage to produce something "user friendly" (like if Windows was, all those "Windows for Dummies" or "Learn Office in
24 hours" books are telling the real history: MS products are also difficult to use).
Dismiss this thing as mostly nonsense. It has some marginal value for any company that
wishes to make money with Linux in the user's desktop. For anybody else it amounts to little more than a rant written by somebody that is angry at an incompetent IT person in its company.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Journalists typically like to call it a desktop "war". In fact Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop and the only potential competition in sight is a great little operating system written by enthusiasts.
Microsoft could purchase Redhat, Suse and mandrake with a day or two of their monopolistic profits. Saying that there is a war simply is trying to sell more magazines and make it into a topic when really it isn't.
Its kind of like saying "that great little restaurant on the corner is going to take out McDonalds".
I love linux - but even IBMs focus on it is vague.
The community should focus on the areas which are lacking and bringing more young programmers into developing applications for linux.
Get someone to learn to program on linux and they will be likely to support it.
Anthony
Linux has actually matured very quickly as a desktop for business use, and a large part of the reason it can't beat MS is (a) fear of straying from the pack and (b) legacy of both software and procedure. New (and presumably small) tech-savvy businesses that aren't afraid of cutting the umbilical may be able to gain a competitive advantage, especially with the onorous new licensing practices coming out of Redmond these days.
I use linux with KDE at home as my primary desktop. When I am using that computer I am not thinking about what the CFOs of America think.
Were alrady there for some userse - I'm a consultant for a bunch of small businesses, and have been replacing the "front desk" computer operating systems with Mandrake 8.0 in KDE mode and AbiWord. The secretary types love it becuse they can't "break the computer" and they don't loose work. Just make sure your printer is supported with CUPS and away you go. Granted, the Linux desktop can't replace the whole MS-Office desktop, but in actuall use (for the correct type of user) I've had great sucuess with the above.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
The simple, most basic fact of Linux on the desktop, is that that great majority of users fit a certain profile:
1. College student or fairly recent college graduate.
2. Strongly dislikes Microsoft.
Now, now, this is a blatant stereotype, but there is truth to it (heck, I thought geeks would hate Star Trek and for being mass market, condescending, and that people _expect_ geeks to like it, but Star Trek threads on Slashdot can get more than a thousand postings).
Students tend to use computers in fairly simple ways: browsing the web, playing MP3s, writing papers, doing programming assignments, playing games, exploring free software. Now keeping this in mind, when you see such a person zealously proclaim that The Gimp is superior to Photoshop for graphic arts work, you have to stop and wonder. So on the one side you have people with much passion but limited to no experience arguing that an open source program is just as good as a commercial offering. On the other side you have professional graphic artists who put The Gimp and Photoshop side by side and are stunned that they're even bothering which such a comparison.
The bottom line, for me, is that we should be seeing much less Linux advocacy than we currently do. If I met someone who ran a small business and later found out he used Linux or some open source software for some tangible reasons, then this would be interesting food for thought. But when I see threads like this:
A: I find it disturbing that a number of popular e-commerce sites don't work under Linux, either because Mozilla doesn't render them properly or because they require Windows-only tech, like ActiveX scripting.
B: Bah! I don't _need_ to go to sites that that! F**k em!
Then I realize that "B" isn't someone who uses computers. He's someone who dinks around and has a chip on his shoulder and shouldn't be listened to. Sadly, there's the impression that a majority of Linux users are like B.
The last time anyone designed a board with the intention of supporting Linux drivers for it was 1998. There was a time we thought winmodems were bad. Not many slashdotters remember what a winmodem is but since 1998 every piece of hardware can be considered specifically designed for Windows. Not that not having desktops which can run Linux is bad. When was the last time anyone wrote a story about a desktop PC?
I think you're the one with a misunderstanding. The article was pointing out what a collossal waste of time and resources desktop development has been. What if that had been spent instead on making it a better server/dev platform?
That's the problem you have with the directionless state of Linux development: no focus. A bit of half-assed coding here, a bit there, but nothing polished or finished that anyone can realistically use.
Linux divided and conquered itself.
Is it any of your business which desktop I use? Why do you want to force your view of "better" onto somebody else?
I use Linux as my desktop at home. Why? Because I like it. Screaming about percentages and market share and shipments doesn't mean a DAMN thing unless ALL those computers are going to be MINE! The only thing that matters is what YOU use on YOUR desktop, and what YOU think of it.
The real tragedy isn't that some people prefer windows, the real tragedy is that so many never have the chance to choose for themselves.
I had that chance, and I chose Linux. Give everyone else that right, as well.
There are far too many applications companies who have a vested interest in a vendor neutral operating system. They all know that Microsoft has totally taken over the desktop and that they are slowly infiltrating the server market. And since Microsoft likes to bundle applications together, they slowly drive companies like Oracle, Sun, and IBM to the periphery.
I'm certain that if any of those companies could have Microsoft's dominance of the O/S, they'd jump at it in a heart beat. But since they know that won't happen, having a standard that nobody dominates is a far cry better.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I'm so tired of these articles. Paraphrasing, he said that while Linux is technologically a success, as a business, Linux is a failure. Hey buddy, guess what? Linux is not a business! Even if no one can make money from Linux, that doesn't make it a failure, because making money is not even remotely what Linux has been designed to do.
Sure, over the past few years there have been businesses that have tried to make money off of the Linux phenomenon. Many have failed. Don't mistake this side show for the real thing, however. Even if there are no Linux companies, there will still be Linux, and it will still be a success, because judging it on its technical merits as an OS is the *only* way to judge it!
We don't "need" more unity in (for example) our desktop offerings. We don't "need" more user-friendliness or a killer Office application. Most of all, we most certainly don't "need" to "beat Microsoft" by taking over desktop computing. Even if only 0.1% of the world uses Linux, I'll be fine as long as I'm one of them.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
He says that if Linux slowly eroded the MS base, it would win. But instead you have guerilla IT departments go through and trash peoples computers, and make linux-ites look like a bunch of freaks
Hold on a minute. He mentions only one instance of a zealot who was malicious to a windows user and suddenly he(and you apparently) concludes that every single IT person acts like the zealot did?
I still consider myself a newbie(i installed linux on my box about 3 months ago), and I've had no bad experience trying to find help where i need it. Sure, one guy from Red Hat IT may be an asshole, but does that mean that everyone on Red Hat IT dept are assholes?
My summary of the article: Linux is great, but one guy who used it was an asshole, therefore everyone who uses it is an asshole.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Hi
I'am a geek. I use Linux on my Desktop. I don't care if 0.1, 1, 10, or 90 % of the other compuer users use the same OS as I do.
I also like the hack on some linux (or other open-source application). Not because I fight some ware, and my app will be the killer app, but because it fun.
I thats the point. For me (and many others) hacking is fun, and thats why we do it. And it's the more source-code is available (to look how others do it, and find out how things work) the more fun it is.
The author states that "developer hours are waster". Well, those developers are working for free, and they have any right to work on whatever they want. I like people like the author of this article to either start some project themselfes (there is enough to do - even for non-programmers), to join an existing project, or to SHUT UP.
I don't care what the think about linux's sucess. And I doubt that a lot of people care.
computer with peripherals like printers and CD burners, are in short supply. Want to use a digital camera? Don't bother with Kodak if you're running Linux. Iomega is a bit friendlier, offering drivers for 14 of 51 products listed on its drivers Web
First off I've never had any problems using any printer or CD-Burner 'cept for the crap Canon WinPrinters that my company.
Dont bother Kodak? Thier the most widely supported digital camera under linux! Dont even get me started about the Iomega thing. I own almost all of the drive Iomega makes! *ALL* of them work even the newest Clik Drive.
Microsoft and Apple ads are everywhere, but no one is funding major marketing campaigns for desktop Linux. No one with any clout is carrying the torch for desktop Linux. Uh? IBM?
I'm not taking sides anymore...
I'm just gonna sit back and be a pest.
Journalists typically like to call it a desktop "war".
Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop and there is no competition in sight. Of course this will not sell magazines... So journalists must create a competition involved.
Microsoft could purchase Redhat, Suse and mandrake with a day or two of their monopolistic profits.
Saying that there is a war simply is trying to sell more magazines and make it into a topic when really it isn't.
Its kind of like saying "that great little restaurant on the corner loosing the world wide battle with McDonalds".
I've seen users use UNIX with a hell of a lot less desktop environment than you can get with Linux. Take away the nastiness of actually setting the system up and I find the level of Linux user friendliness to be about comparable to Windows. Given that, saving a couple of hundred million a year in Windows licensing fees should be pretty compelling to just about any CIO.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Got that one, too... I was able to recover by hitting Back, Preview, then Post. No problemo.
I think the author is forgetting that Linux was written to be an improvement of Minix. Free software developers and users contribute with feedback, patches and improvements because they love the mental challenge and the reward of creating usefull (or not so usefull) software for EVERYONE to use. It's a hobby. And I think it's wrong to ponder over how Linux will compete with corporate business. If corporate business wants to adopt Linux as a usefull tool, then they should ask themselves if they are ready to become a part of a community that strives on strong participation from the user and developer.
this article seems to be coming from a bitter management type who's pissed that one of his secretaries got inconvienced by a technician (albeit, if the technician really did what the article says, which i don't buy, he has a right to complain) and now he's attacking the tech by slamming linux.
:)
i deal with these types all day. if you're IT, they treat you like slave labor. if you don't make them happy or tell them what they want to hear, they bitch and complaint to anyone with ears about how we "make work so much harder for them." if this cocksucker can do his work faster on paper, then don't call the techs with anymore of your problems. otherwise, shut the fuck up.
sorry, it's been a bad week
Which is nonsense of course.
/. selectively.
There are plenty of Linux people out there serious and professional, without the dogmatic crap oozing out of their pores. That guy is stuoid, not because he promotes Linux, but beacuse it is the way he is.
To draw any conclussions in such an incident is childish. And the same can be said about basing opinions about the Linux people readin
There are plenty of good articles about the relative benefits of Windows and Linux, but there is a lot of people there that browse -1 and decide that is what represents the Linux community as a whole.
Lame.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
...damn, we've lost the war on the desktop. Allright, I'd better dump my KDE system and put win2k on immediately! after all, its just a losing battle right?
m'eh, this has been said aleph-1 times by now I suppose but I honestly dont give two hoots about 'market share'. KDE is bloody amazing, and doubly so for getting there in the space of 1/3 of the time it took microsoft. Word to the KDE developers, and keep on coding. I happen to like KDE and Linux and Apache, I couldnt really give two hoots whether or not there's a great deal of market share.
I expect that is the reason microsoft was able to get in the server business in the first place, and that is the reason Linux has to get in the desktop market. When bosses are running windows on their desktop they think, if it is good enough for me it is good enough for the server, after all they sell a server version. That is why we need to develope as a desktop, so they have Linux and they decide that is what the sever needs to run also.
This guy claims if people weren't doing desktop development it would be a better server. I disagree. The reason people are doing desktop development is because they think they can improve something. If they had windows on their desktop they would be programming windows or but not a Linux server.
For many if not most users in the world, Microsoft is free software. That is about to change, now that new MS releases are starting to enforce software that only works for the paid-for and registered installation.
This is going to be a sea change in the economics, folks.
When people find out that they really have to pay big bucks to have multiple copies (not to mention their OWN copies) of MS operating systems and applications on their various desktops, laptops, iPAQs, X-boxes, etc., and that they keep having to pay big bucks each time one of these is upgraded, they will quickly lose enthusiasm, no matter HOW user friendly and convenient Windows, MS Office, etc. seems to be. Maybe this gets moderated by reduced prices and incremental charges for services delivered over the Net, but it will still amount to a new and substantial drain of green dollars from the consumer to Microsoft.
As interested as I am in what I read of Windows XP and Office XP, I can't justify spending the money when there are so many other and better ways I could spend the same money (e.g., hardware upgrades, or even non-computer purchases) and just use Linux, Mozilla and OpenOffice.
I suspect many others will feel the same way, especially given the next year or so of relatively hard times that we all seem to be facing.
The coming months, in fact, is the time for Linux really to make some major strides on the Desktop.
Go down to the seashore and declare a war against the sea. Bill did that just as the tide began to recede, so it looked as though he was winning. But after a while, you realize that how matter how much you kick at the waves, it has no effect.
It's a waiting game and we don't have that long to wait...
Cheers,
Jim
-- My Weblog.
KDE and Gnome are NOT Linux.
When will people understand that the desktop is not the OS, and the applications are not the desktop? KDE and Gnome can work on any Unix-standardized computer. In fact, theoretically, KDE at least (not sure about Gnome) can even be the desktop on a Windows system.
The real struggle here is not about whether Linux or Microsoft "gets" the desktop, but about what computing environment people will use in the future. I agree with many of Russ Mitchell's points about the lack of standardization and integration for desktop apps in Linux.
There is a good possibility that all of this argument over a good Office clone such as Koffice will be a moot point in another few years. More and more companies are moving to web-based apps as their computing environments, because there are some clear advantages:
1. The whole application can be controlled and updated from one central point; the server room.
2. Glitches, crashes and bugs on individual users' computers are less problematic, and less likely to cause serious downtime.
3. preventing loading of local files does away with trojan virus proliferation. (how many times have you chased a virus around a corporate network, because idiots keep downloading the same attachment)
4. It is much easier to keep track of realtime company statistics.
5. A clear case of separating presentation from business logic.
6. The client OS can be anything with a valid web browser.
7. The application can even scale to small devices such as handhelds.
8. Tokens can be used to pass a users's application state from one client to another quite easily. Output a report at the office, finish editing your report at home, review it from your handheld on the subway, etc...
There are many other benefits to consider; this is just the beginning. I know that there are both pros and cons to this argument, and not every app should be web-based, but a significant amount (majority) can and will be. The web browser will in a way "become" the desktop. Will Microsoft win this war? Maybe, but maybe my prediction for the future will come true:
1. The browser will become ubiquitous. It will eventually be in everything, in some form or another, because it is such a usefull information tool. This means other devices besides what is traditionally called a computer. Microsoft will lose here, because most "net appliances" or web-connected devices do not run Windows.
2. Maybe Netscape or Mozilla will not be giants of the web browser world, but the technologies they have made as Open Source will. Already the Gecko DHTML rendering engine (which is the core of mozilla) has been used in several other web browsers. It provides to any other browser developer the benefit of NOT having to re-invent the wheel. Gecko has been ported to just about any operating system you can imagine.
3. The graphical user interface we have become used to will gradually merge with the browser. Most user interfaces on all operating systems now have some form of window/mouse interface, so it is just natural to follow this shift. Also, almost every computer or net device will run some sort of internal webserver, to handle its own GUI and to serve data out as defined by users and software.
4. Eventually we will not think in terms of a thing called a "browser" but in terms of what type of information needs to be rendered in what way, with something like XHTML being the underlying basis for all other data rendered to human-readable format. Along with this we will be using XML, XSL, XML-RPC, SOAP, etc... And Javascript/ECMAscript will be the basis of client-side dynamic manipulation of data.
5. During this time, Microsoft will repeatedly try to derail the open standards process by introducing minor changes into the way its XHTML rendering software or it's ECMAscript-parsing software works, but they will keep having to return to the standards as they are embraced by most other companies.
6. In the end it won't matter who makes what browser, as long as it follows the open standards. The rendering of XHTML/Javascript will become as intrinsic a part of the operating system as the concept of "files" and "directories" are now. It will matter who makes the server, though. And here is where open source *nix (Linux/*BSD) will WIN.
7. It will be a good life for those of us programmers who know scripting languages and open standards and ways to tie all this stuff together. It will also be a good life for the "heavy-duty" programmers who can advance the core server-side applications. VB/Delphi/{insert your IDE} programmers might not be so lucky.
Whattaya think?
You can't control opensource development , people will built what they need, if a lot of effort is given to desktop , then desktop tools are needed , who cares why ..
.. and when more people see a potential , more people will work with it .. and so on ..
You see, open source works best for what most people need
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
So? If you want to use Linux, use it. It's better, it's Free, it's there; who cares if everyone knows about it?
I think any independent filmmaker or musician worth their salt would say that they construct their art because they have an internal need to be creative, an "itch to scratch" you might say, not so much to impress the neighbors.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
I agree with what you said, Jon, but some people are moving to Linux nevertheless. It's good to focus, not on what cannot be done now, but on what CAN be done.
Check out this Linux success story: The "semi-official" distribution of the K12Linux Project. Here is a quote from that site:
"The Multnomah Education Service District has successfully moved most of it's core network services to Linux. Linux powers dns, dhcp, mail relays, proxy servers, web filters, and directory services for the 45,000 administrators, teachers, and students within our agency and the school districts we support . For our agency and a couple of our districts, Linux powers the web, mail, ftp, and file servers. Tickled with our success, we have started work on putting Linux workstations in the classroom. More on that to come!" [my emphasis]
Check out this site about putting Linux workstations in the classroom:
K-12Linux Project.
Here is a quote:
"We have FREE Xeon and Celeron processors to give to schools participating in STRUT and K12LTSP. See the applications page for more information."
U.S. government corruption: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Microsoft may have won the battle, but they will never win the war. I believe as linux continues to improve, more and more people will realize the potential of linux as both a desktop and server platform. This movement from from windows to linux will be expidited after reviewing Microsofts new licensing model for Windows XP. Especially for the power user who is always reconfiguring system hardware, testing and developing.
Saying that desktop installs (of Linux) will not grow in the future is a very big mistake. 1 Reason I will give is like this: More than 1/2 of "desktop" users are finding that most of their work is happening via a browser and email client. Up until recentlly it is a well known fact that linux lagged WAY behind in the Browser market....but anyone using Galeon, Konq, or even the commercial Opera....can see that the gap is closing FAST....It took a few years to get here...but in those few years the browser has taken over the desktop....now the main (not only) thing Linux needs to compete is a simple browser...and the time of a level playing field in rendering HTML pages is drawing near.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
says more about the attitudes of tech support staff than it does about the inherent up/downsides of the operating systems in question. Both sides have their own religious zealots who care more about promoting their pet OS's than about what users actually need.
It's kind of sad, really.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I had an interesting discussion with a co-worker about why Microsoft products seem to, well, suck so much. More so by reputation than by practice I think, but they are still extremely buggy when measured by anyone's yardstick. Linux, on the other hand, had the reputation of being rock solid - and rightly so.
So, I'm sure there are talented developers working on both OS's and applications. Why this disparity?
It's all about ego. Open source developers can contribute code, and have it banged on by thousands of smart people around the world. If there's a bug, either one of the thousands suggests a fix, or the original contributor stays up for 4 days straight correcting the problem, because his/her tremedously huge ego (all developer's egos are tied to their code, trust me) won't let him/her rest until s/he does.
Compare that example to the 9-5 anonymous Microsoftian developer, and the difference is obvious. No huge potential testing pool, no truly individual contribution that can get his/her ego wrapped up in it. And so, no hard-wired desire to produce solid code
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-)
I use what works for me.
Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.
We live in an ironic version of a capitalist society. In capitalism, the goal of a corporation is to become a monopoly, which we have laws against. It's all very silly. You are penalized for success.
everytime i see a post like this, i get more and more angry. the goal of a corporation in capitalism is not to become a monopoly, but to become profitable, and to reward your investors and workers. even if becoming a monopoly were the ultimate goal for a corporation in capitalism, we DO NOT have laws against that!
there is not one single law in America preventing a company from becoming a monopoly. there are laws that prevent monopolies from using market share to harm consumers (which microsoft has done) and harming competition (which microsoft has also done)
Enquirer-type !!SHOCKING!! headlines? Give me a break. Not getting enough clickthroughs guys?
If that's the case, here are some suggestions for the future:
Linus Torvalds' secret ALIEN SPACE-BABY!!
"I thought it was just a boil" says programmer
Paul Vixie gave me HERPES!! says Tim O'Reilly
"He's an attentive lover" says infected publisher
RMS is really BIGFOOT!!
Shocking photos prove it!
if you have been paying attention in the media. Linux this, Linux that. Never gonna make it. Too hard. Not supported enough. Flawed business model. You know the drill by now.
Folks - we should just do what we do best - continue to write great code. That is what has proven the critics wrong in the first place!
Stop the brainwash
Microsoft may well continue to win the Desktop "war" for quite some time. But I expect that there will be far more Linux run (invisibly) at home than ever before. More smart devices will require a (fairly) stable OS, and a free one, the obvious choice Linux. While we may not have them now, smart telephones, refrigerators, stoves, and a bunch of widgets that aren't on store shelves yet will all use linux. That in my opinion is where it will win first. Eventually we'll want to hook up all these things to our home PC information furnace and the OS that will make the most sense is Linux (free, stable, good enough).
Until our children are no longer molded into castrated sheep democracy remains a fake and a danger. -A. S. Neill
What if the GNOME and KDE projects could take back all the programmer hours that went into consumer desktop applications and instead focus that brain power on developing kick-ass development platforms? What if all the effort that's gone into writing desktop drivers that peripheral outfits don't care to support were redirected toward drivers for corporate environments? What if all the mental energy, the rage on the Slashdot message boards, had been concentrated on building solid business models? What if the Linux community put an end to all the desktop nonsense right now and built on its strengths in global enterprise computing - just how big could Linux get?
What traditional business-type thinkers all-to-often fail to realize is that we don't develop linux to make it succeed. We add the features *we* need. If someone wants a word processor or a desktop GUI, they write it. We don't write these things because we want to win some silly "war" with microsoft.
