Slashdot Mirror
Linux the Tortoise to Microsoft's Hare?
LukePieStalker writes "TheStreet.com is running a story by Ronna Abramson that makes a case for Linux cutting into Microsoft's server business and forcing Redmond to trim margins. A particular vulnerability is seen in overseas markets, but the heat should be turned up everywhere once Unix replacements are pretty far along by then end of next year. A quote from one CTO: [Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features.""
No matter how many security researchers Microsoft get to look at their source there will always be more looking at linux. The reason: It's open source..
Microsoft can't compete against that so I suspect they'll lose their % of the server market quite rapidly in the next two years.
Simon.
... explain this title to me...is the implication that Linux is slow at innovating or something? Or are they focusing on the 'steady' part from the old fable? The analogy doesn't quite seem to fit since Linux is both 'fast' and 'steady'...Besides Microsoft could be better anologized to a 'retarded turtle' that is both slow and disoriented/unfocused whereas linux is much more like a determined 'rabbit' which is both 'fast' and steady/focused.
Some may not agree with me on the 'focused' point but that's ok, they probably are using the 'retarded turtle' anyways.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
[Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."
Not specifically linux, but the market. ANYONE who had come along providing that focus with good functionality would have had the same effect. Linux has rewritten a few rules with the GPL and the way the beast is created and mantained, but ultimately the reason why the market has accepted those is because they provide greater security and greater stability.
Microsoft would have also focused there if they had tried to meet their user's demands instead of telling them they should meet Microsoft's goals.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Microsoft: Release First Patch Often
Linux: Release when stablish and patch when needed
Well IMHO anyway
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
:::putting on flame-proof suit:::
Microsoft is an enormous innovator and will innovate in some manner to push back the threat of *nix. In fact, they may be one of the greatest innovators in the history of tech companies. They're just not innovating in an altruistic, philanthropic or technical way that most /. readers relate to.
From a business perspective, strategic marketing and business practices can and should be part of the innovation mix. If I'm Microsoft can package technology in such a way that it maximizes uptake, positions it as the de facto standard in the marketplace and raises the cost of entry for competitors, that's massive innovation, as long as you're defining innovation in a way that matters to the company's profitability and the financial success of shareholders -- and that is the only $DIETY Microsoft ultimately has to serve.
Microsoft makes some money when it technologically innovates. It makes one hell of a lot of money when it can innovate through changes in its business practices or (better yet) forcing changes in the business practies of most or all customers and competitors. This is where you'll see Microsoft working hard to combat erosion in its server market.
RMS can rant all he wants. We can wave the banner of free (Speech! Beer!) all we want. We can use the word monopoly all we want.
And Microsoft will still win.
Microsoft will win as long as they understand the whole war and we understand just one battle. The battle we're fighting is technological superiority, lower off-the-shelf cost and (in some cases) the principles of Free Software. Battles matter, but they're not the whole war. The war is market share and mindshare dominance, and "innovation" as simply a name for a whole range of tools that meet that primary business end.
In this war, it sometimes seems that we're using a gun and Microsoft is committed to using its whole arsenal. Can you win with just a gun? Yeah, if you're a good shot and take out a key leader. But the odds favor the person with more weapons.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
what the hell is up with the stinking stats at the bottom? and why don't we have 2003 stats in there? give me a BREAK...
not only that, but the stats are based upon licenses SOLD... not number of installations.
this is ass.
This is no real surprise. Linux, even paying for support, is a lot cheaper. And, with blade servers, you can pack a lot more horse power in a lot smaller space.
Back in the Third Age, Sauron was in no danger of being defeated by an attack of an army of Hobbits, no matter how fierce Bandobras Took was. Yet, he fell because of some hobbits. Who'd have thunk?
going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features
You would actually think that with the resources available to them, that they would be able to do both. Perhaps this is the reason for Longhorn's delay.
Microsoft is not a stupid company, by any means, I'm sure they have several linux labs so they can start gleaning ideas from it. They've never had any problem with seeing something as competition and coming up with their own version of it.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
OOo is fighting an uphil battle here. Should they focus on 100% compoatibility or implementation of the next 'killer app' inside of an office SW suite?
