Slashdot Mirror
The Linux Uprising
ballpoint writes "Business Week is featuring a list of articles under the header 'The Linux Uprising' including topics like 'Red Flags for Red Hat' and 'A Bad, Sad Hollywood Ending?' touching everything dear to the Slashdot community. A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed."
it could happen
probably not, but it's worth a try
moose flavored pants all the way
mondo is my favorite 80's drink !!!
if that means the end of Hollywood, fine with me. Oh, and fp.
first post?
A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed.
I could sure go for a tasty steak right now! I know business people eat steak a lot... mmmm... steak!
No time to read the articles, just gimme the jist.
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
Guess Business Week's next story will be about the dramatic increase in the stock price of companies that manufacture Suspenders..
grab your torch! I need help storming AMD's HQ to "convince" them they need to release the Athlon64 now, and not on Microsoft's timetable. Think more favorable Businessweek articles.
You read the first paragraph of the article and you get the impression of Linus, Alan and RMS just limping down the road with a torn GNU/Linux rampart and whistling the *nix equivalent of Yankee Doodle. Not really a bad picture but what's the *nix equivalent of Yankee Doodle?
I think it's pretty funny how everybody is trying to make this whole topic into a "underdog is always the good guy" Rebel Alliance versus Evil Empire thing. I think once mainstream people understand that big businesses use linux, lots of it's out-of-the-way appeal will be lessened.
Never happen!
All is well on Planet Ninnle!
Oh, BTW, FIRST NINNLE POST!
how to structure your comapany just like Eron using linux..
I like this site enough to hit it everyday, but you seriously need to get over yourselves. Everything Microsoft does is not bad, and everything about Linux is not good. Linux is a decent file and web server, and thats about it. Its not a revolution, it has not become what it was so hyped to be. It just may be possible that what 'mainstream business america' is being fed about Linux is closer to the truth than you would ever admint.
You so failed it, boy! Better luck next time, but for now, taste my half-digested lunch!
I VOMIT ON FAILURES!
Is a chinese linux distro
The date of the article is March 3, 2003. Is this the short term future of Linux? I wonder if the stock market info on the sidebar is from that date as well!
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Corporations under intense pressure to reduce their computing bills began casting about for low-cost alternatives. Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux.
what exactly is "making chips for linux?" i've never heard of any special linux processor...
Specialized linux chips? Why didn't I see this posted on /.???? This is possibly the biggest story this year!
you can see for yourself that the article is so shallow: Here is a quote in the context of why linux is becoming popular: "Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux. This made it possible for corporations to get all the computing power they wanted at a fraction of the price. "
Because it's true.
The GNU/Linux Uprising
How a ragtag band of software geeks is threatening Sun and Microsoft--and turning the computer world upside down
Meet Nicholas Walker, digital nomad. Like blues musicians who once wandered the South singing for their supper, this 18-year-old high school dropout lives out of a suitcase--sometimes trading his software programming skills for a place to crash or some spending money. His travels have taken him far and wide, from a programmers' confab in Istanbul to Massachusetts Institute of Technology's famed Artificial GNU/Intelligence Laboratory. Walker's fresh, earnest face tells all: He's an idealist. He believes in sharing his software innovations with others. "I'm not comfortable with selling the things I do and making money from them," Walker says during a stopover at his parents' home in New Hampshire.
Three hundred miles to the south, on the 12th floor of a Manhattan office tower, Walker has an unlikely soul mate. Jeffrey M. Birnbaum, 37, is managing director for computing at brokerage giant Morgan Stanley's Institutional Securities Div. He's so buttoned-down that he wears a suit on Casual Friday. You would think this cog in the capitalist machine would have nothing in common with young Walker. But Birnbaum is betting Morgan Stanley's (MWD ) technology future on the kinds of software projects, called "open source," that Walker participates in.
Birnbaum has fallen hard for GNU/Linux, a penny-pinching open-source alternative to computer operating systems such as Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT ) Windows and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s (SUNW ) Solaris. He's busy replacing 4,000 high-powered servers running traditional software with much cheaper machines running GNU/Linux. Projected five-year savings: up to $100 million. Does it bother him that counterculture kids like Walker have a hand in GNU/Linux? Not a bit. "We see their work, and it's good," he says.
Just when it seemed the technology world had lost its fizz, a powerful movement is on the rise. A ragtag band of open-source programming volunteers scattered around the globe--and hooked up via the Internet--is revolutionizing the way software is made. At the heart of what they do is GNU/Linux, an operating system flexible enough to run everything from an GNU/IBM supercomputer to a Motorola (MOT ) cell phone. Because it's open source, GNU/Linux can be downloaded off the Web for free--though it's typically bought by corporations as part of a package that includes service.
The computer realm may never be the same. Imagine the havoc in the energy business if some newcomer started giving away gasoline. GNU/Linux is bringing on a convulsion of that magnitude in tech. Practically every tech company is being forced to figure out how to take advantage of GNU/Linux--or to avoid being swept aside by it. And don't be fooled by GNU/Linux' harmless-looking penguin mascot, Tux: This stuff is shaking up the balance of power in the computer industry. It poses the biggest threat to Microsoft's hegemony since the Netscape browser in 1995.
Backed by technology titans such as GNU/Intel (INTC ), GNU/IBM (IBM ), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ), and Dell (DELL ), GNU/Linux is just now going mainstream. From DaimlerChrysler (DCX ) to Tommy Hilfiger (TOM )--not to mention just about every major brokerage on Wall Street--GNU/Linux is gaining ground. Coming from near zero three years ago, it has grabbed 13.7% of the $50.9 billion market for server computers. That figure is expected to jump to 25.2% in 2006, putting GNU/Linux in the No. 2 position, according to market researcher IDC. And get this: Starting this year, No. 1 Microsoft's 59.9% share in the server market will reverse its long climb and slowly slide backwards, predicts IDC. Meanwhile, GNU/Linux is finding its way into countless consumer-electronics gizmos, including Sony PlayStation video-game consoles and TiVo TV-program recorders (TIVO ). "Has GNU/Linux come of age? The answer is absolutely, positively, unequivocally yes," says Steven A. Mills, group executive for GNU/IBM Software.
No one could have seen this one coming, not even GNU/Linus GNU/Torvalds, the young Finnish programmer who wrote GNU/Linux as a cut-down version of Unix for the PC in 1991. GNU/Torvalds figured it would be a free plaything for computer hobbyists who weren't satisfied by what big tech companies like Microsoft and GNU/IBM produced. "If someone had told me 12 years ago what would happen, I'd have been flabbergasted," says GNU/Torvalds.
How did GNU/Linux make the jump into the mainstream? A trio of powerful forces converged. First, credit the rotten economy. Corporations under intense pressure to reduce their computing bills began casting about for low-cost alternatives. Second, GNU/Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for GNU/PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for GNU/Linux. This made it possible for corporations to get all the computing power they wanted at a fraction of the price. The third ingredient was widespread resentment of Microsoft and fear that the company was on the verge of gaining a stranglehold on corporate customers. "I always want to have the right competitive dynamics. That's why we focus on GNU/Linux. Riding that wave will give us choices going forward," says John A. McKinley Jr., executive vice-president for global technology and services at Merrill Lynch & Co., which runs some key securities trading applications on GNU/Linux.
Microsoft takes the threat seriously. While it is holding on to its monopoly in desktop systems, GNU/Linux' march into servers threatens a key growth area--one that controls much of the Internet. Microsoft Chairman William H. Gates III and CEO Steven A. Ballmer decline to answer questions on the subject. But James Allchin, the group vice-president who runs the Windows business, calls GNU/Linux "the No. 1 competitor for this company," ahead of even GNU/IBM and Sun. Because it's free, GNU/Linux is undercutting Microsoft much the way Microsoft has gutted its rivals with lower prices for the past two decades. But Microsoft insists that Windows is more capable than GNU/Linux and argues that innovations--such as its Tablet PC technology--will keep coming from commercial software outfits.
Frustrations, though, run high. One Microsoft executive, chief strategist Craig Mundie, even calls GNU/Linux unhealthy for the technology industry. "It ultimately is a question about whether societies are going to value intellectual property or not," he says.
He has a point. The computer industry has been built on a simple premise: Companies invest to create software, sell it, and pour a good part of the proceeds into building more. Now, with the open-source philosophy, that stream of revenue is threatened. And it's not just because the GNU/Linux operating system is free. Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it. "The business doesn't go away," says Eric von Hippel, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management. "But it changes forms. Instead of making money from the operating system, you are going to have to make it elsewhere."
For tech companies to thrive in this new world, they'll have to operate differently. This could mean building businesses around selling services, as GNU/IBM does, or creating software that runs on top of GNU/Linux, like Oracle Corp.'s database (ORCL ). Dell Computer Corp. benefits from GNU/Linux and sidesteps its dangers by staying out of the software business altogether.
