Slashdot Mirror
Linux Can't Kill Windows
nberardi writes "Infoworld is running an article in which the author claims 'Linux is established and has a niche that, as various pendulums swing, will grow and shrink. Show me charts and stats and benchmarks that prove Linux superior to Windows in every measure and I'll not argue with you. But no matter how much money and dedication is poured into Linux, it will never put a dent in Windows' mind share or market share because Linux is an operating system, a way -- and probably the best way -- to make system hardware do what it's told. But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.'"
In the sense that GNU/Linux is not a platform.
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
A sure way to get the lunix lunatics to come out of the woodwork.
Let's start with the unsensational headline of "Linux Can't Kill Windows", follow through the article to no rational arguments as to why this is, and ending with a "Stay tuned; I'll tell you all about it."
Seems like a well-thought out article that certainly wasn't created for the purpose of increasing impressions or generating clicks to advertisers on the site.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I didn't read the article.
But history has shown that the short term impact of most new things tend to be over-estimated, whereas the long term impact tends to be under-estimated.
Who knows where Linux will be in 20 years? I sure as hell don't, but I have a rather optimistic view.
.: Max Romantschuk
Show me charts and stats and benchmarks that prove Windows superior to Linux in every measure and I'll agree with you.
I've never ben so early in a thread before, but I agree. There's too little standardization for Linux to become an OS.
It's the mindset of most people that keep them from using Linux. They've been using DOS and Windows for YEARS, and they're so familar with how things are, that changing that even slightly is very confusing for most people. If Linux had been in Windows place, and had 90% of the market, people would LOVE Linux and HATE Windows. Simple as that.
For example, my dad is a Windows person, and his SO has a Mac with OS X. He can't seem to understand how OS X works, so he dissmisses it and claims that Windows is better (on the fact that he knows how to use Windows).
It's not that Windows is "special", it's just that that's all most people know. And half those people don't know much, if anything, about Windows anyway, so it's no wonder Linux has a difficult time trying to enter the mainstream market.
This is just sensationalism. If you look at for example the server market, or the governments sector, linux is already beating up windows.
My long term projection would be, that Linux will push Windows into a third of the market, something like 1/3 linux, 1/3 windows and 1/3 else.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Will the /. editors stop posting flamebait articles?
Simon.
"But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it."
What does branding it, boxing it and putting on a price tag, have to do with a tool doing a job?
what
Very poor indeed.
Last week I gave a class about Linux to 4 people who haven't used it yet. They were blown away because they didn't realize it had a desktop and all the fancy programs that Windows has. I think what really is hurting Linux is just myth. That myth is that Linux is just a text interface for servers or something like that.
But I'm sure we get get Gatesy and his crew pretty good ! ;)
Seriously though, I don't think it will Kill it... yet, all in good time my fellow geeks
"Sweet llamas of the Bahamas !"
A way to fight network effect is to have platform independent applications.
The web is a first step.
XUL and other technologies like thsi is one step is the right direction.
Open and RF standards are also a key in this process.
What kinda trollish article is that?
Linux is a very broad platform - in fact, if you looked at Windows, what's common between Windows 3.1, 95/98, ME and XP?
Hell, most programs can't even inter-operate. How the hell is this different from the variety in Linux?
Linux is a VERY broad platform and that will be the reason why it WILL become THE platform, not just A platform.
-2, Troll, Flamebait.
Mod me insightful..
Linux Can't Kill Windows
One fundamental difference guarantees that Windows will continue to dominate
By Tom Yager
April 13, 2005
You can quit proclaiming Linux the Windows killer.
ADVERTISEMENT
Linux is established and has a niche that, as various pendulums swing, will grow and shrink. Show me charts and stats and benchmarks that prove Linux superior to Windows in every measure and I'll not argue with you. But no matter how much money and dedication is poured into Linux, it will never put a dent in Windows' mind share or market share because Linux is an operating system, a way -- and probably the best way -- to make system hardware do what it's told. But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions. Windows wins. Linux doesn't lose, because it can continue the legacy of another nonplatform, namely Unix, that needs to be refreshed and extended.
The practical need to keep Unix around isn't rooted in nostalgia or misguided conviction. There may be times when you're convinced that the solution you need doesn't exist as a whole. The total solutions that exist might be too confining or expensive, or -- as is sometimes the showstopper for me -- simply closed. Open source Unix, in which category I place Linux, BSD, and Darwin (the OS layer of Apple's OS X), is a 500,000-piece bag of Legos that comes with some drawings and a few models you can use, build on, or tap into as references for your own creations. On paper, an OS is an ideal place to start building, because you get to choose everything that sits above it and presumably you know just what belongs in each of those gaps between your hardware and your application. You see, while developers can write to an operating system's default API, they'll spend most of their time encapsulating and abstracting low-level system calls to create what is, in effect, an application platform.
No one is so foolish as to make what can be acquired cheaply or free; it's wiser to pick one from among hundreds of platforms and modules that fill in the holes between open source Unix and your applications.
In contrast, Windows fills in all the blocks between the hardware and your apps. It does it in ways that you can't alter, but which you can use in different ways. You can code with the tools of your choice and in the programming language of your choice, and unless you stray too far from the rule book, everything you create will interoperate with everything others write for Windows. An operating system is a rack into which device drivers and APIs are inserted. A platform is a rack into which applications are inserted.
Linux and Windows don't compete. Sun Microsystems (Profile, Products, Articles) sees this as an opportunity and has struggled mightily to position the combination of Solaris and Java as a platform. It almost makes it. I'd choose J2EE and Solaris over Linux for nonuser-facing server applications in shops that have expert administrators. But, similar to Linux and other flavors of Unix, Solaris is a nonstarter on clients, and that's enough to hurt its capability of competing with Windows. There is only one platform that can stand toe-to-toe with Windows, and that's the combination of OS X and Java.
Stay tuned; I'll tell you all about it.
Linux isn't really about killing Windows off.. whoever thought that the primary idea behind Linux when it was created was to make MS go bankrupt and for no one in the world to ever use Windows is a bit dilusional. Linux is an alternative. It's a choice. The same thing could be said in reverse: Windows Can't Kill Linux.
There's too many people who are interested with tinkering.. with having something being totally customizable if they take their time. With being free and able to run their computer the way they want. Is this the majority of people? Not even close! But it's enough that Linux will sustain itself in spite of any FUD MS and crew would throw at it.
Who cares if Linux never overtakes Windows? I know before I discovered it in '98, I thought I was doomed to the endless update/virus/adware world that everyone else was in (except those crazy mac people.. which now due to the mac mini I am one as well.. side tracking....)
Anyway, the point being.. Linux is strong due to it's following, and has great potential to do quite a few things Windows has troubles with. The choice is there for anyone to pick up that option if they so choose. What's the big deal?
Unfortunately, on short term the guy is probably right.
From the article:
Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions.
I thought Windows was winning on the desktop? Isn't that what we're always hearing?
Linux and Windows don't compete.
Ok, so the whole "Get The Facts" campaign was done just for grins?
Open source Unix, in which category I place Linux, BSD, and Darwin (the OS layer of Apple's OS X), is a 500,000-piece bag of Legos that comes with some drawings and a few models you can use, build on, or tap into as references for your own creations.
Also wrong. There are distros that are like that, but there are distros that aren't. Linux offers choice, and not just the "bag of Legos" kind.
And, just in case the article author reads this...ever hear of Wine? As soon as Wine gets DCOM working correctly and Installshield working right, it won't matter to Joe User if the OS is Linux or Windows, just so long as he can install TurboTax and Doom3. Check back in a few years, and we'll see if you're singing a different tune.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
before I read the article I agreed with the statements. And yes, I did read it. I think that people are finally starting to realise, at least in the OSS community that linux will never overtake Windows in the desktop market. Why? Because people, IE the general public, associate computers with Windows. If it says made for Windows XP on a new workstation, the average Joe is going to feel comfortable. If it says, made for Linux, people aren't going to feel as comfortable. Just ask Redhat how well packaging up linux for the desktop worked out for them. It worked so well that they abandoned it in favor of the server/enterprise market. A place where they already had a huge share. Trust me, if anyone could have swung the desktop momentum it was Redhat and you see how that turned out.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
Linux itself may be simply an operating system, but since you find it packaged with such a plethora of applications all bundled together in various distributions, I think it is safe to say that Linux can hold its own. Further, some distributions might better server an enterprise's needs thereby making a more desirable choice.
Linux has a geekey feeling to it. Probably, Joe sixpack will never have means to replace his PC with a Dell packaged linux, either due to his lack of geek-ness, or due to penetration of windows in his (and everybody else's) mind (unknowinlgy).
Its upto Windows now to kill itself - by exposing itself to hacks, viruses, trojans. If the situation reaches to a point where windows is *completely* f*cked-up, then may be linux will see more and more interest - being the only cheap alternate to ship somehting to Joe.
Writing that article in the first place is sure to feed the flame before the average /. crowd even reads it.
/., now thats pouring gallons of kerosine on it.
But posting it on
Linux cannot make a dent??? I'd say it already has, else why is M$ running "Get the facts"?
That said, there is an important point here: Linux probably won't "kill" windows, it will be RedHat, or Mandrake, or Debian, or even Linspire :/
Linux at it's heart is nothing more than a Kernel, it's a GNU/Linux distro that people ultimatly install (mostly anyway).
