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."

Comments

Oh great!

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Where am I gonna find a penguin shaped coffin?

Re:Oh great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, read the article.
It clearly retorts its own headline, and explains that in fact linux is NOT dead.

"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; Microsoft holds the top spot."

Re:Oh great!

[Ioldanach]

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain

Created by Finish college student Linus Torvalds,

Finish? Isn't he Finnish?

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; Microsoft holds the top spot. (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)

And this somehow indicates a failure?

But Linux has hardly made a dent in the desktop and home user markets. 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."

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.

Until recently, interacting with Linux was almost entirely text-driven -- much like Windows' precursor, DOS. So converting meant learning an arcane vocabulary of computerese to give the PC even the simplest commands.

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.

Ooooohh

[yatest5]

MSNBC says 'Linux is dead'
/. says 'Linux r00l5'.

An exciting discussion to follow, I'm sure... ;-)

Re:Ooooohh

[kigrwik]

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.

In another article....

[Asikaa]

...MSNBC also stated that Microsoft is actually a charity set up by Mother Teresa just before her death, Windows is more robust than UNIX and Bill Gates is the Messiah.

Sheesh.

A new slogan for Linux

[UncleAlias]

Modeled after Apple's "Proudly going out of business for twenty-five years now.", I give you: "Almost dead for ten years now."

Not quite

[splume]

I don't think that is what the article was saying. It praised how well Linux was doing in the server market, taking on the older more established *NIX big boys. The only failure the article mentioned was how it has not make a significant impact on the desktop at home. Well Duh! When a company such as Microsoft has a monopoly, I think it is going to take more than just a few years to crack a hole in that shell.

Re:Not quite

[AVee]

Indeed, actually the /. submission is more wrong than the MSNBC article. Try to find the word dead somewhere. The article asks what happend to linux after a lot of the hype died down and concludes it's still growing and doing well on the server part but is hardly seen on the desktop.
That's all, hardly any news, and by no means an intersting article IMHO.

Now should i post a story to MSNBC stating that "It appears that Slashdot is reporting that MSNBC is spreading M$ fud"?

Re:Not quite

[Wakko Warner]

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.

Re:Not quite

[4of12]

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.

Re:Not quite

[William Tanksley]

I suspect you're totally missing his point (I may be wrong). He's saying that unified usability is more important than configurability; you're saying that configurability can't be made simple.

You may be right; my experience agrees with you. But that doesn't address his claim, that configurability should take a backseat to unified usability.

Is he right? I'd say that he is. Yes, I want all our stuff to remain configurable; however, more and more that configurability should focus to a point. When I change the way the help system works, ALL the help facilities should change (except the ones I ask to not change, of course -- and those shouldn't just be the ones the author happened to use the wrong help viewer on).

A Windows user doesn't have to configure, and doesn't have a huge amount of choice; but the choices he does have apply pretty consistently throughout the system. Well, at least that's the goal ;-). We can do better; we can become consistent while remaining configurable.

-Billy (who keeps mistyping 'usability' as 'suability')

Re:Not quite

[tshak]

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.

Re:Not quite

[micromoog]

Agreed. The "Linux is Dead" conclusion only makes sense if you read only the headline:

So whatever happened to Linux?

and skip the rest of the article. Like our editors.

Read the article...

[billmaly]

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.

Re:Read the article...

[EastCoastSurfer]

Some more thoughts along the same lines as the parent post. I have to wonder if the only way to get anything posted to slashdot is to submit flaimbait. The article is a well balanced assesment of where linux is today after all of the yesteryear hype. They don't say linux is dead, and the article actually hints around that more and more companies are moving to it for financial reasons. For all those slashdotters claiming that msbnc is biased, well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Re:Read the article...

[47PHA60]

I thought the article was actually very well written, and it presented logical reasons for Linux's failure to make significant gains in the desktop market.

There was even a quote about the MS monopoly being partly responsible for this: closed office file formats, and PCs that 'automatically' ship with Windows and no other choices.

So, I disagree with the posted story. This article is another in a long series of "Linux has not won the desktop" articles, and is the first one I've seen that comes close to laying the blame partly on MS.

Re:Read the article...

[Nygard]

It gives the appearance of balance, but still contains a tremendous amount of spin. Consider:

• Open source is always written in quotes: "open source", giving a subtle message that this label isn't completely honest.
• It describes Linux developers as a loose confederation of programmers who aren't paid for their work. (My emphasis.) Notice the reversal of power implied here, as if some external entity is withholding pay, rather than the programmer's themselves giving freely.