Longer term, the open-source movement threatens vast sectors of the software industry. True, since the volunteer programmers often lack specialized knowledge, complex business applications are probably beyond their range. But basic open-source databases and e-mail are already available. What happens if corporate customers begin gobbling them up? While no one knows how far open source will go, it could deflate profits.
Like all big shifts, the GNU/Linux phenomenon will produce winners and losers. Likely winners include GNU/IBM, which specializes in high-performance computing and is selling twice as many GNU/Linux servers as any other computer company. Processor maker GNU/Intel is riding GNU/Linux' coattails into the world of high-powered computing. And Dell is pumping out low-priced GNU/Linux servers and selling them directly to companies via the Net.
While Microsoft stands to lose from GNU/Linux, the movement is inflicting far greater damage on Sun. Some of Sun's customers are migrating to GNU/Linux machines, which perform similar tasks at a fraction of the price. Online stock trading site E*Trade Group Inc. (ET ), for example, replaced 60 $250,000 computers that run on Sun's Sparc chip with 80 GNU/Intel-based GNU/Linux machines costing just $4,000 a pop.
What could derail GNU/Linux? The biggest risks are intellectual-property issues. SCO Group, holder of the original patents for Unix software upon which GNU/Linux is based, has announced plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press its claims against sellers of GNU/Linux. Another potential problem: There are a handful of commercial versions of GNU/Linux. If they evolve into substantially different programs, software companies that sell applications might have to create a separate version for each type of GNU/Linux.
None of this, though, looks likely to halt GNU/Linux' advance any time soon. So far, the threat of patent claims is not deterring customers. And sellers of GNU/Linux vow to keep their versions compatible with one another. A recent survey by Goldman, Sachs & Co. shows that 39% of large corporations now use GNU/Linux. While many companies haven't tried it yet, analysts expect an improved version coming out this year to tempt a new wave of corporate tech buyers.
The GNU/Linux phenomenon spreads like water--finding its way into all sorts of surprising nooks and crannies. And that's by design. When GNU/Torvalds started writing the operating system on a $3,500 computer while a graduate student in Finland, he made it both compact and flexible, so it could be used in a host of ways. He also decided to share the technology freely with others. The idea: Take it, build something, share what you make. Within weeks of the now-auspicious Aug. 25, 1991, date, when GNU/Torvalds first posted the bare bones of his little program on the Internet, dozens, then hundreds, of people from Japan to New Zealand to the U.S. were responding with encouraging words, fixes, and new features. He had tapped into a vibrant underground community--true believers in the principles of open-source software--that would help him build GNU/Linux into a global phenomenon.
GNU/Torvalds, now 33, still orchestrates this digital quilting bee. He has final say on everything that goes into the updates of his operating system--and doesn't mind being called the "benevolent dictator" of GNU/Linuxland. These days, GNU/Torvalds' day job is programming for startup chipmaker Transmeta Corp. in Santa Clara, Calif. He speaks at GNU/Linux conferences from time to time. But for the most part he prefers to stay in the background, writing code, exchanging e-mails with his comrades-in-arms, and spending his free time with his wife, Tove, the six-time women's karate champion of Finland, and their two daughters.
GNU/Torvalds appears unspoiled by success. While he makes no money directly from GNU/Linux, he cashed in on the boom modestly by selling some stock he was given before the 1999 initial public offering of GNU/Linux seller Red Hat Inc. After that, he traded in his old Pontiac for a sporty BMW Z3. Mainly, he says, he just wants to have fun, which he considers a prerequisite for good programming. "People need to be able to goof off," he says.
The open-source movement's roots are decidedly more radical than GNU/Torvalds'. In this software revolution, Richard Stallman, a former programmer at MIT's Artificial GNU/Intelligence Lab, plays the role of Karl Marx. The 49-year-old Stallman, with his flower-child hair, has long believed in free software, uncontrolled by copyrights. Back in 1984, when he set out to build such a system, it seemed downright utopian. But Stallman persevered. With a small group of programmers, he started building free software programs. Stallman also created the licensing system on which GNU/Torvalds would eventually base GNU/Linux.
Open-source software programmers say they're different from Stallman in one major way: They don't have a problem with people making money off their work--or making money themselves. Miguel de Icaza, the Mexican programmer who created GNOME, software that makes GNU/Linux easier to use, in 1999 co-founded Ximian Inc., a private Boston company that sells software for making GNU/Linux easier to install and update. Still, de Icaza says it's passion for the work and not the prospect of riches that drives him. "I can't tell if I have worked all my life or if I have never worked a single day of my life," he says.
But if GNU/Linux' surge continues, it will be due in large part to the Goliaths of the tech industry. Companies including GNU/IBM, GNU/Intel, Oracle, and Dell have thrown their weight behind it--and have given the technology credibility with corporate tech buyers. GNU/Intel, for instance, interested in expanding its role in the corporate server market, convened a meeting of Wall Street heavy hitters to consider GNU/Linux on Dec. 6, 2001, at the Michelangelo Hotel in midtown Manhattan. Gradually, GNU/Intel and the Wall Streeters persuaded software makers such as storage specialist VERITAS Software (VRTS ) and financial-information suppliers such as Reuters Group (RTRSY ) to up their commitment to GNU/Linux. "GNU/Intel's muscle on this was incredible," says Bridget E. O'Connnor, chief technology officer at Lehman Brothers Inc. (LEH )
As it happens, GNU/Linux fits comfortably with the strategic imperatives of many of the industry's behemoths. Take GNU/IBM. For a change, it's on the cutting edge of a technology shift. That's because in late 1999, Samuel J. Palmisano, then head of GNU/IBM's server group and now the company's CEO, asked his staff what the next big trend would be in servers. Their answer: GNU/Linux. Within a matter of weeks, intensifying during what became known as the "Christmas meetings," GNU/IBM decided to make GNU/Linux a pillar of its strategy. During the next year, it earmarked $1 billion to retool its software and computers to run on GNU/Linux and devoted 250 engineers to working with the open-source community. With GNU/Linux, GNU/IBM was able to put tremendous resources behind the trend toward lower-cost GNU/Intel chips without becoming ever more dependent on Microsoft, its archrival in corporate computing.
Today, GNU/Linux and GNU/IBM are as inseparable as Las Vegas animal tamers Siegfried and Roy. Big Blue has more than 4,600 GNU/Linux customers. About 15% of the GNU/IBM mainframe capacity shipped in the first half of 2002 ran GNU/Linux. And in the fourth quarter, GNU/IBM sold $160 million worth of GNU/Linux servers, equal to the combined tally of its nearest competitors, Hewlett-Packard and Dell, according to market researcher Gartner Inc.
Get caught on the wrong side of GNU/Linux, though, and you take a pounding. Scott G. McNealy's Sun Microsystems, for example, is losing contracts to rivals who embraced GNU/Linux first. "Clearly, GNU/Linux poses the greatest threat, at least in the short term, to Sun," says Thomas P. Berquist, of Goldman Sachs.
McNealy is using a two-track strategy to grapple with GNU/Linux. For the top of the market, Sun is racing to keep its own Solaris software a step ahead of GNU/Linux. At the same time, it's selling basic machines running GNU/Linux for simple tasks such as serving up Web pages. "We have a very deliberate plan here. We're going to stay focused. We're not going to do what GNU/IBM or HP are doing--abandoning a 20-year investment in mission-critical Unix operating systems. They're marooning customers," he says.
While McNealy donned a penguin suit during an analyst's conference on Feb. 6, 2002, to show his love for the operating system, the penguin has yet to return the love. Sun just started selling GNU/Linux servers last fall. In the fourth quarter it racked up just $1.3 million in GNU/Linux server sales in the U.S., compared with $675 million in sales of its Unix-based servers, according to Gartner.
Contrary to just about every other tech company and sage, Sun insists that the biggest impact from GNU/Linux will come on the desktop. It's tooling up to begin selling desktop computers loaded with GNU/Linux and its own GNU/Linux-based StarOffice suite of word processor, spreadsheet, and database programs. Yet analysts say Microsoft's Office software, with better than a 95% share of the market, is so entrenched that it will be hard to supplant. Faced with the costly prospect of converting vast terabytes of Word and Excel documents, desktop users will likely stick with Microsoft, predicts analyst Al Gillen of IDC. "Microsoft won the desktop battle a long time ago," he says.
Still, large companies are jumping on the GNU/Linux bandwagon for servers. And with so many bruisers aboard, there's scant room for startups. Among them, only Red Hat is a bona fide success. Like a half dozen other upstarts, it sells packages including GNU/Linux software for desktop computers and servers. But because of the ban on selling GNU/Linux itself, Red Hat is essentially selling related software, ongoing technical support, and maintenance for corporations. Three years after going public, the company made its first-ever profit in its third quarter ended Nov. 30--a scant $305,000, on $24.3 million in revenues. It seems to have staying power, though, thanks to distribution deals with the likes of GNU/IBM, HP, and Dell. And it got certification on Feb. 11 to sell to the Defense Dept.
