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...
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!
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.
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...
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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
Heh. I like chicks who dig Linux. That's why I married a physicist. :)
About the "hope" that you speak about, well, yes and no. Yes, Linux on the desktop will never "lose" as such 'cause there's nothing to lose. We write desktop software for Linux because *we* need it. If I want a native KDE Gnutella client and there isn't one available, I code myself one. That's how Linux software gets built. And that's why stupid "what ifs" like the one in the article (What if the Linux community put an end to all the desktop nonsense right now and built on its strengths in global enterprise computing) are pure nonsense. If I want a gnutella client, I will damn well code a gnutella client, not frickin' enterprise software for which I have no use. And no, Linux will never outdo Microsoft on the desktop market, pretty much for the same reason. When I design a program, I design it to fit MY needs. If others find it useful, that's OK with me. But frankly, I couldn't care less about Joe AOL and what he expects from a software package, therefore my software will never work for him.
So I guess if for some strange reason you want all the world to run Linux, you'd better write commercial software for it. Not necessarily proprietary, but commercial. When the world finds a way to really make open source commercially successful, that's when Microsoft should start worrying.
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
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.
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
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"
How can this possibly be a troll. If the data was important to the user it should have been backed up, firing might be a bit harsh but a reprimand at least.
Absolutely not, the technician should be fired immediately. Whether or not the user backed it up before handing it over was not the issue here. Technicians with the kind of attitude mentioned in the article obviously have no understanding that people who work use their machines for *working*, not as toys. When people who are supposed to be helping you get your job done (such as IT people who are supposed to keep end-users' machines up and running) are obviously failing to do the task (or worse, deliborately hampering the effort), they should be fired and replaced with people who realize that the goal of IT in the enterprise is to help the company make money, not lose it.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
The only problem with your argument lies in this question:
Why do people by Rolex instead of Timex?
Our society is almost entirely based on branding. Why do people by Tide instead of Cheer? It's the same stuff!
Buckminster Fuller had a lot to say about the loss of innovation to marketing -- I think things have only gotten worse since he died.
Best,
Bob
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
If you're talking a 50 year outlook, then *surely* there will be something mucb better than Linux by then? Linux is and has never been the pinnacle of computing technology. Even Linus freely admits that.
> Maybe Windows will stay ahead of Linux forever... but that will take a lot of running from a horse that will surely get tired.
And Microsoft has to run with a very heavy load on its back: profitability.
MS has to develop and sell Windows in ways that maximize their share prices. Linux developers are bound only by what they actually want in an OS.
Ultimately, profitability is in direct conflict with consumers' interests, so over the long haul the game would seem to be stacked against Microsoft.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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?
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.
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.
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.
Now keeping this in mind, when you see such a person zealously proclaim that The Gimp is superior to Photoshop for graphic arts work...
:) * End of rant *
First, I know a professional graphic artist, and the problem he has with the Gimp is mainly the UI. I'd imagine any "zealot" who recommends the Gimp is probably a fan of GTK and has no trouble getting around. Sorry, I don't use either program so I can't really can't elaborate. Second, how many people actually own Photoshop? Everyone recommending Photoshop is completely ignoring the fact that it costs hundreds of dollars. Maybe because no one pays for it? Hardly a fair comparison. It's funny how many people use Windows 2000 as their home desktop (and recommend it) yet did not pay for it. My theory is that it's a close second to Photoshop as the most pirated program. Folks, cost matters and should be part of your final decision. If someone can save hundreds of dollars by using the Gimp, then maybe they just might want to get used to the UI. Don't just toy with gimp for 30 seconds and say "ugh, I can't stand this. Time to reboot back to my pirated Win2k and Photoshop". Give it a chance.
Phew.
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.
And what is a person supposed to do then? There are certain sites that you can't access if you're using a Mac. Should the person just throw the computer out and get a Windows box? People use what they use.