Linux as a brand cannot compete with Windows, because Linux is not a brand, not a product. There is not even a single definition of what "Linux" is, except a bunch of software running on top of a specific kernel.
Even the concept of "competition" is a straw man.
Linux represents a total, brutal, and unstoppable commoditization of technology that follows the same rules which drive "Moore's Law". When you remove the costs of improving a technology, its marginal cost will fall to zero as people compete to be the key suppliers.
Software is basically becoming free, and this is what will kill Windows, whether or not it's something called "Linux" that takes over.
Most likely, "Linux" will never become more than a niche OS, excellent for servers but rare for desktops. But what it represents - unlimited and perfect software at no cost - will, inevitably, rule the desktop as it will rule every single computing platform, for the simple reason that no amount of lock-in or marketing is going to get people to keep paying more than the going rate for a commodity.
Apple's strategy - where the OS and a bunch of software is basically thrown in for free - is the trend of the future.
I hate to say it, because I truly love using Microsoft's well-engineered products, but between the commoditization of their core markets and the parasites eating their way in from the internets, they are dead, Linux or no Linux.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
His first sentence is right on the money - "Linux is established and has a niche". So the question is - what is holding it back? And here, he misses the bleeding obvious - every single one of his points (from TFA - the reasons to keep unix or windows around, the cost analysis, etc) is flatly wrong or misses the mark. The answer is, I think, obvious --- Linux is the OS designed by geeks, for geeks. It's the classic example of overengineering the wheel. The problem is, I have yet to see an interface for *nix that does as good as job as windows does of 'packing everything under the hood' and making an operating system that (as a friend of mine, the chief sysadmin for Connectiv would say) "protects users from their own stupidity". When someone can come up with an interface that is as intuitive and user-friendly as windows, then (and only then) can linux hope to compete in the desktop market.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Someone speaks the truth! Now, can we get on with life? And if you want to make a serious dent in MS Windows, let's develop a better OS targeted directly for the desktop user. That is if someone hasn't beaten us too it.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
How's that? ;)
Depends on the point of view, i guess.
What exactly is this "Platform" he keeps talking about? The author doesn't even touch on the idea. How is Windows a "platform" and Linux not? Apparantly it's because "Windows fills in all the blocks between the hardware and your apps. It does it in ways that you can't alter, but which you can use in different ways." Oh, well that's clear then.
"You can code with the tools of your choice and in the programming language of your choice, and unless you stray too far from the rule book, everything you create will interoperate with everything others write for Windows." which as we all know, is nothing at all exactly like Linux and UNIX oh-no!
According to the author "An operating system is a rack into which device drivers and APIs are inserted. A platform is a rack into which applications are inserted." Yes, and a toaster is a beige fish into which sunbeams are rotated. Pass me the acid, Tom Yager!
It won't kill Windows. But it certainly will kill BSD. BSD is dying.
The point never has been to obliterate Windows.
At best, the "Linux on the desktop" goal is to have enough users so that everyone sees it as a primary platform. There needs to be enough users that it becomes economically viable to always consider a native Linux port for any application.
But of course, people like the author don't understand the concept of coexistence.
You don't use an OS that you don't like, and if that's not true (e.g. you're forced to use a pre-installed OS), then you probably wouldn't know any better alternative if you've been using only one OS.
If a Linux-only user said Windows is better, or vice versa, what does that mean? How does he come to this conclusion? The most credible answers should be from Multi-OS users.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
TFA has more advertisements, navigation and extra widgets around it that content. It's certainly not conclusive, it's someones opinion based on what appears to be very little fact and lots of speculation. However, like others say - for me as a linux desktop user and server administrator - it doesn't matter to me what the market share of linux is. The only people it matters too are the corporations and I very much doubt we'll see them saying "Yes, it's happened.. our product has slipped from 95% to 20%. We lost out to the better product". Hrm!
linux might stand a chance if all the various desktops didn't look like crap
Linux and Windows, in my personal opinion, isn't suppost to be compeditive. Windows is more user friendly but Linux is safer to use.
People use Windows because that's what they were taught in school (like I am now). I'm in high school in my technology essentials class. We're runnings Windows XP Professional.
If Linux was suppost to be capible, then there wouldn't been any hard working programmers to work on creating software... why bother with something that's already perfect?
But think about it, would you but a normal home Windows XP computer on the internet for your business? You'd have to be out of your mind, that's why's there's Linux... to power everthing else that Windows can't.
It really is too bad that he is right. I have used Linux since 1994 and I have always thought of it as my tool. I have had consulting jobs where I did not even consider installing Linux, plain and simply because the customer would never have been able to support it. The IT staff was two people, one who knew how to turn on the computers and servers and one who knew how to crash them. Not being one of those people who builds in repeat work I really had no choice in OSes. I might disagree that the Apple OS cannot replace Windows, theoretically, but practically it cannot. Bill Gates was smart early on by staying focused on DOS, licenses, and getting his OS on as many machines as possible. It is the sheer quantity that worked in Bill's favor and he is the, hands down, winner.
*fss...*
... ?
My bubble shielding me from reality just burst! OMG! Linux will not rule the world?!?!?
Seriously, two points:
- an opinion on InfoWorld is not exactly gospel;
- even though the Linux kernel and all the associated applications make for a nice developer platform, they don't all mesh into something that every PC manufacturer wants to preload on their systems, nor something that a majority of the public wants to rush out and buy every time a version update is released. But why is that a bad thing? Linux and the rest of GNU are wonderful for those of us who want to develop on, maintain, or simply enjoy the use of a stable and flexible "platform". SFW - it never gets a huge market share, winds up directed by market-droids and Executive Vice Presidents in search of ridiculous yearly bonuses. I don't see the downside, as long as there are still folks who buy it for certain uses and license it for even more (not to mention those of us who test and contribute whenever time allows). Wasn't that a key tenet of GNU from the beginning
My $0.02, adjusted for inflation
when it rains, it gets real soggy. when it pours, i'm under the tap just _waiting_ for the joy
Yeah right. /dev/urandom > /dev/hda1
:o)
sudo cat
Let it run for a while
-r
I agree that Linux isn't going to kill Windows - even if Linux suddenly becomes a huge runaway success, there will still be Windows.
However, the article's reasoning is devoid of content. It goes on about how Linux 'isn't a platform' [for servers], just an OS. Of course, Linux is just a kernel. But he's saying that as if there aren't things that run on the Linux kernel (like, say, Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL/MySQL, Perl etc. for large values of etc.) that come with any distribution that you are actually going to end up using which in my book (and any sane person's book) DOES make a platform and addresses all the things he reckons Linux doesn't have.
The article isn't comparing like with like - it's comparing the full Windows server distribution with the Linux kernel alone (or perhaps just Linux + the GNU tools and C compiler), but completely ignoring all the stuff that comes with a server-oriented distro.
The article was either written by someone who has never used a recent (within the last 6 years or so) Linux distro, or someone who is trolling.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Just another pundit trying to secure his livelihood by promoting the status quo. I've commented on that particular syndrome before. The way that I know that that is what he is doing is because he says he can't refute Linux's technical superiority...but then goes on to claim that Windows is better overall, which they all do. By initially making the technical concession first, and then making their second claim, they try to have their cake and eat it...appear to have journalistic integrity while still maintaining the status quo.
I agree with one of the earlier comments that the editors need to start screening articles of this nature more carefully. They don't tell us anything we don't know, or that hasn't been said before.
The author of this article is right in one respect, though...Strictly speaking, Linux won't kill Windows...Microsoft are going to be responsible for their own demise, to a large degree.
I'd just like to say that this article is a hedgehog, a way, and probably th best way -- to obfuscate and confuse -- but you can't turn this article into truth. You can put a picture of a guy, and a title - and even put it on a wed site - but you can't turn this drool into a another nonarticle - it already is one.
Real beer will never kill Budweiser and Tennants Export. Doesn't make a bit of difference to anyone sane. The important issue is to have the option to drink beer, not that you don't have the option to drink what you wouldn't want to drink anyway.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
And in this horse race, Linux is the favorite.
But in any horse race, even the favorite will probably lose. He may be the single horse most likely to win, but I'd bet "field" and take all the rest any time I could.
Maybe ...eventually? GNU/Linux will hit a tipping point (see this) and catch on like wildfile. After all, a lot of foriegn countries are using it over Windows and a lot of those foreign (non -US) countries are fast growing economies.
You can so turn Linux into a platform.
The way you do that is wrap hardware around it.
Enough said.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I for one don't want "Linux to kill Windows" any more than I want "Firefox to kill IE".
Ideally, Windows should die and everyone should be free to run the same programs on anything POSIXish they have around: Linux, BSD, OS X, Solaris, etc., just as IE should die and everyone should be able to use and W3C compliant browser.
When all the apps/web pages are compatible with all the OSs/browsers, people will use what is best because there will be nothing to make it hard to switch.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Linux wont kill Windows, microsoft will commit corporate suiscide, (from shooting itself in the foot too many times)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
On the other hand, I think the single biggest reason (beyond that users have "grown up" with Windows) that Linux is such a minor player in the desktop market is lack of applications, a problem plauging the Apple platform. I read an article a few months back (no link sorry) where the author claimed that 5% marketshare would be the tipping point for linux, where it would snowball. Once linux gets enough marketshare, software manufacturers have to release linux ports or risk alienating a strong userbase. Once there are major applications for linux, more users will use it. More users mean more applications, which mean more users.
