Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux Dead?
TunkeyMicket writes "It appears MSNBC is reporting that Linux has failed as an operating system. By citing the large Linux hype as reason for Linux to be dominating the market, they draw the conclusion that the "open source" alternative has flopped as an operating system. They briefly mention the success of Linux in the server community, but really the article gives Linux as little credit as possible."
It gives props to Server based Linux installs, and states, like many others have, that desktop Linux still faces an uphill battle. Not really the flamebait of an article like /.'s headline would indicate.
Go read the article. It's actually pretty reasonable and well-balanced; the same can't be said of the /. summary.
>They briefly mention the success of Linux in the
>server community, but really the article gives
>Linux as little credit as possible.
Granted, it sounds fishy when a Microsoft sponsored company is bashing Linux. However, with regard to the quoted statement here (from original post), isn't that *exactly* how the Linux community treats Microsoft?
When submitting stories, I believe there is stated that Slashdot does not approve of subject lines that are alarmist. But they still go on posting alarmist stories appearently. The gist of the story I believe is that Linux is getting more popular but hasn't caught on when it comes to the desktop. Big news. The title is "So whatever happened to Linux?", not "Linux is dead".
This is poor journalism from Slashdot, not MSNBC.
I think it would be obvious to anyone who read the article (instead of gasping at the MS in MSNBC) that its content was fair. Linux has been making inroads into the server market, but it continues to struggle in the desktop market.
I have not seen any evidence to indicate that Linux is making significant inroads into the home, and all the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change that. The article does say that Linux is getting better (in terms of usability, compatability, etc), and I don't think anyone can dispute that either. It just ain't there yet.
...an article in today's Jersualem Post details the failure of the Palestinian Authority.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Oh great! MSNBC has discovered the "*BSD is dying" troll!
Unfortunately, with their usual journalistic accuracy, they got it wrong and thought *BSD == Lunix. Wankers.
There are some interesting comments on metaFilter about Steven Levy's bald-faced whoring of MS's press release about Palladium. What passes for integrety and accuracy in journalism these days is laughable. Freakin' online rags like the Reg are more clueful than the "mainstream media" -- and aren't obviously whoring themselves out to big business/US govt.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I don't know if somebody switched links or something, but I must've read a different article than whoever submitted this. The article was actually right on track IMO.
It's hardly mentioning it as a failed operating system, rather saying "A recent survey of 800 companies in North America and Western Europe found that some 40 percent said they were either using or testing Linux, according to the research firm IDC. With some 27 percent of the market, Linux is now the second most popular operating system for servers, supplanting the decades-old operating system UNIX..."
It continues with more info, but mostly what we've all heard before...Linux faces an uphill battle in the desktop arena, does well in the server arena, etc.
Oh, wait. I'm sorry, I'm completely mistaken in this post. The article came from MSNBC, a "Microsoft-NBC joint venture". Therefore it must slam Linux at every possible turn. It's not possible that it actually might report information we'd agree with.
Get a grip people, jesus.
--mh
I know anything that isn't explicity anti-MS is heresy, but here we go. . .
I don't see anywhere where he has said Linux is failed in the article. He's merely pointing out a fact that most of us know: Linux is fantastic for servers, but "not ready for prime time" when it comes to the broad-based desktop market. Like it or not, Linux is still harder to use than Windows for a huge percentage of the population. While I don't agree with his characterization of the command-line stuff as an "archane vocabulary," there is some merit to the point that a lot of people can't handle the command line. Overall, I find it a well-balanced article about facts: Redhat was pushing Linux as a replacement for Windows on everyone's home and office desk. It just hasn't reached that point. His point seems to be that it doesn't even NEED to reach that point because it's gaining so much ground in the server market.
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
Sometimes (often!) I wish Slashdot let you moderate the articles and not just the posts; this one would have been (-1, Troll) very quickly.
However, Linux on the desktop has not been successful. That's the reality. "Mom and Dad" PC users - who make up a large demographic of typical consumers - are not using Linux on the desktop. Big corporations are not using Linux on the desktop. There are lots of reasons for all this, but in the end they boil down to:
Case in point: I am currently developing a strategy on replacing 23,000 OS/2 platforms in my company. I have 2 basic choices for these desktops - Linux and Windows. Both have pros and cons around cost, stability, app availability, support, etc. Even though could save us millions of $$$ in licensing costs alone, Linux will be an uphill climb given the perceived lack of maturity and support in the vendor market. Linux needs a big-ass corporation (like IBM or HP) to really drive the momentum into the desktop.