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 expect "Linux" will not be "Linux" in 50 years or at least not the OS we use today. Linux is an evolving OS. The kernel is becomming more robust and the applications on top of it are becomming much better. It also has something few other OS's have at the moment: A large *community* of developers and users who have a personal AND commercial interest in seeing it thrive. Remember that when MS was 10 - 11 years into the PC OS bussiness, they were still peddling DOS and windows 3.1. Linux has had a much better progression when looked at that way.
I miss the Karma Whores.
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'
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.
Imagine you worked at a company that had standardized on Windows for the desktop, and you went to the helpdesk because you couldn't get your KDE themes on your Linux laptop to work. Would you be surprised when the help desk folks simply formatted your hard drive and reinstalled Windows?
If you are going to use non-standard software, then you are going to have to support it yourself, that's how every helpdesk I have ever heard of works. Now most aren't pricks about it. They wouldn't simply format the drive and tell the user to lump it, but they wouldn't help her out either.
Users get stuck using software that doesn't do the job very well but is the "standard" all of the time. Why should RedHat be any different?
Besides, switching your OS because the spell checker doesn't know the correct spelling of "web site" (which was the example the article gave) is ridiculous. Especially if you are the web master. Geez, if your webmaster doesn't know how to spell web site, then you truly are screwed.
Besides, when preparing text for a web site (especially one that would be serving a lot of Linux users) you don't need a word processor, and you especially don't want to be using MS Word. Imagine how the "real" webmasters felt having to pass all of this lady's text through the demoronizer so that it would work with Netscape. And she wondered why they formatted her hard drive. A real BOFH would simply have allowed her to post stories that would be full of '?' for many of her users. Someone should have set up Emacs for her so that it would automatically load flyspell and told her to write her columns in plain text. Using Emacs for this sort of thing is no harder than Using MS Word. In fact, it would be easier.
Besides, I haven't used Applixware for a while, but it's spellchecker worked fine for me (4 years ago). The whole premise is bogus.
Either way, you can't expect the helpdesk to support non-standard software, and you can't expect RedHat to standardize on MS Word.
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
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!
As Mitchell writes, consumers want "reliability, simplicity, access to popular software, and the ability to communicate easily with other users." But in XP these virtues are tangled up with Microsoft's efforts to force its online services down your throat.
The thing that made Windows 3.0 great for it's time was that it offered so many things in one easy to use package. Microsoft hasn't forgotton that lesson. They could bundle other people's products with Windows, but then they would have to deal with all the licensing hassles, and be responsible for bugs in other companies software. They've bundled stuff in the past, and probably will bundle some stuff in the future. I'll have to wait until I see it myself before I dedide if they are really forcing thier services down my throat or just making services I may find useful available to me without me having to download or purchase something seperately.
Redirecting all mailto: links to Hotmail instead of the registered mail editor is an obstacle to communicating easily.
Never heard of this one, but this would really piss off business customers, I believe it when I see it.
Forcing customers to download a Java VM does not enhance access to popular software.
SUN shares a lot of the blame on this one. If the JVM isn't exactly what SUN wants from it Microsoft would spend years in court. When two giants like SUN and Microsoft squabble, the users usually get screwed. Microsoft should make it clear that their extensions to Java are extensions, but SUN wasn't exactly playing fair either.
Forbidding reinstallation of the OS without calling Microsoft and proving that you own it isn't what I'd call simplicity.
Unless I misunderstand something the same activation code you used the first time will work when you reinstall. You can even upgrade several pieces of hardware. You just can't install it on a significantly different PC thant the one you first installed it on without proving you own it.
We all know the full list, and we all know that both consumers and CIOs are balking.
Yes, there are a lot of people who are complaining about Microsoft. Thera always are. A lot of these same people would bitch about Microsoft XP if it were a near perfect product. I've become numb to all the bitching and moaning. CIOs are blaking at the changes to the volume licensing, because it looks like it's going to cost them more. Microsoft appears to be yielding to the pressure, and those plans may be changed to make CIOs happier.