If people decided not to concentrate on the desktop with linux and make it a server only platform, I would lose my favorite OS. And so would a lot of other people I know. It wouldn't make linux greater, because those development hours would not magically switch to the server: People who need desktop features and don't need enterprise features would just quit programming linux altogether. Not write the features they don't need.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
First they complain that we waste time trying to make Linux easy to use on the desktop.
Then they complain that Linux is too difficult to use on the desktop.
For all I care, they can write their own code, or take a hike.
It can look like the most amazing thing since sliced bread, but if it doesn't work, what good is it?
Computers - largely desktop machines - now consume 13% of all electricity generated in the US.
A *rational* person would expect that as CPU MIPS go up, it would take a smaller number of CPU's to do the same work. Instead we see the opposite: everybody now tells me they need 1+ GHz machine just to browse the web, and if anything productivity per kwH in computing has gone down.
It's obvious to me that "the desktop" is an evolutionary dead end, a dinosaur that's going to lumber to its death and be replaced by all the little mammals. Unfortunately, I don't think we've found the computing equivalent of the mammals yet (though palmtops and portable appliances are getting close.) In any event domination of the desktop is not the wave of the future, it's the game of 1989.
Would you switch to Mac OS X? What if it was free? What if it even ran on your box? Why not?
All the reasons you can think of for not switching to Mac are the reasons people can give for not switching to Linux. And there are even more than that, because Mac has a lot of software that windows users would be very familiar with. To switch over, you would have to re-learn the Mac interface, the Mac way of doing things, the locations of system files on Macs and what they do. There is no "bin" or "pub" directory on classic Macs. You can't pipe outputs from applications. To close an application, you click on the upper left hand corner, and that doesn't always close the application (some apps don't close until you tell them to). A lot of your hardware won't be supported because no one has written a driver for it. And most of all, Mac OS is not written with a user like you in mind. I'm not trying to knock Linux, it's just not dumb enough for the average user (ya' know, the one who serves you your fries) - something MS does rather well.
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
I realize that Linux is by far superior to Windows from a technical point of view. I use Linux at work, and its reliability is impressive to say the least. However, when I consider the applications I use the most on my PC, there are no decent equivalents on the Linux platform. Programs like Quicken (probably one of the most popular home applications in existence) or a good musical composition software like Finale or recording/sequencing software like Cakewalk. While some software along these lines exists on Linux, they have not reached the maturity or power of their windows counterparts (just as the Windows apps are just now catching up to Macintosh). Then, of course, there are all of those fantastic games on the PC only a fraction of which make it to Linux. However, there is one area where Linux beats the Windows world hands down: web servers. Why anyone in their right mind would even contemplate using Microsoft IIS is beyond my comprehension. It is expensive, slow, difficult to manage, and 90% of the viruses released in a given year are aimed at IIS and other Microsoft products. Enter Linux: you can get the best web server in the world (Apache) combined with a fast, reliable database (MySQL) and put together pages with an easy to use and powerful scripting language (PHP) -- for free! I believe this was really the point of the article. It will be very difficult to take on Microsoft in the PC market, but we already have a head start on the server market. Linux is a far better platform that Windows for servers (afterall, reliability is the single biggest requirement for a good server) and it is far cheaper -- a good argument in rough economic times. Khomar
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
The biggest weapon that will smite the mighty Microsoft corporate juggernaut is its own accounting practices.
Microsoft's earnings declined from 6.5 billion two quarter's ago to the just released 6.1 billion results from the previous quarter. A decline from quarter to quarter in Microsoft's earnings hasn't occured in a VERY long time. Microsoft hasn't seen a decrease in earnings like this since their pre-DOS days. We have just witnessed the ebbing of the largest and fastest growing company that has ever existed.
Now we all know that tech earnings across the board are down, but no other company depends like Microsoft on steadily increasing stock valuations. Even given the decrease in PC shipments, we have seen the launch of Microsoft's new licensing model and the launch of Office XP (many months ago) have a neglible affect on their bottom line.
Look at their numbers in markets outside the US. In every market outside the US their earnings really tanked this quarter. Without the corporate US licensing market to prop it up, Microsoft wold be in even more serious pain.
The simple fact of the matter is if Microsoft's stock doesn't keep going up, BAD things will happen to it. It will probably need to pay out three to four billion in ill advised put options. Microsoft is going to have a hard time retaining staff as they don't pay their people worth a SH*T. Its more than obvious to their staff and to the investment community that Microsoft is no longer a high growth company. If they finally are forced to pay their people what they are worth, their earnings will tank even further.
What's really funny is that Microsoft predicted 7.1 billion revenue for the current, just started, quarter. This is clearly based on BIG sales of XP and XBox. If either of those products don't do well, and neither is looking like it can makes those numbers at this point, then no one will be wanting to hold MSFT stock come Dec. 30.
What can Microsoft do? They can't afford to give MS Office away. MS Office isn't standing still because they don't care (in all fairness, they've done amazing stuff on the Unicode/multilingualization side recently), but because MS Office 97 does everything most people could want. Once you've caught up to MS Office, where are they going to go? Add an AI to write your papers?
Look at .net, it's thin client all over again. The desk top is already a lost cause for MSFT. their biggest problem, it the own OS's from the WIN9X line and NT/2K. It will be a hard road to hoe to XP. Linux just keeps getting better and better, we have faith in linux can you say the same thing about MS. No, Linux on the desktop is doing very well and will continue to make in roads. These people are just trying to make nosie, dont listen. Go about your work.
Linux
Platform of Freedom
The Red Hat techie who erased her files was irresponsible and stupid - you don't win people over by switching them without consultation, and particularly not by erasing people's data. However, it's unlikely that this would ever happen outside a Linux-only culture, so it's hardly applicable to the rest of the world. One idiot does not make a trend...
Linux evangelism needs a lot of work on subtle and effective techniques (as opposed to flaming), but this is not really a good example.
The biggest stimulus to Linux on the desktop is Microsoft's recent squeezing of its installed based for more revenue through changes to its licensing model - there are several local government and police organisations in the UK that are going to save millions of pounds through switching to Linux.
What a load of horseshit. Somebody please beat this author upside the head with the clue bat.
Linux already won the war. You can take this jumping zealotism and open source philosophy smokescreen and get rid of it. Linux will win (is winning / has won) for a few very simple reasons.
1. Linux gives you more freedom. This is the NUMBER ONE Microsoft killer. No draconian content controls, no list of things you can't do or shouldn't do with your hardware and software. Source code so you can do whatever the hell you want, if you are smart enough, or can afford the talent.
2. Linux costs you NOTHING compared to Microsoft. Linux requires you to invest time and learn a few things about your networks and systems. After that time investment (which you have to make with Microsoft as well) you are done paying for your software.
3. Linux (thanks to GPL, GNU and Open Source philosophy) is beyond the control of anyone. It cannot be sued, bought, tamed, subdued, or extended because it has no front to attack, and a vicious ironclad legal defense against IP issues thanks to the GPL.
That's all we need. There are dozens of other reasons, but they amount to jack compared to these simple facts. This guarantees my freedom (and everyone else) from Microsoft or any other vendor (M$ is NOT the only threat here guys).
In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft's Licensing agreements and absurdly high costs are driving companies AWAY from Microsoft in droves, to say nothing of what XP's draconian content controls are doing for artists and home users.
Hey hackers, want to make a shitload of many and get good job security? Position yourself to take advantage of the mass Windows to Linux migrations that will be heading your way in the future. Maybe 3 years, maybe 5, maybe even as long as 10... but it's coming.
Looking forward to the day when Microsoft is just another Apple, IBM, Sun or Redhat.
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
Ok, so ispell and derivitives aren't the best, but only because they need a larger vocabulary. But I've never ever had anything as strange as what happened Speedie happen. What the heck was the name of that word processor that I've never heard of before, Applixware? WTF is that? She should have been using Abiword or KWord at least. (I'll bet that she could have just as easily used vim -- she was probably only writing memos anyway.) The author of this article is a hopeless moron who is just trying to intimidate linux users into confroming to the Gates paradigm (gah! not that word!) of the future and into becoming mindless Microsoft drones. (Even then I don't understand what he's trying to do or what his motivation is here in sabotaging his own company, Redhat, like that.)
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Without Linux & OSS, just imagine how restricive M$ would be with their products and business practices. Some people think M$ can't get much worse, but I think it can. M$ would make XP a mandatory immediate upgrade AND enforce product registration COMBINED WITH the rentware provisions of "Software Assurance" were it not for the threat of Linux desktops.
MS Office at $2000 per seat? Aside from Star Office and other OSS projects, what stops M$ from doing this?
I think Linux/open source can dictate features that M$ must include to keep pace. In effect, Linux can prevent M$ from breaking out each "feature" into a distinct product and revenue stream. Example: If Linux was not already doing IP masquerade, you would not see "connection sharing" thrown in as a freebie with Windows.
Linux & OSS do not have to "win" the game, they simply have to maintain pressure on M$.
The article states that M$ has won the desktop battle. I see plenty of weakness in M$'s position. Consider their diminishing upgrade rate with each new product release. The XP licensing practices border on desperation to lock people into the upgrade treadmill. As I see it, XP is the beginning of the end for M$.
Winning the battle and holding onto victory are two different concepts.
Well, undoubtedly this email address is being flooded with a deluge of flame mail (unless this community has suddenly decided to mind their manners, which, frankly, I doubt), but I hope this message gets through to you.
Now whether you posted this article merely as flamebait, or you actually believe the statements that you are making, I would like to present a very simple argument to the contrary.
Basically, if I get the point of your article correctly (and please correct me if I am in error) you are making the claim that you want open source computing to succeed. And for open source computing to succeed it is important for Linux to concede defeat on the desktop. You make the claim that too much time and energy is going into desktop software for Linux when Linux still only has a 1.5% marketshare in desktop computer shipments. You say that the community should focus its efforts on the server side where they currently hold a 27% market share. You make the basic claim that by supporting an effort that is doing very dismal (and getting worse) in marketshare, they are risking their substantial marketshare in another market. Sure, that is a very valid argument for any corporation. By putting too much resources in a product that is dying, a corporation can sacrifice their flagship product. But the Linux, and the larger open source community isn't a corporation--its a community. Yes, there are companies that are betting their farms on making Linux grab more marketshare, and many, if not most, of these corporations are focusing on Linux on the desktop, but the Linux community doesn't need these corporations to survive. Granted, these corporations and the economic support they offer are a great boon to the community, and I have seen Linux take leaps and bounds forward in the last couple years, much farther than it would have gone without this support, but the community will not die with the corporations. The community isn't about market share, (granted, most people within the community seem to forget this very simple fact, leading to flamewars between the KDE/Gnome camps, etc) it's about choices.
I use Linux. I have been an avid Linux user for over four years. I have only purchased a couple distributions of Linux in that time (most I purchased as gifts for other people). I have never purchased a desktop computer that came installed with Linux...heck, I've never even purchased a desktop computer. I've purchased motherboards, and DIMMs, and CPUs and cases, and fans and 3D graphics cards etc, and I have downloaded gigabytes upon gigabytes of free source code to build compilers, and GUIs, and utilities, etc. Why do I do this? Is it because I'm waging a war against Microsoft, and I am determined to send the company out of business and put Linux on every computer that ships from now on? No. I don't care about what happens to the majority of computers that are shipped. If someone wants to pay for and use Microsoft software, that is their choice. But I refuse, steadfastly refuse, to let the choice of whether or not to use Microsoft software be taken away from me. And there are others with me. Others that refuse to let their choices be taken from them. Others who don't want to accept the lesser of two evils. Others who would rather work on building something good. I want to work on building something good. And, when I am done building, I will give this away to my neighbors, so that they too may benefit from my hard work, and so that they may respect me for my generosity, and for the quality of work that I do. Or they may help me to improve the quality of my work, and allow me to benefit from theirs.
Yes some develop server software, some develop OS software, but many, many these days are writing desktop software. Software meant only to help your average computer user use their computer more simply and effectively. You said all this work doesn't matter. I'm here to tell you it does. It matters to me. It matters to those with me who are doing the work. It enriches our community, opens its doors to new members, and helps free us all from the shackles of corporate doctrine. Will our community necessarily grow to dominate the world? Honestly, I hope so, but it isn't necessary. Whether the world joins with us or not, we will still be here.
I refuse to let my choices be taken from me. I am willing to work to maintain my freedom of choice, and I am willing to allow others to benefit from my work, so that I too may benefit from theirs. But above all, I refuse to let Microsoft convince me that I need them more than they need me. They have no power over me. They are the corporation. They are the ones concerned with growing or shrinking market share. I could care less. I don't need market share. I have a community, and we are already a success.
I have to admit that about 2/3 through the article I stopped reading, because I've heard it all before, and it's all very true. If I look at my friends around me I see them doing the same thing. A couple of them have removed Windows and installed a sloppy install of Linux on their parents' computers, and a few sysadmin friends that I have have even done the same at work (resulting in nearly getting terminated).
... ahem ... other operating systems that we all know have problems, but we have to sit and wait for an individual group to fix (:
... Linux in its current incarnation is for the geek community. My Mom and Dad would be so pissed if I took their Windows away. Just about everyone where I work would be outraged if I took Windows/Office away and replaced it with Linux/OpenOffice. Right now it just doesn't get the job done like Windows can. Give it time, all good things come to those who wait. The geek community needs to chill for a little while and let the OS and software get up to 'desktop snuff' before we take on giants like Microsoft.
If the Linux community as a whole would like to see Linux succeed in more than small shop servers and geek workstations, someone is going to have to spread the word that Linux can't be forced on those that don't want it.
Lets relate it to the Christian movement. What do we call Christians that won't leave us along in elevators and in lines at fast food? Turbo Christian Bible Thumbers. They irritate the crap out of me, AND I'M A CHRISTIAN! They're going about it wrong. Christ didn't bug the crap out of people about "Hey look at me, I'm the son of God, w00t!". No, he meerly lead by example. Geeks can do the same quite easily, and I've seen a few examples.
Run Linux on your computer, make it rock solid and bad ass. People will notice and want to give it a try, even if it's just surfing the web on your Linux Mozilla browser. Help them, but don't trash talk Microsoft or Apple in the processes. If they ask what you like about Linux (and they will), tell them the possitive things about Linux, but don't *compare* it to anything else. Just say what you like without trash talking something else. You might even want to point out a few of the problems it has, but mention that Linus and Alan are working on those things, *with help from the ENTIRE LINUX COMMUNITY*. Maybe that will light a bulb in their brain that shows them the difference between open source and
And yes
~LoudMusic
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Which is cheaper?
Buying a solution to another m$ 'feature'.
Or
Open Source is growing, solutions are created for weaknesses discovered.
If it was, then Linux would have to win the war on every front, especially the desktop. But Linux is far from alone in this fight. It has allies.
.Net. Only Linux can stop the Millenium monster from arising to soak up all our data!
;)
The strongest ally of Linux is the one taking the desktop front: OS X. Unlike Linux, it does successfully bring Unix to the average desktop (no dishonor to Linux there - before Apple, no one had managed that feat). Also, unlike Linux, it has commercial apps begging to be ported over. It can run existing Mac apps (with Classic), Windows (Virtual PC), Linux apps (Virtual PC and X on X with a recompile), and Java apps. Beautiful and powerful, OS X.1 was launched to rave reviews and a solar flare. Don't worry, Linux, OS X can hold the desktop front for you for now. It can also teach you how to get there yourself.
Linux is no looser. It has gone from a college kid's pet project to being championed by no less a company than IBM itself. It's valiant deeds on the server side have even Microsoft worried. If the job of OS X is to slice into Microsoft's precious marketshare, then Linux' role is to block Microsoft from achieving its future monopoly:
Linux may well have a role to play on the desktop as well. For now, that is confined to those enterprise desktops whose conversion to Linux would *not* impair the ability of the employee to do their work. (The cruel act of the Linux technician is a sterling example of how the Linux community should *not* be emulating Microsoft's cruel ways.)
Later is another story. Given time, Linux can learn from OS X how to be a good consumer desktop. Apple is giving you a good example here. For the apps and the marketing, Linux needs to turn to the PC makers, and convince them that they need to drop Microsoft like a hot potato (or in this case, a hot bullet that is bleeding them to death). They don't have the profit margins to afford the Microsoft tax anymore, and XP is not going to come and save them. It's simple economic sense: who is the only one reporting millions of profit and billions of cash reserves? Apple. What are they putting on their systems? Open Source Unix. If the PC makers want to compete, they are going to have to dump Microsoft, embrace Linux, and go en masse to the software industry and tell them that all new computers will be running Linux next year. The easiest way to manage the massive port would be a OS X to Linux porting tool (made perhaps with some cooperation from Apple). War won.
Then everybody (except MS) lives happily ever after. OS X and Linux can have friendly competition. The PC makers can actually make PC's that sell again. Microsoft is then reduced to an application company that has to figure out how to port Office to Linux.
If you like this lovely dream of a future, please work to make it happen. Just leave the cruel treatment of users to Microsoft.
"Heart can reach, where hand cannot.
Climb over any wall..."
-Mothra (via Moll) "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Many people are saying, "Linux cannot lose, because there is no war", or, perhaps, "Microsoft has already won." I would pray that these two statements not be proven true. I would pray Linux does everything in its power, and every other operating system, for that matter, to counter Microsoft's firm grasp on the computing industry. Monopolies are not only bad from a moral standpoint, but a much more consumer-related perspective. I'd have to say that competition is gods' gift to progression. Competition forces companies to create new and better products, it forces athletes to become faster and stronger, it urges supermodels to get larger and larger breast implants. If there was no competition, we'd never see a new version of windows, or PhotoShop, we'd never see a faster time for the.. uhh.. whatever dash they're doing in the Olympics these days. Without competition, we'd have a world full of idiots who are content with fitting the norm, not exceeding, nor challenging the current circumstances. I agree with the people who say there should be no winner to this war, or, in other words, the competition should never be run out so heavily that only one company is left standing. Every single operating system should compete with Microsoft as best they can. If a company can create a completely advanced, proficient, productive, stable, and all around excelling operating system, then Microsoft would have to do the same, which would inevitably help Microsoft users, and users of other operating systems who would see their own vendors attempting to improve. If Microsoft has already won the war, then we need not worry about the future, because it will be whatever Microsoft wants it to be, which I don't see happening, therefore I believe there is still a war running. Let's hope that Microsoft doesn't have the ability to cease all competition with foreign (competing) products, systems and software, then we'll have some light at the end of the tunnel.
"Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
KDE and Gnome are doing good jobs at becoming good window managers for average computer users. It's the system that is the problem. Installing a harddrive in windows is easy, you just plug it in. In Linux you have to mount the drive and edit your fstab table. Is your average every day user going to be able to do that? What about configuring Xfree86 to use a newer video drive? /etc/..."
"Goto a command prompt, load up vi, now open
"Huh? What? Don't I just reboot now?"
And your average joe compiling a new kernel? hahaha
It's the hardware installation and configuration that needs work. Linux needs better plug and play support. I mean if Windows can do, why shouldn't Linux be able to do it better?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
The characterization of Microsoft as Catholicism and Linux as a pagan religion seems ill founded. A central view of Catholicism is the free will of people. A central view of Microsoft is the impedance of the free will of people. If you're going to lay down the religion card here, then equate Microsoft with the Taliban and Linux with those Christian missionaries stuck in Afghanistan.
Basically, he just doesn't get it. Linux is not supposed to have any particular policy or direction. It simply evolves with the needs of the users. Thus far, this appears to be one of the main reasons for its success. The idea that Linux "should focus" on a particular thing is not only completely unrealistic, it also reflects a lack of understanding as to how software on Linux actually gets written.
Every month or so an article with content similar to the one on Wired pops up, and a link is pasted on /. These articles are always about how Linux is losing the desktop war, how Microsoft Windows will always dominate on the desktop, and about how Linux has no viable business model.
Last time I checked, though, Linux wasn't about making money. It wasn't about market share, customer preferences, or business models. Linux is tool, made and modified by and for its users -- a concept that is the driving force behind open source.
When RMS set out to create the GNU project and free-as-in-speech software, he didn't do it because he hoped to one day turn it into a business. The GNU project was started because RMS was tired of having available to the general computing community only lousy tools, designed by individuals who would never use them and who couldn't care less about quality or reliability.
The reason that the tools of the GNU project were kept open is that RMS recognized the benefits of collaboration, an idea that has in the past fifty years become very un-american -- the idea of mutual benefit has been all but annihilated from American culture. And although there are many (good) hackers in other countries, the amount of wealth and easy access to technology prevalent in the US makes it the ideal breeding ground for young coders; it's a lot easier to begin writing software when even the poor are economically capable of owning and operating a computer. But I digress.
The entire point of GNU project is honest collaberation, and the mutual benefit that *all* parties derive from it; if I write a tool that you need, and you write bugfixes for that tool, we both benefit, and neither of us really loses anything. It isn't about making money.
The same thing goes for the Linux kernel; Torvalds "open-sourced" it because he felt that there were other students who, like him, needed a small, efficient Unix variant, but who didn't have the means to purchase even a small Unix OS and its sources.
So stop whining about not being able to make money off of a community resource, and stop complaining about missing features in community software that you in no way contributed to.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
I read this in the print edition last month, so if this doesn't work out, perhaps they cut the web version.
/. trend that you get more karma for slating Linux than you do for boosting it. He has applied this to getting paid for writing the article, and Wired has applied it to getting people to buy their 'zine.