Free MacMini
Where I work I would NEVER replace the Windows desktops with Linux ones. People are too familiar with Windows and it IS a standard at least in that regard.
What I advocate, and do, is use Linux where it counts, the servers. Being a Perl developer I am always creating great apps that the MS people can't match in my establishment and I do it with the LAMP methodology (Linux/Apache/MySQL/Perl). Doing it cheaper and better is what keeps Linux there AND growing. Right now I am using Open Source to run a survey app collecting data via PDFs and backing it into the MySQL db. The alternative? Spending 60K to another contractor that wanted to use a MS solution.
I only see Linux growing where I am, especially now thatwe've started on a campaign to replace Solaris with Linux.
As long as we are having budget problems like every other agency we're going to up the Linux usage especially when we can do things like save 60K in one pop like this.
It was what I thought, too. The guy puts an impossible requirement (more user-friendly, yet more secure?) and that's it.
Can anyone point to empirical evidence one way or another that Linux has gained any significant desktop traction in the last five years? I see nothing of any note. The only thing I can find is 1% of all Google users, as of June 2004, and it hadn't altered from that since I remember Zeitgeist starting.
Platform is the new brand buzzword. Windows is a Platform. Anything that does not have rock-firm foundations is a platform - ie what used to be called middleware before. By that standard, the GNU utilities are a platform, Linux is not.
This is not a signature.
The article claims that Windows is a "platform" for application development, and that UNIX of all kinds is a "non-platform". He then goes on to say that OSX+Java is a platform. Huh?
Clearly he's not heard of the LAMP way of building applications, which could just as easily be called a "platform".
Anyone care to define "platform" sensibly?
Nice one.... Well nice bit of copyright infringement (??) anyway ;-)
I regularly use three platforms; Windows, Linux (Fedora) and OSX. Conclusion? I cringe at having to use Windows. I find that once you learn UNIX it is faster to get anything done. Albeit you have to learn UNIX.
Now having said that, what I see more off are peacock articles. All fluff and very little facts because the three operating systems are TOO similar. Compare it to cars. These days all of the cars are good enough! They will last four years without too many problems. So then how do you distinguish yourself? Write articles like a peacock struts its feathers, all emotional.
The easiest way to illustrate this peacock argument is to take a bushman from the jungle and get them to figure out what a computer does. Without helping them. My guess is that the bushman will have a hard time figuring out what the mouse is for. Most likely they will use the mouse as a slingshot and head back into the jungle. I am not saying that bushmen are dumb. I am saying that computers require some upfront learning time regardless of the OS used.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
will never knock banannas out of the produce market...
and don't forget
apple
sun
and allthose exotic fruits
HPUX appears headed toward extinction though
I watched windows kill itself on my buddy's laptop twice tonight.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
Just kidding. Mac user since 10.2.
the effect of Linux implementations in other countires' governments. As more foreign governments, and heck even US DOD offices switch to Linux not only for server stuff but for desktop use, you're going to see workdwide market share change.
I personally doubt the market shares for the desktop will change much in the US. This isn't meant to be an advertizement, but when more distros like Ubuntu make nicely packaged live CD's freely available, Linux actually becomes easier for non-geeks to try because there's no getting lost in an installation.
What a load of shit. Just more FUD. Forever is a very long time to forcast. I suspect the odds are less than 50% he is write.
As in newer, lower-cost, cheaper, products.
PCs killed mainframes. Cable and internet are killing network TV and newspapers. Cheap import cars badly dented Ford, GM, and Chrysler's market shares.
You rarely see high-end (and high-margin!) products getting extended into lower-cost (and lower margin) markets. Yet the sellers of low-end products have a huge incentive to improve and get into the high-end and high-margin markets.
And you'd better believe IBM knows this....
Step 1. Run Bochs or VMWare.
Step 2. Install Windows on [Bochs|VMWare] environment.
Step 3. Run it.
Step 4. kill -9 `ps ax | grep [bochs|vmware]
Step 5. Sing "tadaaaa".
Step 6. Skip the question marks and profit.
Since when was Linux supposed to "kill" Windows?
How is Linux/BSD something entirely different from OSX? They are all *nix based (more or less) operating systems. The only difference is that OSX has a prettier interface and more boxed apps available. You could argue that it's a better whatever you want to call it, but to put them in entirely different categories is silly.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Windows is most certainly more successful as far as creating a *platform* goes. On a plain Linux distro install you can fiddle with far more stuff than you can on a plain Windows install. This is undoubtably good, if fiddling is what you want to do.
But consider the average user, and consider a task as commonplace as installing a program. This can be a bit of a hurdle in Windows, but it's mostly clicking "Next", choosing paths and clicking "Finish" at the end (sometimes interrupted with entering a CD/serial key).
If you were to perform a similar installation on Linux, on the other hand, you'll run into problems, because the architecture and even the culture is so flexible in a lot of ways that it has a whole another set of problems, or problems that exist in Windows but are much worse in Linux. Dependency resolution. Compiling. Configuration for these individual dependencies. Just recently, in the past few years, have *graphical* tools that make this easy come into being.
Until each of these "this should be a platform; this should be easy" problems - of which installing programs is not the only one, but just a damn fine example - have been solved, Windows will remain better as a platform, even given the fact that Linux is arguably better at most things Windows does internally.
Brings the mac into this, but come on. Every argument he makes against linux being a platform applies to BSD as well, yet there's OSX. Somebody could do the same thing on a linux kernel, no problem.
He believes Linux isn't a "whole platform", and I can see where he gets that idea-- Linux isn't very unified (Do have KDE or Gnome? [0]) and anyone who hasn't dealt with a modern package manglement system has dealt with Dependency Hell.
So let's imagine some company, we'll call them Red Hat, to pull a bogus name out of thin air, and let's say they were to take this Linux thing, and make a nice standardized platform out of it. People ship you an application, you take your server, we'll call it a "Red Hat Enterprise Server" or something like that, and you can simply load the app on it and run it. They wouldn't say their app runs on Linux. They'd say their app runs on Red Hat.
To him, _that_ would be a platform, and that would have a chance at taking on Windows. It would be Linux behind the scenes, but it's more that just Linux.
Too bad nobody's ever going to do something like that.
-JDF
[0] Thankfully, even if you generally only see one of these, you can still have the other behind the scenes and run stuff intended for either...
RTFA, the article clearly says to use OSX with Java... P4's are for losers.
Linux is cheaper and more secure than Windows. If governments (at the national or local level) adopt Linux or other FOSS packages (OpenOffice.org, etc) any contractors may be dragged along. Firefox and Mozilla have gained popularity because they're not only more secure than the browser that comes pre-installed, but they have more features.
Likewise, government regulations may make Linux installations preferable. To bring up a previous "Ask Slashdot", securely wiping a hard drive isn't as problematic when the filesystem has been encrypted as the OS level.
The more MS tightens its licensing fist, the more people slip away. Just recently a friend of mine was disappointed that Windows XP on her new computer couldn't be copied to all of her family's PCs (the way Win98 and Win2K were). If not for having certain needs -- her kids being able to run games out of the box -- I may have had a convert.
I'd really like to know that.
I ask becaube you keeb spebbing wibh "b" where the "t" shoulb be.
The digital watch is established and has a niche that, as various pendulums swing, will grow and shrink. Show me charts and stats and benchmarks that prove a quartz movement is superior to a mechanical timepiece in every measure and I'll not argue with you. But no matter how much money and dedication is poured into digital watches , it will never put a dent in mechanical timepiece mind share or market share because digital watches are only watches , a way -- and probably the best way -- to tell time . But you can't turn a digital watch into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
Of course Linux can't kill Windows.
Windows will kill it self!!!
George O'Malley.
He is partially right, but it depends on your definition of mindshare or market share. If it is a mindshare of people who know nothing about computers, that is true. But at a company you put a Linux box with a configured desktop in front of a new hire (having the tools they need), they will use Linux to do there job. If go to a trade show with 100 Linux kiosks for internet access, it will be used.
People still use OS/2, but they don't realize it. Many ATMs and cash registers run OS/2. Years ago I saw an agent computer terminal at Delta airlines, but the agent didn't know that they were running OS/2 -- they were just doing the job they were given.
Fight Spammers!
To kill windows, a silver bullet is what you want.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
To most end users, a consistent look and feel, that works right out of the box, is really important. So it's a very good thing that Linux distributions are improving in this area (which the article conveniently forgets to mention).
For the same reason, I also think it's good to see Open Source applications adopting user interfaces that are more similar to their Windows counterparts. It may annoy some old-time Unix or Linux users to find "Options" under "Tools" rather than under "Edit" in the Firefox browser.
But for Windows users that are looking for a safer alternative to their present browser, the chance that they'll make the switch increases with every item that works as expected when they first try it out.
And it's only by convincing today's Windows users to switch, that Linux can avoid the fate that the article spells out.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
...into the past to see that markets can make significant changes to adopt new and better standards.
