Slashdot Mirror
Linux During The .Com Crash
freakboy303 writes "ZDNet has a short article that can be found here , It basically talks about what the last couple of year of gloom and doom mean for the linux world in general. It seems to me it would make it more appealing to .coms to use the free software but..."
I think this is quite an understatement.
Both the German and French governments have warmly endorsed the use of Linux and free software in general on the governmental level and (IIRC) cities in Finland are switching to Linux.
I hate it when people intentionally fudge facts on stuff.
"About 65 percent of executives polled by Goldman Sachs said they have no plans to use Linux at their company next year."
Well of course they don't, becuase 99% of them have no idea what is going on in the NOC. If you were to ask the CEO of my company if we were going to run linux, after spending three days explaining to him what it was, He would say no. The fact is that we ARE running linux in my NOC. No one has told the CEO because frankly he has no need to know. If he did know it would not change anything.
It just shows the danger of trusting a survey when you have no idea if it has been implimented correctly. What is Goldman Sachs next major revelation? That 99% of corporate CEO's do not think the change from a 85:1 to a 475:1 pay discrepency between CEO and line workers is anything to worry about?
Papa Legba come and open the gate
First, the desktop.
I don't really use linux for desktop applications much. I have spent quite a bit of time dabbling with various desktop and window managers. However, I still use fvwm95 for mine. Why? Takes about 1/2 the ram of something more complex, like KDE or GNOME, is significantly faster, and doesn't offer much more than I need.
Install Gnome with the default wm of elightenment. E is a very slick looking window manager. Beautiful eyecandy. However, the second I try to maximise the window, I practicaly have to go searchign through documentation. And I'm an experienced user. I pride myself that I can sit down at pretty much ANY application program and figure it out in a matter of minutes. And yet, E baffles me. Of course, if I spent 15 minutes reading up on it, and playing with all the buttons, I'll probably be just as efficient with it as with anything else.
But I'm hesitant to do so. And If *I* am, then you can damn well bet that your average "my cupholder is broken" user isn't going to find it any easier. Do we WANT to make it easy? Do we want to have a linux desktop on every computer in the world? You get proponents either way.
Maintaining linux based desktops is MUCH nicer. Not only can I generally fix almost any problem over a modem, but its highly unlikely the user will be able to screw something up anyways, especially if I don't give them the root password. Make a copy of the configuration file once you have everything the way they want it. Then if they start playing and end up with a font size thats too tiny to read, 20 seconds later, the problem's fixed and I don't even have to leave my chair.
And if you catch the users before they've been exposed to a microsoft or mac product, then the window design will be entirely new to them, and they'll pretty much learn it the way you tell it to them. I'll teach ANYONE who's willing to learn. And people will gladly learn one system. Unfortunately, most people have been faithful users of microsoft products for the desktop. They've already got the idea of how its supposed to work/look and will resist any design that differs from that.
What potentially hurt linux with the bust is a new lack of unlimited funds which could be used for marketing. Since pretty much any business based soley on selling products you're giving away for free, you COULD make money, but chances are good, its not going to be enough to fund a microsoft marketing machine.
The current companies are entrenched with microsoft. Even if they never spent another cent upgrading, moving to linux would require significant costs in retraining and software porting. Sure, it would save money in the long run, but since the company already expects to spend that money on microsoft upgrades, they don't really consider the alternatives.
However, hit the new companies. Startups, and mom&pop buisinesses where the owners are already working at minimum wage just to keep things afloat. An extra $100 license makes a difference there. They could very easily consider free software to be a worthwhile investment of their time. This would force the entire computer infrastructure of their business to utilize it from the ground up. Microsoft may never get a foothold there.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Feh. What questions? The source is still open and still out there. Sure some
The thing if anything that's been keeping Joe User (who doesn't work in the computer industry) from using Linux is the lack of ease of getting at the entertainment. It doesn't have anything at all to do with the
If User X wants to play CounterStrike, he or she doesn't want to fiddle with Linux until he can get it working, he wants to double-click on the icon. If User X wants to see the latest porn in AVI, all they want to do is double click. It's really just that simple.
KDE's helping alternative OSes get close, but it's not quite there yet. Not to say it won't very soon.
There's almost nothing more reactionary than a computer journalist. They'll cry the end of time just because the batteries on thier digital watch dies. These are the people that brought us Y2K.
-- The unsig...
During good times, companies are more willing to take risks than they are during a recession. All along, converting mission critical systems to Linux has been perceived (rightly or otherwise) as a risky move--you're moving from a known OS and infrastructure, whether it's Windows, Unix, or whatever, to Something Else. Businesses tend to be very cautious about taking such gambles, and tight economic times, as many are experiencing now, make them even less able to recover from a bad move.