After the stuff about the desktop war, he goes on to conclude that because Linux is already succeeding in the server market, that is where open source developers should concentrate, abandoning further work on (specifically) KDE and GNOME. He completely misses the points that:
1 - Developers are doing this for free. If there is money and market share in developing for the server market, that is where companies will (and do) develop their products for Linux. Open source developers don't often work on things that are specifically there to make money for someone else, and are of no use to themselves.
2 - Its the desktop software that Linux is perceived to be weakest, so why does it make more sense to abandon it and work on the stuff that is already doing well? And how are people supposed to develop the server software without an adequate desktop environment? I get the impression that he wants people to use Windows on their workstation, writing code for Linux. Why would I be happy to give BillG $200 for a WinXP license, but love Linux so much that I did hundreds of hours of free work on stuff that made someone else money?
Fundamentally, this guy has latched on to the current
One more thing. The writer specifically says that Kodak digital cameras are not supported. Funny then that my Kodak DC200 works fine with gPhoto for the last year.
Russ,
I have worked with Linux for the last seven years. I ran a company that used only Linux, once, but mostly there has always been a mix of platforms in the work place. Most sane people understand that. You claim, due to a single "stringie little guy" that all people who use Linux don't use multiple platforms. Well that does not sounds like sane words. So you hired a fool. Fire him, and maybe that will remove his stupid smile.
Your story could just have been about someone coming back and having Linux removed from their Laptop machine and finding W2K. The same thing would have happened. Something which was easy to do in Linux would be lost and replaced by a different application from MS which did not function as well.
So, I don't see your problem. This is just a complaint about a kid that should never have been hired right? Please speak with his boss and the people in HR. If that doesn't work print out a resume, like the rest of us.
-- James Dornan
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
to capture the hearts & minds of idiots & lamers.
"You can't win you know, but there are alternatives to fighting."
Free software doesn't have a fighting chance.
It does, however, have a very passive and almost viral way of spreading.
Will it ever consume the whole? Probably not. But then, it doesn't have to as long as it never dies. As long as it still lives, it wins by default.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
somebody mod this overrated, poorly-written zeal down
You can't kill an open source project just by no longer using it. Linux is one of the more popular ones out there, and it only needs a single user on the desktop to be a successful operating system.
Even if you DID kill the official project, assasinate Linus (and risk a jihad from all the geeks out there) you'll still see active Linux development in one form or another.
As long as someone can get at the source code you can bet your fanny someone WILL get at the source code, make modifications and updates, and maybe even share them with others. Its just a law of nature. Microsoft can't beat that, and its scared shitless.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
I have been coding for 21 years, and I own a successful closed-source software company. I've been around since before the IBM PC, and I despise Microsoft's illegal and unethical practices so much that I spend my free time writing GPL'ed software for KDE. Although I think there will always be a job for intelligent people that understand computers, I will, if need be, push for the success of open source at the expense of my livelihood.
Microsoft is resting on its laurels now with many of its products. Office, for example, hasn't been noticeably improved in about 8 years... around the time WP started getting sold again and finally ended up losing the word processing war.
Us open source desktop developers have barely gotten started and we've caused this much uproar.
Because I say that Microsoft is my target does not make me a loose cannon. After much deliberation, I have decided to help raise the sledgehammer of open source, because I don't want to live in a world where Microsoft's practices are acceptable.
Another point to bear in mind is that although Microsoft controls the American desktop market and to a large extent the market in other western democracies, most of the people in the world do not live here.
That leaves a very large market unexploited. While it may be difficult to imagine your average camel driver as a computer owner, it was even harder 30 years ago to imagine the average American as a computer owner.
At some point, international aid agencies are going to start distributing simple inexpensive computers to thirdworld villages. If the Linux community is alert, they'll see that these machines are running Linux, and it shouldn't be a hard sell. Linux will run on very inexpensive hardware, is free, and even more important, Linux users are not charged for upgrading their systems in the way that Windows users are.
The consequences of developing a base of users several billion strong could be enormous. Bright kids are just as likely to be found living in mud huts as in gated communities, and if Linux recruits these kids into the Linux development fold, they will vastly outnumber the developers in the Microsoft camp. The most important asset in the OS wars is sheer brainpower. Microsoft may soon be overwhelmed by a tide of thirdworld coding geniuses.
So, Linux zealots... join the Peace Corps and spread the Linux meme to the world.
What I see in this article is that its author hasn't really grasped the concept and the possibilities of the bazaar.
He does not see sense in simultaneously developing in both directions (desktop and server) at once, quoting some BA guru's advice for individual innovators, thinking that server development must be hurt by any work directed to the desktop.
The opposite is true. Improving desktop usefulness draws more people over, eventually leading to more developers, provides more interesting programming opportunities, eventually leading to more developers, facilitates entry into programming, eventually leading to more developers, and generates more computer literacy, in the long term - did you guess it? - eventually leading to more developers.
Also he says the real enemy is commercial UNIX, which current development is not directed to overthrow. Does he realize that LInux is gaining market share at the expense of commercial UNIX right now (sorry, no link now, but it's recently been on /.)?
Don't listen - his points are irrelevant to the real world of LInux. Just see to it that you improve whatever appeals to you (and your skills), it will all help achieve world domination. ;o)
Kiwaiti
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
Linux for servers, high performace computing and any application requiring security (inclusing e-mail) .
MS for games and cutting edge multi-media.
Duel boot machines were developed for this purpose.
The only valid point in that article was this:
"You can't win playing catch up."
Personally, I don't need Word, emacs is good enough. But what the open source folken really need to do, is define a standard format for word-like documents.
There's all this bitching about MS having non standard file types, and moving targets, but nothing is being done about it.. If the Linux and BSD folks band together, bust out an RFC or two, maybe IBM and Sun would join in with the new document formats. Then pretty soon, you can force MS to support them. maybe? maybe not.
So, don't try to copy MS Office, try to come up with something better. (and copy them at the same time: the author doesn't realize that most linux nuts just want to be able to interoperate with windows bullshit files)
-- Spankmeister General
I think its pretty funny that a "muddled, unfocused lot" like the linux community is considered to be a threat to Microsofts operating systems. If hackers working for free can out-code fully paid optionaires working at Microsoft, then something is truly wrong. Microsoft should think twice...mabye the real enemy is ITSELF.
It also amazes me that anyone could possibly say that "Linux is about to lose" when it was never trying to compete in the first place. As far as i am concerned, Microsoft can go off and play its own games by itself, because I'm not paying attention. Who cares. Whatever. Linux doesn't compete. It adapts.
Remember people... don't believe all the crap you read on the internet... especially when big media gets excited. Watch out.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
When my company does (eventually) begin offering service in my area, I'll use it. Sending messages to our customer support, or "investigating" the competition (there ain't none) isn't gonna get the cable laid any faster.
yes. Microsoft has won. Definitely. And the war is over. Anyone can see that. They won that war. But Linux was not their enemy, DR-DOS was.
The problem is that the market is saturating and Microsoft cannot compete with Free Software (or Open Source, for that matter) as this futher develops. They will HAVE to charge subscription licenses, while we do not. So this war is not over so much as not begun. Both sides are mobilizing, but shots have yet to be really fired yet.
This Wired article is pathetic. If he really is a former Red Hat employee, I would think that he would have some concept that Open Source is not a singlular business any more than proprietary software is. Open source can go every direction at least as well as proprietary software can. It is not a business, it is a business model.
If we substitute "Proprietary Software" for "Open Source" everywhere it appears in this article, we can see how truly insane his point of view is. Should "proprietary software" companies all focus on building server-side software? What makes is appropriate that a much more diverse group of developers similarly restrict themselves.
Again, have we lost? No. We have not begun to fight because the time is not ripe.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The perception of some silly "war" is in itself part of the problem.
I like Torvalds' take on it. Just work on what you're working on -- make it better because then it'll be more useful to YOU, or your friends. They say in business that one of the surest ways to fail is to be always watching the competition. It turns you into a follower. A true leader, be it a CEO or an OS, works on making the best product possible. Though he's cognizant of the competition's moves, he doesn't make them his preoccupation, because then he'd be thinking about what THEY'RE doing, not what HE'S doing.
Mr. Torvalds gets this. Most here don't.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
I would like to embark on a guerrila campaign (i live in NYC) to distribute paper copies of such a manifesto throughout the city in places (starbucks, maybe?) that might attract a non-geek clientele.
-anon (for obvious, paranoid reasons)
There's always been a large class of columnists who intentionally and artfully craft their columns to stir people up. It's not hard to be controversial --- just ask yourself what is the majority opinion or conventional wisdom and then say the opposite.
As long as your editor judges your worth by the volume of letters your column generates, you've got a job, even though you only know that one stupid trick.
I think the author is wrong. The business world is full of stories of the new comer knocking off the unassailable giant.
Not user friendly enough ? If you applied that logic to the early 1990s you would have concluded that windows 3.1 would never over take the MacOS. Windows had a big advantage in that the hardware was CHEAPER. This got people using it - and MS gradualy improved it until it was competative with Mac.
I believe MS will eventually lose the war against open source and is running scared. Windows does have a usability and app edge now. However I think it will become increasingly difficult for MS to come up with new features to add to the OS / apps. So although the horse maybe running fast he has no where to go. This makes it inevitable that open source will catch up and match windows feature for feature, app for app.
Finally MS has a big disadvantage in that it is a public corporation and must show an ever increasing revenue stream. Since the PC market has matured, MS must turn to ever more burdensome licensing schemes to insure revenue growth. Open source has a tremendous advantage in that people are not forced to pay for unwanted upgrades.
To the linux GUI developers I say bravo keep up the good work ! You guys are going to win.
Summary of article : Linux is great, but the long haired freaks are gonna make it lose.
Yes, that's a good summary. Rubbish, isn't it?
Wired has really gone down the toilet. I used to love it. Can anyone recommend a replacement?
As Linus Torvalds said in his interview, the goal is to create a good operating platform. It may not slay Microsoft, but it will develop. Linux will improve, and even if it doesn't beat Microsoft, it would at least compete with Microsoft and send them the message that they have to improve their products and be more competitive (not in a monopolistic way, but in a quality/price way). The consumer will only gain from this, and in a way, this is a victory. Linux is not a company that can stop production; even if the mainstream people lose interest, development will continue, because we are not doing it for fame and profit, we are doing it for it.
Also, did anyone notice how only a couple of days ago there was an article about how Linux will beat Microsoft in 3 years?
I think Star/OpenOffice killed WordPerfect more than it's ever put a dent in MS marketshare.
Before StarOffice, companies that wanted an office suite that wasn't MS Office only had closed-source alternatives. Once StarOffice came out, they had a free alternative. MS worshippers won't ever shift from MS, but people who used WP were more pragmatic about it.
Not quite, but I hear that, on popular demand as determined by market research, they are planning to add a feature to automatically send the documents you are working on to your friends to ask for their advice. They call it "viral intelligence".
Sure, for example, we don't have an Office killer *currently*, but where exactly does he explain why we can never have one?
Because this argument comes around in a huge way every year or so, and every year or so there are promises made that Linux will have a Microsoft-matching killer app "very soon."
Despite this, the work fails to materialize. The Linux community has made huge strides in many areas, but it still hasn't caught up to the level Microsoft products were at several years ago. (In this, I'm referring to mundane desktop applications, not server-related things)
The author is absolutely right to question seriously the future of the progress of Linux in terms of real-world use in business and education markets. There are Linux projects moving to an Microsoft level of competancy, but the problem is that there are a lot of them, and even collectively, they don't match the unified development efforts of products like Microsoft Office.
Once Linux stops playing catch up, matches item-for-item the things that Microsoft offers, and then takes the game one step further and pushes ahead of Microsoft, then it will have something.
Unfortunately, as of the current time, development is still too fragmented and far behind to be considered peer with Microsoft's products.
What's there to loose. Linux will have their ever lasting freeware employers. It will continue and continue. It will get better and better on every scope --> desktop office stuff etc.
Microsoft is just a company. Companies die. Linux can't die. Is there a war going on? No. It's a choise that's gets easier and easier in time.
I read this article yesterday on Linuxtoday, and I was immediately struck by how many people there are who think that GNU/Linux and other free software can be driven in the same way that proprietary software is drivin. Or that the goals of the creators of free software, are the same goals of the creators of proprietary software.
This guys seems to think that the best way to push the development of GNU/Linux is to write an article about what does not work. This, I guess, is supposed to spread concern among the users of the software who will then, en masse, complain to the software creator and vote with their wallets on something that will do better. What this presumes is that the people who create the software are going to care about how users spend money.
But, obviously, this is not the case with free software. Developers create free software for a single purpose: to accomplish something that they want done. They don't write it to get someone to spend money on it. They write it to get something done, and then they share what they've accomplished with others. So, if users don't spend their money on software, what do the developers care? That software still accomplished a task for the developer, and that's all that matters.
I believe that this guy really does want to see free software succeed. What he doesn't understand is that the ways to do that have changed. Writing articles to incite users isn't as effective with free software as with proprietary software. The best tools to improve free software are an editor and a compiler and time.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
If linux took over the desktop but it won't happen but at the same time I don't think Linux will die either
We should all keep in mind this simple truth: Wired Magazine is dying.
.008 percent of the search engine market. Therefore there are (7000/100)*.008 = .56 Hotbot users.
You don't need to be Rossetto to predict Wired's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Wired faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Wired because Wired is dying. Things are looking very bad for Wired. As many of us are already aware, Wired continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Famed Wired author Negroponte states that there are 7000 subscribers to Wired Magazine. How many readers of Wired News are there? Let's see. The number of Wired versus Wired News posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 1 to 4. Therefore there are about 7000*5 = 35000 Wired News readers. HotWired posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Wired News posts. Therefore there are about 700 readers of HotWired. A recent article put Hotbot at about
Due to the troubles of Suck.com, abysmal click-through rates and so on, Wired went bankrupt and was sold to Conde Nast. Now Conde Nast is also dying and the corpse of Wired will soon be turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Wired has steadily declined in market share. Wired is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Wired is to survive at all it will be among tech magazine hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. Wired continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Wired is dead.
sulli
RTFJ.
I was interested to hear the war on Microsoft called a "moral obligation". I don't believe the fight is far from that. Historically, a user's (especially those who aren't technically savvy enough to pursue more difficult to use alternatives) operating environment are wholly determined by the applications available under that environment. MS Office, Photoshop are obvious examples of applications that dictate use of 'non-linux' OSes. MS, between .Net and XP is in a position to entirely determine the landscape of the internet, obviously the most critical of all "applications" in use today. Tim O'Reilly says that HTML is open-source's greatest success. Why then are we accepting an effective propriatery control on our greatest success? I would love to have a secure and universally accessable and portable personal information database record, and I would love to be able to develop applications that integrate web services as easily as I would make use of local resources. I just hate the idea that I have virtually no input as to what those services do, i have no choice as to use them or not, and I certainly cannot organize a modification of those services. We must be wary of giving up on "applications" development for the Desktop or any other medium, for "applications" are WHY we use computers in the first place.
Before the moderators give me -1 offtopic, hear me out - I do have a point to make. Further, some of what is about to follow may appear like I am judging certain types of people, but this is not my intent. I am simply stating things as they are.
Linux is unix. This is not to say that Linux is Unix as in the registered trademark, but Linux is unix as in the mindset. It is reasonable to go so far as to say that Linux is truly a unix for the masses. Not masses as in appealing to everyone, but masses as in everyone CAN get it if they want it. Specifically, Linux was the first unix to that was low cost enough enough that anyone with the appropriate hardware (which itself was very affordable... this is VERY important) would have no financial reason to not use it.
Now given that Linux is unix, why would a majority of people want to use it? Consider that the average desktop users are only interested in getting work done on time, or playing video games. Has unix ever been traditionally geared towards these crowds? No. Can it ever be, and still be unix? Think before you answer... remember, I'm not talking about Linux specifically here, but only the unix mindset. Rephrasing the question, can the unix mindset ever be geared towards the people who don't care about the mindset and still actually BE the same? If the answer is yes, then Linux (or some other low-cost unix) may someday achieve desktop dominance, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is no. In which case, Linux could not ever dominate unless it someday abandons the unix mindset - is this something that anyone who thinks Linux is a good thing wants?
Unix will survive -- always in niches, always as an alternative, but always there. Linux may come and go, but the unix mindset is the single longest lived software paradigm in the history of computing, it has persisted for over 3 decades now, and is likely to continue to do so for the forseeable future.
Now what was the point to all that? That MS has no reason to be at war with Linux in the first place because they are two entirely different paradigms. Further, unless Linux does a radical shift from the philosophy that created it, Linux cannot ever stand to achieve the status of Windows as long as a majority of people want to use computers for nothing more than a fancy typewriter, calculator, or arcade game console.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I don't care whose war it is, or who's in it. All I care about is the fact that there are multiple operating systems that I can have access to and toy with. Who really cares who has more market share, and what price(or none) tag is on it. I want options and choices.
But when the use rights I have on my computer start becoming violated(hint, hint, *XP) thats when I will choose which Operating Systems I will and won't play with.
To me, this article sheds light on a disturbing trend that I've noticed in the internet space. Like many geeks in the .com arena, I've had quite a few jobs in the past few years. At nearly every single position I've had, I saw way too many misspellings and problems with grammar in the online content that the companies produced. As a member of the technical staff, I should *not* have the best knowledge of the english language.
My question about the posted article is, "Why is a journalist so dependant on a spell checker?" Spell checkers are tools for people who have weak language skills. A journalist, or any other online content creator, should not need them. There was a time, before computers, when people typed things out on a typewriter, then *re-read* them to make sure there weren't typos, incorrect spellings or problems with grammar.
Having errors in spelling and grammar are then journalistic equivalent of O(n^2) algorithms in code. Anyone worth their salary should be able to avoid them. While a quality spell checker might be a good reason for some random user to choose M$ over Linux, it is *no* excuse for a professional journalist.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
The only way that they'd have nowhere to go would be if they have already achieved the pinnacle of office-suite (not just word-processor) functionality, and I don't quite believe that's the case. Here are some fairly random ideas that we could use to start:
Maybe some of those ideas are just totally stupid, but at the same time others could lead to another leap ahead of would-be competitors. I'm sure other people, including those at MS, could think of more. This well is far from tapped out. My point remains that if MS actually perceived a threat they could do something about it...but there's no reason for them to bother yet.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
I don't think that "irresponsible and stupid" is a good way to describe that person. That's outright sociopathic. Switching someone's OS without permission isn't a good thing to do, but it's a world apart from completely reformatting their drive without making a backup of their work.
If I were that person's boss, I would want them out of the company immediately. The fact that this appears tIn a computerized company, it'd be a nightmare to employ somebody who erases company files if they happen to get in the way of the system configuration... Yikes. You might as well have an janitor going through your file cabinets and shredding all that dirty, messy paper.
I had to do a whole bunch of load testing of a web application this morning. I used my Linux box to coordinate the entire thing. From my local command line, I launched a barrage of web requests from some other Linux box, in a dark machine room somewhere, against our unsuspecting web application servers. Meanwhile, I had a script running on this same workstation, collecting utilization statistics from those poor web servers , time-stamping and host-stamping everything. I collected about 300MB of data total in about three hours of testing.
And when the boss came in and asked me to prepare an executive summary to give to her boss's boss in thirty minutes, do you know what I did?
I turned to the XP box sitting next to my Linux workstation and fired up Excel.
Actually, first, I thought about it for something like five seconds. I thought about what I had installed since setting this box up a month ago, and I thought about all the Linux apps I've used over the last eight years. And then I laughed out loud.
I'll tell you, what I roughed out in thirty minutes in Excel wasn't pretty. But in that thirty minutes, I didn't fight with a single interface control, didn't have to re-print eight times because WYSINWYG, didn't have the application crash on me three times, and didn't overrun my deadline. I got graphs printed and on the Director's desk, just as I was asked. No Linux app could let me do that, and don't try to tell me otherwise.
Until someone can make a Linux office suite that'll let me crank out professional documents without any armwrestling, I'll be keeping another box on my desk (although as I type this, I'm replacing my XP machine with a G4 running OS X-- looking forward to sharing /home via NFS!).
Many people have left the MS world, and many more will do so in the future, without going to the trouble of dealing with XP at all.
I have been a Wintel user as a result of work pressures for a number of years; three years ago I got off my behind, fdisked a new partition on my home pc, and installed Caldera's OpenLinux to get my feet wet and because from a business person's point of view, not paying per-seat seemed like an awfully good thing.
I did recently upgrade my home PC from 98 to ME, for gaming purposes; ME will be the last Microsoft product I buy/use at home, primarily because of incredibly invasive implications associated with the use of XP. Notice, I didn't say ME will be the last MS OS I buy, I said "last Microsoft product".
My next machine will likely be a custom built AMD running Linux, or a Mac. I no longer need MS, and other people are beginning to realize that. My brother, for example, after a number of discussions with me regarding XP and the alternatives, has decided to by a G4 Titanium soon. He's no geek, let me tell you.
The fact is, StarOffice allows MOST people to do MOST of the Office-type things they need, and it's free. There are numerous browsers that work in non-MS OSes, as well as numerous email clients, and many of these are free as well. And for many software developers, the OS just isn't important anymore. Perl will run almost anywhere, as will Java; we don't need a Windows OS to test webapps. There simply is NOTHING tying most developers to Wintel (except perhaps games).
MOST normal folks nowadays simply want a machine they can turn on to surf or check email, and do simple letters to their landlords or their insurance companies, and keep track of their expenses; XP is overkill for the simple, non-WWW tasks that most PC owners perform, and isn't required for WWW use.