There used to be an old saying in the early 70's: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM". IBM offered solid mainframe and decent midrange solutions for businesses. Mostly businesses that trusted a vendor and went with the flow.
Eventually, businesses learned about IT and realized that other vendors also had viable options.
I believe that eventaully, the corporate desktop will switch. Where hardware systems are standard, and admin support becomes suitably trained, and office productivity applications become solid ( and more browser based ) there will be gradual switch.
Companies realize they can as much for much less, and their people can actually 'walk the walk' there will be a significant dent in Windows marketshare.
It's just a matter of time.
Linux Can't Kill Windows
I see someone didn't try to dual boot Fedora Core 2
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
When a Gentoo system is set up correctly, it is so easy to keep. I can't imagine anyone who sets up a Gentoo distro, correctly, ever switching to another operating system.
This guy doesn't understand the mentality behind open source. If he has any experience, it was a failed attempt at setting up his own system (something that with some distros is actually hard to do: try simplymepis or knoppix; and those two are actually designed not to take over the desktop). The basis for opens source in general is: if something can work better, we will change it to make it better.
Linux may not destroy Windows but it definatly has the potential to lower the Windows marketshare down to about where OS 9 was. There will always be diehard Windows fans(just like there are mac fanatics) but the average Windows user just wants a computer that works to let them type, browse the web, check email, and some of them want to talk to other people. I have met people who actually don't know what Windows is. They turn on their computers and expect them to work.
Eventually what will(should) happen is that operating systems become so interchangable that many people don't know or care what OS they are running. Using a computer will just be second nature. The way it is used is just an extention of how the user thinks. Linux has the potential to become this system, and Windows(in its current and proposed future form) doesn't. Windows is the system that is doomed.
First image is of the author being like a monkey with a screwdriver fiddling around in the back of a television.
/. editor lowering a goat into the Velociraptor pen that is /..
The second image brings up a dastardly
If you can't get your drivel read and all else fails then troll.....
People have complained about the quality of Slashdot comments and journalism for years. What I'd like to know is: how is so-called 'professional' IT journalism any better than the run-of-the-mill tripe you can read in the thousands of Slashdot comments submitted daily? Really.
Quite frankly, I suspect most Slashdot posters, brash and illiterate as they are, know a hell of a lot more about IT than most Gartner analysts and their ilk. Who creates a market for this garbage? I really don't get it.
But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
And here I thought it was succeeding because it wasn't doing that.
Good thing we're all still going to theatres as the only place we can see movies...oh wait, we can see them on tv too...oh, then again, there's those new-fangled vhs and dvd thingies, so we can watch them at home...or, watch them online...or watch them on a psp or even xbox...
Things change. The Open Source movement is considerably more versitle. We're also more prepared to deal with emerging technology.
And remember, there's more to the community than just the Linux kernel.
Ok, both the parent article and the replies so far have completely missed the major point here. Yes, the article is right... even in the mid and long term, Linux is never going to replace Windows in the desktop market. However, there is a very, very significant reason why this is true.
It's the games.
No, I'm not joking here; the fact that Windows is effectively the only serious choice of operating systems for PC gamers ensures it an ongoing stranglehold on the home and office desktop markets for as long as the situation continues. I know somebody is going to jump in here and start telling me about all the ways you can get certain big name PC games running under Linux. This is missing the point entirely. PC gaming, under Windows XP, has essentially reached a point where it is almost (but not quite) as simple as console gaming. You put the disk in the drive, you install, you go. If you try this on a fresh-from-the-box PC, you'll probably have to reboot when it installs a new directx version, but that's about it. It's been a long time since I had to go scrambling around to find new video card drivers, sound card drivers or anything else of this ilk to get a PC game running under Windows XP. The simple fact is that you cannot do this on Linux. For a couple of games, it's more or less possible, but these are very much a minority (and a minority that isn't really going). By and large, a few of the big-name fpses will work under Linux, but if you can't get Deer Hunter and the latest Sims expansion running in under 10 minutes, it's never going to get into the mass market.
So, why does this matter beyond the home market? Simple... a lot of homes these days of people in the socio-economic group who tend to work at a PC in an office contain a home computer. Chances are that this computer will get at least some use for games, either by adults or the kids in the house. Assuming that nobody in the house is a geek, this makes Windows the only choice for an operating system. Dual-boot systems are not a concept that ever crosses the mind of the average user.
Now, when your average non-geek computer owner starts a new job with a company, he'll probably walk in on day 1 and sit down at a PC running windows. Already, his employer can more or less take it for granted that he knows how to navigate Windows, use IE, Word and a few other common software packages. Sure, you might need to teach him how to use Excel or Powerpoint, but the basics will already be there. If he comes in and sits down in front of an operating system he doesn't recognise, your training costs are going to be higher and it's going to take longer to get new employees up to speed. When the geek from IT goes before the board and tells them how they could do all their IT stuff better on Linux and not even have to pay for the operating system, the board are going to be alert to these factors. Chances are, their response to the IT geek will be "thanks, but no thanks".
To cut a long story short, having the vast majority of your new employees already familiar with your IT systems before they even start work is an absolutely huge financial benefit. Linux, as it stands, has no hope of emulating this.
Couldn't someone have said the same thing about Apache and any other opensource project. No, Linux will never kill. Windows, but who cares? Just like SGI will never really die, but it's all but dead right now. Really ./ posts like this are really useless. It reminds me of the first Presidential Debate last year, the entire thing consisted of "yes you did" and "no I didn't". Like a bunch of fighting kids.
If this ./ article is not flamebait, I don't know what is.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
...don't care what operating system is on their computer. If they can:
1. get their mail
2. browse the web
3. fileshare
4. listen to music/watch videos
5. play games (purchased, or web-based)
6. maybe light use of an office suite
7. do taxes
of all of those, number 5 and 7 are almost impossible. Some games come with linux support, but they are slower than the windows versions. Web-based games are gaining ground, but some still require ActiveX plugins. Last time I checked (yeah, i already did my taxes this year), there were NO way to do your taxes on a linux computer, unless you use a web-based tax solution. I've used one before, and it was nice, but didn't seem to have all of the features that I would have expected.
oh yeah, and 99% of people will never try to re-install their operating system. Of the 1% that will try, most of those will use their windows reinstall disk they got with their computer.
Note: these stats are made up, but look around you when you are at work. Count how many people have even the most basic computer hardware knowledge. Then count how many have the free time to spend to reinstall a whole operating system and update all of the patches.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
The author doesn't seem to know an awful lot about GNU/Linux. He categorizes Linux, *BSD and Darwin all as Open Source versions of Unix (he refers to them using the term 'Open Source Unix').
Had a look at the column he writes as well, couldn't find a single non-windows article....
Yes, precisely. As 'easy' as apt and rpm are, installing things in Linux is still a mystery for many people. The idea of "there is no C:\ drive, Neo," usually brings out the glossed-over eyes as their mind crashes and displays the native blue screen of d3th.
Many Windows dependents are so jacked in that permissions and the file hierarchy of *nix are more than they will ever understand about computers. (people are still on the fence about switching to Firefox!)
But I like it that way! It keeps us enthusiasts shrowded in mystery. And what Americans (wait, I mean people in general) don't understand, they fear. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, he's only writing a shell script.
Who's your user, program?
The best distro people should convene and define a single distribution standard aimed at creating distros for novice user desktop replacement. Think POSIX for apps, maybe call it DESKIX (name not taken), whereby any two DESKIX distros are guaranteed file- and service-level compatible.
The standard should require a suite of MS-compatible apps like OpenOffice, specify a boot manager and appropriate installation wizards, security using reasonable best practices, apt-get like functionality for package download and management, and should specify that all licenses ensure binaries are completely free.
Then, they should follow Firefox's model and market the bejeesus out of the standard and distros supporting the standard.
Then, and only then, will Microsoft have something to worry about.
For buying IBM the saying used to go.
The same can now be said of Microsoft
People who BUY windows 9 times out of 10 arent buyign an operating system as they see it they are buying comfort and peace of mind, they are (or would like to belive) they are familiar with it and hey everybody is using it it cant be too bad
Now to us *nix type that may be crap, and it is, but people are funny animals they do what makes them feel good and as bad as it is with spyware and broken API's it does make them feel good, just as a Mac does an Apple fan
When theyve had too much and boil over we pick them up as a Rabid Linux convert, but Hey
I can honestly see the Author has some good points, sure leaves room for thought and discussion.
Isn't OS X, which he seems to say is a platform, built upon a unixish BSD?
I don't see why the same thing can't happen with Linux. It's going to take some work for sure. Luckily people do seem to be working in that general direction...
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
For pity's sake - this 'article' has also been plugged on OSNews. Users there have sensibly concluded that this thing is either straight FUD or a complete troll.
The writer uses no statistics, data or representative sampling. He cannot point to a single concrete example of his central thesis. He seems incapable of understanding the developmental changes which have enabled Linux in the past few years to 'fill the gap' between a user's desire and results. In short, the article bearly passes muster as opinion piece, never mind journalism. Many would say that all of the above marks it as a Troll, with timeshare rights under the FUD-Bridge.
Dupes are bad enough, misleading headlines are even worse. Putting this type of troll-crud onto the front page is a serious dereliction of editorial control by /.