Here's a link for ya. Ooh, here's a quote too:
"But though PHP thrives on hosted servers, it's too immature for a high-traffic business environment. As much as we were rooting for it to succeed in our testing, it failed--especially when we attempted to evaluate on Windows."
I'd like to see proof of that bullshit you posted. See, the truth really is that IIS/ASP is for the more educated, business people, and PHP is for the 133t k1dd13z... If you notice, ASP and IIS are used by many high caliber e-commerce sites, where PHP is not, because it would choke (so would MySQL).
Guess who uses IIS? eBay, Dell, Gateway, Intel, Nasdaq, Compaq, most of the UK Government sites... etc.
I don't think it was the stupid employees who only knew ASP that made all of those companies go bankrupt... I think it had more to do with the fact that their companies had no business plan and were giving their wares away for next to free.
asp or not, if you don't have a good product, you're going to go under.
I'm a firm believer in getting as much as you can up front, because upgrading is a real bitch
You're definitly correct about that. However, if you spend all your money in huge capital exspenditures, you take money away from other resources, such as development and product support, which can make you more money.
Unfortunately, in the world of business, there is no long-term strategy except to make a long streak of short-term profits. That is, without a good short term, there will be no long term. And that means its better to go easy on those huge capital expenditures, such as leather ez-chairs, the latest and greatest servers, computers, etc. until you are making a profit. :)
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Mandrake just released an earnings reports.
That little company is some SERIOUS trouble. They lost the equivalent of 13 million Euros last year. Mandrake only managed 3.5 million in revenue for the entire year!
What more is there to say about this report other than there is little or no money to be made from selling a 30 dollar Linux boxes at retail? Good lord even lowly Caldera has more revenue than Mandrake!
How can what is arguably the most popular Linux distribution be on the verge of economic melt down?
It may be wishful thinking, but I'm hopeful that IBM can make Linux take off in the corporate world.
:)
I think mid-to-large size companies are under internal pressures to stick with Microsoft despite the price, security issues, and dreaded EULA's. I think that over the years, most of us have heard expressions like "Nobody's ever been fired for buying IBM machines" or Cisco routers, etc. In other words, the typical "Cover My Ass" mentality as an IT exec is to buy the most popular, widespread IT infrastructure and if something goes wrong then he/she can more easily assuage the PHB.
The reason I think IBM would be the company to make inroads with Linux is due to it's simple "label value". Corporations are at least more likely listen to a Linux pitch from IBM than some guy like me saying how wonderful my Debian workstation is at home.
I'm not trying to put down RedHat, VA, or other Linux companies, but it's hard for me to believe that the herd wouldn't be most influenced by Big Blue.
Part of the problem with revolutionary ideas is that there will forever be people who just don't understand; who cannot grasp the new concept, and who will attempt to recast it in terms they _do_ understand - only to miss the whole point all over again.
Such is Linux and Windows.
Windows is a PRODUCT. It is for sale, complete with sales reps, marketing budgets, and an army of lawyers to try and enforce the alien concept of "product scarcity" on a digital entity.
As a "product", it is subject to the rules of the market; the ebb and tide of economics.
Linux is NOT A PRODUCT, it is something else entirely. It's part common property, part social movement, part fun little hobby, and part irresistable juggernaut. In fact, I don't yet think there exists an English word that adequately expresses what Linux is. What do you call a tool that is owned by nobody, is constructed and maintained by many, and freely availible to all?
There are companies that produce products BASED on Linux, and these companies often subsidize contributions back to the greater whole, but these companies are no more "Linux" than Frito Lay or Doritos are "corn".
As long as the source code remains availible, and as long as it continues to function on existing hardware. Linux cannot "fail".
This is what the article author does not understand, and why Linux is so dangerous to Microsoft's monopoly. Linux, in some form, will _always_ be there. It will _never_ go away. It cannot be bought, swept under the rug, supressed, or otherwise made to go away.
The best you can do is to write code that does the same job, better - but we're seeing that Linux can develop every bit as fast (and oftentimes faster) as any proprietary product. No company, no matter how big, can muster a workforce as large as that actively working on Linux. Given enough time, Linux will eventually catch you and beat you on quality.
Bill Gates is often given credit for "inventing" the concept of software-for-sale, where previously, software was shared amongst users and developers free of cost. Well then, Bill has made his own bed. Linux is the ultimate competitor; the anti-Microsoft incarnate.
And a welcome CORRECTION, bringing software back from the artificial world of "product", to the real world of "service" where it originated and BELONGS.
.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book