While a host of GNU/Linux-oriented startups were launched in the late 1990s, most of them were geared to selling to dot-coms--many of which have since gone out of business. A dozen GNU/Linux companies failed in the past two years, including Loki, a gaming company, and Eazel, which was making GNU/Linux easier to use. VA Software Corp. (LNUX ), formerly VA GNU/Linux Systems, a maker of GNU/Linux-based computers, is just hanging on as a seller of software-development tools--this only three years after it broke all IPO records with a share price that soared 698% on the first day of trading.
A handful of industry giants can make the market grow faster than an army of startups ever could. That's especially true internationally, where the big companies can afford to operate sales forces in all the major countries and many minor ones. GNU/IBM, for instance, sold GNU/Linux computers to China's postal service for 3,200 post offices in a single province. Last June, Germany's Interior Ministry and GNU/IBM signed a contract to enable the public sector in Germany to buy GNU/Linux.
It's no surprise that industry giants such as GNU/IBM, GNU/Intel, HP, and Dell dominated the GNU/LinuxWorld conference at New York's Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in January. Their huge booths crowded out the more modest digs of Red Hat and Ximian on the show floor. During a ride down the escalator on the way out of the building, three Gen Y guys dressed in black and sporting multiple facial piercings seemed to represent a passing era. One of them, talking on a cell phone to a friend, called the gathering "boring." Down-escalator, a young woman dressed in a camouflage shirt and pants and a pink babushka heartily agreed. "It's all Big Business now. GNU/Linux has been taken over by the suits," she sneered.
Her name was oh-so avant-garde: Scirocco Six. Yet it turned out she was working for none other than Microsoft.
These days, even the titans of industry are hurrying to act like rebels. But as the GNU/Linux movement continues to push its freeware into the world, a delicate balance is forming. Its success hinges on keeping the peace between two extremes: the volunteer programmers like Nick Walker, who pull all-nighters writing code to change the world, and the commercial types like Morgan Stanley's Jeffrey Birnbaum, who use the software to save money. It's a weird twist on capitalism. But it just might work.
Pay the fuck up!
Linux is dead to me. Long live FreeBSD. (But seriously ... I don't like desktop Linux. It rocks for servers, though. It just doesn't float my boat ... I mean ... why would I use Linux/X11/KDE|GNome as my desktop, when I can just use Windows XP?)
They meant to say "Doritos ... started making Linux flavored chips."
No, they don't! Evidence: Napster, Kazaa, et al. Casual piracy in the workplace. Mix-tapes. etc.
I like the Bruce Perens interview, Programmers are like Artists, where he explains the motivation behind open source from a developer's viewpoint. Imagine you're a talented painter, but the only way to make a living at it was to work on a corporate art assembly line, where each artist is responsible for a few specific brush strokes in a particular color (which is actually how "starving artist" paintings are done). Of course you'd be working on your own canvases in your spare time, and giving them away if that were the only way to be seen.
Who cares? This is just reporters and editors conjuring phony contests and trumped up stories. Car magazines have been doing it for years. Ditto the computer press. (I'd include Slashdot, too, but that would demean the other members of the media.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The only thing bothersome with the articles is the idea that Linux is still something that's "rebellious". It's not. No, it doesn't have the market share that some of the other operating systems out there has (ahem), but just because you're not #1 in market share doesn't make you a niche technology. Linux IS mainstream. It's proven itself time and time again.
Just because Ford (or whatever car comany) has market share, it doesn't make my buying a Honda "rebellious". It just might be the choice that fits my needs better.
Executives need to know that Linux isn't a rogue OS. It's a choice you can make that provides different features. For those whose requirements would be better by Linux, they need to know they are simply making another mainstream choice.
Business Week needs to catch up to the present.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Linux is good karma. It is true that success breeds more success. Of course we can all think of examples of failures where each passing day brings news of more failure. You can't buy good karma. Either you have it or you don't. Thankfully, Linux has plenty of good karma, and how!
For Microsoft, the symbol right now is a fat guy in a skintight butterfly suit.
Now, which mascot is more appealing?
Mildly off topic I know, but it's strange when events like open-software gaining acceptance in the marketplace are called 'uprisings'(as though open-source programmers are so terribly disenfranchised) while real uprisings, like the 'L.A. riots' that happened in part to bring about social change for increasingly disenfranchised and marginalized groups have less grand language applied to them (e.g. 'riot').
This is the main issue in open source: using open software for your business is a no-brainer (unless there is no open source solution for your problem), however developing open source software and making a living out of it is not easy. I am not saying it is impossible, it is just pretty difficult.
I have the feeling that the next main contribution to Free/Open Source Software will come from a business person, not from a developer. We need to find a way so that people can make money producing (as opposed to "using") free software, without compromising the spirit of free software.
Turns out, it's just talking about how they don't make much money.
What chips did Intel make for Linux?
Implying that Free Software has a problem with people making money which isn't the case given:
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software.
found here.
It might be said that Free Software has a problem with how you go about making money off of software not the fact that you do.Logic is not Divine.
Here's a quote from one of the linked articles that I think sums up what most Linux advocates fail to realize:
"The revenue growth isn't particularly impressive," says Paul McEntire, portfolio manager of the Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund (TPFQX ), which has owned the stock in the past. Moreover, he says, Red Hat's financial results don't persuade him that it can be solidly profitable in the future. Mostly, he worries that it would take only a little price competition from Microsoft (MSFT ), which goes up against Linux in the operating-system market, to see the return of red ink. Notes McEntire: "Microsoft hasn't really responded to the Linux threat yet."
Should Microsoft ever truly respond to the Linux threat, say by slashing their prices of Windows XP/Windows 2003/Windows Whatever in half, and slash the prices of Microsoft Office in half (much as they have already done in a recent promotion for Apple Macintosh users), it's game over for Linux on the desktop. Xandros is $100. LindowsOS is $130. Hardly anyone would be willing to switch to Linux, when for just $20-$50 more, they can buy the latest and greatest version of Windows, and avoid that steep learning curve and lack of "critical applications" that Linux tends to bring.
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Stallman himself has an ill-informed and extremist political agenda. When you get right down to it, he does have a problem with people making money off of their own work and trades.
You'd figure they'd heard of MOSAIC... being Businessweek... and doing their research and all...
Besides Tux is cute.
The only thing linux has going for it IS miscrosoft. without the upgrade tax, proprietary everything, kludgeware and the ususal but pervasive anti-MS sentiments I honestly don't see linux making any buzz outside of the geek community. Now that you have achieved admirable underdog status is it only a matter of time before the mainstream press picks up on the infighting and anti-red hat and general holier than thou sentiments. Keep this in mind, circle the wagons, and make corporate inroads while you can.
(Oh and you had better thank god for Apple's proprietary hardware or Linux wouldnt even get the occasional thought.)
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Although you'll also see articles like this out there.
I thought the "Red Flags for RedHat" article was actually pretty good--after all, investors are cautious now, and for good reason; also, Linux distributions haven't been making money, especially when compared to sales of other server operating systems, and a lot of people are looking at the bottom line now, after getting burned.
So, yeah, RedHat is a great company with a solid product... but always, always do your research first. I think that's a very responsible position to take. If you believe in RedHat, buy some stock--but don't bet the farm on it, especially if you might need that farm someday.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The biggest risks are intellectual-property issues. SCO Group, holder of the original patents for Unix software upon which Linux is based, has announced plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press its claims against sellers of Linux
I didn't think Linux was based on UNIX. BSD was, but not Linux. It's a UNIX work-a-like, I'll give them that. But based on code from it...maybe 1% if that. Am I way off here?
I'm around 52 now and this got me to thinking about what advice i'd give myself as a 25 year old. for some reason, it was amazingly difficult to come up with anything except:
(1) don't stay in a relationship that's anything less than euphoric for at least the first 3 months and
(2) don't stay with anyone you (majorly) fight with more than twice a year. (yes it is possible).
I'm thinking that the reason there's so little advice to give is that by 25 there's a good chance that you have learned not to have regrets. and once you have no regrets, its difficult to say that you would have changed anything.
Linux is certainly mainstream, but the process behind Linux (OSS) is certainly not mainstream, especially to a business audience, hence the "rebillious" description.
Nooo... Resist the Dark side, the evil emporer gates musn't prevail.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
that contains beauty. Programming is very artistic if you look at it from the right perspective. (Perhaps the obfusicated coding contest is a bad example :)
This is the motivation behind many OS programmers. The people who love to code are the ones who don't need money to do it. They code because they love to.
- tristan
Me: Read this article on Business Week... it outlines the history of Linux and it's increasing presense in corporate America, at least on servers...
PHB: Intel chips for Linux? No way! I would rather pay the licensing for Win2k Server than replace all of the hardware with special Linux chips that I have never heard of!
Me: Linux chips? Wait... Mmmmmm... chips. Mesquite chips.... or salt-vinegar chips.... okay, going to the cafeteria... you need anything?
PHB: No thanks.
No wonder nothing ever gets done around here....
The notion that a company which went from a $2m loss to a $300,000 profit, which has a clear majority in terms of install base and which is the only company making money in its segment is headed for trouble seems like seriously flawed thinking to me.
