Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2003 takes 5% away from Linux
ZuperDee writes "According to Netcraft, the number of Windows 2003 servers has doubled since July, and 5% were running Linux before, which is consistent with the trends they've been observing for some time. This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?"
I'd guess that the 5% of Windows 2003 users that used to be Linux users are people that were primarily using Linux because it was free and that managed to get their hands on a pirated or otherwise free copy of Windows 2003 and decided to try it out.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
Windows eventually gets good enough so linux et al won't be needed anymore.
Everybody wins.
FABRICATOR!!
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
I think we need to discuss what the next k3w1 31337 0$ is.
I think it's torn between OpenBSD for the 31337 factor and M@c$ for the "golly what pretty gadets" g33k crowd.
So, which one will win out? Given teh g33k perception that m@c$ are gh3y, I am betting on B$D.
That's easy, Linux never met my needs. No hardware support and no good software have been killing it for quite some time now. That, my friend, is why it is still far behind Microsoft Windows.
Someone mod the parent up. Linux desperately NEEDS more people looking at it from a marketing perspective, and LESS zealots running around preaching like Mormons. If people are using MS Server 2003 (or worse, switching from Linux) that means Linux has *failed* in some respect, in the minds of those customers. Calling them names or saying it's irrelevant won't accomplish anything besides giving a little more help to Microsoft.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
1) Windows2003 performs badly
2) Bribe one hoster to use it
3) Sell it to morons on Slashdot as a great success
With only 0.4% of sites in the first 6 months after release, Windows2003 has already failed.
Thankyou. That is the absolute truth. I choose not to use Linux for one reason. I have hit a point where I don't have the time or patience to relearn a new OS. I am not saying Linux is bad, awful or pathetic. It does consume a great amount of ones time to relearn a new OS. Why go spend days figuring out Linux when I can just do it on the system I already know.
Do I swear by Windows? Yes. It is what I grew up with. Do I bash Linux? No. I do point out and receive much critisism the flaws Linux has. Not flaws with the OS itself but the lack of standard to make it a home-end user desktop. Linux could rule the desktop world, it really could. Without a lack of standard it is just going to either float along or float away.
Even Macintosh has a standard and it runs a Unix based system. Why is it so hard for a standard to come to Linux?
Well, that was a pointless reply with no coherent thought.
"Sufferin' succotash."
All of that is easily taken care of by anybody willing to spend more than two minutes to read a manual.
Translation: You're incompetent.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.