It is very likely that other people who are not tech geeks will also increasingly balk at MS's tactics AND strategy, and will vote with their wallets. The fact is, there will come a day when the major PC manufacturers get enough calls for Linux on a PC platform to start selling them again. I won't be surprised to see this happen in the next 18-36 months.
Most planets in the visible Universe are probably lifeless rocks, not supporting any life at all, let alone intelligent life. It's obvious that life has lost the great battle for the planet surface. So we should do the honorable thing and just extinguish life on Earth, instead of continuining this pompous charade of assumed superiority. It will happen anyway; we are just delaying the inevitable.
of who linux is geared towards.
I think the writer of this article is missing some facts.
1. Open Source developers write software that THEY want to use, they give away their code in order to get other people to help them build the software that THEY want to use. They don't write software for some bullshit ideological reason.
2. People mostly want cheap and good enough. If you don't believe me on this then explain Kmart, the Chevy sprint, and disposable everything. Windows only competes with Linux because everyone steals it. If people had to pay for their MS products they would use a hell of a lot fewer of them. Happily MS has decided to crack down on the thevies.
3. If the author of this article can't see that Linux is closing the gap at an incredible rate, and that Linux IS a viable alternative to windows TODAY, then he needs to take a harder look.
I am inclined to save this article as I think it has great potential for humour in the future.
A story about a tech support guy hosing somebody's windows laptop is supposed to convince us that windows will forever own the desktop? Are you serious? I hope that guy was promptly fired.
I do tech support and systems administration at a small company. I use linux on my desktop machine--which I was alone in doing until recently, when we brought on a new developer who's running linux. Now--I run blackbox, and don't do graphical file management or anything, but the new guy is using Gnome.
Basically--this story is stupid. MS is great, like everybody knows--and also leaves a lot of people cold. Like me. Because it's monolithic, and hard to individualize. Basically, it's nothing special.
The worst thing, as everybody knows, is that MS Windows is all about upgrading--upgrade your OS until they can figure out how to make the os upgrade require a new machine, at which point you have to buy a new machine, preferably with preinstalled WinXP2005Supertron or whatever.
Also, win2k doesn't run worth a damn on a lot of machines--like anything before a pentium 200 or so, with less than 128 mb of ram.
MS has already lost the 'war.' In a few years, the number of computers that don't have the specs for MS's new OS will be staggering, and there will be next to no reason to upgrade. My company, like a lot of others is already passing on the XP upgrade. Because there's no benefit.
MS's dominance was the product of an incredible economic boom. But in a few years, when most pc's are 'obsolete' by MS standards, we'll see how high their stock price is.
And you know what else? I hate it when people complain about linux business models. Linux isn't about business (although it is helping mine out quite a bit--it sure would have hurt us to have to use something like MS Adv. Server 2000 which is like $10k and would have required us to hire an MSCE just to make IIS work, or get Solaris boxes for the price of a luxury car).
Linux is great because it's free dammit--Linux doesn't care if it 'defeats' windows. Linux isn't going anywhere when the funds dry up. To talk about this in terms of conflict is inherently looking at it from a corporate perspective, which Linux doesn't need or care about. Sure, a lot of companies are now using it because it's a great product, nearly for free, but Linux was doing great with just home users, smart hobbyists who liked to hack.
You know what, I've said too much already--that article just really got my goat. I haven't seen too many articles that dumb in awhile. I thought the 'Will Linux conquer or will it die?' thing was done because people had realized how stupid it was.
Linux is here. Deal with it.
"sometimes it's better to be pretty than smart." is one quote from a post, and "Microsoft spends millions on UI" is another quote from another post. I say that MacOS X is both pretty AND smart, and MS spends MINUTES copying its GUI from Apple, always has been the case.
Linux will not be deployed on corporate desktops until several things happen\.
Two commonly mentioned deficiencies are (1) overall functional immaturity (e\.g. - the spellchecking deficiencies the article mentions) and (2) incompatibil\ity with existing file formats. I.E. - the filter problem. These deficiences \are well known, and are being addressed, albeit not always as quickly as we wou\ld like.
However, there's another serious deterrant to corporate deployment of Linux \desktops that I never see mentioned: the complete lack of a sensible way of sha\ring centrally stored files. NFS (v2 or v3) is far too insecure to warrent ser\ious consideration for corporate desktops. Automounting SMB shares might work,\ if not for the necessity of storing authentication credentials in plain text c\onfiguration files. Again, unacceptable, both from a security and a management\ point of view.
Perhaps automounting could be improved. The other alternative is NFSv4, the\ specification of which mandates strong security. There are two free NFSv4 imp\lementations under development: a kernel level version at citi umich, and a user-level client/server b\eing developed by no less than the samba team. Both\ implementations are still quite immature, however.
Until Linux desktop users are able to easily and securely share files on a c\entral file server, it's difficult to envision widespread deployment in corpora\te environments.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
The trick with Office applications is the document formats need to be 100% compatible with the standard, which for many is Microsoft. As long as you can maintain compatibility like that in the Linux office suites, Linux has a chance to catch up and win. I remember when Word Perfect was the standard in an office I worked. Because MS Word could read WP files, we were able to switch over very fast. Granted there is a little bit more work invoved in changing your whole OS, it can be done.
I actually do quite a bit of work at home using my Linux box. For those apps which I need that are only available on Windows, I run those through my Citrix ICA client.
'Same speed C but faster'
The definition of lose in the most relevant context is:
1. [very common] To fail. A program loses when it encounters an exceptional condition or fails to work in the expected manner.
By that definition, Windows loses millions of times around the world daily. My Linux machine has been up for more than 6 months. :)
Justin
"Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
Please somebody tell me how we have so many +5 scores on posts that, minus the rhetoric, just say, "Wait till next year."
NOTE TO MODERATORS: -1 Redundant is an option.
The solution is simple. Don't try to compete on the Generic interface front. Linux and the OSS model have configurability as one of their greatest assets.
Users need distros tailored to their niches. Office, Home, Multimedia, Children, etc...
If more ditros came out that focused on specific niches and stayed fairly standard; Linux would be in phenomenal shape... regardless of the "desktop" wars.
The idea of a "generic" user is a myth.
This guy hit the nail on the head.
the goal of a corporation in capitalism is not to become a monopoly, but to become profitable
Actually, the goal is to MAXIMISE profits. In order to truly maximze profits, a corporation must eliminate competition which has a downward effect on profits. As such, monopoly is most certainly ultimate corporate ambition.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
I used Linux as my only dektop platorm for 4 years (first FVWM, then WindowMaker). It's great, except for one glaring problem. There is no stable web browser for Linux. Lately, I need to run alot of Java apps, with multiple windows. Let's face it, we all have to kill -9 /usr/lib/netscape more often than we have to restart IE on Windows 2000.
Therefore I have moved to Win 2000 on the Desktop, but still use Linux on the server.
Netscape on Linux is the most unreliable web browser on any platform.
It belies the stability of the underlying OS ... but when the browser has hung for the 5th time in as many hours, it doesn't really matter how stable the underlying OS is. The apps need to be stable as well.
This is the main shortcoming of Linux on the desktop, IMHO.
(-1, Strawman)
She had Word installed because the spell checker in whatever she was using didn't work well enough for her. Is this true though? I usually spell fairly well and proofread what I write afterwards (not so much /. posts :) ). Have people had bad experiences with spell checkers in Star Office, Abiword, or others? What about Wordperfect, I would imagine the spell checker draws from the same dictionary on Linux as it does on Windows...
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Geez, normally a post like that gets modded down as a troll (nothing new is said, declares something as fact which is only opinion, and seeks only to sensationalize).
The beauty of open source/free software is that it never ever ever ever backslides. Projects, once they exist, always exist as long as SOMEBODY has the source code. KDE and Gnome are in a sense still just beginning, they will create the shoulders upon which we will stand, not next year but in 10 years. It's gonna sound corny, but it is only through open source that we will advance humanity. Instead of platforms rising and falling with the whims of corporations or profit motives, we have a platform upon which we can depend for more than just the current standard of 3 year upgrade cycles. Our data, our work, our intellectual property is separate and distinct from the application or OS.
What Russ Mitchell fails to recognize is that the free software movement isn't about a mistake in a spellchecker, or any other small userability issue. These things are details, very small details that ALWAYS get fixed if you report them. In fact, that's one of my problems with free software projects. Once I get around to submitting a patch or work around, the problem has been fixed by someone else. Very annoying.
Anway, the MOST important thing that he doesn't mention is open document formats. I've got college papers locked into MS Works format from 1990, that I can't open because of planned obsolesence. Lo and behold, there's a piece of third party software that you can buy that will allow you to open these formats. Microsoft abandons formats as matter of ROUTINE. This isn't ENOUGH to move over, or embrace Linux?
These days, I really only shake my head and smile at articles like Russ's. He just don't get it do he?
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
In order for something to lose, something must beat it. The loser must lose something, The winner must be the last man standing.
However Linux cant lose because Linux is not a product. Linux is a technology. Saying Linux will lose to Microsoft, Is like saying Math will lose to Taco Bell.
So lets set the record straight, Linux is a TECHNOLOGY, and a TECHNOLOGY cannot "Lose" or "Win"
A technology is either useful, or its not.
Linux has been proven useful for the server market. Linux is not yet useful for the Desktop market.
Because Linux is a technology, Unless everyone plans to use Microsoft OS now and forever on every computer created until the end of time. Linux has a damn good chance of being useful to the desktop.
Why? Because Linux is a technology, as computer technology changes, the needs for Linux will become more and more great. As Linux enhances, the usefulness of Linux will become more and more clear to the average user. As Linux becomes easier to use and works with more hardware, The people will begin to accept Linux more and more.
Unlike Apple, and Microsoft, Linux is not a companies product, Linux from redhat goes down, Linux mandrake pops up, Mandrake goes down, Slackware pops up, then debian, the list will go on FOREVER because Linux is a technology.
Example? Napster. Napster was stopped sure. But Napster technology simply advanced and now its at the point where its unstopable.
The more people try to stop Linux, the more faster Linux will be enhanced, and the faster Linux will be accepted.
Just like killing Napster made Gnutella and Morpheus and Aimster and Freenet pop up, If Microsoft beats Linux on the desktop this round, round two Linux will be back again under another company, and another and another until the industry accepts Linux as the industry was FORCED to accept peer to peer.
Linux is going to take over, if its not in the next 5 years, then in the next 10 years, but its going to happen, because technology cannot be stopped.
Microsoft cannot keep ahead of Linux forever, Linux is catching up in EVERY area, and its only a matter of time before Linux is better than Windows at everything, even playing games.
When this time comes (and yes it will come)
Windows will fade and Linux will become the new standard.
And when this happens, if Microsoft doesnt try to make Linux illegal, Microsoft will attempt to create their own version of Linux in the same way the RIAA is creating their own peer to peer.
Wait and see.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Member of the chattering class needs sensationalistic story to cover ass! Ex-employee of Red Hat disses linux! Software commentator straw-mans linux' `war' with Microsoft! Pictures at eleven!
;) and outlook clones (as much as I hate to admit it) are. We are not 'targetting' a market, we are performing a sort of terraforming. We have to live here -- we have to develop here -- we have to admin here -- and so, we'll build what we deem necessary and useful on a case-by-case basis.
Seriously, though. The reason why integrated development environments aren't being coded is because they aren't very useful (at least, with xemacs around
Focus groups, target markets, etc, are part of the problem, not the solution. Anyone here familiar with Marx? I'm talking about the (economic! financial!) risks of developer alienation... who will develop for free when they're building something that they cannot, in some sense, be an owner of? The whole *reason* we sacrifice a certain amount of compensation is because we're having too much fun. Like it or lump it, being unfocused follows immediately from the key secret of our success to date. You cannot (significantly) focus OSS without destroying it.
- undoware.ca
Is Linux and its community of developers even really fighting against MS in respect of desktops?
[alk]
I mistakenly equated configuration/installation with use. I apologize. It's all those years of working with windows boxes that have blurred that line for me, sorry.
Go Lakers!
Yes, it looks not so good for Linux on the desktop, but what are alternatives? OS/2? BeOS? Solaris? Looks like there are no real ones.
So if we really give up trying to bring Linux on the desktop", we would have to use Windoze, like the "others" for our daily work, because there would be no usable office suites, no up to date browser, no support for your USB-DSL-modem etc. Beside that the might of M$ would grow. And when they don't have any competitor on the desktop market they can completely concentrate on the server market to gain the victory there, too. Don't belive M$ got no ways to kick Linux and other Un*xes out of the race, just think of proprietary protocols for web services, which are easy to enforce if you provide the clients for everybody. Enought!
What I want to say is, we really need an alternative and Linux is at this time the most usable alternative for the desktop. We just should continue to work on increasing the number of Linux desktop users, but let's start at another point. Don't inwent the twice and clone popular software, write useful tools that enables the software companies to port their software easily, fast and if possible at minimum costs to Linux and other OpenSource OSes. Don't try to convince the buisness people that their staff could learn how to use Linux, start to teach as many as possible of those computer kiddies in using Linux. Don't reverse engineer revers drivers, create emulators to use the Windoze onces.
I believe there are many ways to gain a greater share on the desktop market, we just have to consider our strategy and to go new ways.
P.S.: Most people is the third world haven't decided for an desktop OS, they don't have a computer -yet-, but if these people will get one, they would have to look at the software cost...
2. Linux developers are wasting their energy on desktop-oriented software, like office suites.
I wonder why it never occured to the guy that maybe if more developers "wasted their time" fixing up a good open source spellchecker, his employee would have never needed a Windows partition.
Actually Microsoft only had about 80% compatibility with WordPerfect, and their support for macro-encrusted 123 sheets was even worse.
When companies converted to Office, they generally hired a temp to spend a couple weeks going through all the documents on the fileserver to convert and reformat them. (Of course, this before widespread use of office docs in e-mail, so you didn't need to worry about new documents coming in all the time.)
The Office Document Problem is a prime example of Linux-types having only a skin deep understanding of the problem. Hypothetically, let's say it's solved (or I want to switch to Macs and use MS Office there) --
Then what? There's people using Visio and MS Project. There's people who RUN THE BUSINESS on crappy Access applications which would need to be rewritten. There's vertical software that we use that's only available on Windows (prime example being DB or CASE modeling tools for the developers). There's VB apps that people have hacked together over the years. There's still that wing of the company using Lotus Notes. There's the sales automation solution that you spent $10M for. The VP loves his business card scanner. Etc Etc Etc.
From what I've seen, it's incredably difficult to even move the userbase from Win98 to Win2000 and verify that everything was tested and working. Linux? -- unpossible.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Just as the Soviet Union (please forgive the analogy -- this is not meant to imply any 'leftist' agendas) folded under enormous pressure to spend enormous captital, both monetary and with labor, on an arms race that it couldn't win, the author makes a point that for success any movement must know when to compete, and know when to change its strategy.
The Linux community is fragmented on this. The community has grown from a small, fiercly dedicated group to a large entity that includes "late-comers" who are interested more in the business and efficacy of Linux in the enterprise than a costly project competing with a monilith now supporting in part in its practices by the goverment.
The enterprise market is wide-open. As a technologist who has worked on many disparate systems for many different clients and projects, including the top New York-based investments banks and a very large softdrink company, the last few years have shown this. Companies are confusing, switching platforms to Sun, back to Microsoft, then to IBM. There is a very low-level of overall satisfaction when compared to the desktop market, this is shown by the frequency on which companies switch and mix enterprise software solutions. There are "Shops" dedicated to platforms ( Java 2 Enterprise Edition seems to have invoked loyalty), but there still isn't one clear leader across the whole of the business world.
By devoting its full attention to the enterprise market, the Linux development community and its supporters can take advantage of this confusion and present a viable alternative for the global marketplace. The grass-roots opinion makers and traditional developers in the enterprise software world are the same kind of techies that embodied the Linux movement, with comparable skill levels and experience. They are not "Aunt Tillie", for Aunt Tillie can't make a decision on something that she knows nothing about. When they see proof that a solution is fast, reliable, and economical, they will buy into it. IBM sees this and is exploiting it, but why should big business be able to co-opt a open and publicly owned movement? If those same developers working feverishly on new desktops and clone applications could get together and work on promising applications like Enhydra (http://www.enhydra.org) and turn them into free, compatible, and supported alternatives to BEA WebLogic, WebSphere, and MS.NET, Linux could own the enterprise market and make a lasting impact on the future of the open-source movement.
doctors4bob
Okay, for THREE years now, I've heard the Linux people on this board whine and complain that if Linux could only get a truly simple user interface (and a decent Office substitute), that Linux would "take over the world and Microsoft would go away".
Well, that's true. That would happen. But the point back then is the same point now:
MOST home computer users, and a whole lot of business users (ie. 95% of the market) don't understand the concept of something as simple as a directory.
Mac users are beginning to accept their niche-dom. Acceptance of niche-dom isn't very much fun, because you know that eventually, niche systems like Atari, Commadore, and Amiga were squeezed out by Microsoft.
I think perhaps the Linux community needs to plan for a "post-Microsoft Apocolypse" world. (ie - what will users need on an OS once MS has taken over the world, and the internet.)
Obviously, portability - we'll have to run on whatever hardware MS allows to be produced. Security, to prevent the RIAA from scanning your hard drives.
AND - the ability to connect to an internet that, frankly, may not run true TCP/IP (but rather, a bastardized "innovative version" of MSTCP/IP).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
How can the war be lost when it has barely started?
With Microsoft's many monopolistic and anti-competitive initiatives in Windows XP, Linux should be poised for unprecedented growth. I think literally millions of disaffected Windows users will move the Linux camp over the next few years. Heck, even Brian Livingston at Infoworld, a die-hard Windows fan, has said he'll never install XP. When those factors are combined with XP's significantly higher cost of ownership, there is a compelling argument for migration.
This migration will be helped along quite a bit by the constantly improving software offerings available on Linux, including StarOffice 6.
I expect Windows XP will have a beneficial effect on Macintosh sales also, further spurring unix desktop market penetration. I also expect that Java desktop software development will begin to take off (finally).
In short, I think this article is way off base, and in fact Linux is now facing its best opportunity ever to succeed on the desktop, especially among the more cost-sensitive organizations.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The moron wiped her work files.
Non standard or not, he wiped out her work with nothing but a stupid grin to show for it. No warning, no nothing and she was on deadline.
I'd fire his ass instantly and on the spot.
Unix admin and Manager of Unix admins.
Sure, for example, we don't have an Office killer *currently*, but where exactly does he explain why we can never have one? Nobody can seriously be so conned by Microsoft as to believe that we'll always be playing catch-up.
I think the author is saying that because most Linux On The Desktop efforts are copies of MS products, they will always be behind because as we copy one feature, MS makes another.
The more interesting statement to me is the Drucker quote to the effect that no one defeats a market leader at his own game. I have been reading The Innovator's Dilemma and Christensen provides compelling evidence of this. Instead, market leaders were defeated when the market changed under them. "Web appliances", embedded, and yes server may make more sense.
Lies about crimes
I'm the ONLY long haired linux user that I know of. It's the rest of you tie-wearing short haired geeks that are the problem. Us long haired folk are happy to just sit back, relax, and play Quake all day. :)
If we 'lose the war', what have we lost? Some companies? Companies are not real. They are abstractions. People are real. Software is (arguably) real.
Free software will still exist.
Many people will still run it.
Many people will still develop for it.
It will continue to improve to fill the needs of
those who choose it.
Because it is free, nothing can be 'lost'. That is the whole point.
WordPerfect's spell checker for the Windows version isn't as good as the one for Office 2000. I've run into the same problem mentioned in the article with WordPerfect 8 (Windows version).
It's not illegal to be a monopoly; it's illegal to abuse your position as a monopoly.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
There's one detail about Microsoft "winning" the
thai desktop market.
I'm a Computer Science student living in Brazil.
I earn about U$200 a month.
So I, and most of my friends, just can't pay
Microsoft expensive licenses.
Even if we could, my computer is a Pentium 100,
32mb RAM. FreeBSD runs smootly on it, even X.
Okay, let's start with the beginning. Mr. Mitchell first (rightly) complains about someone at Red Hat wiping the contents of some worker's laptop to replace Windows with Linux. This is first, a straw-man argument (we can't argue against it, but it has nothing to do with linux, but with a stupid Tech).
Likewise, his arguments about one peice of software (generalized into all Linux word processing software) at a point obviously somewhere in his past (but not current, he no longer works there) isn't terribly suprising, or valuable. It doesn't say anything except that some version of Applixware in the past, didn't do a great job of spell checking.
Then Mr. Mitchell tries to gain our confidence in his ability to criticize all of linux by saying he appreciates Linux "Technically". The fact that Mr. Mitchell then says that the "Linux community is a muddled and unfocused lot" really shows that he doesn't understand how Linux is developed. This is an open source, anyone-can-play, large group of people who can (and usually) do what they want.
Mr. Mitchell's claim that the "the war [for the desktop] is over" is also bizarre. This is something I have heard a lot, but it makes no sense. Was the "war" for department stores over after Sears? How about for the railroads? Nothing is over. The world keeps going. And, as I said above, people in the Linux Community can and will do what they want.
The claim that one part of a community is distracting the community as a whole is also another fallacy. This is not provable and most likely doesn't reflect reality. People who work on the desktop do so because it's what they want to do. They may do desktop work elsewhere (maybe for Windows or Macs) if they didn't have Linux. You don't know.
Of course, what Mr. Mitchell is really saying is that he doesn't think competition is worthwhile. Doing something for the thrill of doing it isn't worthwhile. I disagree. Every major advancement, and many minor ones had people who weren't motivated saying things like, "Who cares? Can't be done. No one will want it." and have been proven wrong.