...then ./ has had that icon with Borg-Gates right all along. An indestructible force in the universe that even a hacker friendly penguin defending the forces of good can't destroy.
I'm heading to Publix to buy bread, milk, and beer. Then Wal-Mart for ammo. The end of the world is here!
IronChefMorimoto
This reinforces my comments (for which I receiced flamage and praise) about Linux being Buhddism and Windows being some form of Christianity.
You can't expect a non-agressive operating system to overcome one that is willing to sign exclusivity deals and such.
If/when Linux takes over windows it will be one one way - the same way that windows got to be omnipresent - trickle-down from companies.
If we can get companies to adopt Linux on the corporate desktop, the home desktops will follow.
Focusing on corporate desktops is something we can do, one company at a time. Eventually we'll ahve critical mass and the rest will collapse in, with the home market to follow.
Focusing on corporate desktops though is hard - they are well seated on Windows. Anything is an upheaval. We'll need to seed it into new companies. For existing companies, we need to find ways of mitigating (where WORTH mitigating) the others. ( + XDMCP server anyone??)
Just think, of IBM had bought MINIX instead of DOS, we'd probably all be on Linux now. IT TRICKLES DOWN.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The purpose of Linux isn't to kill Windows, it's to provide a high-class alternative for those that want it. What part of the word "choice" doesn't the author understand?
But there is a tiny grain of truth to this article as things stand right now. I mean, I had stopped using my laptop which had Linux installed because I was tired of rebooting to Windows to play games. So, instead I just kept it on Windows. This on top of the fact that, I had a few problems with the installation ofcourse. The problems were fixed, but I didn't see why I had to face those problems in the first place (like mouse problems, network card, and other minor things). So, having said this, as of right now, Windows is going to front and center because it looks pretty and works. Most users don't know much about the security issues plauging the Windows platform and hence don't care to switch, which means it will not become mainstream soon.
His point is that Windows, as a tightly integrated package, provides a solid base for applications developers.
However, I don't see why that doesn't apply to GNOME or KDE, which have the additional benefits of being largely architecture-independant. Wasn't Nautilus originally a third-party application written to integrate with GNOME and Enlightenment?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
"SPONSORED LINKS
Microsoft - Learn, solve, and grow at TechEd 2005
Microsoft - TechEd 2005, June 5-10, Orlando. Explore
HP Big Impact. Small Size. HP LaserJet 4345mfp
Microsoft - Learn from peers and experts at
Avaya - Ready for 99 million teleworkers? Avaya"
Sounds to me like this is more of micro$oft's campaign to kill linux.
ocusing on corporate desktops though is hard - they are well seated on Windows. Anything is an upheaval. We'll need to seed it into new companies. For existing companies, we need to find ways of mitigating (where WORTH mitigating) the others.
(XLive CD +
XDMCP server anyone??)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Tom Yager has been an Apple fanboy for years.
Wait, did he just say OSX and Java?
*sigh*
Whatever dude. I guess all those folks rolling out Linux left and right are just a bunch of morons, clearly running a closed hardware platform is the way to go. I mean, I hate being able to buy whatever hardware I want, even from Walmart and have it work in my machine. I'd much rather have a vendor tell me what to buy and when. Then I can stop thinking and follow the rest of the sheep to the Altar of Shiny Things.
Now, give Steve back his Unreality Shield, you've had it long enough.
Anything is possible given time and money.
This is the same type of mindset that has kept putting Republicans and Democrats in office over the many years in the US. I vote libertarian every year and it doesn't work, why, because people are afraid of wasting their vote and so they don't vote that. How can I make the stretch of comparing that to Windows/Linux, well the same can be said about software. Most non-geek people don't use Linux because the software can not be found easily in stores where they can get a pretty box with a pretty documentation to go along with it. And the reason for that is because most commercial programmers write for windows because it's the only "sure" thing in the realm of popular consumers. I know I will probably get modded down for this comment, but it's true. If you don't think so, go to any popular store and look at their shelf. You might find Linux Distros, and maybe one or two software titles, but you will bombarded with windows titles. Average everyday people will not buy an OS that they can't find software for on the shelves (even when you tell them they can get it for free online) and major software companies will not waste time writing software for a platform that they can't make tons of money on. It's a catch22 situation unfortunately..
The Technomancer
"Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active."-
"PCs killed mainframes."
Really!
I must have missed that.
There are still plenty of mainframes in the world. IBM's mainframe division is still highly profitable.
I can't think of a single case where a mainframe was replaced by a 'PC'. Some were replaced by midrange systems runing UNIX or AS/400 etc. but all the PC actually did was replace the dumb 3270 terminal on the users desk and ran a 3270 terminal emulator.
or to have a good alternative? The author misses the point. Those of us who choose to, don't have to be forced to use Windows. And that's the point.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
You can kill almost anything with the -9 switch.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I call one big bullshit on this whole mentality. MS and Windows will one day go away. Whether or not linux will still be around by then is up for debate but to suggest somehting will never go away is a pretty foolish thing to do. Hell you can't even say that about the sun, and to suggest it about microsoft is incredibly short sighted.
Personally my opinion is that the current way we do computing will be gone in 30 years. We will be looking back at this time period going, man what the hell where they thinking using those primitive things. And as such an OS like we see it today will be completely obsolete, destroying MS mindshare and market share in one fell swoop.
People said the same thing about IBM some 20 years ago. Then a little upstart came along with an OS they purchased from some little company in the Pacific Northwest. They licensed it to IBM and everyone else.
Fast forward - here is a similar situation, except that the OS is free and the incumbent has a much better foothold than IBM ever did.
LAMP - Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP. It works. It is fast. It is clever and understandable.
And if you want to get the same functionality from Windows server... Good luck! You will need it. They split everything and sell it piece by piece. Before long your company is the filial of the MS. And it is so obfuscating, just to hide why it was done so.
Windows is very good in creating and controlling "drivers' hell". Try to issue the Linux driver for the hardware, which you produce, and see what happens. They are very good at it, and that is why they control the desktop.
Ohere nice soft - Firefox, phpMyAdmin, Google - run on Linux all right too.
Slackware. Linux might not surpass Windows, but SuSE or Lindows might. Give it time to mature and keep giving it away cheap/for free and it will continue to slowly suck up market share. Once this momentum reaches a certain critical mass, this growth will not be slow any more.
The headline is a very bold statement. Judging by the words that are being used I would say that Microsoft are behind this all the way and this chappie is on their payroll. ;-).
Why am I saying this - because I have been in numerous Microsoft competitive situations for over 18 years and they often talk about killing the competition.
Also - judging by his comments about Linux not being scalable - well only somebody who doesn't have a clue about Linux would say that. So if he has any knowledge of computing at all it would probably be around windows - if at all
Now that a real competitor emerges in the form of Linux, they have become fearful and are trying to push opinion on the folks who are non IT savvy.
Kent: [jumping in, panting] Hello, I'm Kent Brockman! Our top stories tonight: a tremendous explosion in the price of lumber, President Reagan dyes...his hair, plus Garry Trudeau and his new musical comedy revue. But first! Let's check the death count from the killer storm bearing down on us like a shotgun full of snow.
Weatherman: Well, Kent, as of now the death count is zero. But it is ready to shoot right up.
Kent: Oh my God. [shakes fist at heaven] Damn you snow!
I think the author is making the mistake of assuming that things will stay the same. And you know, as long as things don't change, they will! He's giving a description of how things are (commonly perceived to be) now. He doesn't even try to describe some kind of dynamic for change. There is none. Things will be this way forever. Right. The future may be very hard to predict, but one thing is sure, it'll be different than today.That's especially true of operating systems and computer corporations.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Tom Yager is a moron!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
At the user level, no one wants an "operating system." People want applications and a way to use them. Thinking that people want UNIX or Linux or whatever doesn't make any sense.
From a more techie point of view, big operating systems are a relic from earlier days of computing. Look at how successful game consoles are, and yet they essentially have no more than a BIOS in firmware. All this debate about Linux and Windows and so on is misguided. That's old, tech-oriented thinking.
Is the real goal to come out with a great OS? Or is it to kill Microsoft?
Ever heard that BSD is for geeks that love Unix, while Linux is for geeks that hate Microsoft?
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
Every product is vulnerable to failure and obsolescence. Look at the rise and fall (and rise again) of Apple. Look at Novell Netware. Look at Corel's Wordperfect. It wouldn't take much for Windows to join their former victims in the "Where Are They Now?" pile. The market is prone to crazy reversals of fortune.
Not since the big dotcom boom have I heard that old familiar mantra: "This time it's different!". What I've learned from the dotcom boom is that it's NEVER different. Evolution and revolution happen. Things get better and the laggards disappear for lack of interest.
In short, I don't think the domination of Windows is forever. And the reason I don't think so is because yesterday my Mac Switcher friend at work lent me his copy of the Ubuntu PPC LiveCD, I tried it on my PowerBook last night, and today, I've already downloaded the x86 version and am writing this post from Ubuntu. THAT'S how fast it can change. I never tried Ubuntu before last night, but I honestly can't believe how bloody GOOD it is! I laughed out loud with happiness the way I did the first time I booted up my Mac.