Otherwise, it feels like the OS/2 saga all over again....*sigh*
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Come on guys! The Slashdot summary is just biased bullshit. The words "dead" and "failed" never even appear in the article. All MSNBC is saying is that Linux is having trouble reaching the masses on the desktop. Are they wrong? They also mention that Linux companies are having problems turning a profit these days. But hell, who in the tech sector isn't?
However, I can't use Linux on the Desktop. I just can't. XFree86 with GNOME and KDE just doesn't cut the GUI mustard. That's not a bad thing. Just means the Linux Desktop folks are going to have to do more work...someone will get it right. When you think about it, a bunch of unpaid people scattered around the world actually built a consumer OS...for free, for anyone! Amazing progress.
Its not that people are afraid of a UNIX/UNIX-like OS for their desktop. Microsoft has been shoveling that FUD BS for the last six months. Mac OS X has done very well in its 1 1/2 year of existence in gaining market share. Linux on the Desktop folks ought to take a hard look at Aqua and Quartz and think if XFree86 and Window Managers are still the way to go for GUI on Linux. As the Marketing Department at Apple says, "Think Different". "Think Differently" for the grammatically anal.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
If you read the article, you'll see that it does NOT conclude that "Linux is dead".
Actually, it describes a rather accurate picture of the present situation: rapid growth in the server market, improvements of the desktop software, the beginning of Linux preloaded PCs, MS brewing more weird stuff.
Nothing we already don't know, though. It must be a slow news day.
-- don't discount flying pigs until you have good air defense
MSNBC:
Said Linux has made great strides in the server arena - TRUE
Said Linux has not made a noticable impact on the desktop market - TRUE
Said Linux user apps are improving - TRUE
Slasdot:
Said MSNBC reported Linux is dead - FALSE
Said Article gave Linux as little credit as possible - FALSE
Its called, build hype for your product while spreading rumors and doubt about the competiting product.
Sony has done this against Sega and Nintendo.
Microsoft has done this before as well.
What you do is, you tell everyone you are coming out with a new product right when your competition is about to go mainstream. (PS2 hype begins when DC begain to sell more than 5 million systems)
Then you get articles printed about how your competitions product is doomed to fail, you pick it apart. While not everyone will believe the article, thousands of people will, which can turn to millions, which can kill the competiting product.
Linux luckily has a community and zealot strength behind it, if it were an ordinary company, Microsoft would have just put the final nail in the coffin,
People will be thinking
"should I get Longhorn or Linux? Well this article on MSNBC says Linux is dead, and Bill Gates was on TV last night in that interview saying good things about longhorn, I think I'll go with what I already have and get longhorn"
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I'm not sure what 'Linux is dead' is representative of though. Compared to what? I thought home networking was the next big thing. If that's true then you'll see MORE linux in home use not less. Anyone running basic LAN services or their own mail server is more than likely going to do it with an old PC and Linux. You don't need a desktop for that (unless you like to config stuff that way..) I'm not sure that someone would build an entire W2K machine with a legitimate licence just for file serving? Maybe they would, maybe I'm just cheap.
At any rate there a few things Linux is not good at:
AOLIM
Burning CD's
Playing popular game/entertainment titles.
Supporting the home Encyclopedia/Bartlett's
Supporting MS office email attachments
Any kind of demoware you get in the mail
Getting broadbad ISP support - AOL. Earthlink (oh you have Lunix? click.)
Of course it begs the question that if Linux COULD do all of that would it not become Windows anyway and lose the reliability, stability and low horsepower requirements that make you want to use it to begin with? It would become..... Apple?
Not all servers are web servers -- and even if he's only counting web servers, Apache != Linux. Apache runs on other Unixes and Windows as well.
'sides, he's talking about big companies. How many of those Apache "servers" are home computers serving up personal content? They don't serve much content, don't have that many users, and generally aren't exactly mission-critical.
Random sampling of some big entities (via Netcraft), trying to limit guesses to well-known organizations and aren't directly in the fray:
- Amazon: Apache/Linux
- Ebay: IIS/Windows
- NY Times: Netscape/Solaris
- Buy.com: IIS/Solaris
- Bn.com: IIS/Windows
- id Software: IIS/Windows
- Interplay: IIS/Windows
- Washington Post: Netscape/Solaris
- CNN: Netscape/Solaris
- Dell: IIS/Windows
- IBM: IBM_HTTP_SERVER/Apache(?)/AIX
- US Bank: IIS/unknown (but IIS isn't exactly portable...)