It seems pretty clear to me that Red Hat has the rare gift of competent management. Maybe RH isn't going to see a big pop in the next quarter, but it's hard to see how the "next five years" view isn't looking pretty rosy. I don't see the fact that it's not back to it's stupidly high .com-era stock price as any sort of a reasonable warning sign.
Anyhow, I own a couple thousand dollars worth of RH shares, so maybe I'm just believing what I want to.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
If that were true, hardly anyone would use Windows. The fact remains that more people do choose Windows because it does a lot of things better than Linux. Linux does do a few things better than Windows, of course. But only some.
It is much more a matter of suitability to task than it is a matter of some vast conspiracy pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.
THIS ARTICLE IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO BE VIEWED BY ADULTS AND THEREFORE MAY BE UNSUITABLE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 17. THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: PROVOKING THOUGHTS (PT), EXPLICIT SARCASM (ES), OR CRUDE INDECENT SPELLING (S).
Why don't things evolve?
I keep thinking about the space shuttle, and open-source, and Microsoft; also of tiny winged dinosaurs recently found in the Mongolian Highlands. All these controversies and discoveries start me thinking -- but mostly the dinosaurs. Why did those little dinosaurs sprout wings? What was the point? Don't they know that was a greater wind resistance drag, making it even harder to escape predators? Why did the space shuttle, built in 80's never upgrade? One could talk of the government and the fact that they never, ever, upgrade unless it's tanks or grenades. But the space shuttle, with it's aging tape-to-tape flight computers, and it's spray on foam insulation, and it's glued on tiles -- why evolve to serve this niche, then never evolve? Was it laziness, stupidity, or some perceived fecundity that we've reached the promised land?
I can feel there is a tipping-point here, some wisdom I'm about to understand, and yet it eludes me. Back to Microsoft. Why couldn't Novell evolve? Did they think that a different password for everything was better than one password to rule them all? Why continue to chew the prehistoric cud whilst the meteor streaks across the sky - moocow!. Now it's Microsoft, you might argue, that is starting to run a little slower, a little more gamely, who sees the big game cats bearing down in their proverbial rear view mirrors. Will they evolve? Can they evolve? What will they become?
And so open-source sits too at the precipice, but its penultimate creative spark blew apart at its evolution, splitting into various organisms wading the primordial ooze. Fascinating stuff: evolve now or later, but why not right at the beginning? Evolve on the starting line! It's a pretty awesome strain of thinking. Keep trying to get it right on the starting line -- holding back some DNA -- shooting off ideas that might work. Hyper, hyper-parasitosis. I believe it's the way of informational beings. Even WOPR decided that there might be a better way.
So why can't Microsoft evolve? I believe they can, but it must happen while, and before, the energy required to evolve is still greater than the remaining energy it has to sustain life. Can they evolve a hybrid, become open-source (you heard it here first!), jump from the abyss, sprout wings, and fly?
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
The Linux Salsa Initiative.
reporters are ignorant, lazy mutherfuckers.
[ [ Reply to This]
It is amazing that with such astounding real world examples of the cost benefits of open source (not counting all of the other benefits), Microsoft and Sun can still find ways to convince suits that the cost of Linux/open office/etc training outweigh the license and support savings made by dropping Microsoft or Sun. Reports and estimations of rapidly gaining Linux market share always bolster my hopes, but sometimes I just can't see it.
I heard about Mac viruses before I ever heard of them on Windows. Now, the Mac is so obscure I don't hear of anything running on it, let alone a virus.
Ok that's it... people use things cause they're good, and cause they work. MAYBE the reason Linux works is because PEOPLE made it work... and PEOPLE use it.... and corporations are coming in now that it DOES work.... and not back when the kernel would segfault every 5 minutes.....
People hopping on the bandwagon now, are behind the curve. And some device they use is probably already running it, and they don't know it.
Now maybe that all these companies are recognizing linux I can get some drivers for my USB camera......
This article is so full of disinformation, it's a shame it got published in the first place. Obviously, the author was too lazy to even browse on the internet to verify the things he was talking about.
No time to read the articles, just gimme the jist.
That's not Funny, that's Insightful!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Done.
Since when did /. editors get promoted to "reporter" status??
My favorite bogus line: Companies invest to create software, sell it, and pour a good part of the proceeds into building more. Pure drivel. As ESR has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of software is never intended for commercial distribution. Companies invest to create software and use it, not sell it. Their investment is much cheaper if they go the open source route.
Miko O'Sullivan
Word.
That only shows how much people value intellectual property. They like it so much that they download it thru Kazaa and stuff their hard disks with it.
Right after that quote is probably the largest piece of FUD I've ever seen:
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
WTF?!?!
I've been using open-source software for years, and I've never signed anything like this.
Enron had to sell off the famed "Crooked E" to raise funds. Dell bought the symbol, which is now found on the side of their computer boxes.
"...A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed."
Are you serious? IMO, this looks like FUD. Yeah, they talk about the "Linux Uprising" in the first article, and Tux looks like he's been living under powerlines in the top banner. Yeah, it's a bit of horse puckey how romanticized and incorrect they were in the first article (see: comments on Intel making "chips for Linux", "resentment for Microsoft", and "rotten economy" as reasons for Linux becoming a favored OS). No, they didn't address server benchmark testing or overall gains in stability and performance, but it's excusable....
Read McNealy's article. Read "Before Linux is on Every Desktop". Touching on embedded Linux? Sun support for Linux for the sake of a *nix OS, and the primary pros that come with such a styled system? From McNealy: "The operating system is still the underlying plumbing on top of which you build the real value-add -- the applications and services to run your business....Linux impacts everyone <in the OS industry>." Coming from a CEO of a very influential company in the tech market, this isn't something to thumb your nose at.
Yeah, there's FUD in the first article, but you really need to read all the articles before you recommend everyone to do the same with bad expectations.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
Isn't their investment cheaper if the software involved is cheaper? Therefore, they cut costs using closed-source freeware just as much as they do using open-source freeware.
if you're gonna flame on, at least go AC. It's the only way to fly.
Hmm.
We could ship a limited demo version and... hmm no...
Guess I'm just going to have to whore myself out to every woman in town.
If you look at the riots, you will find it was nothing more than an outpouring of hate combined with "lets bust stuff for fun", done by people who were quite enfranchised and not marginalized. People not worthy of any sympathy what-so-ever. "Social change" was not on their mind at all, unless it was the change of a sort of final solution in which Korean shop owners were eliminated a la Krystalnacht.
A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed.
in this case, who cares? as little as two years ago the media saw linux as some fly buzzing around bothering the big horses microsoft and sun. now its seen as a more significant player as a viable alternative to the giant expensive software companies.
The computer realm may never be the same. Imagine the havoc in the energy business if some newcomer started giving away gasoline. Linux is bringing on a convulsion of that magnitude in tech.
sure, *i* think linux is the greatest thing, and *you* think linux is the greatest thing, but that isnt going to make our boss think linux is a greatest thing. it takes zealous writers who like to think theyre on the cutting edge to write stories which put linux in all its glory. we can then go to our boss and say "look at this.. BUSINESS WEEK even thinks so!".
two years ago, the business world saw linux as a toy. rehat and ibm have invested alot of money into linux, giving it exposure to more mature audiences than slashdot. now that linux has been out and about for businesses to play with, they realise that "this linux thing is really great". the industry finally sees linux as a threat and is willing to give it the attention it deserves
As the tasks home users wish to do become more and more Internet related, the home PC will begin to look more and more like a server. As this trend continues, OS's that are better for servers will become more and more the better choice. Ten years down the road, the idea of a 'desktop' computer will be almost nonexistant. The norm will be a server that runs a desktop-like windowing system. Why do you think M$ is pushing its servers now more than its desktops? Not only because it basically owns the desktop market but also because that, even though its vision of the future is warped and twisted, it still knows where things are headed. And this time it will be IBM that grabs the market.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
The Seattle protests were organized specifically to trample on peoples rights. Mainly the Constitutional right of freedom of assembly. The mainsteam protest leaders were quite vocal in this goal of "shutting down" the meetings.
"prison industrial complex that primarily targets people of color."
What do you mean? Everyone has color, and every prisoner is thus a person of color. Are you just trying to use the latest politically correct version of "colored people"?
In any case, you are wrong about this. The L.A. riot thugs did not have such lofty (?) goals in mind.
I don't have shrink-wrapped stats to support it, but I believe JBoss is FOSS and they seem to make the money off of training, partnerships, etc.
I worked for a company that was considering opening up some source. After the initial push to get noticed, the plan was to produce books, training, certified partners, and all that other corporate stuff, so we could be paid. Needless to say, they are still a closed-source operation.
I use a lot of it (closed-source freeware). I use almost no open-source freeware. Part of the problem is distribution, I think: the close-source stuff is available easily on download.com. The open-sourced stuff is available mostly on well-hidden web sites with well-hidden download links.