I, personally, believe that adoption by businesses will come through adding of VALUE and USEFUL FEATURES vs. Compatibility. After all, we can always make a migration tool to migrate the documents into a new format, if the value delivered by the new suite equates to a dollar savings (or revenue generation).
So MS is going to spend more time on security and stability, something every user needs, and less time on adding new features, most of which are hardly ever used.
I think the fable is really about the danger of complacency, which MicroSoft displayed in abundance until recently.
I agree with you on this, but I think the idea is that slow and steady wins the race. Linux progresses (arguably) slowly, but steadily (not to mention stably). Whereas microsoft _attempts_ to leap forward, but at each leap forward it takes a rest and linux passes it. This is because each leap "forward" seems to introduce countless new bugs and security holes.
Enough with these stupid stories already!!!!! Seriously : i know this appeals to the slashdot audience (posting linux advocacy stories) but the reality is completely different. The day that the community focuses on real ways to reduce microsoft's monopoly will be the day that linux becomes sucessful.
People were writing these stories 3 years ago. Nothing has changed.
How is this an advantage. Everyone I know that is halfway technically savvy finds this a disadvantage about the Windows line of operating systems. People like having choices when it comes to the products and services they buy. Microsoft is going to shoot themselves in the foot with this line of thinking.
That is sadly something a lot of corporate types care about. If they know the brand then they will be much more likely to sink a little money into it.
I think a lot of companies that depends on windows would happily buy a lot of boxes of linux and show the bills to Microsoft if that will make windows more safe and stable.
They ought to be damn worried about the desktop and the consumer market as well. The Linux desktop as a drop in replacement for XP Home/whatever is still a ways away, but with advances in (the products formerly known as) Mozilla/Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and KDE/GNOME it's only a matter of time before it really improves to the point where a Linux desktop is truly accessible and does everything that 95% of the mass market wants to do.
Plus companies like IBM can afford to throw full-time devs at it in the hopes of avoiding millions of dollars of MS tax/Windows licenses a year.
Finally they're starting to get a taste of their own medicine (getting their market cannibalized by a free alternative).
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
The mascot coolness factor alone makes Linux a superior competitor!
Yes, yes I know the post is meant to be funny, and it is. But there's a serious point here. The Tux mascot may have a high geek coolness factor, but its a small but real impediment to acceptance of Linux by the broader business community. The logo is cartoonish and childish. It says that this project is the opposite of professional, competent and reliable. It says the software is built by a bunch of amateurs who think a fat, funny penguin is an appropriate logo for promoting their work and the values it represents. Linux is none of these things, but the logo aint helping anyone overcome that prejudice.
Sailing over the event horizon
linux doesn't really have that. sure there's "gnu" as in "gnutar" - but everyone just says "tar" anyway. and "k" and "g" for the desktop manager... but there's not over-arching naming mechanism that says "this is linux".
and quite frankly, i don't want there to be. if we're going to start messing with the names of linux stuff, i vote we put an 'n' in umount and an 'e' in resolv.conf first.
2 1337 4 u!
with both sides working to improve their product, hopefully the big winner will be computer users.
For this to be considered a 'race' you have to establish and end goal. So what's the goal here, smarty-pants? If your end goal is profitablility, the turtle lost a long time ago. Looking at the sheer amount of profits MS has created, it's doubtful Linux will EVER make up that margin. EVER. We're talking billions here. If your end goal is user-base, again MS has slaughtered Linux several times over. Unless they do something radically didfferent than what they're doing now, they'll never have the user share MS enjoys now.
Being a Tutrle implies that by a slow steady pace you'll beat the Hare's constantly distracted state. You may have noticed that MS has the focus of a freakin laser beam, regardless of how much you don't like them or how bumbling you think they are. When they fixate on soemthing, they tend to hammer away until it falls. So your saying MS has the speed (being a hare) while history shows they have focus against a focused, slower opponent (the turtle). So either you just pulled that parable out of your ass to sound smart/cool, or you're actually saying MS is a sure-fire win.
Which is it?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
From my email .signiture rotation (and undoubtedly taken from here):
"The Linux symbol is a cute cartoon penguin. For Microsoft, the symbol
right now is a fat guy in a skintight butterfly suit. Which mascot is
more appealing?"
Ads are broken.
The Windows logo is seen by hundreds of millions of people each and everyday they boot up.