I'm going to wrap this up, because I got side tracked and have other things to do. But consider his final statements. Mr. Mitchell wants the Linux Community to give up because he wants Linux to succeed. This is defeatist and makes little sense. The Linux community should do what it wants to do.
Finally, just because I have to say this. If you work for a company that sells an OS, you should make all efforts to use that OS. Period. The president of Ford does NOT drive a Toyota. The company cars are not Nissans.
Well I don't know about you, but I feel beter.
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
You're right, in the short run. As you say, adding Star Office to the mix really hurt WP. Then again Star Office didn't do anything to WP that M$ wasn't going to do anyway.
Having the choice of closed source MSO vs. closed source WP wasn't much of a choice. In the long run, WP (and Lotus) will go away. Star Office will compete mostly with MSO and will offer a real open source vs. closed source choice.
Until XP came along, I would have agreed that the MS Office users would never abandon the product. Given the XP cost and upgrade hassles, many Office users may discover that their management has made the decision for them. In my organization, If I planned and budgeted for an Office XP upgrade and simultaneously offered Star Office as an alternative, I could abandon MSO today with full CEO and CFO support. My actual plan is to ignore XP for the time being. Either the licensing will change, or I will be planning a gradual phase-out of MSO. Every day I can postpone this, I improve my odds of getting a better deal from M$ or a better product from Star Office. I see nothing to be gained by upgrading now.
Without a viable alternative to M$ products, we're all condemned to run like a bunch of rodents on the M$ hamster wheel.
There are businesses trying to make money with Linux, but Linux is not a business! He says that there is too much focus on the desktop and that it robs developers from "Linux' real place in the world". What a bunch of crap. If Linux were a business, this arguement might hold water. You could go to the CEO of Linux Corp. and say "Why are you wasting all of these developers on developing desktop apps when your real strength is on the server?" Of course, there is no Linux Corp. There is no product strategy developed by market annalysts studying focus groups. There's just a bunch of folks who know how to write code working on what THEY want. I will continue to support Linux on the desktop because that's where I want it! I don't have a server, and if that's all Linux did it would be useless to me.
Konquerer, an open source browser, doesn't even track market share figures.
Of course it doesn't, because Linux is not a business!
that doesn't take into account the ... steep learning curve for most desktop users.
This is the anti-Linux arguement that I hate the most, because it's total BS. There is no steep learning curve for the Linux desktop. How do I know this? Because the 3 least technical people I know (my mom, wife, and sister) all managed to figure it out without any help from me. In fact my sister actually likes Linux better, she feels it's easier to use than windows. My wife is indifferent as long as she can surf the web and check her email. My mom feel's the same as my wife does about it, but she has the additional requirement of needing to process Word .docs for work (and no, I haven't tried StarOffice6 yet).
Huh?!?!? How can you call someone your enemy when they've done so much to help you? Big Unix vendors, like Sun, IBM, Compaq, and SGI are all supporting Linux in some way. Sun and IBM especially. Why? It's hard to say sometimes, but I suspect that most of them see Linux as a great way to leverage their vast investment and experience in Unix for the future. I also suspect that they see Linux as the only way that true cross-vendor Unix compatability will ever really happen, something that has been tried a few times.
Wouldn't a competent integrated development platform be more useful than an office suite?
No, not really. If you're a developer, learn how to use the command line. Thanks to pipes, the developement platform is as integrate as you want it to be, and it's integrated in exactly the way you want it to be. How many of the "competent" IDEs can claim that? If you use one particular combination frequently, write a script.
Wouldn't a graphical debugger be better than a whizzy file manager?
Absolutely not. I'll take gdb over any graphical debugger any day of the week. gdb is so powerful precisely because it isn't hampered by a GUI. Don't get me wrong, GUIs have their place, like file managers for instance, but for things like debugging I far prefer the power and flexibility that only the command line has been able to provide. And how would you use this cool graphical debugger without a GUI desktop? Don't GNOME and KDE both offer graphical debuggers (or at least graphical front-ends to gdb)?
Wouldn't a pro 3-D package be more targeted than an Outlook clone?
Again, how are you going to use this pro 3-D package without all of this developement time being "wasted" on developing Linux as a graphical platform? Of course, pro graphics on Linux has already been discussed recently, so I won't go into it any firther. I will say, though, that without an Outlook clone to go with it, this Linux 3-D app doesn't have a snowballs chance at my company. We use 3-D apps for mechanical design, and if anyone knows of a Linux-based alternative to SolidWorks 2001 I would love to hear about it, but unless there are also alternatives to MS Outlook and Project as well, my bosses will never go for it.
As if the lack of applications weren't enough of an obstacle, self-inflicted public relations problems - in the form of bad behavior by vocal Linux proponents - are casting a dark shadow over Linux.
First he complains that there are too many apps for Linux, and now there are too few. Make up your mind. He makes a good point about Linux zealots, though.
In short, Linux is not a business! And because of that, business annalasys will always fail on Linux. Red Hat is a business, annalize it till the cows come home, but don't make the mistake of thinking that Linux==Linux_Companies. There's only one thing that can be proved by that kind of comparison; that the person making it doesn't understand Linux.
Linux can be all things to all people, that's the true beauty of Open Source. It's already a great server OS, everyone seems to agree on that point. I happen to think it's a great desktop OS, too. Some think it's a great realtime/embedded OS, and if I were into that I would probably agree. The closed source embedded OSs can be a real pain in the ass to work with. And as for scalability, how many of those "scalable" OSs can run on a wristwatch? The only thing really keeping Linux from scaling the other way is access to system specs.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I recently switched over to Ximian on two RH 7.1 boxes.
Immediately I thought if this 'look' was available from the get go, and this Red Carpet thingy was available from the get go I could have sold my company on going Linux.
3 years ago of course it was not.
Now what? Well guys I know we have 500+ MS 98/NT4/2000 lics but what say we switch over to this beta-esque software.
The "easy" desktop and the Office-like products still are not available. Abi Word and Star Office aren't even close. WINE and VMware are nice but you still need to buy lics. So bottomline is that Linux still ain't ready for the average AOL/ICQ/Word set.
I think the servers rule (Mail/Apache/NFS/Samba) but the desktop needs help.
OSX has made HUGE strdes in that direction. Hopefully Linux distros will take the hint. Looks and feel matter. OH and if you can can get MS to make Office for you that's good too.
This
Actually, the small remaining core of WordPerfect users are very pragmatic -- they are vitually all in the legal profession and use WP because they've got all the macros and templates already developed, and furthermore, they are really cheap asses as far as IT goes.
Microsoft steamrolled WordPerfect everywhere else long ago.
More like the nail in the coffin. These desktop developers are SO concerned about usability that they've given us years now of themes, window transparencies, font anti-aliasing, and more themes-- all announced and revisited with baited breath.
Now, the next time an app (or a service) crashes on your Linux system, ask yourself what a novice user would do. Are they going to brilliantly infer that the sudden and unexplained disappearance of their program signifies a crash, then go looking for the core dump file?
The Linux desktop crowd are little more than hot-doggers trying to show off to each other. They don't care about usability or this kind of deficiency would have been addressed long ago. This lack of concern is a malady that starts at the core (the kernel) and seems to infect anyone who touches it. Coders suddenly become end-user-stupid when they acclimmate to Linux; After all, if they are to get help anywhere in the Linux social strata, they must drop any assumptions which imply minimum GUI usability-- or get jeers and snickers instead of answers.
Think for a minute about machine and software interfaces and the importance the Linux kernel attaches to them. Now think about where user interface standards lie in the Linux priority sceheme-- there is no basic GUI toolkit or widget set to speak of, and the only real graphical accomodation is meant for installers.
It is not enough to be a bridge between programs and hardware. Your goal from square-one must be to act as a bridge between users and hardware. Linux fails as a desktop system for this reason; It is geared toward programmers or at best (in the most carefully assembled of the graphical distributions) power-users.
Dell did not actually offer Linux on their desktops or notebooks. I regularly get snail-spam from Dell, and not once was Linux mentioned for a desktop or notebook. Only occaisionally is it offered for servers. I also visited their web site 5 or 6 times over the past year. Again, no Linux for desktop or notebook. If Dell thinks it didn't sell, maybe Michael should have a talk with his VP of marketing. I find it hard to believe they slipped the entire duration of the Linux campaign in between my web visits.
And you don't expect it to be a mass seller. This kind of thing takes time. XP will come out soon for retail sale (you can get it on whole systems now). That won't make people switch to Linux immediately, because they can just stay with the old version they are running. But eventually the old version won't be supported, and won't do well on new hardware, and the decision will have to be made to either upgrade Windows (to XP) or switch to Linux. As we are seeing in some places, the switch to Linux is starting to happen, in places like certain cities in Florida, and some countries like Thailand and potentially in Germany.
I suspect Dell had other motives for not wanting to sell Linux. We might like to think that it is because of an under the table deal with Microsoft to kick out Linux. But that doesn't have to happen because there is more incentive elsewhere for Dell to not support Linux and pray for it to fail. This is because Linux allows people to keep on being productive with older slower hardware, and not upgrade the hardware as often. This means lost sales to vendors like Dell, and they are hurting a lot right now, even more so than losing Linux customers will do. They see the problem of lack of hardware growth, and see that Linux could only make it worse for them. If Linux were to catch on and be at least significant against Windows, like maybe 1/3 of the market, that would surely mean more lost hardware sales, and Michael understands this you can be sure. Maybe Bill wised him up about this, but I don't think that was even needed.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
While I applaud your views, the problem with Linux now is what you want to do with the OS on that bulleted list requires the OS to automatically configure and update itself with as little user intervention as possible. Sad to say, Linux currently is not quite there yet.
If the Linux programmers can support the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) natively, this could give Linux the automatic configuration ability Windows 98/ME/2000/XP now uses. I've read about the ACPI4Linux project but that needs much more support so all the major commercial Linux distributions will support it.
"Clearly, a lot of work is needed to make Linux enterprise-ready. The
competition in enterprise computing is fierce. Sun will be tough to
squelch. Microsoft is gaining ground. But the field is still open.
Nobody's got a hammerlock. Microsoft is just another player in this
market - and there's no reason Linux can't break through.
But desktop computing? It's time to face reality: Linux is a loser."
How absolutely silly this fabrication of Linux being at war with any other
system.
At best there is competition amoung open source system (and Linux has that
lead??), but there is something better for linux's position when it comes
to commercial systems.
If the commercial system makers get lazy and sloppy about advancing, or do
other things that piss off it's clients, then they will have to face linux.
In other words, Linux may be a turtle on the race course, but it doesn't
mean it won't cross the finish line.
What linux does for everyone else is to provide a pace runner, a check
system that keeps others in line.
What you can expect from others is a divergence from the OS mold that
linux is a part of. You know, the effort to cause the mold of which they
and Linux are a part of, to be changed to such a degree that they are no
longer in the same general mold.
In any event, the bottom line continues to be what it always has been,
who's go the most software. A bottom line Mircosoft recognized in their
beginning. Quality was secondary to what you could actually get away with
in advertising.
But this "bottom line" is based on the false premise of software being
difficult to produce. A falseness that can be removed if the science of
software engineering got back on track, away from corporate financial
magnitism and bias.
If you want to know when NASDAQ will go up, watch the news regarding
anything that entraps consumers, anything that seems to be a sure thing
via forcing people to do or go without situations.
To remove that false bottom line..... Well, would leave linux where?
But even Linux developers aren't interested in making development so easy
that the typical user can do it too.
This piece made some interesting points about linux losing the desktop. It is certainly true that Outlook/Exchange Servers are awesome (though buggy and insecure) business applications, and the Linux world has no real equivalent. But the latest Star Office is adequate for most simple to intermediate documents. (The comment about Linux office apps not having a good spellchecker is not true for the latest Star Office. And besides, even if it were true, Spellcheck is hardly an important feature in the office environment---it never has been a particularly efficient way to correct mistakes). Linux now has many free components: a first class browser (Mozilla), an almost first class office app (Star Office), several decent mail programs, adobe acrobat, a free almost firstclass cdburn program, a first class windows interface (KDE), an almost first class graphics program (gimp), real player, several instant messenger programs (kyahoo, jabber), fairly good hardware detection (finally), a firstclass documentation project (which admittedly is not tightly integrated into linux--one needs to use search engines (my favorite link is Linux How-to Index .
The main weaknesses, as I see it are 1)poor font support (which I've been told has been fixed in the latest KDE release), difficulty installing things (although rpm's are not really that hard once you figure it out), and difficulty upgrading (there is no equivalent of windows update, although one could upgrade to a later distribution release). Also, Mozilla seems not to have default support for plugins (although Netscape 6.1 does include this support). Another significant problem is Windows/Linux compatibility issues. How do you dual boot? How do you share files? How do you set up samba permissions? Another basic problems has to do with the difficulty of setting up users and LDAP support. These things are not insurmountable. Basically, if a sys admin were to set up Linux and the network connections before handing it over to the user, I could teach any user to be productive in Linux in 2 hours or less. Guess what, guys? The same is true for Windows desktops as well. Robert Nagle, Austin Texas idiotprogrammer
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
This is about the lamest flame-fest invitiation I've read in a long time (apart from all the other articles appearing sporadically on the same topic).
:-))
All the statements arguing that Linux has lost the desktop war never actually state what they mean by "desktop." Last time I checked, Linux was the kernel to my Unix-like-mostly-Free-Software-running-system and not a desktop environment. OK, seriously now, I am running the aforementioned system and find that for my personal requirements it outdoes every commercially available system. But, that is just me. I am not at war with Microshaft and I have heard no OSS/FS person saying something about a war or a crusade (mind you, ESR, RMS and others have better rethorical skills than some countries' elected leaders. Couldn't resist this comment, sorry
Furthermore, if we were to analyse the competitive market environment for OSS/FS-desktops it could be argued that we are dealing with a disruptive technology, a phrase coined by Clayton Christensen (HBS prof, good read). But then again, that would mean that yellow-press authors would have to read a bit about the field they are researching.
Damn, just realised that I actually fell for this troll article.....
What makes the author think that there is any way to 'readjust' the priorities of the people who work on free software? I suspect that the people who work on desktop apps works on them because they find them interesting, and would not change their minds and work on server apps if we asked them to.
She suggests an unspecified mechanism for control that does not exist. GNU/Linux is not controlled by a company who can change the priorities of the work that is done. The companies who are involved can only hope that the work that they contribute helps define the direction of the movement. But the individuals involved all bring their own reasons for what they do. This is why there is no 'war'. There is no single entity for M$ to be at war with!
This is right, and the way it should be.
I really don't care if Linux takes over against Microsoft Windows or not. It is not my goal to displace Windows in the market place. Instead, my goal is to make my Linux desktop experience complete. I know I can not ever accomplish what I want with Windows, so I use Linux. But I would still like to do a few of the things I cannot now do.
Linux needs better applications. In some areas it has it. In some areas it does not. Consider Visio. There is nothing in Linux that even compares. Programs like xfig are a joke compared to Visio.
Linux needs better hardware support. When a new kind of hardware comes out, driver support needs to be immediate. I want to be able to buy it now, and use it with Linux.
Things like this are not really what we expect of Linus. These things need to be done by other people. Application developers need to do the killer apps, and cover more bases. Hardware manufacturers need to make open source device drivers for their new hardware available, and quit trying to shove their "innovation" into the drivers (I want innovative hardware). But to bring these things about, Linux does need to get some market share, including on the desktop. I want Linux to succeed at this, but not for the purpose of bringing down Microsoft, or Windows, but instead, to let me have what I want on the desktop, and add to it with what I want. Yeah, I'm selfish. But at least I'm honest about it.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The author fails to see the long run.
If linux cannot provide an effective and productive desktop, most importanly a browser, it will eventually lose its server market.
Its about the desktop stupid!
A study into the history of the matter will show that Catholicism hasn't always been the free will of the people, but was more accurately forced as status quo. I belive this is what the writer of the comment in question was referring to. I see the parallels clearly; perhaps his reference to non-Christian beliefs offended you. Our society has that nasty habit of depicting Christians as universal "good guys", another fact by which history will dispute.
My own experience trying out linux has been disheartening, but I remain hopeful. I'm just an amateur who likes to play around with computers, and occassionally do something productive with them (usually that involves setting them up to do productive things for others to use). I'd love to use something other than windows, because its technical limitations and obtuse design are getting wearing. Hence my investigation of Linux
Slackware 8.0 was admittedly beyond my abilities (though it didn't break anything)
I tried mandrake 8.0 and it was a total disaster. I would consider mandrake to be a dangerous substance that should be regulated by the authorities.
So I'm waiting until linux becomes easier to use (yes, that means a usable gui interface) or until I get better at handling a computer and can hack through a system like slack.
Unfortunately, I believe that usability and stability tend to be mutually exclusive. Windows is so buggy because it has to deal with so much disparate software, but more importantly, really stupid users like myself.
What I really hate about windows is that it is developped without the user first in mind. Microsoft's business goals are the primary objective in designing the system, not the user.
Windows is dislodgeable, but it will take money, mostly for a lot of quality assurance work. The fight should go on, but it may be a while.
evanchik.net
Unfortunately, this author forgot to throw the rules of business sense out the window before writing about our favorite OS. From here...you guys can finish writing what I am about to say...you've already heard the arguments. You know...programming for the challenge...money doesn't really matter...without a centralized organization, the community can't loose money---MS can.
Now for the meat. This article mentions focus quite a lot. Developers should focus on servers...developers shouldn't focus on Microsoft...blah blah. Again, he doesn't understand how things work in the Free Software Community...or ignores it.
He thinks the way people have been trained to think since computers became commercially viable. Computers are new...still new. And any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. People worship their computers for the good they do and when the computer messes up, they are willing to sacrifice anything to the gods to make it better again. Metaphor--of course. So over the years big companies like Microsoft and AOL (and IBM) have taken the role of information gods they have decreed certain assumptions that computer users take for granted today.
A lot of people won't use GNU/Linux because it doesn't have a god. Red Hat tries but fails. I would like to the whole Free Software Community become these computer gods that people rely on to make them feel comfortable using the software. But we often contradict each other and are not as inviting as the other gods.
But the idea that companies are very big doesn't deter them. In fact, it makes them feel safe because bigger gods makes them feel safer and the gods won't go away.
So this is my explanation about GNU/Linux on the desktop. They aren't interested so much to get their work done but rather they want to feel safe using the computer. So saying "Linux is stable" isn't nearly as effective as saying "Linux is nice". Even when their computers crash or their files don't open up, they will still stick with it because they believe the gods know of their struggles and will fix it in the next upgrade.
This author and many tech writers have the same problem with computer gods. When they are talking about business sense they are saying how GNU/Linux doesn't have a big enough god. And when they use the software, they are aware that few people use this software for the desktop. So they come in not feeling secure. The warps their perceptions from the beginning.
Not to be a bastard or anything, but this article was in the October issue of Wired. The latest issue is the November issue.
As a desktop OS, Linux does suck. All the software looks like it was made by different people, each with their own opinions about how a piece of software should look/function (And not what joe average wants). It is difficult to use, and maintain for joe average.
It's great for servers though, I wouldn't recommend anything but Linux.
I have a question that has been killing me since the beginning of all the M$ crap.
What did people use before Windows? Apple IIe's? Commodore 64's? Even Atari 800 XL's. I know of BUSINESSES that ran on Commie 64's. Why did everyone move to DOS without that learning curve?
What made people make the switch? I used my Commie 128 until 1992, when I found Linux. If Linux didnt exist, I would've moved to Windows due to no one making any more applications for the Commodore. No browser on a Commie (except lynx through a dialup). I made the switch because my platform was dead and buried. But that's me..MANY left WAY before 1992. Why? Can't those same scenario's work for Linux as well??
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
For a capitalist closed source competitor, Free Software is a nightmare came true. You can't out-invest it, you can't bankrupt it, you can't stop it.
Worse of all, you can't even beat it by developing a better technology. Because we don't care.
They tell us Word is at least two or three years ahead of StarOffice and we smile at them with a condescending look. They look into our eyes and slowly came to see the little bright spot in there. They leave quickly, because they know we must be mad. Because that little bright spot spells victory.
You see, Free Software does not really have to care about marketshare in the small. Wall Street is not measuring us each quarter. And if I can't finish it, because I don't know how or don't have time, my eventual sucessor will. Or my sucessor's sucessor. Who cares?
As for technology. we eventually catch up. We always had. Free software has already developed the best WebServer in the market and two or threee of the best operating systems. We can and will some day come up with the best Office suite. It is just a matter of time.
another guy who doesn't get the point. linux's power is on the server. that's where IBM's support is going, not the desktop...
What linux needs is a fully functional, OS-independant, easy-to-use API. The main problem that companies have with developing for linux is the fact that the majority of the users are using windows. And the problem with most users switching to linux is that most games are for windows. To overcome this obstacle, the logical option would be to have a platform-independant API that works better than DirectX, with more functionality, and a decentralized ownership.
If porting a game to linux/macOS/BeOS simply consisted of recompiling, it would make real marketing sense to do it. While there are several attempts at it (OpenGL, OpenAL, etc), none of them are really working together to form a single API.
This is not true. The existence of competition may or may not have any affect on profit maximization (and while a company might seek to maximize profit, society allows it under the assumption that capitalism is efficient precisely because of this. Society always wants to maximize efficiency). At some point economies of scale are met with the law of diminishing returns. If the assumptions underlying economic science and capitalism are to be taken as true, then the conclusion that profit maximization implies monopolization as a goal cannot be deductively proven. In fact, if monopolies were guaranteed to be the best way to maximize profits, and thereby produce the most efficiency, then it would follow that we really don't need any competition at all. One big company ought to be sufficient. But that's not capitalism, that's something else entirely.
