Slashdot Mirror
OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux
Psyke writes "The Australian Financial Review is reporting that 'IBM, Red Hat and a consortium of computer makers backed by the likes of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel will push to move the Linux operating system out of the back office from next year.' and 'Meanwhile, the OSDL, which has largely worked on improving Linux's ability to run large servers, said it would work on improving Linux's performance on ordinary desktop computers.'" The article itself is a little off- those companies are working *through* the OSDL of which they are members - along with a number of additional companies as well.
SCO / Microsoft sponsored conspiracies!!!
Oh wait. Wrong article.
Linux needs a tagline for its migration to the desktop. I vote for:
"Out of the back office and in through the front door."
This should be backed up by a marketing campaign whereby a bunch of men dressed as Linus come round to random offices, unplug the servers and wheel them into the reception, then disappear...
Red Hat: "Use Red Hat! It's the best Linux desktop, bar-none!"
Red Hat proceeds to remove itself from the desktop Linux market.
Red Hat: Forget what we said. Stick with Windows.
The OSDL, in cooperation with (among others) Red Hat, pushes to incorporate Linux into the desktop.
Red Hat's left hand: "RIGHT HAND? WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"
Maybe we'll finally get a reliable copy/paste. Year or two... what the heck. We can wait. Its not like Longhorn is any kind of competition, is it?!
this is all almost like a movie. all you need to do is replace those involved with some more exciting entity, and you got the next billion dollar blockbuster:
Sco: liken to sauron, but with no real power
torvalds: some kinda of wizard
red hat: that land of humand you are sure you can trust
bsd: the dwarves that can kick anyone's ass but are more content with chillin in the mountains
Ibm: the elves that youre pretty sure are on your side...
and so on
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
AT&T is like Sauron: they created The One Ring (Unix), tried to use it to exert a hold over thousands of licensees, but lost it inadvertently (to the public domain and the valiant Berkeley).
SCO is more like Gollum: they got a hold of the Ring, they're convinced it's "My Preciousss..." and will make their lives wonderful, yet they are essentially unable to do anything powerful with it. They are also schizophrenic, having one happy Caldera personality that wants to be friends with Linux users and one evil The SCO Group personality that wants to kill them all.
...wouldn't it fall off the desk?
So, I was correct all along... Microsoft Windows *IS* based on Macintosh. It may not be derived from the sources of Macintosh, but the idea and the running of it most certainly is based on Macintosh. The look and feel is definitely there. The similarities are definitely there. Reading the history of Bill's "borrowing" (read: cloning) of Apple's GUI goodies adds weight to the geneology, regardless of what the judge says (that there are only so many ways to do similar things).
Linux has the "look and feel" of Unix, just as Windows has the "look and feel" of Macintosh.
Because they look and feel the same, are they necessarily related? My Chev is 90% the same as your BMW, they have big metallic/fiberglass bodies, four wheels, and perform the same functions, hell, they're even based on the same scientific principles! But nobody thinks they're derivatives of each other any more than waffles are based off toast. We all KNOW there is some swapping of ideas in the industry, and it's acceptable. I'm only so tall because I stood on the shoulders of giants, and all that. Is my stapler a derivative of your stapler, and if it is, what does it matter? I'm sure the code in Linux is more different from the code in Unix than the process to build my stapler is from the process to build your stapler, but nobody's demanding the stapler companies throw out all the good ideas in the stapler world and come up with a working stapler without using any previous technology to build on, efficiency and practicality be damned.
But assuming you're correct that things that borrow ideas are derivatives, I find that now, with the advent of Mac OSX, which is based on Unix (FreeBSD and Mach), I think we can accurately say that since Macintosh is based off Unix, and Windows is based off Macintosh, Windows is based off Unix, which means that Windows *IS* Linux. There is no escape from the Redmond Beast.