It is these type of subtle messages that constitute "spin control" of the part of the article's author.

Re:Read the article...

[Silverhammer]

I have to wonder if the only way to get anything posted to slashdot is to submit flaimbait.

Yes, it is. There have been many occasions when several different versions of a story are submitted, out of which only the most sensational is posted. Sensationalism draws readers. Readers provide click-thrus. Click-thrus equal money.

Mind you, Taco and his gang have never made any secret of the fact Slashdot is really just a glorified 'blog, with all of the ranting and advocacy that 'blogging entails.

However, the editorial control here is getting so bad as to sometimes border on slander. Methinks the success has gone to their heads.

(And if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, look at my user ID. I've been reading Slashdot for years.)

read the article

[gargle]

Go read the article. It's actually pretty reasonable and well-balanced; the same can't be said of the /. summary.

Re:read the article

[tempest303]

Too bad the author of the article can't get his facts straight.

According to him, Evolution is a desktop environment and he implies that Lindows is in the office suite business. I'm not implying any malice here, but the guy really needs to do a bit more research before opening his yap.

But yeah, it's definitely not the intentional troll that the /. summary makes it out to be.

Interestingly enough, though, he does allude to (albeit unintentionally) Linux's REAL "innovation" for desktop computers: price. Where else but WalMart can you now find a computer for a mere $299??!? This is a clear demonstration of why Linux desktops, should they continue to improve usability-wise, and gain more end-user software (and they will) will soon become a major market. Quite simply, they're just cheaper, making them more available. I'd argue that 99% of users DON'T CARE about "Tablet PC's" and all that crap. They want a regular PC for the web, email, and a little light "office" work, maybe play a few games, and balance their checkbook, and they want it all for *cheap*. Linux desktops aren't quite there on the feature front, but it'll always cost less than any version of Windows.

Re:read the article

[Reality Master 101]

...he implies that Lindows is in the office suite business. I'm not implying any malice here, but the guy really needs to do a bit more research before opening his yap.

Before flaming the guy, maybe YOU should read a little more closely and do some research. The article says, "High on the list of headaches is incompatibilities with files created with Microsoft products like Word. Small software makers like Lindows are trying to help desktop users bridge that divide."

Which is essentially true. If you examine Lindows' web site, you'll notice that the first FAQ says "Our goal is to eventually run some of the more popular Windows® software. That's an ambitious objective that will take time to achieve. At this time, Microsoft® Office 2000 has undergone the most testing and is the most compatible."

Lindows makes no secret that their biggest objective is being able to run Office.

Failed?

[sporty]

If linux has failed, you should prolly reboot and send any information on what processes were running, what your compile options and all to linus@linux.org

MICROSOFT DECLARES FOES DEFEATED

[soybean]

Did you hear the news? We've been defeated. Dang, I thought we were doing just fine. Well, I'm glad that I found out now and not years from now. I guess I can go back to my day job.

Linux is dead?

[Cutriss]

I've been reading Slashdot for a while...this whole time, I thought it was *BSD that was dying...

Or so many people at -1 keep saying, anyhow... :)

In other unbiased news...

[GeekWithGuns]

In other unbiased news ORCL-CBS has declared MSSQL untrustworthy, NOVEL-ABC has declared Windows 2000 server unstable, and LNX-FOX declared that Windows has no future on the desktop.

Article has some valid points

[EchoMirage]

The temptation everywhere here will be to write this article off as it comes from MSNBC (the article notes this itself). This is known as the genetic fallacy, so let's get over that angle right away. The article has some valid points.

First, it is true that as a commercial venture, Linux has largely been a failure - the problems of VA, RedHat, and many others simply cannot be ignored. But as many have pointed out, this doesn't mean Linux itself is dead at all.

Second, Linux still has not gained any major inroads in the personal computer world. Yes, I know WalMart sells Linux-able PCs, that many embedded devices run Linux, and many people use Linux on their PCs, but there still aren't many/any desktop PCs shipping with Linux.

The article mainly focuses on the commercial aspect of Linux, which as I have already mentioned, is a valid point. However, most people here know that Linux can be a useful desktop OS, does have a large following, and is excellent for embedded applications and servers.