I do not have a signature
Reading through these discussion comments, I'm saddened to see how well the many of the article's points are borne out.
Most of the reactions here have fallen into either repeating that Linux "DOES TOO" have good desktop tools, or that if someone is too lazy and dumb to figure out vi, why then they ought not be *allowed* to work with something as advanced as Linux.
The problem reminds me of working with someone who's both young and inexperienced at a job. Their words and actions are intended to convince you of their total maturity and readiness for the task, but often just leave you exactly the opposite impression.
How the hell can anyone take Linux seriously when the Linux community's visible response to every point raised sounds like someone took the its allowance away?
I think the article's author is missing quite a bit in this debate. As a strategist for a Fortune 100 company, I can assure everyone that battles for the marketplace are not as one dimensional, nor as simple as he claims.
For instance (and this is only to illustrate my point, not to say what will happen), the author has not considered what might happen if SUN decides to offer large companies and/or OEMs the ability to load StarOffice for a cheap price. With Microsoft changing their licenses, they are facing a strategic point in time where they become, at least briefly, weaker than normal.
In addition, a bad economic climate has already caused companies to rethink or postpone hardware purchases. Desktop software has almost become pedestrian. Why should a company spend money on a newer version of MS Office that offers features that are used by only a minority of users when they can spend the money on security, or improve cashflow?
Not all companies will follow the same path. Some may deploy StarOffice on Windows, others will do nothing, or possibly upgrade, while others may switch some computers to Linux.
For some reason, people get caught up in the idea that Linux has to win NEXT YEAR in order to not "lose" the desktop. This is not only incorrect, it is ignorant of history. It took Microsoft more than a decade to dominate in the office software category. Expecting Linux to dominate before 2005 is just plain foolish.
The war for the desktop will last a decade, and Linux might win. It is cheap, effective, and an excellent substitute. By contrast, Microsoft now has a product that is more expensive than its previous versions. By all accounts, the economics of the situation state that substitutes (especially good ones) do well under these circumstances. Once StarOffice gets a foothold, the doorway to Linux will not only be unlocked, but is will also be swinging wide open. For someone to claim that this war is lost is just plain silly.
I am a user of both the MS and Linux(Debian) OSs, and support both as a career. At home, I use Windows XP as my desktop, Debian Potato (I know, upgrade) as my file/web/mail server and Win2K Advanced Server as my Firewall/Webserver.
I feel each of these platforms has it's strengths and weaknesses, and use each according to those feelings.
I do agree however, that Linux had lost me a long time ago as being an alternative desktop OS; primarily because of the lack of innovation and difference from what I could obtain easily from MS, or even MAC.
I don't particularily care if MS is the anti-christ, if they became the biggest OS by less than moral means, or even if they are watching me write programs just so they can steal them and ship them as thier own.
That is the world we live in.
If an OS doesn't appeal to me, it probably won't appeal to the everyday user. If it cannot appeal to the everyday user, simply by offering features they cannot find anywhere else (one of them NOT being able to change the OS into what only a die-hard programmer can do) it will never sell. In today's world, if it doesn't sell, it goes the way of the dodo bird.
Simply put, Linux is for techie gurus. If it cannot be more than just that, it is destined to fail.
Call me a moron (no, really), but there are more important things in life than which OS is best.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
If ever programmer working on KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, Mozilla, and all of the programs/environments the article says are redundant efforts - if every programmer quit how far ahead would Linux be in the enterprise
Not much further than right now.
The article takes the false assumption that all of the creative energy aimed at the Linux desktop is a resource diverted from core development. Not so. There are programmers who wouldn't know how or have no interest in kernel programming. Not every developer would by default work on system library building, server-related issues, or hardening security.
These so-called side projects and diversions are efforts that re-enforce, not detract from, the growth of Linux.
Wow! Did you think of that response all by your self? Or was it on a M$ press release somewhere? Why are Linux Advocates called Zealots by M$ zealots when the Linux Advocates are no more aggressive than the M$ zealots are?
acceptable => M$ is great, everything else sucks, you suck because you don't use M$. All hail Bill Gates!
zealot => Linux is great, M$ causes us problems that we like to complain about
Linux: Doesn't actually compete with Microsoft, as it's not a company. Linux vendors compete with Microsoft. So wiping them out is fine, we'll still have Linux and MS can compete all it wants against people freely doing what they want to do.
Microsoft: Competes with the Linux world shouting at the top of it's lungs that the pursuit of free software is not conducive of the American Way, it's not Republican enough because no one makes money. True enough, but MS doesn't say Linux is bad, it wouldn't dare.
Linux: Has no real advocates who are clear and defined. Has two readily available Desktop Environments, both of which are still in development which can give people a bad impression of Linux (which is still a kernel btw). No one is educating the commoners about Linux.
Microsoft: Has more money than God. Could advocate Windows to the end of time without having to catch a breath. This is the major problem. The Linux market can't compete with the Microsoft-giant's ability to spread propoganda to the common people. People buy a computer with Windows installed on it because people don't know any different. "What's Linux?". Exactly.
Linux: Stable. Highly useful as server and desktop (it's true, seriously don't argue with me). KDE2.x series has produced one of the nicest computing experiences I've ever had. Anti-aliased fonts, KWord that does everything I need it to, Quanta+ so I can do PHP development, KDevelop so I can write my own custom KDE software should I want to, Konqueror so I can browse the web as I want to. Linux has what it takes it all departments except that it's basic interface (without X) is much too cryptic, and perhaps would be too hard for an end-user to setup out of the box.
Windows: Has all that, and more. Any end user could plug in the machine, put the CD in the drive, and install the OS without any real trouble.
Linux (for a developer): Has everything you need to quickly write and manage a large project out of the box. The GNU GCC suite, plus automake, make, autoconf, etc. will allow anyone to quickly develop applications. Now his article said that Linux was lacking a visual debugger, which KDevelop and KDE Studio Gold provide. It's questionable if he's ever used beyond playing Majhong. And RedHat being GNOME advocates he's probably never really ventured into the KDE realm, so he wouldn't have experience with the KDE world. It's sad.
Windows: Windows has Visual Studio. If you're going to start writing software yourself for your own project at home you have to get a second mortgage on your house to buy the full version due to it's cost, but it's a nice suite. MS gained a lot of ground by creating Visual Basic, allowing users to quickly develop applications for their platform without much worry about performance. There are projects however to create the same kind of language that will compile to machine code so someone can quickly write KDE applications as well.
All in all I would say that MS right now has the upperhand on the desktop, the underhand on the server. Will it stay that way because someone rights an article who's never used half of the good software for Linux? No. For those who have just gotten into Linux who have read this, I would say don't worry. Yes we have a lot of bad reputation because of people who can't be eloquent and respectful, yes we have a lot of bad reputation because of people trying to make their desktop prettier than it is useful, but Linux will prevail because it's free. If someone wanted to cell me a Mercedez for $100K, and you said I could just take your Toyota instead, and I wouldn't have to pay any money for it, I'd take your car.
Now, what I think the real problem is with the OSS model, is probably a lot of companies do want to use Linux but don't because they don't think it'll be around. You have a bunch of penguins sitting in one corner saying "Hey, come join us if you want", and in another corner you have a MS Drone with a Tetryon Pulse Disruptor pointed at your head saying "Join the collective or die." What do you choose as a company? Do you do the safe thing for the short run and join MS? Or do you do the smart thing, and the risky thing in the short run for your fiances, and become a Linux company, who will continue to support their old MS software? If the companies who are advocating Windows right now don't move soon, or at least don't begin to support the Linux world soon, they are in danger of being replaced by the up-and-comers who don't care about their finances.
That's my peace.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
From dealing with users on a day-to-day basis, most with little or no computer experience, it appears to me that most people stick with whatever OS is loaded on the machine when they purchase it. One of the first questions that I ask any user is "what operating system are you using?". Often, I have to explain what an operating system is... and 50% of the users I deal with know they use Windows, but don't know which version.
This sort of mindset amongst the average, non-technically minded, user seems to suggest that if more major desktop computer retailers sold systems with Linux pre-loaded on them, its ability to compete with Windows would increase a bit. Most people just want something they can take home, turn on, and do what they want to do with it. Really, the same sort of attitude one has towards a telephone: plug it in, dial the digits, order a pizza, no fuss, no muss.
I've seen existing installations of Linux that are just that easy to use before. It's certainly not impossible for a manufacturer to load Linux onto a machine, and make it easy for a user to get a lot of out of the box fuctionality. I don't believe there's any rule that states that the things that make the Windows OS usable for non-technically minded people are the same things that make it a lousy OS.
I'm sure it's been said before (millions upon millions of times, and by smarter people than me), but I'd certainly like to see machines running Linux up on the same shelf at CompUSA as all those Windows PC's.
When I read this story in Wired last month (NOT the current issue anymore) I immediately went to Slashdot expecting to see the story here. I searched and could find no reference to it. I shrugged it off. Should I have submitted the story then? Or is there a slashdot rule, either written or un-written, that "thou shall not reference articles that are not online"?
I apologize in advance if this question reveals unspeakable ignorance, questionable parentage, etc.
It's fairly easy to look at the defecentcys of Linux and see how it will never messure up to Windows.
It's easy to look at the defecentcys of Windows and see how Linux must grind it into dust.
But when you look at both the picture isn't so clear.
Linux has many destros that provide diffrent behavures...
This makes it hard for closed source develupers to make binarys than run on all Linux systems
vs Windows
However DLLs on Windows are installed automaticly. Even bug fixes threaton to cause all existing software to not function. Two computers in the same office don't behave the same simply becouse the software was installed in a diffrent order.
In short it's a crap shoot eather way..
The best bet for Linux is develup for the majority and for Windows is to work closely with Microsoft.
Those tactics seem to work well.
Linux isn't user friendly so staff must be trainned to use the system
Windows staff need to be trainned to avoid doing what Windows experts consider stupid such as open e-mail with file attachments..
[Sorry it seems perfictly reasonable that an e-mail program wouldn't offer an easy way to destory a system...]
Trainning is unavoidable.. With Windows the person who sleeps through the trainning will destory the system with Linux the person who sleeps through the trainning won't be able to do a dam thing.
Fire him...
Windows is buggy and Microsoft tends to not want to release bug fixes for "features" [e-mail viruses again]
Some Linux destros are worse and have even more insidious behavure.
All the games are made for Windows...
Well all the commertal ones.. the freebes are all Linux...
The best ones are on game consoles.
I play games on my palm...
For every problem there is a counter issue..
Windows servers can send raw HTML and image files realy fast.. but don't do dynamic content very well.
Linux isn't that much slower but image files are big enough to make this an issue.
Tit for tat...
Linux was born as a desktop I think everyone is far to willing to forget this...
It's all dependent on what you want and need.
To expect one to crush the other is really nieve.
I think Linux will reach equalibreum with MacOs and the two will crush Windows...
I don't actually exist.
At some point, international aid agencies are going to start distributing simple inexpensive computers to thirdworld villages.
Actually, at some point, third-world villages will be first-world towns. There was a time not too long ago when Americans thought Japan, Korea and Singapore would do nothing but grow rice and subsist on aid. That's already changed for lots of South America, and is rapidly changing in South and South East Asia.
Lies about crimes
Many people in the US like to be able to do things without spending a lot of time learning stuff. Microsoft caters to that market. However, the market for the real UNIX/Linux desktop tools is large enough that it won't go away.
One size doesn't fit all, not when it comes to cars, clothes, or operating systems.
I think some of the points in the article are well taken. I have not used Linux for anything but development. But its true that if I couldn't put a user in front of something that reads/writes MS .doc, .xls and .ppt files and looks reasonably familiar, I wouldn't want to attempt it. No amount of the religious exhoration seen here would make it worht my while.
Which is a long-winded preface to my real question: I understand that MS doccuments in the new version of office are XML based. Does this use of an open standard make reversing/emulating MS apps easier? Or is it open in name only and still difficult to be sure of handling most features? I assume VBA remains a tall order regardless.
[Cross-post from the LinuxToday thread:]
Just mulling over Russ Mitchell's anecdote about his former employee, Anne Speedie. That description of her files being deliberately clobbered by a smarmy, scrawny, black-t-shirted Linux technician has such a conveniently mythic quality about it, doesn't it? We have the stereotyped Linux geek. We have the unrepentant and gleeful callousness. We have the outraged but helpless everyday office workers, persecuted by the former.
Seems tailor-made for Mitchell, doesn't it?
The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the story has, to quote Tolkien, "grown in the telling". Or, more specifically, that crucial parts of the story have been strategically omitted.
For instance: Mitchell (then Speedie's boss) says he confronted the scrawny, black-t-shirted technician about the deliberate mass-deletion when he was just supposed to "get some dial-up software installed", and the latter just stared back and smiled. And...? At that point, Mitchell and Speedie just dropped it? Why on earth would they do that? Wouldn't the logical next step be to escalate up the IS Dept. organisational foodchain? The account as written more than strains credulity; it leaves credulity in a body-cast.
Could it be that Mitchell's assertion about "getting some dial-up software installed" is a fabrication, and that Red Hat's IS Dept. has a firm, well-publicised policy that company-issued laptops will be reloaded with the supported Red Hat Linux load, when sent in for service, unless the user makes specific arrangements to the contrary? Could it be that Mitchell knew that Speedie had no cause for complaint, but is just incensed that his former employer didn't let him override software policy on company-owned machines?
Could it be that Speedie ignored company directives about data-file backups, or that her files were in fact backed up for safekeeping, but she and Mitchell are just steamed about losing her unauthorised and possibly bootlegged modifications?
We don't know any of this, because telling the latter half of the story doesn't help Mitchell's polemical stance. But it's not difficult to guess what he doesn't want to tell us.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
God, It never ceases to amaze me how you guys miss the point on this. Yes maybe someday Linux will have a fully funtionall office suite (maybe it already does) But it won't mean squat unless it also is fully compatible with all Microsoft verisons of the same software. If I and all my clients use office how can any of us switch to star office unless it supports the microsoft format way better than it currently does. Unless the whole world just switched overnight it will never happen. Its all about momentum
Here's what I think...
MacOS X is the future of the Unix Desktop. It has the apps, DVD, audio, video, games and some of the best hardware (ibook my personal favorite) ever. My Granny can install it. It's cute. It will require some updates and fixes but it's getting there.
Linux is my favorite server ever. I am perfectly happy cranking up my SuSE driven PC and letting it run for a year or two.
Personally, I can't understand why anyone would use Microsoft Servers.
Microsoft makes some great Mac software.
Tommy Boy is a funny movie.
Eggs are good.
Spunk
I strongly suspect that Russ Mitchell's whiney apologia for failure wouldn't have had a prayer of seeing print if he weren't -- let's see, isn't it brother-in-law of the managing editor?
Anyhow: Mitchell was one of the lightweights brought aboard as part of the short-lived San Francisco Web operation. I suspect he was with Atomic Vision, the Web design house, when Red Hat acquired it and then tried and failed to get them to produce useful work: Wide Open News started out fairly pathetic, and never got better. And for that botched job, Mitchell got a hunk of San Francisco real estate? Hmmpf.
Speedie needed to use Microsoft Word because the Linux word processors at her disposal were saddled with spellcheckers so abysmal they caused more problems than they solved, skipping over misspelled words and offering bizarre alternatives for words spelled correctly.
Such drivel. Even the system's built-in ispell utility provides excellent spelling checking.
Conversely, Linux managed only 1.5 percent of shipments in the desktop market in 2000.
This is of course the time-honoured pastime of playing games with numbers. He's almost certainly quoting some uncredited source (if any) on preload sales, which tells you nothing at all about the amount of Linux actually in use on desktops.
PC makers are concluding that consumer Linux is too small a market to mess with: Dell Computer recently dropped Linux from its desktops and notebooks.
Actually, Dell never did support Linux in any meaningful way: You even had to pay a sizeable premium to get a Red Hat preload, compared to getting the much cheaper bundle with Win32 crud and then loading the Linux distribution of your choice. Smart people did the latter. All that's changed is that Dell dropped a basically worthless configuration option, and simplified the conversation scripts that their telephone support people are allowed to follow. And guess what? The number of Dells with Linux on them, despite vendor neglect, continues to climb.
The charge is obligatory in this genre of article, but, honestly, the place you hear the overwhelming share of anti-Microsoft ranting is from that company's captive user base, not from those who've eluded its grasp.
A decade later, Linux is lauded as a technical success. But as a business, it's a flop.
Notice how, here, he completely changes the subject of conversation. The article was purportedly about why Linux cannot "win the desktop" (tra la), but now he's talking about the fortunes of companies. Not the same discussion at all. (Probably, the unstated assumption is that development of worthwhile software requires well-funded companies devoted to them. Which is not obviously the case.)
What if all the effort that's gone into writing desktop drivers that peripheral outfits don't care to support were redirected toward drivers for corporate environments?
There are no such thing as "desktop drivers". This passage is gibberish -- but it's obvious that Mitchell is entirely clueless about the technology.
Linux has been on the industry's radar screen since the mid-'90s, yet the vast majority of applications available for Windows and Mac don't exist for Linux.
The trick when you're making a non-sequitur argument like this is to carefully avoid stating it explicitly, but instead only imply it. Then, people probably won't notice that you've just pulled a fast one.
To wit: Mitchell is implying that the only way productive and useful software comes into existence for Linux desktops is to be ported from Win32 or MacOS. Which is, of course, completely false. But he's preaching to the choir of people who've never heard of any other software, and who refuse to believe that such software exists unless they see it shrink-wrapped on the shelf at CompUSA.
I would wager good money that, in the year that Mitchell impliedly attempted to use Linux, that he made no effort at all to truly attempt to acclimate himself to the thousands of packages that Red Hat's IS Dept. undoubtedly handed to him on a platter. Instead, I'll bet he sat back and whined about how much he wanted back his MS-Outlook, MSIE, and so on, not caring about the security exposure to his company or really anything else.
[Michell has a passage where he complains about alleged lack of hardware support.]
You'll note that Mitchell's idea of where to look for hardware support is, invariably, to visit the manufacturer's Web site. Consider: A full year of working for a Linux company, and it never dawns on him to start with the Linux Documentation Project or with Google. Simply amazing.
Nontechnical users continue to have a hard time installing Linux.
Guess what? Non-technical users continue to have a difficult time installing Microsoft operating systems, too. But I'll bet that Mitchell has never actually installed any OS in his life. He probably thinks he has, harking back to the day that he put his name and S/N into a preloaded Microsoft "welcome" screen, and then (of course) rebooted.
Matthew Butterick, a former member of Red Hat management who ran Web operations from the company's 35-member San Francisco office, disagrees.
Right: The Atomic Vision Web weenies are clearly expert on OS technology and strategy. {cough}
Frankly, KDE 2.2.x strikes me as a good bit easier for naive desktop users to learn and become productive with, than are Microsoft Corporation's messy and inconsistent desktop offerings. But Mitchell and Butterick's yardstick is, predictably, people like themselves who will settle for nothing other than exactly what they're already useful, and will whine until they get it.
Serious technical issues must be resolved, the biggest of which is scaling.
Yet another subject in which Mitchell is clearly out of his depth. Scaling can occur in any of several ways, not just the SMP approach Mitchell discusses briefly. In the latter area, with the 2.4.x kernel's ability to scale well to around eight CPUs on a motherboard, Linux has surpassed all but a couple of OSes, without the sluggishness on uniprocessor systems typical of, say, Solaris. But one can also scale by switching to faster CPU architectures, or through one of a couple of different varieties of clustering. And guess what? Linux is a leader in both areas.
Gartner's Weiss understands Linux's appeal to IBM.
It's not surprising that Mitchell digs up quotations from Microsoft Corporation's chief shills in the IT industry, Gartner Group. (It's usually analyst George Weiss, these days. It's unclear where the formerly ubiquitous Rob Enderle has gotten off to.)
So: You won't learn anything about Linux from this article, but Red Hat's early closure of its San Francisco Web office becomes suddenly much clearer.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
The reason why the war has not begun is that the marketplace is changing. Microsoft's business model has historically been based around the idea that if they sell lots of copies of the software they can cut their prices AND provide greater profit. I am not bashing Microsoft here-- this was their greatest innovation and without it there might not be ANY open source software. Certainly the Intel platform would not have gained the ubiquity it did without a common OS marketed through a company that is not tied to a single hardware vendor (as is IBM).
/. crowd). So Microsoft will have to go to subscription licenses in order to maintain revenue.
This market has been immensely successful but it only works when people are buying software regularly. This is breaking down as the hardware market saturates (and few people actually upgrade their software regularly outside of the
In other words, past performance is no guarantee of future profits.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Worst.. Advice.. Ever..
Give up the desktop to MS and we end up giving up the server as well. It is MS's strategy to use their desktop dominance to take over the server side as well. And it can be done. What difference does it make that Linux can run a good server when MS continues to hijack the protocol standards, and MS has final say over what the OS on the client machines is?