And if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. The people just have to discover Linux. Seriously, very very few even know that Linux exists, and that must change. Once it does, we will win.
p.s. I can't believe I signed up just this morning and nobody had the nym ubuntu yet! I feel almost guilty, like I'm one of those domain name squatters or something, but I believe in ubuntu as much as anybody else. Humanity to Others!
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers". Duh!
my sstream of consciousness
Based on the responses I've read, I think many people are misunderstanding what the author is trying to say in this article.
Many customers, sadly, are looking for a coherent platform for developing applications and implementing systems. With Microsoft, if they say "We need a database!" the response is "SQL Server." If they hear "We need developer tools!" the response is "Visual Studio." As good or as bad as these products are (and I certainly have my opinion) they are part of the Microsoft platform.
In the Open Source world (here the author says Linux, but I think Open Source is more to the point) we trumpet the sheer variety of solutions that we offer as a benefit. The corporate and goverment buyers of technology, however, are more concerned with making the wrong choices than they are with spending the money necessary to buy into a coherent, if flawed, platform. The uncertainty associated with having to choose a free database is replaced with just saying "SQL Server."
Personally, I'm squarely in the Linux camp; I just think that Linux folks need to open up their eyes to what most real-world buyers use to evaluate software systems. Limiting uncertainty is high on that list, especially for the risk-averse types that inhabit most institutional buyer roles.
qt and gtk maybe?
It seems to be saying that Windows includes everything but Linux doesn't.
But I can get a Linux distribution that has mySQL and PHP and I can do everything with it that I could do with Windows and ASP -- and I'd have to buy the expensive version of Windows and a pricey SQL Server license to do it.
So I don't get it. Perhaps someone can explain what he actually means.
D
Many of the hard core computer users I know will rebuild their Windows box several times a year, but I've seen far more computers that are so bogged down with all sorts of crap in the registry and 50 apps that startup on boot that the machine is practically useless.
Does anyone else out there think that M$ deliberatly sabatoges users machines slowly so that users think they need to buy new machines every other year? I feel like when I built my P3 800MHz machine running Win2k it booted almost instantly, and before I put linux on it the boot/shutdown too forever!
I think the only way that Linux is going to get a large market share is if it gets into schools and businesses. Once people get more comfortable with the OS, they will want to use it at home. As of right now, the biggest argument I hear from people not wanting to install Linux is "what does it do that Windows doesn't?" For most people security and stability lose out over ease of installations in Windows (I know ./configure, make, make install) and compatibility with just about everything.
I think the article writer here is definatey trying to start some serious commotion about linux on the desktop and as a client system, or as a system for a bold MCSE lineage admin- I think the real thing here is to try to turn up case studies on the uninitiated...
I always sort of wonder about the guy who walks into BestBuy with minimal linux knowledge or a few references from friends, looks at the sub $100 pricetag on RH or SuSE and the inclusion of the whole office suite and decides to give it a whirl, discovering on the other side KDE and OpenOffice, and sticks with that as a platform- slowly treading into the linux community (there must be a few). This dude slowly treading into the linux community and seeing what's up... I wonder how one get's statistics on him... I've had a bunch of friends who I talk about linux to who are sort of windows gamer/techies, who kind of look at what I do as wizardry. They always say, hey I tried linux back in 2001 or 2002 and nothing worked, and the desktop didn't do what I needed and it was hard (these are guys who have 10 things to do at the command prompt and are always both proud and nervous about their knowledge, but would be willing to learn if there was an easy path for them to follow). I often tell them that if they took a fresh look at what companies like RH or SuSE are shipping today out of the box for the desktop, they would see a big change. It's important to remember that OO is barely out of V1...
I'm a mixed linux/windows/OS X admin, and have found linux to be a remarkably stable and solid server of for our production and dev servers, when we got into linux, replacing a mixed W2k and AppleShare environment, things were still a bit shaky on the distros. We've recently been upgrading everything to SuSE 9 and I've been amazed by how strong the GUI/Yast tools are out of the box on the enterprise servers- I can imagine a Win2003 admin having an easier (point and click) time with this OS and maybe having the thought, "$300 for a licence and it does everything that a top of the line Win2003 box can do" (I'm talking about a LAN/office/file sharing installation here).
I sort of feel that these cases are the key... those of us that have taken time to dig deeper into the Linux OS to make it work for us and have discovered the posibilities it opens are not really of the right mindset to evaluate the future of the 'platform', to do that you have to kind of come in from scratch as a point and clicker and see what you can do. Most importantly I think is seeing what linux can do for one of these types on the desktop or on the server, and how they can grow with it as a new platform is the real key to the client growth we're talking about here. With real world experience of the fairly new, functional out of the box 'packages' we still have yet to see wheather it's truly viable.
The author is correct in the fact that apple has kind of beat out the linux distro's a little but in putting a killer front end on Darwin both on the Client and on the Server- it's a very attractive offering. OS X server has been very attractive to us, but hardware versatility has kept us on the Linux platform... we do have OS X machines everywhere in Video, Audio and Design and must say they fit into our Linux based, windows emulated network like a dream.
None of this of course takes into account emerging markets where if someone really figured out how to package a low cost powerful application platform that was easy to understand out of the box on linux, then 5 or 10 years from now, we could really be in a different ballgame worldwide.
I guess I'm saying that since we're really talking about switching here, it's really all in how people get started. First impressions are the killer.
I'd gamble my money that if the ReactOS project (Windows clone) comes close to maturity.. you'll see more than just a little dent hit Windows.
People like things for free. Unfortunately few care about being free.
I see the ReactOS project as an unfortunate stepping stone. No disrespect to the developers - I have a lot of respect towards what they're doing and view it as necessary. People need to be weened off Windows and developers will follow. But ReactOS itself will have a finite lifespan.
Probably not a bad thing. Linux (the kernel), at least as we know it today, probably does too.
When ReactOS can install MS Office, DirectX and hardware drivers happily - just watch the shift. It will be more secure, faster and generally better than "Windows". The choice for gamers, the choice for PC manufacturers cutting costs, the choice to install on your parents' computer.
Today, GNU/Linux is a brilliant replacement for those who cut the cord and dive in. It's unfortunate that the masses won't realise or respect the parallel drive which has been occurring for over the past decade to give people another viable, open and free choice.
At least when ReactOS hits hard, developers will have portability as a focus. Everyone will win - it's called choice. And within the next decade I bet we'll see the a distributed share. Not a landslide "victory".
Linux alone is an OS but not a platform. Linux distributions bundle applications to present a platform. True - Linux alone will never be a platform - but neither will the NT kernel.
I do not believe that businesses want self-contained systems - I believe business needs inter-operable systems. Linux has the potential to be the basis of the most consistent, predictable, scalable and inter-operable platform.
Linux is not an application framework itself - there are, however numerous application frameworks which can be selected for Linux.
If you think (as you claimed) that the windows platform guarantees inter-operability then you are living in an alternate reality. This is fallacious.
Linux doesn't need to compete with Windows per-se, but Windows is competing with Linux. As the IT market matures more and more customers can fix their requirements. In turn, this makes credible the supply of bespoke configurations to best fit customer needs. While inertia may have hampered individuals moving away from Windows in the past, when new systems are specified the benefits of relaxed licence terms; scalability and expansive possibilities for configuration makes Linux a more and more appealing basis for a platform.
"and all the fancy programs that Windows has"
Errm, Photoshop?
(and please, nobody mention the GIMP).
Apart from that, there are a ton of vertical apps that run only under Windows and if that app is core to your business then Linux is a non-starter.
linux (right now) won't kill windows because
1. linux can kill unix, because it's essentially a free unix!
2. unix NEVER came close to killing windows.
3. therefore unix/linux can't kill windows.
4. UNLESS linux becomes a killer MAC OSX, imagine that, a free MAC OSX on powerpc and x86 platforms.
What linux is missing is the mainstream ease and appeal. MAC OSX can bring it agains Windows. Get Linux to copy MAC OSX and you will kill Windows.
Open source Unix, in which category I place Linux, BSD, and Darwin (the OS layer of Apple's OS X), is a 500,000-piece bag of Legos that comes with some drawings and a few models you can use, build on, or tap into as references for your own creations.
Actually, it is Windows the Lego OS. Let me explain. I install XP on my box. OK. I reboot. First, I need to find and install drivers for my graphics card. Reboot. Then for my sound card. Reboot. Then I buy a printer, I need to look for the correct drivers and install them. Reboot. I buy a scanner -> need to look for the drivers (sometimes they don't even exist for XP). I buy a USB key (mass storage) -> drivers.
ever done the driver hunting on HP.com, ATI or nvidia.com ?
Under Linux : I buy a distribution -> it detects my hardware and installs the drivers automatically. A printer or a scanner ? I go to a Config center, which installs for me the correct packages. I buy a USB mass storage device ? I plug, an icon appears. I buy a device that has a kernel module ? I plug it, then hotplug/udev loads the correct driver. No hassle, no reboot, this is done transparently.
I am sorry, but Windows is not less a Lego when it comes to hardware support.
You could almost agree with the guy if it were not for the fact that Windows alone doesn't have what it takes. Only when combined with a couple other essential MS software packages does it even get close. When comparing platforms, you have to compare the whole stack - and that's where the *ixes are much better prepared to play. Look what's in the box:
Windows: Not much other than IE, Outlook Express and the Accessories. You have to buy other apps and server software to get that vaunted MS platform. Buy Office, Exchange, Windows Server, etc.. before you even get close to having all the goodies. And when you do have them look out - you are locked in.