/. joke here) but the rest of 'everybody else' has no clue about computers, much less Linux.
Are you actually suggesting that the Linux Penguin is a better known mascot/logo? Get serious. 95% of the world doesn't even know Linux exists.
Remember, if you read slashdot, you are in that educated 1% of populace that knows a lot about computers (insert obligatory
Because a Microsoft product will install on my hardware without kernel recompilation.
... but I have work to do.
Because a Microsoft product will work with a wider range of hardware.
Because there is documentation, training, certification of support personnel.
Because almost all written for Microsoft applications look and feel the same and I have no installation, navigation, etc user issues.
Becasue I can be sure I can exchange a file and not create problems at the other end.
Because it crashes so seldom as to be ignorable.
Because there is one button to push for support.
Because I don't have to worry about patch sets, Microsoft maintains my platform.
Because Microsoft just enables me to get my work done.
When Linux can say all that, I'll buy it and eben pay for support. Until then, it is a wonderful development environment and a wonderful server
...the reality of the situation is thus:
;).
Either IBM/SUN/Other serious development companies step in and totally embrace Linux and commit to an acceptable Open Source policy that makes everyone happy, or Micro$oft can quite literally re-invent themselves to be Linux killers.
For example, and this is horrifying, imagine that M$ purchases SCO's 'rights' (whatever the hell those actually are) and produces a Unix clone and puts 20 THOUSAND engineers on it. Imagine they do it right. Everything written to be secure, everything modularized, the ultimate desktop, et cetera.
This is a REAL possibility. Sadly, I think Apple is the one who showed them the possibilities. OSX was a huge slap in Redmond's face and I bet many of them said "Why don't we have something like that."
Can you imagine a (borg like) future were Microsoft has (like it does now) two product lines, the client line and the server line. The server line is Unix based, the client line is (who knows what) based.
Linux in all this? Gets marginalized.
In essenece what I'm trying to say is "Do not count on Micro$oft letting us slowly chew away at their business. They will come out with guns blazing and the only way to beat them is to do it with their own game, the throwing of literally billions of dollars and tens of thousands of HIGHLY organized engineers at a problem."
Look how quickly they crushed Netscape when they really put an effort into it. It's, quite frankly, terrifying. 40 billion in cash, tens of thousands of (despite what many of you think) quality software engineers, a first class research group. They're some scary mothers.
I sure wish SUN and Oracle would just suddenly go ALL LINUX. That'd scare the piss out of old Bill
Loading...
Right, because it's so much easier to have "serious" and non-cartoony logos, like Mickey Mouse, or Bugs Bunny sitting on top of the Warner's Brothers shield... or the dancing MTV symbol, or a peacock for NBC... or anything that Spike TV is using...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Perhaps 2004 will not be the year when Linux makes it big. Maybe not 2005, 2006, or even 2007. But it is becoming clear to every honest observer that Microsoft is running out of time. Their business model sits smack in the middle of that part of the software ecology that has become commoditized. They are selling ice in an age of cheap refrigeration.
It's hardly even worth asking 'when'. Frankly, who cares whether it's next year or in 10 years.
The only interesting questions are, IMHO, (a) how can Microsoft survive (and it ain't gonna happen by producing TCO studies!), and (b) what will happen to the software world if MS does not survive. Open Source software is a threat only to some classes of commercial software producer, and it's a boon to every single software consumer.
Attempts to polarize this debate into "opinion" and "zealotry" miss the point: it's about technology curves and the way they change the economics of doing business.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
On the contrary, I think the pengiun is an easily recognizable and very memorable symbol for Linux.
I didn't say that Tux was not a memorable symbol. I agree with you, it is. That's because it doesn't look like most corporate logos (because its cartoonish etc.) I said that the message it conveyed was one of childishness and amateurishness. It is memorable for the same reasons that it doesn't convey professionalism and a commitment to quality. There's a reason corporations don't choose logos like Tux: they want to convey an impression of professionalism. So there's a tradeoff - a more memorable logo that looks amateurish or a less memorable one that positions Linux as a viable alternative to Microsoft.
Sailing over the event horizon
I guess it depends on how seriously you take Microsoft's "security" initiative. If you think it's for real, then yes, Microsoft has been focusing on security for two years. If you think it's just marketing nonsense, then Microsoft has been sitting on its ass for two years except when prodded forward by security vulnerabilities. It's a toss-up for many.