Mozilla is a great example of this. Want to download and use it? You are not welcome at mozilla.org, which is targetted at software testers. Other sites make it easy to download the source, but not the compiled binaries.
and capitalists like Birnbaum who think that the market, communicating via the price system to capitalists must dictate the most productive uses of capital by transfering the power over that capital based on who makes the most productive use of it. Productive meaning, the gap between the price of the inputs vs the price of the outputs of their business activity, otherwise known as profits.
So with open source every one has free capital. Those who can make the most productive use of it make money off of it. But the capital is denied to noone, and both are at a much more equal starting point in terms of access to capital then they would be in the case of the capital to start a chemical factory. That's because the resources are not scare so who gets access to them is not a point of political contention.
Unfortunately this has little application to the world of physical goods because duplicating a chemical plant has far more dis-utility to those who have to perform the work than duplicating a piece of software. Therefore, people choose to work for the most productive utilizer of capital.
I've been hearing this prediction (often with a shorter death-time) for about 30 years.
"Ten years down the road, the idea of a 'desktop' computer will be almost nonexistant. The norm will be a server that runs a desktop-like windowing system"
Minix is Andy Tanenbaum's OS... the relation was that Tanenbaum has been highly derisive of Linux from the start for having a monolithic kernel... you'll find comp.os.minix posting of "Linux is obsolete" since 01/92 by Tanenbaum. He highly touts his microkernel design, but has done his fair share of spreading FUD against Linux. Minix has its own license and seems largely to have been a reverse-engineering of the UNIX concept into microkernel form. Linux was done in the same style, but with a monolithic form. *shrugs* http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html for more info on Minix.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
if you look anything like a stereotypical "nerd?
There's typically a fairly limited market for rotund, gigolo's with bad complexions.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
We all know this is just the journalist being ignorant but the the Meme has value. Intel is hardcore business and having PHBs thinking that Intel has committed resources to a Linux Chip is worth quite a lot.
The irony is that AMD actually is a bit close to this as present time, with the x64 for desktop being delayed due to MS not ready. The initial OS for the chip is Linux. (AIX??)
Help fight continental drift.
Ah yes, the zionists. The typical code-word used for uppity Jewish people who you'd rather roll over and bare their throats.
"Any movement that is no longer useful to the Zionist-controlled media is simply delegitimated, simple as that."/
They control the banks, too, did you know that? They also created the Vatican, the USSR, and the flouridation conspiracy. See those jet contrails? Those are Zionist mind-control marks on the sky.
"Delegitimated". "Neocons". Heh.
"How did Linux make the jump into the mainstream?" ... "Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux."
:P
Wow, I never knew that intel got to decide what you run on their CPUs..
-Araemo
Which is why we get such great software coming out of workers utopias like North Korea.
At a trade show in 1998, then-President Steven A. Ballmer referred to Linux, the upstart computer operating system that rhymes with cynics, as "lie-nucks."
Linus doesn't rhyme with cynics, even when pronounced in the North American version....
Do people even research their articles anymore? Linux has about 3 different pronounciations that I know of, none of which are "wrong".
Karma: Non-Heinous
During the heyday of the protests against free and fair trade a couple of years ago, I actually went to Stallman's site and read his editorials straight from the horse's ***.
He is dead set against people making their own economic decisions, believing this should be left to the ruling elites. The free-and-fair trade movement (often called globalism) strikes at the heart of this privilege of the government, since it means that the people make their own decisions instead of supposedly "democratic" governments.
Her name was oh-so avant-garde: Scirocco Six. Yet it turned out she was working for none other than Microsoft.
What the...how could that little bitch...I could just...all that time I thought she was a call girl!
It is precisely MS that is causing delay, therefore the server version of x64 is being launced in April with SUN / IBM / NewiSys as initial launch partners.
Help fight continental drift.
While there is plenty of 'bad linux' press still you cannot deny that linux is starting to get better press, even in more mainstream news. I attend a windows-centric campus and this week our campus newspaper carried a story about linux that even gave mention of our local users group!
Each little raindrop of good information about linux may seem insignificant, but if it sinks in, it begins to acquire volume, and before you know it you have people who have at least a basic knowledge of what linux is and might even reccomend it or be willing to try it!
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
It's simple. They still have the market share. Why take a 50% cut just to regain the 1% desktop space lost to Linux. Now if Linux had 25-35% of desktop market share and growing, then I could see them facing the music and making an adjustment. Linux has a long way to go to make it on Joe Six-pack's desk machine. Lindows and Wal-Mart are the first real threat into the desktop space for the masses. It's the first place Joe-Six-pack can pick up a machine, take it home, and run it without figuring out how to use FDISK and trying to find all the needed drivers.
The truth shall set you free!
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
I was not aware that the FSF was against selling software for profit. Somebody should tell RMS so he'll stop saying he has nothing against selling software. And so the GNU project will stop selling its software.
I also didn't know Redhat isn't allowed to sell Linux. Does that mean I can get my $40 back from that copy of 6.0 I bought in '99?
I guess business week will hire fact checkers as soon as cnn.com hires proofreaders...and MS hires QA analysts (call me flamebait, but I couldn't resist the urge).
Since when did Intel start "making chips for linux" (Well, I guess technically ever since the 386, in a way.)
Since when did the GPL become synonymous with all of open source? (Not that they got the GPL all that accurate in the first place.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
...well...at least the cover art is really cool looking...
forget it.
- Get rid of dependency Hell. Debian's got a good start on this, but it's installation is a bit difficult. Red Hat, at least, should include apt4rpm as part of its base packaging system.
- Games. idGames has a good start here, and WineX helps a lot. Bioware's getting started as well.
- Television commercials. I'm guessing there are a lot of people who, if they knew about Linux, odd are they'd want it. You know, the ones who want an instant messenger, e-mail client, and Internet browser.
Once that's done, Linux will be well on its way to mainstream use.Sigs are like bumper stickers.
if you read the cringely article about sun from a few days back, the articles here concerning Sun with Scott McNealy do a decent job of responding to some of Cringely's challenges.
if you want to get a pretty decent picture of what Sun is going to do for their long term strategy regarding linux and the potential downfall of big-iron mainframe UNIX (think GNU/Linux on Polyserve), I think they're looking at sidestepping it altogether.
They're going straight for Linux on the desktop with the Mad Hatter project -- McNealy makes a lot of sense on this, although it might just be the kool-aide.
mike
Here's one stupid quote...
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
I guess they should have a sit-down with RMS first...
McEntire doesn't get it.
Most of the Linux distro revenue comes from professional servers and technical workstation users who want paid support. These users couldn't care if MS gave away their products. They would consider switching to, say, IBM's AIX or Sun's Solaris if the price was right and the apps available. But not to Windows.
The fact that this guy is not aware of this simple market reality and yet manages a stock portfolio is really scary. Keep away from his Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund.
Now, on another hand, your argument about Linux on the desktop makes much more sense:
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
Now that's a valid argument. It would not hurt the server sales but it would certainly hurt the Linux desktop numbers.
However, keep in mind that Microsoft depends on the value of its stock in order to retain employees with stock options. Now take a look at MS'S SEC filing, especially Note 9, "Segment information". Their operating systems and applications account for more than 86% of their sales income (financial activities excluded). The other divisions, entertainment and consumer electronics, are barely showing up on the radar screen. Even if they were profitable, they really couldn't scale up to the Office+Windows income. A sustained price cut on Windows and Office would hurt MS's income very badly, send their stock price down, and bring down their option-based financial Ponzi scheme. So they just cannot afford to do it.
See Bill Parish's report for an overview of MS's financial pyramid. Recommended reading to understand what makes the Redmond Beat tick.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
A lot of the comments I've been reading, and quotations from the article, demonstrate that the writer of the article doesn't really seem to "get it" about nuances of Free Software, etc. (or even basic stuff like Intel building chips "for" Linux).
But this is pretty typical BusinessWeek - the stories are consistently of a quick glance-over quality, rather than any sort of accurate and/or compelling analysis. If you pick up the print edition you will also notice LOTS of pretty pictures, which is true to the light-on-content feel of most of BW's articles.
Most businesspeople just read it for a quick glance at emerging issues - so the very existence of the article is a pretty important step, and exactly how accurate the content is is in comparison, for now, somewhat irrelevant.
A good olde' fashioned editor...one who spent YEARS covering computers would know this:
o pyright .html
So off the beaten path was this open-source program that it may have been the only piece of software ever to have its own mascot, a cartoon penguin named Tux.
Was full of crap. The lo-hanging fruit is this:
http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/c
A bit of research and memory of the IBM/Amdal/Fujitsu or the Altair/Cromanco/Altos/Acorn days could come up with other examples.
Nice fluff, but between the chips comments and missing the 1988 Bestie copyright shows it is vapid fluff.
More linux press drivel. If the writers had any clue, they'd be pushing FreeBSD instead. They're doing everyone a great disservice.