The point? Take this article in stride, and take its criticisms to heart - Linux has failed in 10 years to make any strong inraods into the personal computer market, commercially speaking. If Linux hopes to ever make it past the server/embedded market, this should be a huge focus (and judging from projects like KDE and Gnome, that effort is well underway).

Did anybody actually READ the article?

[Clay Mitchell]

I know this is a fantastically novel idea, but did anybody read the article instead of knee-jerking "OMG MSNBC IS GOING TO SUPPORT MS ALWAYS" ?

The first half the article praises Linux for being a low cost server solution that a LOT of companies are using. There is even a quote from a HP exec who says "Now Linux is becoming more mainstream every day."

The second half does go into the desktop area of Linux, which they say is lacking, and then it goes on to say it IS getting better with things such as Star Office and OpenOffice, but it still needs to overcome the problem of Windows being installed on pretty much every pre-built computer sold.

Nowhere in this article does it say anything about Linux being dead. It's more of a "What's Linux up to?"

Re:Did anybody actually READ the article?

[killmenow]

Yep...

Everybody except CmdrTaco.

Re:ooh, gotta reformat this thing now!

[alfredo]

Oh no! I have Linux on my Mac!. Where do I go from here?? I'm so scared. mommy?

Very bad for Micro$oft

[IXI]

... their OS is outperformed even by a DEAD Linux ;)

Wanted: moderation for the articles

[rsidd]

Absolutely.

Sometimes (often!) I wish Slashdot let you moderate the articles and not just the posts; this one would have been (-1, Troll) very quickly.

Re:Wanted: moderation for the articles

[Rocketboy]

It's called Kuro5hin .

linux and the slow advance

[MattW]

Part of the reason linux is moving slowly is that almost everyone has used windows. While those of us experienced with more reliable and open OS's may find this a reason to avoid windows in the future, it nonetheless makes managers comfortable. There are also umpteen trillion "certified" MCSE types out there, who are ostensibly capable of managing the microsoft systems. Linux certs are fairly rare -- which is unsurprising, because demand for them remains relatively low. It's a classic case of Microsoft having a 'Mindshare'.

That said, things are improving. The support of IBM and others and their initiatives is coating linux with the candy coating of acceptability. If large groups begin to adopt linux on the desktop with open office, we are then on the verge of a true potential transition. Desktop use will translate into server comfort.

Finally, it hasn't helped that the last milestone release, 2.4, was a colossal mess. My 2.0.x and 2.2.x boxes were totally, utterly rock solid as servers. I upgraded one to 2.4 -- and it is now an unreliable piece of crap. It fails with kernel panics at any time (albeit infrequently), and almost always dies ~45 days into uptime. Every box I ever tried to use ext3 on died a horrible death, and that didn't make me particularly happy. FreeBSD and I are now getting well acquainted.

Despite all this, Linux has continued to make inroads. And of course it has hype -- it has become, and remains, the primary alternative in the minds of IT people everywhere to the monopolists from Redmond. Since they are a multi-hundred-billion-dollar company, and are tied into every aspect of the industry, saying something might challenge them is a bit like suggesting something might shift the Earth off its orbit -- it will cause ubiquitous change. And Linux is hardly down and out. The sad thing is that venture capital is so dead. NOW is the time of opportunity for fresh linux companies to step up and replace microsoft in places that really want to keep their budgets down. A return to the boom days just means that hundreds of dollars of windows upgrades and office software and such is no longer a big deal...again. Get in there while the gettin's good, I say.

Um... There is a good point here, guys....

[CrazyLegs]

Linux on the server has been a success. No doubt. In fact, it will only get more successful when one considers the push coming from IBM (i.e. Linux on big iron). The parallels with Java here are pretty interesting.

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:

• no concerted marketing push. MS excels here. Remember that superior technology does not make a product successful (look at OS/2 vs Windows).
• perceived lack of professional applications and support. People need to see shrinkwrapped apps and a 1-800 support line. They don't see these today.

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*

Other great slashdot headline

[hymie3]

Is Linux dead?
Is OpenSource better?
Natalie Portman: Hot or Not?
Cowboy Neal?

Failed on the Desktop...

[toupsie]

I love Linux, I use it 24/7 to run servers and have uptimes in the 200+ days range on all of them. The only reason they have such a short uptime was due to 9-11-01 and the effects it had on NYC where the servers are located. RedHat even sent me a note offering to help my boxen get back online on that fateful day, Microsoft was mute. Cheap, efficient and very easy to maintain. Nothing Microsoft produces (parent of MSNBC) can compare to my Linux servers.

