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."
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.
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
The technician who didn't bother to backup her
data files should have been fired on the spot!
This is totally unacceptable behavior.________
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.
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.
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!
I disagree. Yes, Microsoft has vanquished its enemies, but it may have more trouble protecting itself from its own greed.
What happens when Win98, ME and 2000 Workstation (or whatever they were calling it) are no longer for sale? I think consumers' calculus will change when only WinXP and its successors are on the market
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.
Redirecting all mailto: links to Hotmail instead of the registered mail editor is an obstacle to communicating easily. Forcing customers to download a Java VM does not enhance access to popular software. Forbidding reinstallation of the OS without calling Microsoft and proving that you own it isn't what I'd call simplicity.
We all know the full list, and we all know that both consumers and CIOs are balking.
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.
"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
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.
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?
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.
That goes double for my wife. She uses her computer a lot more than I do, and I'm a programmer. She's an elementary school teacher with not enough time and too many students. Oh yeah, she's also a perfectionist.
For her 12 classes (3yrs old to 8th grade), she needs to make lesson plans, test, quizzes, worksheets, handouts, study sheets, notes to parents, attendance rosters, gradebooks, etc.
These documents are all done in Star Office with a lot of help from image manipulation tools.
Linux supports all of her needs, has never crashed during any of her all-nighters, and networks well with all of the other machines in our SOHO.
At school, however, she uses 98 and NT. NT she doesn't mind too much, except that she doesn't get to use the Gimp and Nautilus (which she adores). But 98 drives her insane.
I have learned a lot about Linux by taking on administration of a busy woman's machine. Over the years I have had to do a lot of little hacks to get things just right. Now, however, I can take a default 7.1 install of RedHat and she is perfectly happy. All of the little workarounds I used to do myself are now part of a standard distrobution. This is immensely important. I used to worry that if I got hit by a truck my wife would not be able to find any of her files and would end up reverting to Windows in my absence. That is no longer true.
She is now trying to find ways to introduce Linux to her students, as she thinks that Linux is a real choice for education. Considering that she works for a school that rations white chalk and pencils, the money to keep upgrading those Windows boxen is just getting too expensive. They have a nice computer lab at her school, but you can bet that the next upgrades of the hardware and software in that lab will coincide with Windows 2009.
Linux has come a long way on the desktop, and that is fantastic. It has become a real server powerhouse, too, and that is fantastic. But for the author of that article to say that Linux should focus on the server is suicidal. We all know that a Sun server will beat the pants off a Windows server. Always has, most likely always will. So would a SCO, BSD, Linux, or any other *nix. But that has not saved their bacon. Why? Because nobody has the money to pay for a decent sys admin (as Microsoft even concedes). Command line tools and config files? Not for the average sys admin. Microsoft learned that it is easier to sell a lousy server machine running a nice desktop than it is to sell a nice server with a lousy/non-existant desktop.
As programs like linuxconf evolve into highly usable administration tools, more people will give Linux the time of day.
I personally look forward to a future with all-open source protocols and programs. Instead of trying to get the next version of SMBS to work with Linux, perhaps the open source community should put its energy into finishing promising alternatives like Coda, with both Linux and Windows clients (but only Linux servers - back at ya, Microsoft).
I think that the war is over, but Microsoft just doesn't know it yet. Whether anybody buys Linux is irrelevant. So long as this mass of programmers continues to build better and better software, the user community can wait. And with all of the BS going on with the RIAA and MPAA getting in bed with Microsoft, it is only a matter of time before users are desperate for an alternative. By then Linux will be as good or better in the desktop realm as Microsoft.
So hackers, keep working on those office suites, USB drivers and eye candy. The war IS over.
Opinions change daily as new information arrives. Stay tuned.
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.
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)
The writer of the article was the boss of the woman with the laptop when they both worked at Red Hat's Wide Open News.
The fact that they both worked at Red Hat means to me that she shouldn't have been running any Windows system to begin with. If she was having trouble with ApplixWare's spell-checker, maybe she should have investigated a Free Software solution or submitted it as a bug report to the development teams that work for the same company she does. Instead she uses (presumably) corporate funds to buy a competitors product instead of helping improve her own company's product?
And the writer of this article sounds like he has an axe to grind... he stoops to insulting the offending tech based on his appearance, rather than his reluctance to support a major competitors' software. I'm surprised this woman even thought it was reasonable to expect tech support to work on her Windows machine. And her main argument for having a non-standard OS in the first place is spell-checking? Please.
I do not have a signature
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!
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."
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.
how can it evolve with the needs of the users when people like you are trying to build a wall between the users and "the developers?"
Linux is becoming ELITIST. It's not 'of the people', unless the people are kernel developers, GNU junkies, or some other group with sufficient geek-cred to be taken seriously.
OSS will only work like you're saying when the developers start taking ALL users seriously, not just the ones they go to LAN parties with and watch Monty Python with.
Waiting game? What are you waiting for, exactly? Linux is not going to replace MS on the desktop ever.
why do you think ? linux strength is its steady growth. but not in the market share, but in participant developers. the only thing that can stop linux is a breakdown of its idealism. only if the developers dont want to code for linux anymore, it can loose.
but this wont happen, because of one thing: its fun! developers for linux feel a satisfaction by participating the movement. you have a change to get heard and to do things that matters.... and you wont be bashed by your boss if it doesnt work. you dont have the pressure to get things done. you can even stop coding and you are fine.... maybe another coder put your idea further.
so how can a company with limited resources compete with a community with virtually infinite resources ? in the community a project wont stop because of lack of resources. a project stops only depends on personal interest. you cant hurt an enemy, that does not feel pain, thats what linus ment by saying he dont care...
in the end you cant even compare windows and linux. windows is product and linux is way of life. you can hit some water molecules, but you cant hit the sea...
ppl. don't realize it is the *direction* and not the talent that sometimes will put an OS at the forefront. What MS has and Linux doesn't is a vision.
[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
Linux is not going to replace MS on the desktop ever.
I've been thinking about this lately. How many people do you know that changed from Windows to Linux, or other open OS? I can count at least three or four, directly influenced by me; and of one them is already making the minds of his students (he's a teacher). Besides these four, I know around 10 or so people that never used Windows again.
Now count how many people switched from Linux to Windows. I mean switched, not gone back. I never heard of anyone who used Linux for a year at least and said "Well, I think I'll use this Windows OS, it's much better! No more Linux."
What I mean is: the number of people who use Linux is growing; slowly, but steady. And Linux users, at least those that I know, talk about Linux to other people, and try to convince them so they will at least give a try.
One problem arises: I don't have the figures, but I belive more newbies start using Windows than Linux. So, although the total number of Linux users keeps growing, I don't know if the proportion to Windows users is keeping the same step.
Of course this means we should bring new users to Linux. Show them the new KDE 2.2, pretty apps, tell them that they are immune to virus/virii/viruses. Though I don't use it, I personally like KDE very much, specially for newbies. I've been wanting to install Linux for my family for a while, but the problem is always the same: my father receives MS Word documents all the time.
I'll think I'll take a look at the latest OpenOffice beta. :)
(WTF is an invalid form key?)
This space left intentionally blank.
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.