Take some of the things MS does to improve "security". Back in 199x, they had a problem with viruses being sent as attachments, because it's too easy to convince people to run foreign executables on Windows. So, do they fix the bug? No, they remove the feature. No attachments for you! Now it's 2004 and they have a bug in their HTTP URL parsing that allows people to phish. Fix the bug like Mozilla did? No, remove the feature--no usernames/passwords in URLs for you! It seems that Microsoft has learned nothing. Got a bug in a feature? Remove the feature, because fixing bugs is hard.
And then there's Oxymoronic statements, like "ActiveX security". You know what? ActiveX is a generic technology with no concept of program INSTALLATION with restricted user permissions. Using it as an Internet-exposed browser plugin technology was a quick and easy but extraordinarily insecure decision. The best Microsoft can do is throw up a lot of locks in front of the control, because once a user clicks "Yes" (and trust me, users do!) the show's over. The ActiveX control has complete control. Not so on Linux--I install plugins without root access, and they only apply to me, and can only damage my home directory. Home Windows users regularly run as administrators, not because they are dumb, but because they need to do things that Windows won't let them do unless they're administrators. Install browser plugins, fonts, change file associations. Linux users can do all of these things as unprivileged users.
Yes, I believe people at Microsoft believe they are working on security. I believe many Microsoft customers believe Microsoft is committed to security. And I also believe that the truth or falsehood of those beliefs is irrelevant. This is a PR blitz, nothing more.
IMHO the look of XP compared to the look of W2K isn't exactly what I'd call professionell and what I'd call cartoonish and childish.
...
Hmmm. MS has sold millions of these bright, colourish and childish desktops
bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
You mean like Reddy-Kilowatt, Mr. Zip-code, The Exxon Tiger, Ronald McDonald, the AOL man, the GOP elephant, the Demorcatic donkey, the Maytag repairman, Ask Jeeves, or any other persona or charicature?
The point is that there is no such thing as bad name recognition. Just because Linux doesn't have a stylized "Linux" in words logo, doesn't mean that it is not professional. The goal of a logo is to stand out in people's heads and make a permanent impression.
Now perhaps you think it is childlike, but so what if it appeals to kids? My kids, aged 8 and 6 recognize Tux as being the linux penguin wherever they see it. This creates lifelong association and awareness.
As it is, Tux is quite stylized and adaptable, and when broken down into high contrast colors, it is still recognizable. I also take issue saying it conjures up images of unreliability. Linus liked Tux because (paraphrasing) "He looks liked he just ate of lot of herring or just got laid." So Tux stands for fat and happy success with a knowing, enigmatic grin-- i.e. you just ate the competition's lunch.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
I wonder, do you also think the *BSD mascot is satanic, or that it represents satanic values (whatever those may be)? Anyone who makes business decisions based on a product logo, deserve what they get.
I don't believe that the press should continue to say whether Linux will win over Microsoft or hurt them. Both are good operating systems (shhh...Linux is better) but it will be the software that is available to the operating systems that may turn the tides. Right now, MSFT wins in the desktop space because you can go into any store, buy software, and it will work in Windows. However, in the server space, MSFT doesn't have that many good products. Besides products like SQL and ISA, the other server apps are really behind the times. CMS, Project Server, SharePoint - yeish. The open-source counterparts blow them away. I think organizations will begin to see that it won't be an OS war but organizations will want to use products like MySQL in which they can clearly save money and have high ROI. Bottem line: I feel it's not MSFT vs. Linux it is MSFT vs. open-source. Which is a battle they will not win.
The corporate world doesn't seem to have much of a problem with the logo as far as I can tell. HP and IBM were eagerly plastering it over all of their products at the last show I went to. Also, not all Linux companies companies insist on using the Linux pengiun in their logos, take RedHat or Progeny for example.
:p
Btw, is it just me, or does the RedHat guy look like a pretty shady character? I don't think I'd be too inclined to let someone like that manage my servers
His prognostication is late.
IMHO, Linux is the single most important reason that Win2K was as good as it was relative to previous offerings to Redmond.
