Linux, Inc.

Wonder why they left out.... by GillBates0 · 2005-01-21 05:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The software is making its way into everything from Motorola (MOT ) cell phones and Mitsubishi robots to eBay (EBAY ) servers and the NASA supercomputers that run space-shuttle simulations.

Google. That would've helped to shake up the PHBs a little more effectively, given this is BusinessWeek.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

"threat" to MS? by dAzED1 · 2005-01-21 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

ha. They are very capable of squashing serious deployment of Linux out there, and putting it back to the realm of hobbiest-only.

The only reason they're not doing that is the simple fact that they are effectively a monopoly. If they let Linux get a small share, then all that Linux will do is take up some of the slack from people who would have a higher chance of not paying for MS products anyway. What it also does though is give them something to point to. "See! They have some of the market...we're not a monopoly" can be their response to a judge.

Soon, hopefully, Linux won't be at MS's whim that much. But for now...they're letting us get any gains we have.

Re:"threat" to MS? by Dillusionary · 2005-01-21 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't be so foolish to beleive MS is letting anything.... It's not up to them, it's up to the product. If MS was even remotely able to let anything be done about it, it would have been done a long time ago, and Linux wouldn't be known. Linux is a solid product. They would serious need to convince companies like Cisco,IBM,HP to drop Linux. BUt that will never happen.
Re:"threat" to MS? by debest · 2005-01-21 08:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Alright, "crush" is a figurative expression: the companies may still be in business, but they certainly are not in the same relative positions that they once were. True, some of this is due to mismanagement on the part of the companies you quoted, but mostly it was by sleazy dealings on MS' part that put them in a position of weakness: it wasn't due to Microsoft having superior products for the most part.

Let's look at your examples:

Wordperfect: used initial success of Excel (not developed by Microsoft, BTW), created an integrated Office bundle (including Word) and started practically giving it away to businesses along with Windows. Taken with some boneheaded moves by WordPerfect/Novell/Corel, Word is now ubiquitous.

Novell Netware: this one was perfectly fair. MS did a good job of demonstrating how their network OS could be done as an extension of their desktop OS, while Novell utterly failed with marketing and improving Netware.

Quicken: Microsoft tried like hell to buy Intuit a while ago, and were denied permission to do so.

Lotus: see Wordperfect above. Very similar story.

Netscape: Umm, this is the case that got Microsoft convicted as an illegal monopoly, remember? If this case does not completely prove my allegations, none will.

I might also bring up a few that you helpfully decided to ignore:

Stacker: copied Stac's compression methods then included it free in their OS. Where's Stac now?

DR-DOS: made Windows barf if you tried to install over its competitors OS. Where's Digital Research now?

Java: effectively killed Java as a cross-platform language by intentionally (and illegally) breaking its implementation in Windows. Sun's nowhere near where it could have been had they not done this.

I could go on, but my point's made.

--
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!

Re:It's not the business model... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-21 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Buying decisions are made by suits, though. Most CIO's are former CFO's working towards becoming COO's. They don't give two shits about what "hackers" like.

If it were not from grown-ups (in suits) working for Red Hat and IBM driving the Market, Linux would still be a nifty project on University campuses, instead of the multi-billion-dollar industry that it is.

Yeah Right..... by big-giant-head · 2005-01-21 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not even M$ has the change to buy IBM and they are the biggest 'Linux' company out there.....

--

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.

wake me up by beforewisdom · 2005-01-21 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have seen headlines about the linux revolution for a few years now.

I use linux at home and love it.

Wake me up when linux breaks double digit market share in the desktop world and then we can call it a revolution

An observation by Danathar · 2005-01-21 06:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read somewhere an interesting theory that companies (and organizations) that don't try to compete directly with Microsoft (plan their buisness around beating Billy) and just concentrate on making a good product end up succeeding. (Imagine that!).

One of Microsoft's tactics over the years is to bait companies into direct competition with them. Usually companies that take the bait lose.

As long as LINUX continues to improve NOT because of MS but because people are interested in making better software, then I think success will continue.

I'd imagine it's as if you were playing some game like raquetball or tennis and some dude is at the fence trying to get you to "compete" when you are perfectly content to play whatever you are playing, and get better.