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter: Netscape/Solaris
- General Motors: Netscape/Solaris
- Playboy: Netscape/Solaris
- Penthouse: Apache/Solaris
- General Electric: Netscape/Solaris
- Bantam: Apache/Solaris
- Yahoo!: unknown/FreeBSD
- ebworld: IIS/Windows
- US State Department: Netscape/Solaris
- UPS: Netscape/Solaris
Judging from that, Solaris and Windows are each FAR FAR more prevalent than Linux.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Listen I hate windows, I loathe Microsoft but I just can't stand these story headlines on Slashdot lately. It really makes this place look bad, when I saw the headline I thought well MSNBC is obviously trolling because of the crunch economy wise, a few higher ups must think it's time to rag on something to keep the money rolling or something; I dunno. Then I read the article; it's probably one of the more insightful articles I have read in a while and this headline does not do it justice. Points of pro's adn cons just as anyone would want with any other product, you can only expect the writer to know so much without becoming an expert; this is also a very unbiased piece. If this was a piece to bash Linux then it didn't say anything that wasn't true, infact it's more praise than not. Not only that but MSNBC does make a point to say that it's a Microsoft-NBC joint venture for what reason I don't know but then again some people have been living under rocks.
This whole headline thing makes slashdot look bad, it makes the people that recommend slashdot look bad. Instead of trying to become professional and taking an industry lead I still can't view slashdot than anything more than a hobby site and the bad thing is that I guess the editors think this will last forever. It won't; it just won't.
I understand journalism, sensationalism, I understand the readers of the site are the ones that submit the stories. I understand this; what I don't understand is how this blatant bashing of Microsoft helps anyone. It's as if we've started to play their game of blatant outright lying. I hate Microsoft and if it was up to me I'd probably throw each and every single employee into some type of chinese water torcher camp but this is just stupid. Please; stop it.
Lets continue to play with facts and not play their game of cat and mouse. We won't gain anything the way they play and it will only make us look like hypocrites.
Ok, first off, the MSNBC article never says "Linux is dead." The article is more about the failure of Linux to live up to its own hype (which is not a fabrication, but a solid fact.)
I agree with most of what the article said as far as Linux's position in the residential market. I believe that the truth of the matter is, as a quote in the article states "Linux is for geeks".
Sure, there is still a potential for Linux to become a major player in the home PC market, as long as the problem of 'user-friendlyness' is addressed from the users point of view and NOT the developers. Unfortunately, this has yet to happen, but I refuse to say it will never happen.
Another big boost may be given to the Linux xommunity when M$ starts it's leasing program. Personally I don't feel comfortable running leased software, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Linux has come a long way from the Minix code manipulation it began as, but work still needs to be done before home users will embrace it with open arms...
Linux is dead.
LU
As usual, their whole editorial point is in the title. If you read any newspaper, you'll notice that the titles rarely describe accurately the content of the article.
If I understand properly, the newspaper EDITORS, i.e. the managers, have the final saying in the title (not the journalist/writer).
I believe the same thing happened here. The article isn't that much of a Linux bashing, and more a statement of the fact that Linux still hasn't made it to the home computer yet.
And CmdrTaco, as a great Editor-wanting-more-hits, also twisted the story to get a flashy title. Geesh...
Like this:
"At PC conventions like this one, Microsoft's Windows operating system still rules, with some 94 percent of the operating system market for desktops and laptop PCs, according to IDC. Despite its growing popularity among computer professionals, it's still not completely 'user friendly'."
Where is this guy? That's like me walking to SOME BUILDING SOMEHERE, and saying "At business like this one, X rules". It's one thing if there's a TV camera recording the event, you might know what kinds of business use 'X'.
It an opinion piece, with no real supporting facts, other than 'at conventions like this one'. It could be Rummage-O-Rama as far as we know..
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
I love the way they have tried to make the argument look balanced when all the time they are sly-ly having a dig.
"Linux is now the second most popular operating system for servers, supplanting the decades-old operating system UNIX; Microsoft holds the top spot."
Decades old UNIX sounds like a dig, and "MS holds the top spot" is them having to have the last word in an argument.