So good, in fact, that knowledgeable customers aren't convinced there are any valid technical reasons for migrating to XP or successors. The cost benefit ratio just isn't compelling.
In it's effort to stave off the force of commoditisation that Linux and free and open source software is bringing, Microsoft is working furiously to add features that make migration away from Windows less attractive.
The Outlook/Exchange orbit is a prime example of that strategy.
But this kind of feature lock-in is only a good strategy for existing customers that are already heavily invested in Microsoft's products. It's not a good strategy for growth of new customers, particularly cost-conscious customers.
And, even though the recession is over, the cost-cutting activities in businesses are not over, which really puts the spotlight on Microsoft's high-margin products that have "good enough" low-cost alternatives in the free and open source world.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Remember when Microsoft helped commoditize hardware in the 90? IBM can now get their revenge by commoditizing the operating system.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Something professional like an overweight man in a skin-tight butterfly suit? A lizard selling car insurance (geiko)?
I think you overestimate the corporate world a bit.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
That's because it doesn't look like most corporate logos (because its cartoonish etc.) I said that the message it conveyed was one of childishness and amateurishness. It is memorable for the same reasons that it doesn't convey professionalism and a commitment to quality.
I can think of lots of technology that comes with really slick, professional logos that is total crap.
How many of us have visited fancy websites for overpriced "enterprise" solutions that end up being complete junk?
I find the Tux logo to be refreshingly non-commercial. The logo tells me "we didn't spend all our money developing logos and using focus groups to ensure the logos convey the right qualities - we're more concerned with actually delivering those qualities."
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Macs don't cost too much once you look at the total cost of ownership. You might try learning about what you're talking about. Someone else already addressed your servers comment.
This guy is way out there
I'm sure that the OSS community could create a more stable and secure OS than Linux if they designed it that way from the ground up.
I believe MS could do the same.
The problem is that nobody would use the new OS because they value backward-compatiblity more than stabilty and security.
"We've also been very clear that the open source and free software model is a threat to all commercial software vendors. ... It's a threat to everybody."
I hear this a lot lately. How open source and free software will kill economics/capitalism/everything! What is being ignored is the fact that commercial software vendors make up only a small part of the economy. For the vast majority of business and people in the world, computers are not an end in themselves; they are tools that they use to get non-computer type stuff manufactured/distributed/grown/whatever.
What I think the popularity of open source software should be telling Microsoft et al is that the cost of doing business with them is simply too high! It is brought out in the article with the mention of customers using Linux to bring Microsoft's pricing down. Even company concerns with security are a reflection of this; recent Microsoft security breaches have probably cost companies more than the original software purchase price.
In very real sense, Microsoft has priced themselves out of the market. And it isn't necessarily all monetary; the costs of insecurity I've already mentioned and there is a very real cost to vendor lock-in in terms of forced upgrade cycles and incompatibility with existing tools. There is a cost associated with Linux even though it's free; it comes in terms of learning/training, more limited hardware support and longer, more complicated configuration.
Whatever the reasons, companies are now deciding that Open Source software may allow them to save money and be more competitive. Companies that do that will offer better products at cheaper prices to consumers. Surely that isn't a "threat to everybody"? No, the only threat I see is to commercial software vendors in general (and Microsoft in particular) and any chance that "business as usual" will continue to make tham scads of money. They will adapt or die.
Am I the only one who finds MS's newer crayonware interfaces a colossal PITA?
Yeah, funny thing is that KDE and GNOME both try to be very close to it (the XP "Classic" interface, which is what everyone I know uses - not the Fisher-Price one).
How inappropriate...however it would be cool if the parent post got modded "+5, Troll" as it is a masterful example of trolling.
.NET eliminate a "whole class of security vulnerabilities" from Windows. Are you referring to buffer overflows and such? Seems to me that lately that's been the LEAST of problems in the windows worm-fest (almost none involve security breaches related to overflows).
.NET except in that it seems to be "Java done right (according to Microsoft)". Pray tell me, what does the "integrated security environment" do to make Windows inherently more secure than anything else?
.NET applications. Do you mean that since it is a uniform system it will be easier to secure and as such more people will secure their systems. "Security by Simplicity" if you will--make it too hard and people will give up or incorrectly secure the system and leave it vulnerable, hence a simpler setup is more secure. Is that your argument?