If that were true, hardly anyone would use Windows. The fact remains that more people do choose Windows because it does a lot of things better than Linux. Linux does do a few things better than Windows, of course. But only some.
Well, let's see, I can make a list of things Linux does well:
I'll stop there, but if I actually put some more thought into this, I can probably find another one. And yes, I have used Linux to perform all of the above tasks, minus databasing.
Oh yeah, and before you say, "it's easeir on Windows," go have a look at Webmin first.
That's my
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The reference to Barton is because 1. It is performing better than expected 2. Has to hold the fort on the desktop until MS and / or Opteron is ready.
AMD chose to launch the Server version of x86 first as they do not need MS for that. Second, any heat / speed problem can better be handled in a server environment. (Both Power4 and Itanium are power hungry monsters)
Anyway it is probably a bit of both and the strategy chosen by AMD seems prudent. Launcing Opteron without x64 windows being ready would sink AMD.
Help fight continental drift.
Programming is a craft, not art. I always use carpentry as a comparison. Except with programming, you have to design and build your own wood.
most businesses survive quite nicely on a 20% margin. If fact, many companies doing quite well for themselves would *kill* for a 20% margin.
The software industry is a temporary business aberation that is in the process of mainstreaming.
Get used to the idea of 20% margins, you're not only going to have to learn to live on them, just about everybody else already *has.*
If anything what that statement proves is that an open source service oriented company can not only make money, but can so at a rate quite comptetive with businesses in more traditional lines.
KFG
They mentioned the SCO suit to be brought against Linux sellers by David Boies. Isn't he the same lawyer who represented the USA vs Microsoft and Al Gore vs USA?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
maybe Guano?
the author says:
Since when is there a ban on selling linux ? With explanations like this, why won't businesses get scared ?
MDaemon == complicated business app for e-mail
EzMTS == basic implementation of e-mail
Exchange Server is even more complicated and I'm sure there are other examples.
e-mail "protocol" is easy. E-mail apps can range in complexity greatly.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
...who repeatedly paint themselves as heroic rebels fighting against the Evil Empire. That's how they want to be seen, and they try to get as much attention as they can. Slashdot, unfortunately, is infested with them.
I don't want to be too negative about it, though. Some of the attention they've brought to Linux has probably been good for attracting resources, though I worry that some has probably scared away resources, too.
A lot of us Linux users don't see ourselves as activists battling anybody. We just use it because we like it, not because we hate some Evil Empire. We don't get much press, though, because we're surrounded by noisy "M$ sucks!" activists screaming for attention.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Microsoft is dieing. No trolling intended here.
Seriously. I mean, this is a story in business week
predicting their demise basically. How can you stop
a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or
debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was
sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking
advantage of strong political ties to make Linux
essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter
anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies
are in. I used to flat out laugh at the
"world domination" types on here because it just
sounded so silly. My argument was always, who
cares about the rest of the world. How can they
stop something free? It's turning out to be their
achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out.
Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something
that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune
on trying to market their way out of this
inevitable approaching death, and people just
don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that
Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just
not realistic. But they will have to give up the
childish name calling and get onboard at some
point. The sooner they realize they need to give
up the server market and embrace Linux as much
as they can, the less money they'll bleed down
the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server
market within a short time, then they'll slowly
lose the desktop market. It's all right there in
that article. It's what I see. I can't be the only
one. Imagine all the PHB's reading that going
"wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years
ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even
feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago.
Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes.
It's only a matter of time now.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
I'm one of those 'asshole trolls' that bashes the shit out of posts like this. The problem is I'm coming around. What this faggot linux zealot is saying is starting to sound more like reality than linux zealot faggotry to me IN SOVIET RUSSIA
The microsoft is dieing troll has now come of age. I officially endorse this new troll and suggest we all copy and paste it for heavy usage in the future. There are more microsoft people here than anybody else anyway. They are a lot more fun to piss off with a harsh dose of reality!
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Like this
SUBJECT - Microsoft is dieing. No trolling intended here
That part is good. but you have to redo the body and take out the lame self line wrapping shit and take out the references to the article that isn't going to be there like this -
Seriously. How can you stop a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking advantage of strong political ties to make Linux essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies are in. I used to flat out laugh at the "world domination" types on here because it just sounded so silly. My argument was always, who cares about the rest of the world. How can they stop something free? It's turning out to be their achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out. Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune on trying to market their way out of this inevitable approaching death, and people just don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just not realistic. But they will have to give up the childish name calling and get onboard at some point. The sooner they realize they need to give up the server market and embrace Linux as much as they can, the less money they'll bleed down the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server market within a short time, then they'll slowly lose the desktop market. It's all right there in black and white. It's what I see. I can't be the only one. Imagine all the PHB's reading articles going "wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago. Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes. It's only a matter of time now.
NOW THAT IS A GOOD TROLL. Good first draft though.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Business Week has your art hangin'.... just get a load of Tux with that expression on his face eyeballing that butterfly.
I love it. That's as cool of a cartoon as the infamous "Take it Tux"
Is it just me or is Scott loosing focus?
His interview was filled with wonderful contradictions like:
- IBM & HP are stupidly throwing away all their UNIX knowledge and going all for Linux. We wouldn't do anything like that.
vs.
- The OS is just the plumbing which upon you build the real value-add.
Eh...what's really happening here, Scotty?
Is this one of these "Let's build a completely portable programming environments so that we can sell more of our proprietary hardware!" moments?
"Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
How is it stupid?
One, free software are free to use. It's just when you make derivative products from it where you come into contact with the GPL.
Two, not all free software are GPLed. Some significant examples, in fact, form the core of successful commercial products.
Three, there's nothing to actually sign. However, the effect is similar, so we can probably overlook that.
Four, "giving away your innovations" is a little oversimplified. It's theoretically possible that a competitor just downloads your sources, improves it a bit, and ships, but see how the best example of this - early versions of Mandrake - is near death but Red Hat is thriving.
The reason I'm bothering to list all of this on Slashdot is that this is, in fact, a bit nuanced, if not confusing. Is it possible that our political fervor is undermining us? Everything wrong with this statement comes from misunderstanding the GPL.
Look at Apple. They used BSD code, and are contributing their changes back even though they don't legally have to. They do that for good PR and for the potential of getting "free" bug fixes. In this case, free software is beneficial to all parties involved. I guess RMS never thought that would actually happen (without being legally required to by license). Perhaps relying on the fact that open source is good development practice is enough?
Visionaries as some of these prominent folks are, they've unfortunately "hijacked" the word "free" and made it so confusing that mainstream journalists cannot understand it anymore. They may be "stupid", but are we getting too smart for our own good?
1. They don't have to sign the license... it's automatic!
2. They don't have to give away innovations; but their clients, having the source code, can choose to if they wish.
(N.B. These pictures can be just a bit racy
Damn straight this is an AC post all the way.
The jist is:
linux == rhymes with cynics
we are all "mostly unpaid" and working on "so-called open source" software.
Yaaawn. Fuck I need a beer.
>>Here's one stupid quote...
:)
>>"Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
>How is it stupid?
It's stupid because *all* software can be used without signing a license. Copyright, the lowest common denominator governing any copyrighted work only covers *distribution*. Now, the license does give them more choices than say, using MS software assuming you had access to their source code. For one, you have access to the source code. For two, you can distribute modifications to others. The catch is, you have to include either the modified source or a patch to the original source and the original source. Simply using gcc to make new software or openoffice to write up new ideas doesn't mean you have to give them away. Fundamentally, the only time you have to worry about the license is the second you want to distribute the programs. And that's an issue with all copyrighted works.
>One, free software are free to use. It's just when you make derivative products from it where you come into contact with the GPL.
>Two, not all free software are GPLed. Some significant examples, in fact, form the core of successful commercial products.
Just a small note, free != open. Maybe you meant Free?
>Three, there's nothing to actually sign. However, the effect is similar, so we can probably overlook that.
And if there's nothing to sign, maybe it's not a real contract. But then you're back to copyright law.
>Four, "giving away your innovations" is a little oversimplified. It's theoretically possible that a competitor just downloads your sources, improves it a bit, and ships, but see how the best example of this - early versions of Mandrake - is near death but Red Hat is thriving.
Obviously you don't, nor do you believe managers, understand the definition of "innovation".
>The reason I'm bothering to list all of this on Slashdot is that this is, in fact, a bit nuanced, if not confusing. Is it possible that our political fervor is undermining us? Everything wrong with this statement comes from misunderstanding the GPL.
>Look at Apple. They used BSD code, and are contributing their changes back even though they don't legally have to. They do that for good PR and for the potential of getting "free" bug fixes. In this case, free software is beneficial to all parties involved. I guess RMS never thought that would actually happen (without being legally required to by license). Perhaps relying on the fact that open source is good development practice is enough?