Lose the desktop, and then lose the server. And no, we don't need to *win* the desktop, per se - just have a respectable enough percentage that the world isn't totally MS desktops everywhere.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
As I've just posted in another thread further down - that's the worst advice ever. I agreed with his points about OS Bigotry getting in the way, but he's an idiot for suggesting that the desktop market should just be ignored. If MS gets 100% control of the desktop, then all other servers (not just Linux) on the market will die shortly after that. (Think "embrace and extend" - applied to network protocols.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I love linux. Yes, I'm probably a geek, but the more I learn, the more I love it. But even I understand the point that acting like this really is a "war" or "revolution", does no good for anyone. That's probably not proper grammer, but I just want to make the point clear. STOP ACTING LIKE FUCKING RETARDS!!! I tell lots of people about linux's many virtues, and try to explain the best that I can why I choose not to use M$ products. But I don't point and laugh when some "windoze luzer" has a problem. I don't froth at the mouth when speaking of the almighty GPL. People listen to me, and they don't listen to fanatics (unless they're already fanatics themselves). As for those of you who say "Linux will never replace M$ on the desktop", go back and read the EULA's, pricing policy, and hardware requirements for XP again. But I do think that by the time linux will "replace" M$ products, there won't be a desktop anymore. It's all consoles and appliances from now on. Get used to it. And please feel free to comment on my obsessive use of the Italics tag...I love linux. Yes, I'm probably a geek, but the more I learn, the more I love it. But even I understand the point that acting like this really is a "war" or "revolution", does no good for anyone. That's probably not proper grammer, but I just want to make the point clear. STOP ACTING LIKE FUCKING RETARDS!!! I tell lots of people about linux's many virtues, and try to explain the best that I can why I choose not to use M$ products. But I don't point and laugh when some "windoze luzer" has a problem. I don't froth at the mouth when speaking of the almighty GPL. People listen to me, and they don't listen to fanatics (unless they're already fanatics themselves). As for those of you who say "Linux will never replace M$ on the desktop", go back and read the EULA's, pricing policy, and hardware requirements for XP again. But I do think that by the time linux will "replace" M$ products, there won't be a desktop anymore. It's all consoles and appliances from now on. Get used to it. And please feel free to comment on my obsessive use of the Italics tag...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
The existence of competition may or may not have any affect on profit maximization (and while a company might seek to maximize profit, society allows it under the assumption that capitalism is efficient precisely because of this. Society always wants to maximize efficiency).
I'm sorry, but capitalism is NOT efficent because of the maximization of corporate profits. It is efficient because of competition's downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on corporate efficiency. Without competition, a company can maximize profits by inflating prices, which is clearly not an efficiency from a societal standpoint (or, in fact, from a corporate standpoint). The Corporate desire to maximize profits and Society's desire to maximize efficency stand in stark contrast.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
It took a long time for database vendors like IBM and Oracle to put their databases
on Linux. Linux as a server didn't happen over night. Linux as a desktop is going to
take a little longer because the UNIX environment it is modeled after is more of a
server OS than a desktop and the desktop is controlled by a monopoly, where the
server market was not. There were many people like you who said that Linux
would never make it as a server too.
Just because Microsoft is the dominant desktop platform today is no reason to give
up on a Linux desktop for tomorrow, even if it is five years down the road, or more.
There is an endless amount of time to develop Linux. Just because it is not a
"focused" effort is no reason for Linux developers to give up with they enjoy working
on. Linux is about doing what you want to do with your computer not getting in line
to fight a war. We don't need to focus. There are plenty of developers willing to
work on both the server and the desktop. Linux is constantly growing in popularity,
especially among developers. It will happen, in its own time. Some government
offices and schools are already removing Windows and adopting Linux on the
desktop to lower costs.
Eventually the demand for Linux desktop apps will be so overwhelming that it can't
be ignored by software companies. That is really how it happened with Linux on the
server. Server software companies were not proactive in putting their software on
Linux, they were reactive to the market. When Linux became nearly the dominant
web server platform, then they ported their software to Linux, because they had to.
That is how it will happen with the desktop. But, it will take longer because there is
a monopoly controlling the desktop. Linux is, in fact, the only effective way to
compete with the monopoly. But, it is a long term process because most Linux
developers don't get paid for their work.
Linux is a slow moving steamroller. It has rolled down Coherent, UnixWare, BeOS,
and SCO OpenServer. It will eventually roll down Tru64 UNIX, AIX, HP-UX,
Solaris, and finally Windows. There is no need to worry about it. It is a self
perpetuating phenomenon.
As the young Linux hackers of today become the vice presidents of technology and
the chief information officers of tomorrow, the world will become a different place.
Think about that. It's a long term process. It's not over today just because
Microsoft is still in the lead. Microsoft is actually in some ways behind Linux on the
desktop.
I really hope that nobody listens to you. I think that most Linux users and
developers are smart enough not to anyway. You're just slowing down the process
even further by publishing your short sighted views.
It really doesn't matter if Linux fails with businesses anyway. It's fun. People will
continue to do it and I will continue to run my desktop on Linux. Either way, we
win. So, you can continue to get screwed by Microsoft if you want to. Just leave
me out of it.
I guess the real reason that your article makes me so angry is that I have waited a
long time for Linux to be as good as it is on the desktop. I use it and it is good
enough that I don't need Windows at all. Windows does not exist on my computer
and that is the way I like it. Your words are a threat to the continuing development
of Linux on the desktop and a threat to the way I work and everything that I work
on. I am not in any way willing to give up my Linux desktop for Windows. That's
just ridiculous!
Linux is not at a turning point. It is on a smooth rising curve, both on the server and
the desktop. It's really annoying when half-way intelligent people write about
something they don't really understand. But, that's the way it has been throughout
Linux's lifetime. People have always been saying Linux will never be good enough
for this or that, but still it continues to grow in all areas.
I want a UNIX-like desktop and there are many people like me who want the
same. Linux is by far the best choice for a UNIX or UNIX-like desktop. I don't
care if Sun always continues to be better for the enterprise. Sun is UNIX. I am very
happy to work with Solaris servers because they make a very good version of
UNIX. Unlike Microsoft, Sun does an execellent job of creating server software.
The idea that Sun is the enemy and not Microsoft is just ridiculous. If Linux is my
desktop and Solaris is my server, that is just fine, as long as neither of them are
Windows. If you want to do something useful for Linux, you ought to write a driver
for Kodak's digital camera.
I think Linus wanted a UNIX-like desktop like I do. The fact that Linux makes a
good server...well...it's UNIX, of course it makes a good server. That's why we all
chose it because it is perfect as both a server and a desktop. It is having a
multitasking, multiuser, mainframe capability server system as your personal
desktop. That's what's cool about it.
The "executive summary" of the article would be: "It's time to face reality: Linux is a loser."
We all know how popular that will be here, time to AC-ize this post.
(The problem is this cluebie likes to speak in terms of us vs them (as do many of the /. kiddies) and also in business terms.
I have a dual-boot SuSE 7.2/Windows ME machine. I had SuSE 7.2 fully installed and running trouble free with sound, video, on the web, etc. within an hour. It took me almost a day to get a basic install of Windows ME because of bad drivers, couldn't see the usb port, reads the wrong cdrom drive, etc.
I use Star Office 5.2, emacs, LyX, the GIMP, Opera/Konqueror,RealPlayer/Flash/AcrobatReader, KNode/Kmail,Matlab($),xephem,gcc/gdb/make/opengl (mesa), Java, etc. These programs do everything I want to do, the system never crashes, it never gets viruses, and all this costs me a few hundred dollars. Equivalent ms funtionality would cost much more.
So, perhaps there were a few typos in the article, and it should have read that microsoft on the desktop is dead.
The article's reference to the attitude of slashdotters really resonated with me. In every forum, there are a few individuals who have a propensity for rudeness. However, I find that to be especially true here.
Dissenting opinions, even uninformed ones, are an important part of every forum. If all participants were of one mind, then what would be the purpose of discussion? When dissenting opinions get expressed, we should view these as opportunites to consider alternative viewpoints (in the case of valid, dissenting opinions) or to educate (in the case of uninformed opinions).
However, there is a small nucleus of individuals here who cannot distinguish between the two kinds of opinions. Even worse, these individuals post some of the most rude responses I have seen online, some of them bordering on religious zealotry. They are responsible for painting the image reported in the article. That is too bad!
The great irony is that, to an educated person, religious zealouts come across as close-minded people capable only of towing a party line, and incapable of independent, critical thought. I hope these people recognize themselves as such, and make changes, so that they stop ruining things for the rest of us.
To other members of the forum, I find slashdot a great place to listen to thoughtful, interesting discussions about science and technology, and I thank you for that.
Signed,
A member of the silent majority.
In the words of the American Revolutionary, John Paul Jones: "I have not yet begun to fight!"
As JPJ abandoned his French charge, Bonhomme Richard, he and his men cleared the decks of the British Frigate Serapis siezing it and winning victory.
In tow, two days later, Bonhomme Richard sank.
Why do I tell this story? GNU/Linux is a 'part' of a larger conflict, one that involves morals, priorities, character and justice.
MS is an abusive monoploy. Greedy. Immoral. Filthy.
GNU/Linux is an attempt, by capable (hackers) people with a conscience, to free themselves, and others with them, in a fight that is about more than things, bits and pieces... the GNU/Linux success is borne of the protests of Seattle, Prague and Quebec... some GNU hackers might not realize it, but the masses in the streets 'feel' the same way they do about their 'freedom' and 'place' in the modern world. GNU hackers fight the controlling MS, the protesters are fighting MS, Shell, BP, GE, Ford, HP, MMC etc etc - they dont like being slaves more than any one else.
Melo-dramatic? Maybe - but im an idealist - these are the goals of many, even the lusers, they just dont know it yet...
GNU/Linux is an opening salvo...
If the average user wants something different (and can get the boss to OK it), they'll use a Macintosh. Duh. If you *really* care about the moral side of things, you probably wont use computers (or use them grudgingly). After all, the environmental impact of the semiconductor industry alone far, far outweighs the impact of which OS and who makes it or what economic/political model they follow. Yeah, when you sit in front of the POS all day, it seems important, but it's not. Really.
If the goal is to get people to use open source instead of Microsoft, copycat versions of Office won't do it. Open source needs to give folks something they can't get from Windows.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
For example, I do Java server-side development all day, on Solaris. How do I do it ? I run eXceed on my Win2k box, and ssh into our dev server. The three native Unix programs I ever run continuously are xclock, emacs, and a shell (of course, I use grep, ant, and so on on an intermittent basis). Why do I use Windows as my dumb terminal client ? Because DirectX is faster than X will ever be; because Windows can play music, video and Word documents (think memos) without hassles, and because IE is faster and more stable than Mozilla. All these factors can eventually be traced back to Microsoft's choke-hold on the latest drivers, and to their predatory tactics of creating proprietary standards.
Could Linux offer me an easy-to-use, fast desktop with the minimal requirements that I need ? Of course it could, in theory. However, in practice, MS will enforce and mutate its standards to ensure that this will never happen. Linux on the desktop is doomed.
Meanwhile, the one window (no pun intended) of opportunity that Linux has for survival is closing fast. Due to its flexibility and stability, Linux could completely dominate the server market. However, while Linux coders are spending their time trying to get Gnome and KDE to interoperate, Microsoft coders are working on a standard to end all standards: .NET. When .NET finally becomes widespread (and that's easy to do, seeing as MS can force everyone to use it by bundling it with the OS), Linux's opportunity for survival will pass - since "network connectivity" will be synonymous with ".NET (tm)".
If the Linux community doesn't do something to win back the server market share that they are losing, I give them about 2 years, tops. After that, Linux will go the way of Be and OS/2.
>|<*:=
What if Mickeysoft FINALY gets the message and publishes their own distribution of Linux?
f t-console befor-you-know-it registration policy is pissing of even the dimest of unpolitical users and making them - figure this - think about Licence terms!!!
What I wouldn't be supprised about at all if they sink any further trying to press the issue of this inhouse software only buisness model even though it's withering faster than Balmer can hopp behind to catch up.
Note that Mickeysoft is trying to establish a model with XP, that Linux vendors are allready using a few years and slowly having success with. I know lots of people who are gonna switch to Linux as soon as support for NT stops. If Billyboy is as smart as I suspect he is, he's got a distro in his drawer allready. As soon as more than 50 percent of his advisors tell him it's more gain than loss to push it into the market, Red Hat and SuSE are gonna have a real trouble, not because of XP 2 or something but because there's a Mickeysoft Linux on the rise.
Mark my word: Mickeysoft is either gonna be so irrationally Windows focused that it's gonna dig their grave, or their gonna get it just in time (like wih IE vs. Netscape, remember?) and offer us a jawdropping Linux-Distro with some nifty install-tool that will make YaST 2 look like Netscape 4.3 compared to IE 5.
The only point that they're so tight assed about 'doze and switching complete revenue strategies is, that their a big company, used to being the best and thus, naturally, need to learn the hard way (see IBM).
Either way you put it, I seen Linux gaining momentum slowly, but bit by bit more every second. It runs on wristwatches and the biggest computers in the world and it's just about ready to make for a better desktop than 'doze. It's comming on strong, Mickeysoft's passport and lets-turn-you-computer-into-a-proprietary-microso
No way is Linux a goner - it's just warming up and when it's fired up, M$ is gonna pull some tricky stunt with all their weapons and take a lead of the ever-growing Linux-bandwagon. Sooner than you think.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Why Microsoft is About to Lose: The Slashdot story is called, Why Linux is About to Lose. Journalistic fairness demands that the other side get attention. DCE/RPC.net lists numerous projects that will replace Microsoft: Open Source Win 2000 directory services, an MS-Exchange clone for Unix, an MS SQL clone, a
Jon, respectfully, it amazes me how much open source people under-communicate.
I took your post above (#2451850) and re-wrote it, using exactly the same information. My version is 100 times stronger. You call your post a tangent. How can what you said be a tangent? It is EXTREMELY relevant. It changes everything.
There are legitimate times to stand on the rooftops and shout. This is one of them, it seems to me.
U.S. government corruption: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
No - it's saying "Don't bother with opening a restaurant that specializes in serving small hamburgers in less than 5 minutes. Everyone will just go to McDonalds anyways."
The advocacy culture needs to understand there's a difference between replacing Windows (aka being Windows) and being superior to Windows in certain tasks. It's fine that YOU use what works for YOU -- it's the moronic insistance that that means Linux can go elsewhere.
Nope.
(well, maybe a _little_ more ;) )
The problem here is, the author of this article lives in an immediate-gratification world in which there is no possible reason to use some other software if the MS one has more features and has lock-in.
It is quixotic to pick a solution that is known to be doomed to 'lose', if you care more about 'winning versus losing' than you do about meeting specific demands and accomplishing defined tasks.
However, only through the quixotic does the world progress: inevitably you'll find there are other, hidden advantages to the 'loser' choice, that are being ignored by the 'win/lose' mentality.
Instead of having a do-everything-for-you mail client, some choose immunity from Microsoft-hosted mail worms. Instead of defining a journalist as someone with a really GOOD spell checker, some define a journalist as someone who's read and written so much that they can spell all by themselves. (CmdrTaco is not necessarily a journalist- he is an essayist of links. We don't turn to him for skilled presentation of all information, we turn to him for quirky presentation of _his_ personal choices in information. He needs no spell checker to be valid- but he's not a journalist.)
Insisting on maximum immediate gratification is a childish thing, and Microsoft's children are numerous- indeed, they outnumber all other computing factions. However, the question to ask is- when you want a bridge built, or an article written, or an educated opinion delivered on a subject such as the relevance of mass popularity to effectiveness as a desktop computer user- do you ask a child?
We have multiple desktops to escape micros~1 hegemony. If we win the desktop marketshare war, fine, if not, fine also. I now have choice, something gates & co would like to remove.
Trust me: Washington State is the best run brownshirt_cum_neo_stalinist govenment/society in the world. Done like it "should" be done ... wise business & wealth leadership from the top, and well-educated uncomplaining drones beneath. Gate's father was one (in a line) of the gurus of that government, and Billy-boy just trundled along. Smart, hardworking to a man ... seig-heil, comrades ... all yer fscking salmon are in cans ...
Linux will not loose because of something Microsoft does. It will loose because the most popular distribution of Linux - RedHat - does not follow Best Common Practices any more than MS does.
Do you know how many trees have died because of the Ramen worm? Why on earth would default RedHat 7 installations need LPRng running by default?
Insecurely configured Linux distributions are poisoning the free software movement. It's just a shame that OpenBSD will never have the momentum behind it that RedHat does.
--- Phyre
It's pretty sad.
Replacements? Why, the web, of course - who needs dead-tree magazines any more?
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
I read that article when it came out in Wired, and thought it was crap. That's been well-beaten here, so I won't get into it. But basially people are willing to accept a system that does everything, no matter how poorly, than something that does a few things very well, and somethings it can't do (yet)
I run an ecommerce website, admin a dozen-ish desktop computers with vastly different needs (sales, accounting, shipping/warehouse, development). We use Linux for the server (always have) and that's how I cut my teeth using Linux. I had always been eye-ing it for the desktop, and about a year ago I tried it out, first on my ancient 586 laptop, then on my new tower at home, and now I keep it on my desktop at work. I've had a ton of problems with w2k, and I had to ditch it at home and go to 98 (had to ditch 95 too), but that' mostly a game system and TV/VCR.
I've been studying the feasibility of switching the others at work to a Linux system.
Less than half of the office staff has a computer at home. Those that do have gotten them in the past year. Many of them have terrible usage habits, mainly from lack of training. They save images as W*rd documents, browse the web in Outlook, and generally do things that I would never have thought possible until they actually do them. No matter what system these people are using, if they aren't taught how to use them, they will make silly mistakes.
People also have this idea of computers that they will do all the work for them. They don't understand that, yes, even in the year 2001, computers have limited resources, people don't like spending 20 minutes downloading TIFF files, and the like. It has become so EASY to screw things up using a computer, that I'm about to scrap the mess and go back to Xerox, film, fax, and snail mail, since that's what these people understand. But even with all of the shortfalls, using computers saves lots of time and makes things possible that wouldn't be without them.
Sadly, the possibilities for using Linux in our office are limited. Sales needs a good contact management system, something they can browse through while on the phone with people. instead, they use Outlook which, although it's a virus risk, it's easy enough for them to use, they all know it, and until someone points me to a similar system in Linux, I can't switch them. Everything else they do (email, basically) I've got covered.
Accounting is hopelessly entrenched in Microsoft. We just got an expensive accounting package that's MS-only. I spent a lot of time looking for an industrial-strength accounting package that was open-source, or even just available for Linux...no dice. Same thing with our shipping department...carriers aren't getting anything out of developing software for more than one vendor's OS,
The only way around this is go develop/extend web-like apps for CRM, which is in the long-range plan. phpGroupware is a nice package, but a little rough around the edges, but I'll help fix that when I get a little more time
And as far as my department...I and my assistant both have Win2K and RH7 on our drives...and we have problems with both, surprisingly similar ones. One scanner we have only works in Linux, and vice versa with the other one. Printing/communication is fine in both (it was strange installing HP drivers on my Linux box).
As far as the Gimp goes, it doesn't do what I want. I need to do heavy batch operations and corrections on whole rolls of film at a time, and according to everything I've seen, it's a limitation of Scheme/script-fu that won't allow this to happen. I'll look into using Python, again, when I get the time. But for now, we use Photoshop, which I have 50 scripts for already, and it takes no time for me to make more.
So even while I stay in Linux 99% of the time, I still can get rid of that damned Microsoft OS. And although we;ve got an office full of people who are prime to learn any OS, I can't give them anything but MS. I'd also have to spent a lot more of my time training users, and less time doing what I enjoy
As far as the future goes, Linux has got a lot more potential than people realize. It's always fresh (we just bought an OS from MS that was released in 1999!) and you can't get current without paying. And I find getting things done in Linux is much faster...UI wise. Find/replace in Windows is a sick joke.
Oh, and this document was spell checked using ispell! Works fine for me, but when I tried to select the text to re-copy it into the browser, I got hung for 4 minutes in a stupid text-scrolling loop where it insisted on processing every scroll-up-line command, one-by-one, redrawing the screen -each time-, way back into the scroll buffer. Not a good thing to do to a Pentium with XMMS and Mozilla loaded and running...Gnome bug?
...Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students.
Also, inexperienced users don't care about drivers. How many grannies could even handle installing Windows or ITS DRIVERS? Linux needs to continue where it is now to have any success in that market, pre-installed on a few desktops and notebooks. All good things in time.
Yes, the enterprise code must flow. But by no means should KDE or other projects stop where there has been such success in usability. Linux probably wouldn't exist if a marketer had taken over years ago at the first sign of commercial possibilities.
for those that say things like, "we aren't fighting Microsoft" yet jump on Microsoft in a knee jerk fashion all the time or any time MS utters, 'Release'. I just don't like 99.99999999999% of MS products nor their business [lack of]ethics, but this does indeed get old. This meaning the childish actions of the 'community'. Go away posers!
This author really missed the boat. I can't believe he worked at Red Hat and didn't understand that Open Source software is written because people want to write it. Not because they feel a need to make Linux win some war in some abstract sense. I'm not surprised he does not work at Red Hat anymore with a lack of understanding of Open Source shown in this article.
On to a winning day for Linux at work. I am an IS manager for a fairly large semi-conductor company. I use a Linux Dell laptop for all my work. Today I watched my guys install 5 new Linux Athlon workstations and remove 5 Suns workstations from design engineer's desks. The 5 Athlons have 3 times the RAM, 10 times the disk and 1000 more CPU Hz than the Suns and cost about one 1/5 as much as Suns cost. Almost all of the design software needed is now supported in Linux. Within a year 100% is predicted to be. Due to the industry downturn we haven't bought a Sun in recent memory, but more Linux boxes keep showing up due to their much better value. Did I mention that most software runs at least twice as fast on a 1.4GHz Athlon than a 440MHz UltrasparcII?