Don't get me wrong, Linux has a long way to go to offer a viable alternative for the average luser. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of people take a second look at MacOS and Linux after tangling with XP.
I don't like to spend a lot of time patching my computer, or dealing with compatibility issues. Because of this I buy quality hardware and don't use beta drivers if I can avoid it. I use my home computer mostly for games, and its simply a lot easier for me to keep a windows gaming system running well than a Linux one.
For web servers it seems Linux is the one that requires less patches and is simpler to keep running. Maybe that's why Linux does so well in that market.
It's real simple for me. I value my time at higher that the price the Microsoft software cost me, and Microsoft's software suits my needs better. MacOS might be more appealing if the hardware weren't so expensive, and more games were available on it. After dealing with Linux on a Mac at work, I wouldn't recomend it to anyone who isn't very familiar with Linux. Linux on a PPC is still needs some time before it becomes a mature platform.
I agree. The tech was an idiot. Changing someone's OS, even if the software is unsupported is amazingly stupid, and almost criminally inept. He deserves to be fired.
But his actions are completely irrelevant to the meat of the argument. That doesn't mean that RedHat's help desk should support MS Word, and more importantly it does not mean that Linux is not ready for the desktop.
In fact, it illustrates how far Linux has come in a relatively short time, and how ridiculous the author's assumptions are. Applixware was really the only useable Office suite when I started using Linux, and now there are several Office suites that are much better. Saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because Applixware sucks is like saying that Windows wasn't ready for the desktop because WordPerfect 6.0 for Windows was so bad (after all Word for Windows was great). If Applixware doesn't cut it Linuxers can easily use OpenOffice, Abiword, or KWord, and if you don't mind using commercial software you can use WordPerfect. All of these will happily teach you to spell web site.
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
You missed the point. The author wasn't uncertain about the spelling of "web site" - the spell checker erroneously indicated that the words were misspelled.
If you write for a living, such errors pose a real and serious problem. Program failure costs a corporation time and money, and decreases user confidence in the program. Would you have any confidence in a program that identified a common phrase like "web site" as a typo?
If an employee finds Word easier to work with than the comparable editor in Linux, then she increases her productivity by using the MS's program. If the increase in productivity exceeds the cost of implementing the alternate method, then implementing that method is justified.
Lastly, any user can choose to save a MS Word document as plain text - a format which any browser reads with equal ease, and which can be marked up into HTML with little difficulty. (In theory, Word can also export a text file into HTML. In practise, it's unpleasant. Let's not go there.)
The closing argument could not be less valid. If IT chooses not to support a program, they should simply inform the employee that they choose not to assist them. An IT representative should certainly not erase valuable information on the basis of personal prejudice. It's not about forcing RedHat to adopt a MS program as a standard - it's about simple consideration. I'd be livid if a helpdesk technician formatted my hard drive without a valid reason.
As a final note, I'm disappointed that such a weak argument was moderated to +5. Just because a post is pro-Linux doesn't always mean that it's correct.
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
Linux snobbery at its finest, once again proving the assertion that "Linux is free if your time has no value".
It also demonstrates that techs often have a *very* simplistic idea of what is involved in other peoples (non-tech) jobs. And an amazing naivte about the difference between the public and private 'persona' of a company.
There is no reason that I cannot both market Linux distros and run my business office on MS products.
My 'public' persona is a marketing decision (i.e. how do I want the public to view my company). My 'private' persona is a business decision (i.e. how can I get the work in front of me done on time, with high quality and minimal effort - effort has a cost as well).
Sounds like the person in the Wired article was simply trying to get her job done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Political correctness (i.e. MS sux) has no place in her world - MS may sux, but if the website has errors, she's in trouble, as is her company, and thus, so is the snotty tech who wiped her hard drive.
And the fact that this point has to be explained to the linux zealots again and again and again and again goes a long way to explain why linux will *never* unseat MS on the desktop - the linux techs are just too stupid to understand how the desktop world works for *most* people.