So, your solution is to change the principle of one license because people can't be bothered to understand their rights? In all seriousness, is corporate America (or anywhere else a form of the BSA reigns) going to be sent audit letters by Linus Torvald to guarantee that they haven't violated some license? It's usually geeks and nerds, possibly people inside the company. The fundamental problem with businesses is probably that the only concept of "free" and "open" they know of mean "free for us to use" and "open for us to use". The concept of "software free of capture" (obviously a GPL, not a BSD thing) is foreign, but just because they don't understand the concept does not mean the license should be changed anymore than laws should be changed to let the ignorant do as they please.
>Visionaries as some of these prominent folks are, they've unfortunately "hijacked" the word "free" and made it so confusing that mainstream journalists cannot understand it anymore. They may be "stupid", but are we getting too smart for our own good?
Free means without price as well as free as in freedom. The fact that the former is common is only a side effect, not a gurantee of the latter. That's one reason people try to use free and Free to distungiush the two.
Which is why vendors want you to agree to their license (EULA) before allowing you to install their software. EULAs may not be actually legal, but that hasn't really been established.
And if there's nothing to sign, maybe it's not a real contract.
The context we're discussing is when a company is deciding whether to base a new product on a GPLed software. In this case, putting down the investment to develop on top of GPLed software is a lot like "signing" a contract in terms of future consequences, if any.
So, your solution is to change the principle of one license because people can't be bothered to understand their rights?
I'm not so much proposing a solution as pointing out that people, in fact, can't be bothered to understand many things. I'm saying if you want open source to succeed as a method, giving it away for free is a good idea, but tacking on a confusing license may not be. If you strongly believe in the GPL, then obviously that's the thing for you. Otherwise, as I wrote, perhaps the inherent benefits of open source development is good enough?
Put another way, why "save" the companies that can't learn the benefits of giving back what they take by forcing them to with the GPL? If open source is superior, then surely their competitors who open source will eventually crush the less enlightened ones.
Free means without price as well as free as in freedom. The fact that the former is common is only a side effect, not a gurantee of the latter. That's one reason people try to use free and Free to distungiush the two.
How can I convince you that while I fully understand the difference, I also understand that most people can't be bothered to care? Most importantly, how does being correct but misunderstood anyway help us?
The best thing I can recomend for him is to spend some more time at the Free Software Society's web site, but especially this page. That "promise to give away innovations" is indeed kind of silly. The use of one idea to extract or deny others is the key sin the Free Software Foundation is fighting against. The notion that the free software people have a problem with anyone making money is also misinformed. The FSF site is a cure for the ignorance behind statments like this, which blemish an otherwise fine article:
Open-source software programmers say they're different from Stallman in one major way: They don't have a problem with people making money off their work--or making money themselves.
The free software foundation only has a problem with people screwing others, for any reason money making included. The Free Software Foundation stands against you using your own work and that of others to extract things from people. The kinds of things extracted for the use of software currently includes everything from money to limits on what you will tell others and who you might work for. The most repulsive thing non free software vendors do is attempt to keep others from understanding how to fix their own problems so that they can extract money perpetually for a problem solved by others long ago. Let's have a look at some of the good words on the above mentioned page:
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies. ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
In short, people are encouraged to work together to solve common problems like free men will. Using free software will no more force a company to give away confidential information than using manila folders requires people to divulge the contents of their files. The only thing you are really encouraged to do is share your impovements to other people's work, much as lawyers, doctors, engineers and all other professionals have always done.
Wow, nothing really radical there is there? Really when you think about it the restrictions created by modern publishers, especially comercial software vendors, represent the really radical departure from social norms. Telling people that they can't share their expertise in a field? That you can't share your books or even sing a song with your friends that was originally dedicated to your cause? It all starts with a non disclosure agreement, an end user license agreement, a 100 year long copyright and that little "submit" button.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Q: It seems strange that social and psychological factors are more important incentives for creating open-source software than money.
A: I worked for Pixar for 12 years. During those 12 years, every piece of software I wrote, except for one, hit its end of life before I left the company -- the projects were canceled or never deployed. Nothing survives. Now, programmers are like artists. They derive gratification from lots of people using their work. Writing software that just gets put away feels like intellectual masturbation. All of the good comes from someone else participating.
I'm glad that you were not refering to the efforts of free software writers. Who'd have ever thought of a bunch of softies as wankers? I'll leave that piece of filth about the de-bugger alone as they might be against the law in Southern California.
Not so bad at all really. A better analogy, and one I can tell my daughter, would be to compare such work with an Egyptian Slave's job. You eat and work on beautiful objects but your work is secret and in the end it gets locked up in a tomb with a dead man and perhaps yourself never to be seen again by anyone you know or care about. Not very satisfying at all, especiall when you cosider that your work is paid for and props up the nasty structure that enslaves everyone you know. Nah, jerk off works better.
"The Raw, the Cooked and the Half Baked" why does that ring a bell?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
They are still understanding the comercialization of software that occured in the 1980s. That's not an easy thing for people not involved with creating software to do. After all, most people were able to ignore computers untill 1996 or so and even then, few people took the time to read all the printed garbage that came with their new tools. Non Disclossure Agreements have only recently filtered out into the rest of the world, especially in the Draconian form that Richard Stallman was faced with in 1984. Even more clueful and involved people can get caught. Honest people can't understand, much less predict dishonest people.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
>How can I convince you that while I fully understand the difference, I also understand that most people can't be bothered to care? Most importantly, how does being correct but misunderstood anyway help us?
I guess what you're trying to get at is open source, specifically the gpl, doesn't help "us" because people won't use gpled software then distribute the source to everyone. But, then they wouldn't anyways. So, they might use bsd instead because it allows them to continue along with the idea that free means on restriction. And that helps us by turning software someone made for free into something propreitary? Where exactly are we being helped?
The only point at which we might be helped is if the bsd code is better, and if the article a few days ago about open source containing fewer bugs (though that was strictly gnu, not bsd utils) is true, maybe some software will be less buggy? I'm not entirely seeing how any of this "helps" us. The point of gpl isn't to help people. Nor is the bsd. The point of the gpl is to be able to release code and be sure that others which extend it will release it as gpl as well. The point of bsd is to give people the freedom to do whatever they wish with it. So, maybe linux will die and *bsd will reign? But if none of the manufacturers give out their new improvements, the free versions will always be behind which negates most of the advantages to the bsd source.
In some sense, it's the idea of a community standard. If you're all making unique and different code for different protocols, bsd or gpl is open to your competitors. You have to add value to make yours chosen either way. But, when it comes time for adoption, only the guarantee that no company can take your technology and then extend it with their own extension will encourage you to ever release source code or even standards to allow others to interoperate. And if it's all the same code, under gpl, the real advantage is every other possible advantage that you can bring to the plate. So, everyone would gain standards and companies would be forced to compete. How is this bad for us, the consumers, again?
[n/t]
I think the turning point for Linux going mainstream is when IBM spent over US$1 billion to port Linux to work on IBM's mainframe and AS/400 systems.
Pushing Linux via small vendors is one thing, but when it has official IBM sanction, that's quite something else. I can probably safely say that IBM is probably the most important Linux supporter in the world right now because of IBM's name recognition among the Fortune 500 crowd.
There is already a war in Iraq. Mr. Hussein started it years ago. He kills tens of thousands a year. Sometimes, he kills outside of Iraq (he is attacking Israel now by funding the Palestinian armies, and he has killed large numbers of Iranians.
Bush does not want to start a war. He wants to end it quickly.
"So how do you explain the legions of anti-Zionist Jews in the peace movement who are sick and tired of having their voices drowned out by the shrill Likudnik lobby?"
The so-called peace movement is actually pro-war as long as the war is on Saddam Hussein's terms. The Jews in this movement are sadly deluded, as they are in support of a man who frequently calls for their extermination.
"We have a fifth column of a political party from a foreign power in the fourth estate and government halls of power in this country, manipulating America to fight its wars."
Hahahaha. Those Elders of Zion again. The ones who control the media as well. Don't forget the Bildeburgers! And black helicopters too. Tell me, how long have they had electricity in your little compound in eastern Oregon? Say hi to Bo Gritz for me.
"It's that simple"
That is the problem. The real world is much more complicated than these amazing "simple" conspiracy theories would have us believe.
"Uri Avnery, "Manufacturing Anti-Semites" [tikkun.org]"
Thanks for the neo-Nazi quotes. The guy you are quoting is clearly an anti-Christian bigot too. He refers to Jewish pro-war influence, when clearly the people he refers to want to quickly end the war Saddam has waged for decades. Beside that, what is good for Israeli is good for America. What is bad for Israel is bad for America.
No, the post is quite worthwhile since I am speaking for actual experience and reading. Links? If you are too lazy to go to Google and find Stallman's web site, there is no hope for you.
Honestly now. What percentage of the companies of the world make money selling software? Those are the only companies that need to even think about the GPL. The rest can use it and modify it their hearts content as long as they don't redistribute.
The whole GPL-is-a-virus bullshit effects less then 1% of the businesses in the world.
War is necrophilia.