I also approved a dual 1.2GHz Athlon from Penguin Computing to replace an aging Sun E450 to run SAS statistical software. This dual system should run SAS about twice as fast as our 4 processor Sun. And the icing on the cake is our SAS license is about $20K less per year on the Linux server.
Interesting development number 3. Due to the increase in MS license costs, the director of IS is interested in a proposal to use Linux on a pilot desktop project to replace Windows.
So it doesn't matter what an out of touch commentator says. Linux will continue to move in where MS and Sun screw up by not beating the overall value of Linux.
Who cares about these bozos anyway?
Isn't it supposed to be about OSes?
And if Bill=evil that doesn't make Windows=evil.
Or is it, a=b, b=c, then a=c?
Grow up....
This actually sounds like a *good* idea. Both I and my employer (or his clients, who may be paying $100 an hour for our time) would love it if I could whip together an Apache/MySQL/ModPerl/PostgreSQL/CVS server in an *hour* rather than a *day.* (if things go nicely)
Of course, don't ever take away the guru tools, because automation is nothing without them. Idiot installs aren't just for the idiots, but for the people who actually know how to get things done. It just saves a whole lot of time for the people in the latter group, while making it possible for the former.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
right, because microsoft FORCED 100 million people to buy their product and LIKE it.
Linux with those Christian missionaries stuck in Afghanistan
I think comparing software to any religion is ill founded. Software is software. You shouldn't get religious about it, just use what gets the job done more effectively.
that, i think, is just ridiculous.
i dont see this as being a war.
I see this as people working on what they want to and what they need to. If there is gnome and kde, enlightenment, aftersetep, sawfish,xmms, yslpheed, evolution, nautilus, konqueror, mozilla, galeon, scite, scintilla, gjiten, glade, the gimp, xdownloader, wget, mysql, msql, postgres, rlab, octave, mesa (and the list can go and go and go) it was either because it was needed by someone or because someone just feel like he wanted to do it (whether he/she/they), not because a war. Things turned out pretty good so it attrackted a lot of attention from a lot of guys who saw there an alternate option to windows, and so the so called war was born. but there is non, and so nobody will ever win or loose.
All the projects will continue just because people fill like amke it continue, because they like what they are doing and/or its still needed.
And they are by no means wasting their energy.
So please, to all those who have done so much for this to happen, dont listen too much to comments like that, and keep going. we love you for keeping up. And i guess you love yourselves too.
Wow! Did you think of that response all by your self? Or was it on a M$ press release somewhere? Why are Linux Advocates called Zealots by M$ zealots when the Linux Advocates are no more aggressive than the M$ zealots are?
acceptable => M$ is great, everything else sucks, you suck because you don't use M$. All hail Bill Gates!
zealot => Linux is great, M$ causes us problems that we like to complain about
Most people who use microsoft products don't get religious about it. Just the fact that there is a slashdot (there are no sites dedicated to microsft zealoutry, with biased news stories), proves that linux zealouts are more prevalent and agressive on the internet, than microsoft zealouts.
also, microsoft.com is not an example.
But Jon, you are not thinking like a marketing manager. You said, Microsoft's control of the clients will still allow them to push the client away...
Your manner of looking at the future is helping something bad happen instead of something good. You and I both don't know what will happen. There are two steps: 1) open source gets the software, and 2) open source people find some way to keep Microsoft from being abusive.
Yes, number 2 is difficult, but it is not impossible. Neither of us know what will happen. There are perhaps 30 legal cases against Microsoft now. I have heard that at least one of them is investigating Microsoft's secret file formats and protocols. It seems likely that what Microsoft is doing is so anti-competitive that it is against anti-trust law.
It could happen that Microsoft is required by a court to publish all its secret protocols. If not, would you give $300 to support a case against Microsoft? I would. I think there are others who would give money also.
The world does not handle abusiveness well. We should not let abusers run our lives.
If you think like a marketing man, you will think positively. Eventually, open source will find a way.
You have the same problem closer to home. Ganymede is being under-sold. This is VERY important!!!! It isn't only you. Most open source people are under-selling their work.
Your said at the bottom of your first post, "Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX." There are a lot of people who don't know what a metadirectory is.
You web site says, " GANYMEDE is a portable and customizable network directory management system
Someone who thinks like a marketing manager will sell the benefit: Ganymede makes managing a large network far easier. Manage up to 20,000 computers remotely, from ONE computer.
Jon, respectfully, you are too modest.
Bush's education improvements were
Okay, I better deinstall linux from my desktop's because this guy say's it's a loser. I have 5 people at my company happily using Linux for everything on the desktop. Most of them aren't that good with computers, but have no problems. But I better just chuck that all out because some idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about says "Linux is a loser" on the desktop.
Linux=OpenSource=Freedom, Linux=OpenSource=Freedom, Linux=OpenSource=Freedom, Linux=OpenSource=Freedom, Linux=OpenSource=Freedom. How many time's do I have to tell ya ;-)
If you want your freedom, you need Linux/OpenSource. Linux will WIN!!
Jon,
The paragraph you wrote in the parent post gives you powerful legal standing. It is copied below, with improvements. Clean up the paragraph and send it to Congressmen and Senators. Send it to the courts!! File an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief. The court clerks will tell you the necessary format. File the same brief at every court. There are more than 30. Offer to serve as an expert witness. (Ask to be paid expenses.)
You'll meet interesting people. The governors of several states are bringing this case against Microsoft.
The people in authority cannot do anything if no one is complaining. If you complain, you give them powerful help. You and your entire department are being hurt by Microsoft's anti-competitive methods. Five years of work hangs in the balance.
_________
Here is a re-written complaint. It is beginning to take the shape it would need to be filed as a friend of the court brief:
As it stands now, the biggest single anti-competitive factor, by far, driving Microsoft server technology into businesses is the fact that Microsoft desktop operating systems communicate with Microsoft servers using a secret method.
Microsoft Exchange, the mail server software, is forced into companies because Microsoft Outlook (part of office, and so bundled everywhere) must communicate with Exchange to do calendaring and scheduling.
Exchange 2000 communicates in a secret way with Microsoft's ActiveDirectory. ActiveDirectory and Microsoft Windows 2000 are written in such a way as to force customers to use Microsoft software for DNS (or else a lot of hand work is necessary, or there is a lack of security). This is extremely anti-competitive.
Bush's education improvements were
I guess the spell-checkers available for Linux really do suck.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Trying my hand at a first time post. The point that has not been stressed enough is that the apps are what is the reason that MS has the desktops. For most of the corporate world the OS is not as important as the "productive software" that is loaded onto it. For the vast proportion of the corporate world out there that is an "office" suite of programs.
At our company we have upgraded a couple of times following the MS Office trail. The new MS office suite demanded more from the hardware/OS so they were upgraded or replaced.
As a relatively new *NIX user (approx. 1 yr.) who forced himself to learn *NIX by manually setting up everything in Slackware, I still have not found any of the open-source "office" suites (including all of the ones mentioned in other posts) a satisfactory replacement for MS Office. A very noticable deficiency is a replacement for Power Point. This program is a clunky resource hog, but it is the best out there to hack together a quick presentation to show the boss or the board. I haven't found anyting that even comes close to the ease of use of PP (please offer suggestions if you know of something.)
My personal opinion is that MS is not dominant because of its OSs, but because of Office.
While I admit that there are issues with Linux on the desktop almost all of the major issues have been solved. They just haven't been put into a nice package with a bow on it yet. (Well, I haven't tried Mandrake 8 yet but...) Everything that hasn't been solved is solvable. The only thing I find little immediate hope for is calendaring. We need a corporate sponsor to fund development of a calandering server standard. It will happen eventually.
People in the open source world are *absolutely not* wasting time working on office applications, web browsers and other desktop applications for lots of reasons:
As Microsoft found out, it's much harder to make a good server OS than it is to make a good desktop one. We already have the server class OS underneath. The desktop applications will be written because there is a need. They will be perfected becuase they are open source. If they are great, people will love them. If people love them others will switch to them because they want to because they are better and they are free so there is no reason not to.
The only question in my mind is how long will it take before Linux is to the point where Windows is now with Office applications, ease of use, speed, etc. I doubt it will be less than a year but I doubt it will be more than 4. That said look at the progress Microsoft has made between Windows 95se/Office 97 and today. There isn't a lot of progress there.
Only time will prove us right.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Heh, heh. I use Linux, and I don't have 20 pimples (or more).
I've said this before: It should be free to mod down ACs so we don't have to listen to this garbage.
EE doesn't always mean male. Check her nick.
From a personal perspective I can see nothing unexpected happening here:
.NET and Intermediate Machine Language, while Java declines. Many mouths have been fed as a result. As a developer I choose to maintain skills in the most prevalent technology, to maximise my usefulness and value. Right now thats programming for the Win32 desktop.
1. Microsoft's mission statement from inception has always been to have every computer run Microsoft software. They are a private enterprise and our society sees nothing wrong with a private enterprises aim for market domination. In fact if a private enterprise does not have this objective, they will fail. The objective promotes competition because all the private enterprises in a market have conflicting objectives. While none succeed this suits the consumer fine. The moment one succeeds, suddenly its unfair and unlawful? Surely with all private enterprises setting goals of market dominance, you can't expect them all to fail?
2. Personally I don't care who domaintes the Desktop market, but a bit of dominance is a good thing. Im sure hardware manufactures have thrived in the light of UPnP, DirectX and certification. Developers have thrived with such standards as Win32, and will in the future with
I think Linux is a wonderous thing, and the world is definately a better place with Linux in it.
Linux plays an important role in computing making people free to choose how they spend on software vs. training. Companies that don't want to invest in user training, buy Microsoft. Companies that already have highly skilled computer professionals can use Linux and not pay for the extra human interface bloat. It lowers the barriers for charities and non-profit organisations. Catering for a near religious movement and providing an outlet for intellectual rebelion. Maintaining balance, it highlighs when industry standards aren't, and that is enough to promote real standards which will eventually have to be adopted by all.
But Linux is a different animal to Microsoft's OS. And as long as Microsoft exists, its goal will lead it to adapt itself to the best of its abilities to ensure it is the predominant OS. If this is not what the larger community wants then why let such an organisation exist? Why does Linux aim to usurp Microsoft? I think it already plays its own important role, and more than satisfys its own objectives. Why is Linux dominating the open source arena? Is this unfair or unlawful?
I think most would agree, No. But it does get you thinking.
Regards,
Jamz
In an example of 'guerilla tactics,' the former network admin where I work came in on a weekend and changed all the servers over to Linux in one foul swoop. At first, there were numerous complaints and 'concerns' raised, but as time went on the tone changed, from 'Well... this isn't so bad...' to 'Hey, we don't have -near- the troubles we used to.'
While I certainly don't actively advocate 'guerilla tactics' on the workstations, those who support such methods have a valid point:
People fear change.
Joe Sixpack looks at Linux as this unknown beast, an unbroken stallion who only the 'l33t hackers' (and yes, the 'snotty' reputation is unfortunately deserved too frequently) can ever have hope of breaking and taming. People know Windows, they've often been officially trained on Windows, and for those who have computers at home, it's what they're used to at home. They look at the question of OSes 'If it ain't broke, why try to fix it?' Out of use comes habit, and out of habit, comes formed behavior.
So, why would Joe Sixpack ever really want to change? Joe Sixpack doesn't really need the full extent of what Linux has to offer (I mean, when will Joe Sixpack ever need access to source code to exercise the freedom of modifying a program??), so why convert? Why try to tackle that 'unknown beast' named Linux, when Joe can shell out a few extra $ and stay with what Joe knows?
Now (for a work situation), sit Joe in front of an existing Linux setup, say 'This is what you get. It may look different, but here is your word processor, here is how you check your e-mail, etc.' And guess what, Joe finds that although his office suite may not have 'Clippy' popping up to offer those wonderful gems of 'wisdom', it does pretty much what Joe needs it to do (except possibly for writing in/converting to those nice, bloated, proprietary M$ file types, but that's a story for a different time).
Humans are adaptable, especially when given reasons TO adapt. One of the main reasons Linux is not much of a contender on the desktop market: if Joe Sixpack doesn't see a need, he ain't gonna...
rm -rf /bin/ladin
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
what do you mean by "barring"
such laws already exist
(playing dvd's and asf files in linux are prime examples, this RAND stuff looks pretty hopeless too, remember cddb still)
Many times this article looks at sales figures for free software. I realize it's hard to find good numbers but sales figures most certainly are not the way to get these numbers. I have installed Linux on 15 computers and I have purchased exactly 3 copies of Linux.
Any other company doing this would likely purchase a single copy or perhaps download a disk image. We definitely need a different way of measuring than using sales figures.
Linux on the desktop makes more sense from a slightly different perspective. In-house programmers in medium and large companies can download open source projects that do 90% of what they need for an in-house program and they can customize it the rest of the way to be a perfect fit. (I watched one company struggle writing their own program from scratch for around 5 years.) Thus saving their company huge amounts of development costs. Since most of these open source projects don't support Windows it is likely necessary to run Linux on the desktop for their users to be able to use these projects (or the xfree86.cygwin.com project might work)
Open source makes sense for medium and large companies. It makes sense for small companies who have access to someone who understands Linux. (doesn't take much. I set up a single server that acts as internet gateway/firewall, dhcp server, file server, and vpn link using an old machine the client had lying around) (I don't recommend mixing file server with firewall but it is cheap)
Coding Blog
when i say elite i mean few and not nesscarly the good. this is because the average user will probably go nuts trying to learn linux.
I love doing graphics on my computer, but if adobe is not supported on linux, why the heck would i use linux.
there are 2 main classes of computer users out there.
one is a person who is a 'ardcore coder, and likes his 'freedom' and ability to do anything at anytime. we shall call them the linux zealot
the other is a causal computer user. doesn't know anything about coding nor care to know. He or she just wants their computer to boot when turned on, type the occasional email and listen to music. we shall call them the average user
now this is choice of course. if the average user thnks linux is great, then they will choose linux. but since microsoft does what ever they want it to in a simple easy to use fashion, they will use microsoft.
you can't just trash talk microsoft and have nothing to back it up. In fact i'm issuing a challenge to any and all coders out there. i don't care how many of you you get together with. but i challenge you to create a word processor better than word.
like any mathmatician would say.
prove it!
i just sent this to the writer of this over stupid artical, enjoy
first you must understand two things. one, major software designers don't design programs for Linux because the programs themselves are made in windows. two, for reasons unknown people like to see that blue screen that essentially say "ha ha, I just dumped every thing you did today into the toilet!!" seeing past the taboo that this blue screen doesn't go with the décor in your 10 by 10 cubical, you just lost all the acounting data for a million dollar project...agian! so if you want to wimper and wine about an inadiquit spell checker be my quest, just don't publish another inherintly stupid pro-Microsoft article.
you see dont hate microsoft hate every line of there code and show the world the true microsoft, if that doesnt work nothing will.
Deffender
Careful what you say around me.. I will assume you mean it.
Where 99.99% of the people uses Windows, pirated (at the same time shouting "use linux")?
Someone should yell, at an appropriate point,
"H*** Microsoft!", where that four-letter word was used to show solidarity with a notorious German dictator.
I see. You've convicted the tech of idiocy based on the testimony of two disgruntled ex-employees. Have you ever worked in tech support? Have you ever had to enforce an unpopular policy? If so, you should know that:
- Anyone who enforces policy will be hated by some users.
- Users do not generally hear the explanations given by tech support. They only hear that they will not get what they want. It's quite possible that this incident is part of a larger, companywide initiative, and that the user was quite clearly informed about what was going to happen to the notebook.
- Users lie. That is the single most important fact about tech support. Anything a user says about his past interactions with computers or tech support is suspect. They lie to conceal actions they should not have taken. They lie to keep their story consistent. They lie to present themselves as innocent, aggrieved parties in a dispute. They lie even when it should be obvious that logs or email will contradict their story.
If you don't believe any of the above, please at least believe this: There are two sides to every beef.We've been their with web servers. A Unix based web server would beat an M$ based web server hands down. Guess what? M$ found it was an important market, and invested serious money into speeding up IIS, to the point where the "it runs better on Unix" argument broke down.
Now don't get me wrong. I still think IIS sucks eggs, because of the opacity of the thing (do you know what your webserver is doing?), and its propensity for doing things the Microsoft Way. But I think it's dangerous to focus on "Linux only" server solutions.
It's keeping the playing field level that counts. One thing that would help in new protocol development is to create mandatory compliance testing. Java's model, in this sense, is one I like, except I think it is a bit too lopsided in Suns favor.
Being able to enforce standards compliance will provide the disincentive for an "embrace and extend" approach (and, if successful, will get M$ in "extinguish" mode -- the best thing M$ has done for open software lately has been their all-out attack on Linux and the GPL: ask any CIO in private about this war on Linux).
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Yeah, I bungled what I was trying to say. Suffice it to say, there is sufficient incentive from society (presumably) to prevent monopolization. A monopoly that raises its prices is still subject to the law of demand, which means that it needs to find the equilibrium point between price and the quantity it can actually sell. At some point they run the risk of someone developing a substitute (especially if the price cost to consumers somehow exceeds the cost of developing the sustitute), and the whole time they run the risk of pricing the product beyond the means of some people who want to buy it but don't have the money, as well as they run the risk of simply overshooting that mark at which people who can afford it think it's worth that price.
All being a monopoly does is give a company a slightly more favorable price elasticity or maybe moves the demand curve up, but it doesn't really ensure profitability. In fact, the more I think about it, the word "monopoly" used in conjunction with a company that is actually subject to a free market is mostly nonsense. The only true monopolies must be mandated by government, so that it is illegal for any other company to sell a good or service. The legal definition of "monopoly" is quite different than the way I would use that word to discuss economics.
As in the court case against Microsoft, it's not that they're a monopoly (anyone can theoretically write computer software-- and many do), it's that they are the dominant competitor with a power in the market place that resembles the kind of power a true monopoly would have. But Microsoft is NOT a true monopoliy, the barriers to entry in the software industry are quite low. Maybe that's why their profits have really fallen off the last couple quarters. As XP rolls out more and more, who knows what kind of backlash they'll get. They could find consumers thinking it's cheaper to look for alternatives or that the price is simply not in line with the utility of the product. That would mean they would have to lower the price to keep sales up. But it's all about finding that equilibrium point where they maximize the revenue to cost to produce ratio.
I do not have a signature
OK, it is a dead discussion by now, but let me take a chance.
My answer to you implicit question is so what? Someone solved a problem and open sourced the code. You tried to use the same code to solve another problem. Whose faults is it that it crashed most of the time? Unfortunately yours.
And as for process, most free software (take a look at SourceFourge) is indeed written by 3 or 4 people. Most good free software has code moderators to decide what goes in what doesn't (see Linux).
This is very true, and it's getting worse for M$, a recession looks set to help and bizarely the normal cost reduction should be good for the Open Source/Free Software.
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011022/06/earns-m ic rosoft
This problem is going to cause M$ sever problems; The M$ share price will fall, they will cut investment, the share price will fall more, they will lose their 'famous names' the shares will fall further, it is a vicious feed back loop, before long the Microsoft Empire will be shadow of it's former self, like IBM in the 80's. We'll probably be really proud of our selves, "I defeated M$" we'll say, but it will have a hollow ring. We'll know in our hearts and minds that they where defeated by their own greed, lies and stupidity and not by Open Source/Free Software.
However there is another way. I've been thinking about an idea for some time, waiting for the right moment, I happen to think that the time is soon, very soon. We'll be able to say "I [we] defeated M$" and it will be true. We take the Open Source approach, we help, help the share price fall that is. A little short here, a little put there, however we approach it on an open source scale, on the grounds that many bucks will make short work of M$ :)
We short M$ on global scale.
http://www.fool.com/FoolFAQ/FoolFAQ0033.htm
Not only will we get to engineer the fall of Microsoft, we'll prove that open source community can make money, the delious irony of it :)
Which brings me to one final question, is it ethical for an Open Source/Free Software advocate to make money from M$ stock?
£$%^& ethics this is [Capitalism|Justice|Victory].
I work in helpdesk and currently support every flavor of unix on a best effort basis. And we are a M$ shop. If any user wants their spell checker to work on linux I would be willing to search the available spell checkers on linux and report to the users with options or possibly a solution to fix their current system. Since linux is open source you can go in and change a specific app, upgrade it, etc. without the need to reinstall the whole freakin' OS. In my opinion corporations needs to hire more competent helpdesk people and have their users use computers to do their job, not the other way around.
You're proving my point for me. You're still in the greatest position of power if you are a monopoly; Figure out what people will pay, and they have to come to you to get whatever it is you're selling.
And while you are correct that we do not strictly have laws against becoming a monopoly, we do in fact treat them differently than other companies. Paying someone to write nice letters about your company is fair game for the small but sneered at or even litigated against when you are sizable. These leanings are backed up by legal force, and as such might as well be codified. The fact that they are not is indicative of the hypocritical nature of legal relations.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Funny, I got every one of these to work. SCSI UMAX scanner, Plextor SCSI CDR, and SCSI ZIP drive. SB Live OSS drivers, and serial camera with gphoto. The deskjet printer was the only difficult part, but I got it working with lpd and gs after lots of trial and error.
Hell, the scanner was easier to set up in Linux than under NT! I'll take a generic driver any day over a thourougly broken exe installer.
And why not just use ispell for the spell checking job?
chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
/.: nothing appropriate.