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.

Re:Dead?

[TedCheshireAcad]

And in other news, Larry Ellison is a poopyface and Bill Gates's dad can beat up Linus Torvalds's dad.

Nothing untrue in the article at all. /. however..

[trcooper]

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

Re:oh yeah right...

[TedCheshireAcad]

Oh come on now, we all knew from the beginning that this open source thing wasn't going to fly.

Lay off MSNBC

[dfenstrate]

If you read the article, the slashdot headline is crap.

If you read MSNBC alot, like I do, you'll find:
1. It's a hell of a lot more responsible, journalism wise, then abcnews.
2. They are not shy about printing articles that put MS in a bad light.

Sections like letters to the editor (where they frequently publish letters from people who sharply disagree with them) and their Ombudsman (currently the position is unfilled, the last guy moved on after a year) used to publically evaluate their journalistic practices and comment or criticize them, by their own employee, has caused me to respect them a great deal.

Say what you like about MS, but MSNBC is a great news site.

Marketing 101

[HanzoSan]

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"

Desktop MVS is dead too.

[gelfling]

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?

Re:Huh?

[Stonehand]

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.

Oh Come on

[I_redwolf]

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.

Thanks for telling us!

[SkyLeach]

I run two server farms and have been asked to provide High Availability for them. I was also asked to do public nameserver and virtal hosting for nearly twenty corporate domains, not to mention another hundred-or-so portals. I was asked to provide failover and redundancy, Content Management, Source Code Control, Document Management, Workflows, LDAP, scheduling and reporting.

All on a budget less that the cost of a Sun 4500.

There was only one solution on the market: linux. I used the IPVS heartbeat + mon + fake + coda layout with Apache for virtual hosting and front-end, Weblogic for the java backend, Zope for my CMS / Document Management, daemontools for process monitoring, Checkpoint firewalls (not my choice mind you) and last but not least linux on every single machine in the farm(s). I have multiple NICs with bonded channels between the servers providing me with near-Gb Ethernet speeds between my data servers and hosts.

Linux took our server from from 100% M$ and literally constant system crashes and reboots to 100% (so-far) uptime except for scheduled outages AT&T is our telco and they only give us 99.96% uptime.

At least here, M$ is dead. We are evaluating linux on the desktop to see if we can use Wine with Lotus Notes and Office. If so then we might start switching desktops for some groups.

Obligatory Reference

[bludstone]

[Linux] Im not dead yet! Im getting Better! I feel fine! I think Ill go for a walk! I feel happy! I feel Happy! I feel Hap~*thunk*

"At this PC convention.." What/Where?

[Havokmon]

Umm I keep seeing references to some PC convention in NY, but I never saw what the hell convention he was even referring to..

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..

TELNET

[oliverthered]

well i though BSD was dead, but i managed to telnet in an kill the process holding evrything up.

Re:Nothing untrue in the article at all. /. howeve

[Stonehand]

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?

Doesn't anybody read these articles...

[Phillip Birmingham]

... 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.

Re:Nothing untrue in the article at all. /. howeve

[roman_mir]

Right, and when I submit articles with the following head lines:

2001-10-05 16:20:38 Andrei Dmitriyevich Sakharov (features,enlightenment) (rejected)

2002-01-21 15:09:06 Slashdot censorship (yro,slashdot) (rejected)

2002-02-03 16:02:31 Is fetus a child? (articles,news) (rejected)

2002-06-18 22:31:59 Just paid for a 2 months Kuro5hin subscription (askslashdot,news) (rejected)

But articles with headlines like: "Is Linux Dead?", "Bill Gates Is The Devil", "All Hail To Red Hat" will be posted no problem.

So who rejects and accepts the articles?
That's it.

Yes but No

[TheLoneCabbage]

Truly the SlashDot summary is worse than the MSNBC article.

But the MSNBC article is riddled with factual inacuracies, slanted language, and selective omissions.

"Small software makers like Lindows are trying to help desktop users bridge that divide."
Small? Relative to what? MS? GM and CocaCola are small compared to MS!

"A Linux-based open-source program called Evolution looks pretty much like a standard Windows desktop."

What on earth does Evolution have to do with the desktop? Other than being made by the folks at GNOME?