"Linux used to be just a bunch of geeks trying to change the industry," said Elizabeth Phillips
"It's for geeks," said Faber Fedor
These statments just seem to be there to reduce the credibility of Linux. While Elizabeth phillips says "Its becoming more mainstream" she fails to mention that this "bunch of geeks" did change the industry.
"Fedor walked a roomful of developers and IT managers through the basics -- and not so basics -- of converting to the Linux world."
Just ensure that we all know that Linux is MUCH harder to use than the wonderful windows OS.
"Until recently, interacting with Linux was almost entirely text-driven -- much like Windows' precursor, DOS."
Ooooh, they're getting good at this - now they're hinting at the suggestion that Linux lags behind where Microsoft has been before. Like you could even compare DOS to Linux...hah!!
"But Linux software is getting better -- and now more closely mimics the Windows world that the vast majority of PC users are accustomed to"
Yeah it mimics Windows...like Windows mimics a Mac I suppose...?
"Still, Linux evangelists like Fedor say that, as long as new PCs come pre-loaded with Windows, the open source community faces an uphill battle spreading Linux beyond corporate IT departments into the home"
Right we better pack up and go home now then I suppose...it all useless, you dont stand a chance. Remember - the art of propoganda is to try and cause confusion, uncertainty and loss of hope in the enemy,and that is exactly what an article like this does.
"And as Linux proponents continue to try to enlist desktop PC users, Microsoft is busy reinventing that desktop."
Yep looks like we're too late, MS is reinventing the desktop, while us lame Linux people are still working with those big ugly PCs..
Personally I think Linux is stronger than ever...all these once flaky open source projects are becoming real mature, and they're getting better every day. With stuff like GNOME, Mozilla, GIMP, GCC, Evolution, Apache, MySQL, PHP to name but a few we have world-class products. Every time I use Open Source software I get a little smirk, because its a 'sleeper' -- it will continue to get better and better, and there is NOTHING MS can do to stop that.
I don't think that is what the article was saying.
Neither do I, but without a writeup and title like the ones that were given for this story, do you think there'd be 800 comments here?
It's all about provoking the herd mentality to generate banner ad revenue. Stories like this make all three LNUX shareholders happy!
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The editors tactitly handed the submitter a soapbox. It is NOT like /. is at all obligated to accept all submissions -- they don't -- nor are they somehow barred from attaching comments, such as doubts as to the usefulness of the summary. In fact, they could let someone else submit with an actual, genuine, informative summary.
Instead, they handed the guy a flamethrower in full knowledge that a large percentage of the posters would be kneejerkers -- which brings in more hits and page views. And you suggest that they aren't responsible for that?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
... past the first paragraph?
This is just the same old "Linux is dominating the server market, progress on the desktop is slow, but it's getting better" story we've been seeing all year.
It's definitely not a "Linux is dead" story.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Way to shoot yourself in the foot, dumbass. I'll bet that gets you *lots* of consumer interest right there. Or maybe that's a subtle twist of the knife by MSNBC. Grr.
Computers in general were just for geeks 20 years ago. Well, geeks, and businesses that wanted to manage information they didn't even know they had in ways they didn't even know were possible. Now, you can't get away from the things - much as you might want to.
I don't know about any of you folks, but I'm getting sick of the dismissive connotations of "geek." Maybe I'm just a little sensative, but it seems to me that the geek mindset has made more lasting, permanent contributions to the state of the everyday world in general than any other clique - curiousity, tenacatity, a ravenous hunger to know how things work and to make them better for anyone who cares.
Caveman geeks made the wheel.
GMFTatsujin
Microsoft holds the top spot for the simple reason that you need dozens if not hundreds of NT machines to serve even a moderately-sized site. I've had the fun chore of moving a large website from a broken NT server farm to a single Linux or UNIX machine.
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
A quick search for linux, windows, and open source at msnbc reveals plenty of links that are anti-MS or pro-open source.
w .msnbc.com/news/770299.aspn ews/752115.aspa spw ww.msnbc.com/news/743635.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/751496.asp
http://ww
http://www.msnbc.com/
http://www.msnbc.com/news/739406.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/747455.asp
http://
It's a little simple-minded to think that just because MS is part of MS-NBC that their journalistic integrity is out the window and biases will be in every article. It's also more than a little hypocritical to be pointing fingers while reading Slashdot, which is probably the most biased news source on the net (it *is* supposed to be *News* for Nerds right?).
In order to compound the retardation, it seems like hardly anyone read the article. He's talking entirely about linux on the desktop, and more specifically the fact that linux on the desktop has not caught on.