Re:Linux Desktop Thoughts... by stratjakt · 2005-01-21 06:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

What's stopping someone from writing an entire environment like OS X from the ground up, around and on top of Linux, and creating an OS X like environment that is as complete and modern as either OS X or Windows?

Nothing at all. Get started, I wish you luck on that.

IMO, something as polished as OSX or Windows can only be created in a corporate setting. There are too many egos wanting different things, it'd be impossible to get a team of 100 coders to all agree to work towards the same set of goals. One guy wants X, another wants Y.

There comes a point when you need someone to say "we're going with X, like it or find another job."

There's more than enough talent to get the job done, but not nearly enough leadership, or talented people who are willing to volunteer their time to take orders to create something - even if it's not exactly what they want to create.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:Nothing new by timeOday · 2005-01-21 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Read the article. For the most part it's not a prediction, but a report about the inroads that Linux has made over the last several years.

People who don't think Linux is progressing are ususally thinking about the desktop segment, where Linux is weak.

But servers are another matter. Server are where expensive hardware and support get sold, which is why Linux has such strong corporate backing as described in the article. Joe User is irrelevant to servers.

As for the desktop, I'm afraid hardware support is a major barrier. I've run Linux as my primary desktop at home for years, and at work for the last 3 years, but it's frustrating when hardware you want to buy isn't supported. It's even worse when the hardware is supposedly suported, but after laying out the cash you find the drivers are only partially functional, and crash-prone. Reverse engineering just isn't sufficient. Best would be if companies provided open-source drivers and documentation, but I doubt they will.

Re:IBM is NOT a 'Linux' company by metamatic · 2005-01-21 07:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

IBM has more developers working on Linux than RedHat has employees. I'd say that makes them as much a Linux company as RedHat, wouldn't you?

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Re:Here is the real answer: by ratboy666 · 2005-01-21 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bah and Humbug...

1 - The X protocol can be easily and widely implemented. There is a free reference implementation that (a) works, and (b) is free.

It is *easy* to implement X on anything that has a frame buffer, or is scan-line writeable.

2 - Drivers? Init the hardware and get going. Yup, you may have to figure out the reverse engineering. Suck it up.

3 - The attempts to be "better" than X failed -- because -- (wait for it), they weren't better. They may have been more "Windows" like, or "Mac" like, but certainly not better than X.
And that's all there is to it.

What is "Better than X"?

To start with, it would have to support the features of X. And NONE of the attempts (including the Current Mac OS X) does so.

Not that it couldn't be done, it just hasn't been. (why is left to the reader).

-- Network transparency
-- Extensible
-- Reference implementation
-- No OS, device, or platform specific features, except as extensions.
-- Good performance across a wide range of platforms
-- Support for multiple visuals
-- Good event support
-- Easy porting

And the final "killer" feature:

-- Should be able to support legacy X (easy), and also (with efficiency) drive X as a back-end.

The final point would be a testament to portability (Note to gentle reader: X does this already, with XNest: X in X).

With all of this in place, I would certainly consider replacing X Native -- I would have nothing to loose. I could even start by "staging" NewGUI on X, and as applications used NewGUI, finally replace X.

But, if X is being used purely as final rendering tool, it can only be replaced if an alternate rendering protocol is arguably better. And this hasn't happened.

Instead, X Extensions tend to take up the slack, and we proceed.

In other words, X *IS* the driver interface to render visuals. Unfortunately, Apple disagrees: putting X *on* OS X, instead of OS X *on* X. Making the Mac useless to quite a few people.

If Apple were confident that OS X protocol were more efficient (less network traffic) than X, why not compete?

Either (1) it isn't more efficient, or (2) the user base doesn't care about that feature. And, it's a major feature to lose. At least for those who use hetergenous platforms.

Ratboy.

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061

Re:You know... by Dashing+Leech · 2005-01-21 10:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Are you implying that Bush won because he bribed the voters?

I suspect he meant that it was only through Bush's connections that he got in, especially with respect to the Florida recounts in 2000. Or it could have meant that he only got in because of the blatant propaganda spread via the major media outlets who refuse to project Bush in a bad light or ask the tough questions because they get blacklisted for key opportunties offered by the Bush admin (embedded journalists, White House invites, interviews, etc.). Such opportunities could be considered as bribery and are certainly working in that respect.

13 of 393 comments (clear)