Linux: Very deep pool of applications, apis and development tools for whatever you pay or not up front.
The reason why MS is vunerable is that the platform does not cost $200 (cost of XP Pro license). It actually is more in the neighborhood of $450-$700 per workstation once you add the server side CALs and the office licenses. When you start looking at TCO, it's not even close unless you buy into using a false premise or start adding in soft cost guestimates to close the chasm between Linux and MS or for that matter Sun.
-- $G
I think you mean MARKETING PLATFORM
No, I didn't read the article, but I've been thinking about the problem of Linux making significant penetration in the desktop market.
The advantage that both Windows and OSX have over Linux is a centralized source with a single plan (we can hope). The problem with Linux is that it is only a kernel. The equivalent to XP or OSX are the various distributions. Each distribution is different enough from the next to not function identically. This is not the fault of Linux proper, but rather that what people often consider to be "Linux" is really the Linux kernel with bunches of added on user land programs and packages.
The same problem appears in the X Window System. There is a common "X" server and API, but think of how many different window managers and GUI toolkits there are. All of this makes the user experience vastly different from system to system and even from application to application.
I think people in general care less about wanting everything to be like windows than they want self-consistency. When something calls itself "Linux" there is a reasonable expectation that it will look, function and behave in the same way as any other "Linux".
Flexibility and diversity are all nice, but would people really be willing to switch car makes and models if everyone of them had different controls and fuel requirements?
And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
To some extent he has a point, though it was never the intent of Linux (if one can name it as an entity) to 'Kill' Windows. Linux's performance offerings are known and overtly apparent to the computer consuming world, but the "Windows came with the PC" | "I don't like changes" renders adopting Linux as difficult as a name change for many; even when a distribution like Mepis proves that installing Linux is several degrees easier than Windows itself.
Regardless, performance enhancements pull few punters other than power-users and those responsible for large mission critical deployments. The curious are simply an exception (myself included). This of course is statistically proven to be changing, but will happen most largely at the enterprise level, where people just simply find themselves working with Linux one day, and perhaps even decide they like it enough for home use.
Perhaps another thing worth mentioning, on the level of branding is the Repitition-Produces-Comfort factor - people see WinXP at the boot promp and thus can project their workflow as a continuation of work done on another machine. I see that alot here at the university, which has both Fedora and XP on all machines. With Linux comes a strange kind of noise, for many; a class of noise called 'Choice'. Linux, as a self-defying entity (in the public imagination) cannot be summarised in the mind.
Linux has a poor image precisely because it doesn't have one.
It also needs to be said that Linux is fairly young, and so attempts at branding are even younger. Perhaps the weight of Novell can change that with a little constructive meme production. I disagree however OSX will have any real foothold, sitting at about 2.9% in desktop share it's as 'niche', or even more niche than that of Linux. OSX has a thick glass ceiling that Linux doesn't have, a brutal dependency: OSX requires not only a certain build, but a certain vendor of hardware. There is a reason we aren't seeing an uptake of OSX in offices and enterprise operations. This is one area Linux is making great headway.
What will pull people over to Linux are Linux exclusive third party applications that lead people by the nose of their own creative and productive ambitions. And yes, I wouldn't discredit the possibility that proprietary apps could seed the swell of change in this regard. Imagine what a Final Cut Pro or powerful multi-track hard disk recorder (perhaps ) could do for the adoption of Linux in Universities for instance. It certainly worked for Linux in Hollywood. Naturally this requires alot of development capital ultimately justified against an isolated, and quantifiable target market. Linux users as it stands are certainly far from that. Chickens and eggs perhaps.
Beating Windows on the desktop is a pretty tall order, mainly because it's so deeply entrenched (and perhaps the same reason why Microsoft hasn't been able to take the Internet away from unix and Linux). Linux will defeat Microsoft the same way Microsoft defeated IBM: by altering the technology marketplace so substantially that their monopoly market is no longer relevant (or at least no longer the dominant paradigm).
If you buy a mainframe today, who do you buy it from? Chances are, it's IBM. IBM's grip on the mainframe market has never loosened. But most computing these days isn't done on mainframes. The same thing will happen to Microsoft. The conventional Pee Cee will become less and less relevant, as applications move back behind the glass so we can access them from any device anywhere in the world, be it a cell phone, a set-top box, a kiosk at the mall, or a conventional desktop (which may be nothing more than a thin terminal, if you're not a developer or power user).
As the PC fades, Microsoft will fade with it. Linux has already established itself as the ideal infrastructure OS, and infrastructure is what it's all about in the coming generation.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I see Linux (and any other operating system) as alternatives to Windows. I don't think Linux will ever kill Windows in the same way that Coca Cola will never kill Pepsi and Colgate will never kill Crest. Some people have preferences to one product over another while others use whatever suits them at the time. Sometimes what a person needs will push their decision towards one choice over another but I don't think Linus wrote the kernel with the idea of crushing Windows. It's simply competition and neither competitor will go away.
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
Although I wouldn't mind Open Source software, especially Linux, to dominate the world someday, I do not think it will happen anytime soon. The effects of Open Source software on MS business model can be plainly seen today.
.Net to compete. The same can be said for Apache vs IIS, PHP vs ASP, Mozilla / FireFox vs IE, the list goes on and on.
"Low cost" versions of MS Windows are being offered in several countries to compete against the rising tide of Linux. Even MS Office has had to compete against Star Office / OpenOffice. Although Java is not open source, it too has forced MS
Open Source may not dominate the world in the near future, but it is forcing the largest software company to change its business model.
Andrew
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
Despite your cynical view of MS products, they are well engineered.
They just happen to have a target audience that is not technical.
Windows has set the bar in usability for X86 based computers. (granted stolen from apple but...)
Linux us great for what it does but it is not suited for the desktop market other then niche use for hobbyists.
Windows was engineered to be easy to use for non computer literate people. That have achieved this goal. I think the market share speaks for itself.
One of the things holding Linux back in general is the splintering in the distros. I can't install software for one distro on another distro without having some technical background. On windows, You put the CD, autorun starts the install, you blindly click yes a few times, and in a couple minutes you have an icon of your new program, game, whatever on your desktop. When linux can acomplish this maybe then I will get my grandmother to upgrade to it. Until then it is more hassle then reward.
Heh. I knew that post would got moderated into oblivion but it was definitely a serious comment. I'm not just some anti-java nut. There are applications I would love to use on a regular basis but because they are written in Java it's just too painful. This is a reality regardless of whether people who like Java want to admit it or not.
Linux does not exist to compete with Microsoft Windows . Repeat that to yourself 10 times over please.
Many vendors who package Linux in various flavors are attempting to gain a larger userbase by making their version of the Linux operating system packaged with their components work better for end-users, but Linux was not created to supplant Microsoft Windows.
I would venture to guess that a good 80% (a rectal approximation) of Linux developers and many users don't care how many Microsoft Windows machines Linux can replace. That's not the point. The point is to provide a Unix-like operating system for inexpensive hardware. It just so happens that Linux runs on something like 32 architectures, from embedded targets to PDA to 128-way (or more) CPU machines.
Can Microsoft Windows run hardware in a 2-meg footprint? Linux can (and does, happily).
Linux has already beaten Microsoft Windows if that is the metric that we're measuring it by.
If you're measuring "sales" of Linux vs. sales of Microsoft Windows, of course Linux will not compare, because more people download Linux (and burn copies to give to dozens of their friends or hand out at LUGs) than those that purchase it in a boxed-copy with a printed manual.
Linux will succeed, and already has far surpassed Windows in hardware, driver, and application numbers. Linux supports more chipsets, more peripherals, and more applications than Microsoft Windows itself. Sure, many of the applications aren't "pretty" or polished, but put a million dollars behind each project, and you'll see some major improvements.
Does Microsoft Windows support that 10 year old video card in Windows 2003? Linux does.
Since most developers aren't getting paid or funded (or supported by the vendor) for their applications, it evolves at the speed of their free time and motivation to improve it. "Pretty" interfaces are the last thing on a developer's mind. Fixing the last bug or adding the next feature are much more important than a graphical installer and a pretty icon.
So we've already won, despite how the media likes to contort the matter.
These may be all on MS side but software revolution does take place. OpenOffice will take over MS Office before Linux takes over Windows, but the next phase always moves ahead. The question is... Can Linux muster up the next phase of development or will it just follow with free versions of proprietary software? Does it even want to? Is the OSS best served by making the current technology free and ubiquitious?
I think you're close, especially in the last part, but there are a couple of pieces of the puzzle that aren't quite fitting in.
Commoditization of the core market isn't anything new. I'd be willing to say that MSFT made tremendous strides since the release of W3.1 in capturing the market share they did. Yes, they're struggling now to hold the market share they have, especially with Linux proving to be a more secure {server | router | firewall | etc. } when properly administered. This is mostly due to the glut of crackers and script kiddies who insist on attacking the most prominent target; it's likely that if OS/2 were the big player on the desktop market, they'd be attacking that instead of MSFT. A simple matter of "big targets make big noises when they crash." The remainder - fill in your own percentage - doesn't focus on MS products; it's bad system and network administration, no matter the OS or platform.