He cites the fact that linux is playing catch-up with applications as the main reason: "But Linux software is getting better -- and now more closely mimics the Windows world that the vast majority of PC users are accustomed to." He continues by giving examples of other great OSS for linux and how it is worthy to compete with MS products. He also explains the problems with MS' proprietary formats, and how app developers have an uphill battle. He never said linux is dead. He never even said linux on the desktop as dead. It's not that I agree with the guy on all points, but it's hardly the biased tripe people are making it out to be.
I think the only bias is with slashdot. The slant that was given to this story by the submitter, relayed by slashdot, and supported by the replies I read here is pretty stupid, and frankly is getting old. This is the kind of crap that brands the OSS community with the term 'zealot'.
Finish? Isn't he Finnish?
And this somehow indicates a failure?
How many years did it take for MS-Windows to completely eliminate MS-DOS? And that was with many years of massive marketing. I'd say the desktop penetration linux enjoys with so little desktop marketing and such an immature set of desktop tools is amazing in its own right.
X11 has been on linux almost from the beginning. I recall installing from a stack of floppies onto my old 386 when my 386 had just been superceded by a 486, and X was an option. I tried installing and using X, but found that my hard disk was inadequate. At the time, hard disk space was expensive. Now, that's not to say that the gui was friendly, but its been there for a good long while.
Linux is still coming of age. It seems to be spending its childhood in servers, but in the coming years it will probably enjoy a somewhat larger share of the desktop market as the desktop evolves. It may never eclipse Microsoft, but then again, not being the biggest doesn't equate to being a failure.
Actually, things couldn't be better. Unless you're Microsoft...
;)
Jennifer E. Elaan wrote:
> This is really starting to sound like certain
> other operating systems. Every month or two
> somebody declares Linux dead. While the most
> obvious is OS/2, that one DID finally die in the
> end, but took 6 or 7 years to do so. And there
> is STILL a couple projects to reimplement it, so
> the death seems to be the fault of closed-source
> software.
But OS/2 isn't completely dead. There are still new versions being made. There are new programs coming out for it. And a few people even still use it.
> Contrast also with Apple.
Apple died. Apple was resurrected. Now Apple is launching itself at Microsoft's jugular. All is right with the world.
> it's not the number but the derivative (rate of
> change) that you have to look at, in order to
> declare an operating system dead.
Very insightful.
> By this logic, Linux is still kicking, but
> Windows is dead, since Windows is no longer
> really increasing in use (they still have sales,
> but they're almost all "upgrade" sales, hence
> the attempted change of license methods).
Oh, Linux is very much alive and kicking. It's heroism in barring Microsoft from getting a monopoly in the server-space is to be highly praised. It makes a great embedded OS, I love it on my Zaurus. And make no mistake, Linux will follow Apple to the desktop, now that Apple has shown the way.
> And, somebody please explain, HOW do you kill an
> open-source work? People like me will always
> tinker with it, because it's FUN.
It can't be killed. Neither can some proprietary software long thought dead, if Netscape (and its open source partner Mozilla), Word Perfect, Lotus 123, and others are any indication. You can buy a computer now with one of the latter two preinstalled. As for Netscape and Mozilla, they and the other browsers just won 1.3 percent of the browser market back from Microsoft!!!
The market, thanks to Microsoft's greed and cruelty, is really hungry right now for alternatives to Microsoft in any and all markets. Products once thought dead are coming back to life, and new ones are coming out of the woodwork. ALL of Microsoft's monopolies can be taken away, by the consumer, right now! Everything is up for grabs, and I wouldn't count even Be OS or OS/2 out now, if they still have something to offer somebody.
Godzilla 2000, the Dreaded God!
The battle for Earth's future has begun!
The future Millenium threatens.
(From my lyrics to Godzilla's theme from "Godzilla 2000 Millenium")
II think it is going to take more than just a few years to crack a hole in that shell.
Sheesh, even MS itself has a hard time with that .
Despite all the arm twisting with pricing, backwards incompatibility (genuine or not) and big advertising campaigns, you still have loads of consumers running moss-covered versions of Windows that are not up to "XP".(3.1, 95, 98, 98Se, ME)
If MS has a hard time convincing consumers to upgrade their hardware given all the resources at their disposal (like getting OEMs to preload the new OS), you can bet Linux will have an even harder time.
The slow pace of Linux desktop penetration is no mystery.