"WalMart recently began selling a house brand PC at rock bottom prices -- available with Linux for the thriftiest PC buyers."

Read Cheap. It's an old FUD, that linux users are cheap, and wont spend money. If that's true go talk to the folks at Ximian who get monthly subscriptions, just for better connection speeds (and of corse StarOffice!). Or about SlashDot subscribers. Truth is that Linux users (curently) arent' cheap, they are just very educated, and know what not to waste their money on. Give them a product worth paying for and they WILL pay for it.

(of course that meens producing quality product and such, most of the corporate world seems to be of the notion that if you advertise something enough the sheeple will buy it)

"Home users are cheap," he said. "At $49.95, you're going to have to sell a whole lot of (copies) to make it in the market."

Totaly out of context. This has as much to do with Windows as it does with Linux. Home users don't have 3 grand to blow on an acounting package, but last I checked Intuit was doing OK.

"The Linux operating system, and other "open source" alternatives written by devoted bands of volunteer programmers, would be available to anyone for the cost of a download. But today, Windows is still running on the vast majority of PCs. So what happened?"

So what is OS X?

Nah, no one uses Mac...

May I Make an Observation Here?

[GMFTatsujin]

"It's for geeks," said Faber Fedor, a New Jersey-based consultant who helps small businesses upgrade to Linux.

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

Re:May I Make an Observation Here?

[smallpaul]

I don't know about any of you folks, but I'm getting sick of the dismissive connotations of "geek."

Ummm. He didn't say anything bad about geeks. He said that Linux appeals to them and not to typical desktop users yet. That's a given!

I can't believe how hard people are scanning this article looking for the tiniest slant so that they can feel victimized by MSNBC. Some other guy was ranting about how they put the words "open source" in quotes. Sheesh, get a grip.

Re:This is pathetic.

[Melantha_Bacchae]

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")

Re:Actually...

[colmore]

Really, I wonder about the guy that submitted this story. This is a GOOD thing for Linux. In that it honestly reports the current state of affiars:

It's great in the server market, it has a way to go in the desktop market, the hype has died down, the stocks fell, but a good product continues to be developed.

If I were running a business and I read that article it would spark interest, not turn me away.

Frankly I thought it was sincere and balanced coverage. But I guess since it didn't get on its knees and pray to the mighty gods of Opensource, it will be read as FUD here. (Though, judging from the other posts, I don't think it was read at all)

Future generations...

[emil]

...will point to this time and say "2002 was the year Microsoft lost the war."

Why will they say this?

• A free office suite has become available.
• Microsoft is raising prices for Office and the OS while the market slumps.
• Mozilla turns 1.0.
• Lindows goes mainstream.
• The sentencing phase of the trial is complete.
• The avalanche of private civil suits begins.

But then again, I still don't understand why SQL Server is selling so well when the same codebase can be obtained for free from linux.sybase.com.

Still, free software is a flood that is rising around Microsoft, and Microsoft is busy trying to build something that floats. It is unlikely that they will succeed, given the importance of their legacy support.

Imagine that!

[tomhudson]

It's dead, and it still runs!.

Now that it's dead, they have no hope of killing it off - sort of a "dawn of the dead" scenario. Linux, the ghoul os. You might kill it, but it keeps coming back, like Jason in Friday the 13th.

It's dead, and it still works - didn't even miss a beat. Beat that, MSNBullshit!

Right In One Way

[MBCook]

Let's face it, as a mainstream desktop, Linux has failed up to this point to be little more than a techie OS. It's still got some issues to work out and in that respect the idea that Linux has failed is somewhat true.

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.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[MsGeek]

Everything you mentioned as a weakness of Linux goes double in Windows 2000. IIS still has holes that MS hasn't patched, and there are far too many people running IIS who haven't applied the necessary patches that do exist. I can think of vulnerabilities in W2K FTP, W2K DNS, W2K Telnet, etc. etc. etc.

You speak of how bad root is...most W2K servers are locally booted with the Administrator account, and most services run with the W2K System account, which is just as bad as running as Administrator.

W2K has all the vulnerabilities you speak of and more...because there are far more people developing worms, virii and whatnot for W2K. I don't know enough about .NET Server to know whether or not MS has fixed the problem in their new server OS. I hope they do, because most W2K Server installations are ticking time bombs.

I know these things...I'm an MCSE.

wait wait wait

[msouth]

I thought I was BSD that was dead.