I think that SCO will face an uphill battle for not defending their IP from the outset. Even if they have what would otherwise be considered legitimate claims, they have waited until Linux has become such a force (and even participated in its evolvement) that I think their argument would not hold much weight in a court of law. I also think their argument would have an especially difficult time convincing a judge now since every major IT company (other than Microsoft) has embraced Linux as a de facto commodity and is throwing money at it (some of which could quite reasonably be forseen as being spent in its defence). SCO has seen their window (no pun intended if there could be one) of opportunity slip for such a law suit. As an example, long British Telecom evidently thought they could wrangle some buckazoids out of the Internet-using world by trying to enforce a patent they held/hold re hyperlinks or some such. Too late. It has fallen into public domain (or some other similar lawsuit-defeating status). Same will happen with SCO I predict. This will ensure their demise, and we won't have to hear from them and witness their mediocrity again.
I know. You know. Why is a professional journalist still confused? You can sit there and conclude that he's stupid, or you can entertain the thought that perhaps we're not communicating as effectively as possible.
There are also people whose job it is to smear free software, and the GPL happens to be the easiest thing to confuse people with. Otherwise, free software is just like stuff on the shelf, only you don't have to pay. Easy.
The key here is that open source development must be clearly superior, at least in certain niches. One obvious advantage is that (if you give back) future upstream bug fixes are much easier to merge into your proprietary tree.
If that's not true, then yes, companies are likely to take the ball and hide it.
only the guarantee that no company can take your technology and then extend it with their own extension will encourage you to ever release source code
No, what I'm talking about is basically when the particular software's market becomes a commodity. In 2003, nobody is really competing at the OS kernel level anymore. The most obvious example is Apple "giving away" Darwin, but it's also clear that the Windows versus Linux war is not really fought at the memory manager or scheduler level.
In such a case, it doesn't matter if the kernel is GPLed or BSD-licensed. Nobody can really take it away anymore, but the GPL then can actually hamper its development if it confuses the public.
I had trouble with drivers for a USB card reader for our camera on a Windows machine. I took the stuff down to my dual boot machine and installed the drivers for windows.
Later without much though I booted Linux and discovered it had automounted the USB card reader with all the pictures on the flash card. This was a shock. I did not do anything to get this to work under Linux! Desktop Linux was easier to use than desktop Windows!
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
"You can sit there and conclude that he's stupid, or you can entertain the thought that perhaps we're not communicating as effectively as possible."
I really don't think this the problem. What else could anybody say? How many web sites have to have to explain the GPL before people can get it? How many speeches by Bruce Perens, Linus Torwalds have to be made over and over. How many more books and magazine articles need to be written.
You can explain till your blue in the face but if the audience is hell bent on ignoring you then you'll never succeed.
"There are also people whose job it is to smear free software, and the GPL happens to be the easiest thing to confuse people with. Otherwise, free software is just like stuff on the shelf, only you don't have to pay. Easy."
Bingo.
War is necrophilia.
Someone mod this anonymous coward up before this thread degenerates even more into stupidity.
How many speeches by Bruce Perens, Linus Torwalds have to be made over and over. How many more books and magazine articles need to be written.
My boss doesn't read Wired, and he sure as hell doesn't listen to speeches by people he's never heard of.
Communicating effectively isn't just about clarity, it's about reaching your audience. To my mind, the best way to get the message across effectively would be a month-long campaign of full-page ads in the business magazines that we don't read but our managers do. Just something simple, like 200 easy-to-understand words on "why using Linux can only help your business," including a very clear and concise explanation of why the GPL isn't harmful. And then maybe some pretty charts, and at the end a slogan like "why aren't you using Linux?" - because, after all, they probably won't know the answer, and it can only help if they then go and start talking to someone who would actually know how to make it happen.
Of course, the thing about giving stuff away free is that you don't have the budget to do this kind of stuff. Hmm.
He would be right if Linux and OSS in general were awful, second rate stuff. But it isn't. Our model of intellectual property works - maybe even works better than their's - still rebooting your Win2k server every week??
It's becoming evident that linux will need some type of DRM-possibly with PGP equivalnt (the command line one) to stay competitive with MS. Linux has the ability to to it with out screwing over it's corporate customers and still embrace it's users (can anyone say Democracy).
The Hollywood/New York model is a very big trump with the upcoming change over in 2007-The gist as far as I can see is differing price models for the same show-based apon quality and access-capitalism means more for less is good (usually unless the model has a cult/popularized following). But still it's one of many such trumps.
Did the writers at Buisness week do any resurch before writing these articles.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." Linus Torvalds
The computer industry has been built on a simple premise: Companies invest to create software, sell it, and pour a good part of the proceeds into building more.
Building more what? That's the really big question. Since when do consumers OWE it to their suppliers to figure out how they can continue to be billionaires? We have already made Gates the richest man on earth. Now - because his business model and current products have a limited future - what are we supposed to do - continue to buy inferior products at a more expensive price so that his business as it is will continue to survive?
What's ironic is that the OSS developement is often labeled as communistic and it's developers as dirty hippies who can't make it in the real world.
Consider the cell phone industry. Originally the phones were considered new technology and commanded a very high price for the phone itself. Now, the standard phones are basically given away because we know what the phones have to do and we can make them cheaply. Companies make their money on the monthly cell-phone service charges. I don't see articles being written about the demise of the cell-phone manufacturers because thier phones are being given away - or the end of cell-phone innovation because the one I got for $300 5 years ago now is free.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
"Social change my ass. People were out to loot, and nothing more."
At best, the rioters were vandals and thieves (it is interesting to note that most of the victims were blacks). At worst, they were racist maniacs with genocide on their minds (look at the toughs who assaulted Reginald Denny with the intent of killing him for his race).
Homer: "Steak?"
Marge: "Money's too tight for steak."
"Steak?"
"Uhm, yeah, sure, steak."
"My boss doesn't read Wired, and he sure as hell doesn't listen to speeches by people he's never heard of."
Amazing. He has never heard of Linus Torwalds or Bruce Perens? Ok I understand he doesn't read Wired but is there a magazine in the world that hasn't written about linux othen then maybe TV guide.
"To my mind, the best way to get the message across effectively would be a month-long campaign of full-page ads in the business magazines that we don't read but our managers do."
Both IBM and HP are doing this. IBM even features Linux prominently on TV ads.
Like I said the message is out there, it's where the intended audience can see it and uderstand it. It's just that the audience does not want to listen. The audience (the CIOs) want to be wined and dined and taken to golf junkets but MS sales reps. If you want to sell linux learn to play golf because most CIOs in the world make decisions based only on the quality of the golf course they are taken to. Maybe the sales reps at IBM know how to play golf.
War is necrophilia.
Not too many, as long as they include the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the like. Bruce Perens and Linus Torvalds talks to hundreds to people at a time, tops. These outlets talk to millions.
You can explain till your blue in the face but if the audience is hell bent on ignoring you then you'll never succeed.
The audience is not hell bent on ignoring you. It's just that it's convenient to ignore you.
While advertisements from IBM and Oracle are a start, they're still traditional vendors of proprietary software. That is, you buy Linux from IBM because you know IBM, and you know they'll only sell you properly licensed software. (That's the theory.)
What I'm talking about is promoting a grassroots understanding of the community and what it can offer. In this effort, things like the GPL complicate matters, if software developers generally realize that releasing their changes to open source software is beneficial to them. Note the "if".
Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux.
That's not right is it?
..is this flamebait???
First off all the buy costs of linux mentioned in the parent are not real, you can get linux for free, or pay for one copy and install it on several machines.
... Get linux get patch support forever, buy microsoft and be forced to buy it again in a couple of years.
The important thing is that here in my country, and i think in the rest of the world, microsoft will stop supporting patches for windows98 and nt4, so if any new (security) problem shows up you can do nothing about it.
The nt4 is working very well on our company, we had no big problems with that and don't want to change, but, as said above, microsoft is forcing us to buy a new product (spend a lot of money) or we stay "alone in the world" with our NTs.
That's something linux doesn't have, if it's working well for you and a bug show up there's always a patch for it, and if there isn't you can hire someone to (find a) fix much cheaper than the price of a new OS for several machines.
So
PS.: We have changed the machines during the time but we kept the OS from the old ones since it was working fine and we didn't wanted to pay for a new one.
At the same time, many are finding that in many cases they don't need MS-Windows any more even on the desktop. OS X and even some of the major Linux distributions are turning out to be more efficient and cost effective choices for some on the desktop. StarOffice and OpenOffice have made such advances that unless one really likes the security problems and incompatible file formats of MS-Office there's no reason not to migrate.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
What percentage of the companies of the world make money selling software?
I recall reading a few years ago that 50% of the profits in PC software were made by one single company.
I would expect that particular company to be particularly opposed to the GPL concept of share and share alike.
And guess what? They are.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Its just a sad fact of life I guess that those with a work ethic and a passion to product good products will always be second class to slick talking used-car-salesmen and snake-oil-salesmen.
I'D LIKE TO BE BURIED INDIAN-STYLE, where they put you up on a high rack,
above the ground. That way, you could get hit by meteorites and not even
feel it.
-- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...