Likewise, there is no mystery as to why the uptake of Linux in the server arena has been so rapid. It's growth has been strong, even if its growth has not been equal to the media hype of two years ago.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Your complaining about everyone elses fear of learning all of us geeks have the same problem. How meny of us see the "check engine" like come on in our car and just hand it over to the mechanic. Everyone here thinks they are so much better then everyone else cause they remeber what ps -ax does.
You assume people need to adapt their life to technology. WRONG, it is that philosopy that keeps linux from making it into heavy home use. Technology should adapt to people not the other way around.
Lots of people have computers only as a fancy typewriter and a websurfing device. They don't want or need to recompile kernals and write custom drivers. They want a stable, easy to use system. Windows is stable enough for the so certianly linux would be. Learning all the linux commands would be a waste of their time. They need an easy to use interface, and it has been our refusal to give them one the keeps M$ on top.
We help M$ every time we say "GUIs are dumb consol is the only way." People have lives and spend time on their hobbies, woodworking, old cars, gardening, whatever. They don't spend time figuring out better ways to use M$Word, they use Word because it is mostly self explainitory.
Why do you defend the consol when it is what keeps the masses from joining us? Do you hate the masses? Is you ego that big that you refuse to help anyone that won't immediately jump to your cause? I tire of all you people thinking your so smart because of your consol, it is what holds linux from the mainstream.
Either your egos go, or linux will never truely hit the big time. It will have a place but only a small one.
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
But there is more to Linux than the desktop. Linux is a great server OS and has been growing in market share. Combined with Apache, it's a great web-server platform that you can get FREE. As an embeded OS, Linux is doing great too. How much more do you think a TiVo would cost if they had to pay MS to do stuff for them? Not only that, they'd (probably) need better hardware to do the exact same thing. By using Linux on a platform that was already supported, they were able to save tons of time and money.
And let's not forget that Linux started as a hobbiest OS, and it has succeded greatly at this. I use, many other hobbiests do. It would cost a fortune to get some of the things Linux and the GNU project give me for free (development tools for every language, ludicrious ammounts of customizability) for Win 2k or XP.
Last of all, Linux is definatly improving. I've only been using it for a year or two and it is getting much better. But I still use Win 2k on my Windows box. Why? That's how I can support dual processors. And for me, XP has nothing new in it except it's anti-copying stuff which is a step BACK. I don't think that Windows is getting much better for me, do you? XP is what, 4 or 5 years newer, an there is no new great thing that I should get it for? Many people still use 2k very happily. How many people still use a version of Linux from 4 to 5 years ago because they see nothing out now that's any good? If they use that old version, it's on old hardware or because the computer hasn't been rebooted since '98, not because nothing in Linux has improved. Sure there are exceptions to this but lets face it. Linux is a dramatic success in the three areas that (IMHO) it focuses on: server, embeded, and hobbiest.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I think it is going to take more than just a few years to crack a hole in that shell.
Apple has, since the introduction of the iMac and especially since OS X, definitely cracked a hole in their shell. Linux doesn't need legislation, it needs a decent end-user product.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
So whatever happened to Linux?
and skip the rest of the article. Like our editors.
Since when has the primary interest of Linux been to sell to commercial companies?
;)
The book Just for Fun puts across the true meaning of linux: a fun project to hack on. Who gives a sh*t about how well it sells? This is about hacking on your computer, not watching it's price on the stock market.
That's not to say that businesses should not be involved at all; quite the opposite. But using it as a money-making thing just isn't right..
You were expecting a sig?
After having read the slashdot article on the pledge of allegiance and its following comments, and now this article and its comments, I believe the we should be forced to say, "In God", as its obvious that every slashdot reader is a raving zealot.
We hear one cry that Linux isn't superior, that it isn't #1, and that it isn't LOVED BY ALL and we FREAK OUT. I bet that every CEO and CTO that glances at these messages we leave here has second thoughts on implimenting a Linux solution in his company. We appear as madmen. Until we can accept that we're number two we'll always appear as such. Our zealously shines on Slashdot, and we sound like spoiled children. We should be proud that Linux gets as much media attention as it does. It went from being used and developed by Linus to the #2 OS in 10 years! It has Microsoft scared. Sun is promising GNU compatible tools on Solaris. IBM is qualifing all of its server hardware for it. We've got the support from the companies that matter. Now we need to get the support from potential customers. And sounding like raving, religous zealots will not win us points with these people.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.