.NET architecture seems to force all applications to rely on the integrity of the .NET framework and security environment. The apps are all .NET CLR "managed code" but low-level drivers and code in the .NET framework itself at some level are going to rely on C and assembly I would think. What happens if there is a vulnerability there? A security bug in the .NET Application Framework somewhere wouldn't just make IIS or Outlook or IE vulnerable, it could make EVERY DAMN .NET APP vulnerable! "Central" and "Intetgrated" security model seems to me to translate to "single point of failure".
.NET is the MS Saviour of security. About all I've seen is a change in philosophy to "services closed by default" etc but nothing MEANINGFUL. And we still have to wait at least TWO YEARS until Longhorn to see it working to it's fullest advantage (thatever that is). How is something that's realistically that for out on the horizon fix the very serious flaws in the platform that have to be dealt with today?
Sincerely, HOW exactly does
I am not extremely well versed in the underlying architecture of
Seems to me it's primary benefit would be to streamline the process and provide a common security layer for ALL
Seems like a good theory but one that can bite a gigantic chunk out of your ass if you aren't careful. The whole
Maybe I'm just missing something here, but I really don't see how
Mostly because there is no one in open source development is really set on promoting open source to PHB.
Lets see a typical interview:
Reporter: So how do you feel about microsoft's long term strategy around linux?
Linus: Microsoft? Meh.
ESR: Microsoft does not get it.
RMS: It does not matter, there is no freedom.
Reporter: Well, what do you plan to give to people that will counter the Microsoft deal?
Linus: People? Meh.
ESR: People who have to think about choosing Microsoft or Linux do not get it.
RMS: FREEEEEEEDOM.
Reporter: Thank you.
See, this kind of thing just will not work. The top leaders of open source/free software (sorry for the lack of distinction) are not the best to try to convince anyone to use Linux. Let Linus code, and ESR and RMS push and enhace their philosophy, that is what they do best.
Now you might be on to something with RHAT CEO. Better yet, there should be someone at redhat who is in charge of marketing. Let them speak sense and money on corporate level. Red Hat should really make noise as much as they can, that shouild earn them some interviews and publicity.
Now Perens is a good spokesman, but I think his speeches need to be heard by CIOs, and techies. PHBs do not care to understand shared source versus open source. And judging by what is going on, Perens is already speaking to the technology aware masses, via slashdot or other tech-oriented magazines / news sites. He is doing a good job, even if it means that we do not seem in WSJ or NYT, or Forbes.
That is the way it should be.
badness 10000
Uh, in the tortoise & the hare, last I read it, it was about a hare who thought he had the race "in the bag" and got lazy, allowing to tortoise to win while he took a nap.
MS has certainly been paying attention to Linux for some time now, however...
People like to believe they are empowered. Most people do not use the best product, they use the product that makes them feel the best. So what if Excel is not a database. The last place I worked full time for had so many excel spreadsheet databases that two people sitting beside each other could not agree on what a property's address was.
MS has the market for dumb users at the moment. Unskilled users can be brilliant at other things (like marketing, real estate, contracts, etc.) but they have no clue (or worse, little clue) how to work with data. They use MS products though and can get a small thing going, so they think the next step is just another click and drag away. Linux lacks this fundamental smoke screen.
The reason this race analogy is so beautiful is that Linux is slowly creeping up on MS's GUI ease of use and unskilled user empowerment. The key really is to allow people to do damage to themselves easily, then it is their choice. As Linux develops the ease of use, and ease of getting stuck that Windows currently has, then the rest of the world will start to flock to it. After all, these are most of the same people who download music, games and movies without paying. Then, they will not have to pay for the OS or the Office software.
Microsoft might be able to compete with that, but I doubt they can through legitimate means. After all, GNU applications and Linux development do not have any of the marketing, h/r, accounting or other costs associated with running a company. Pure development without the taint of beancounters or marketers.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Of course you definitely can't say the same thing about *nix desktops...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
they want their flame war from 1997 back
The point that the vast majority of the flamers on both sides seem to have missed is that a respected business publication thinks linux has a chance.
Most of us that were around when Linus made his quip about world domination never in our wildest dreams expected it would really happen, and here is an article saying it might. And articles like this have actually become common!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame fest.