IMHO MSFT is going to wind up collapsing under its own ponderous weight, between the continuing attacks of said crackers and script kiddies who keep finding more vulnerabilities to exploit, their ongoing legal woes in the EU, and their loss of market share elsewhere in the developing world. It may be Linux that fills the void; it may not. At this point, a timeline isn't very easily predicted, but based on what I'm seeing they're putting a great many of their eggs in the basket that is Longhorn. The next two years may well tell the tale, either of MSFT's recovery or ultimate downfall.
Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a root beer or something.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Hmm, I have the distinct impression that this author has read yesterday's article and used the Automatic CS Paper Generator to produce this article.
It has the same superficial flow of words, non-statements and not-touching-the-point style as the examples it generated for me.
There is only one platform that can stand toe-to-toe with Windows, and that's the combination of OS X and Java.
So he's generating buzz and dealing (he thinks) with the questions about Linux that will invariably surface when he discusses OS X and Java as competition for Windows.
He's making the summary judgement about Linux primarily so he can advance his case that OS X combined with Java is the only "real" way to get past Windows. I don't agree with his assessment of Linux, but he's obviously doing this in preparation for a (hopefully) meatier argument about OS X + Java.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It's "Windows Can't Kill Linux". Because, as we've said before, linux does not require XXX profits > YYY expenses to survive. OTOH, if microsoft's profits aren't enough to pay all the empolyees, microsoft will die.
Oooh- and then we can get mad at the OS and make them remove all of those components.
But realistically, that's what Linux is. A base install of RedHat will give you everything from graphics libraries, to video codecs, to a word processor, to a spreadsheet.
As with windows, for better versions (OpenOffice, etc) you start buying/downloading.
How is Windows better? If anything Linux has more applications put there by the vendor
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Open Source development is the platform and the way of life. So who cares if it's not Linux that kills Windows.
Empires rarely last and Microsoft's problem is it's reliance on the money from Windows and Office. Both products are seriously overpriced and people are taking notice.
Heh. I knew that post would got moderated into oblivion but it was definitely a serious comment. I'm not just some anti-java nut.
Well, when you go on spouting some ignorant shit of course you are going to get modded down.
I can understand your complaint, but it is more likely that you have not used quality Java apps, and you certainly have not actually done any development in Java. With modern tools and techniques, Java apps perform perfectly well.
A great deal of users don't even want to edit documents, let alone use a computer to do their taxes, manage their calendar, etc. They just want email and web browsing. I put Linux on a brand-x machine, set up their Internet account, show them how to use Firefox/Thunderbird, a leave them happily surfing, virus free. Maybe they'll discover Open Office on their own.
In the author's sense of the word, they don't have much of a "platform" because they don't install their own applications. (I don't usually install apps either, I just install the distro. Easy.) So Linux may not be much of a "platform", and may not push Windows out of businesses, but there are plenty of Linux users and will be plenty more, which is more relevant than the author's point IMHO.
Would Microsoft ever consider writing their own version of Linux? If not for anything other than to inflict damage to the open source market?
;-)
Would existing MS Windows customers with Unix business environments move to MS Linux if it was available?
Juss throwing a spanner in the works here
There are still AOL users who need an OS to run their software on. Duh!
Linux doesn't kill Windows,
Windows kills Windows.
My the Wine'ing continue :).
But, it can bitch slap it.
Java running only on OSX defeats Java's only one good feature, cross platform support. If your not worried about cross platform then it doesn't make sense to use Java, you use native binaries instead.
As far as Windows goes. If the author is satisfied that he has no other choices other than what Microsoft gives him, more power to him.
I like the fact that allows me to choose what gets run on my hardware.
No, the problem is that you aren't being sufficiently proactive in shifting your paradigm to thinking outside the box like the author clearly has. What does scalability mean? I don't know, but I saw an IBM commercial about it during the Super Bowl, so I figure that qualifies me to write an article about it.
The major weakness of linux is, and will continue to be, marketing. Linux is driven by technical issues first. What "the market" wants does not play a major role in the development of linux. In fact, "the market" for linux has never been properly defined. Therefore the current market for linux, by its direction, is those people who care about technical issues over all others. Sadly, the majority of computer users do not place technical superiority first, at least not at this point in personal computing.
Microsoft did not get to its current state by producing superior software. It got to this current state by superior marketing, and ruthless business practices.
By using "Linux" in the above statements I am referring to the number of linux distributions, not the kernel proper. This is probably a branding issue. Another part of marketing.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
April 14, 8:49AM: Linux: Linux Can't Kill Windows
April 14, 8:00AM: Adobe Releases Acrobat Client for Linux
=>8-D
Must-not-watch TV!
Cant make a brand name even if you package it and slap a pricey sticker?
Arent suse and redhat doing that and succeeding at it?
At work we handle ~70 computers, and will switch to linux if it werent for the binary apps we depend on. The binary market is slowly increasing for linux, so all those points are invalid.
And why cant you make a brand name with a pricey sticker? Why cant you make a consistent look and feel? Apple did that with FreeBSD, and there are plenty of linux companies out there...
No justification given for that statement...
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
First, Windows is probably too entrenched to go away, simply because of all the investment in applications that depend on it. IMHO, OS X is better in nearly all respects, and Linux is better in many, but there are many people -- even competent ones ;-) -- who use Windows to get their job done and believe it's what works best for them.
But the persistence of OS X and the aggressive improvement of Linux have all but succeeded in preventing the Microsoft monoculture from taking root; well, not from taking root, but from being the weed that kills off everything else. Take the small example of the browser space; there are fewer and fewer sites (that matter) that have backed off dependence on IE and embraced Firefox, Safari, et. al., by embracing more non-proprietary standards. The world is getting used to working in a heterogeneous environment, and that makes it a safer place to nurture the alternatives.
Linux (and OS X) could grow robustly for years and not push Windows into the minority, but, frankly, I don't care! I am way less marginalized as a non-Windows user than I was, say, five years ago, and I think it's past the point where Microsoft has the ability to change that.
Having said all that, it's not clear to me that Microsoft doesn't have the potential to contribute to its own unravelling and expedite even greater changes. Also, I look forward with some curiosity to Tom Yager's promised opinion on why he thinks OS X & Java have better potential to beat Windows (not that I'm arguing).
Gee - every Linux install I have just runs and runs as programmed with no suprises. Like two daily use notebooks - just turn them on and get to work. Then I hear so much about virus, trojans, spyware, patches, security alearts etc. Anytime I turn on the Kim Komando show on the radio it's all about Windows and the program is 75% virus, worms, warnings, problems, security alerts, trojans, etc.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
While the Linux desktop continues to evolve, piggybacking numerous different window manager systems, and still requiring some conf file hacking to get some things to work properly, Linux just can't kill Windows as a desktop environment.
As an OS, Linux has Windows beat by a mile in the areas of stability, security, and scalability. But "Linux the Desktop" still has a way to go to win over the average user.
Sure, KDE and Gnome are similar enough to the basic MS Windows GUI, but throw in things like package dependencies and kernel version compatibilities, and and your average MS-loving user will get confused, frustrated, and eventually give up.
Don't get me wrong...I personally love the Linux desktop and use it every day, but it's just not at a good 'ease of use' level for most average PC users.
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
In the middle is Windows. It crashes onto the scene, a little uncomfortably... It asks a lot of questions that have no answers. It yaps and bitches.. It falls apart and stops working. It misbehaves. But it does so consistently.
On the far side is Linux. The entry is... legion... It depends... It might come to you smooth and seductively like "OS X" or rocky and without mercy in the form of bash... There is no consistency, no predictability to the way it will treat you. It is at the same time smug, sophisticated, aloof, unreachable and yet completely at your mercy and transparent... It is too many things for too many people...
In the end, Linux will win. There can be no doubt about this for one simple reason, "Linux will always exist and always be there to improve".
However, there is no "linux" in "linux"... This is a problem. Sometimes, having a tyrant (e.g. Gates, Jobs,
Just some tired rambling... Hope you guys don't think I'm trolling... I really wonder what should be done.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
"a consistent, well documented, and long-supported API"
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
It's not just the lack of apps that keep people from using Linux on the desktop, it's the fragmentation of the community and the fact that Linux itself isn't even a clearly defined concept.
Is Linux just the kernel? A kernel is of no use without an environment that uses it. So then we have distros. Dozens of them. All with different software packages and GUIs. RedHat became a de facto standard for a while, then they shot themselves in the foot.
So then, is Linux a distro? Not according to the people that are responsible for it. They say it's just the kernel. This confuses IT managers, who then say "fuck it, buy Windows until they make up their mind." They might know that Linux is better internally, but they have bosses that don't want to hear stuff like "I'm rolling out something to 5,000 users that I can't even describe properly."
The OSS lack-of-business model breaks down here. This is why Linux on the desktop will never be successful unless someone completely commercializes it.
It's like, "this sucks, let's copy it!"
The 'community' itself should be focused on pushing usability forward. The technical excellence is there, what is needed is people working on making things on the front end better so that it attracts the normal people who just want to do every day tasks in a fun, usable, and attractive environment. That doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, mean ripping off the ungodly Windows UI.
Spending 10+ years working on an alternative operating system, just to slap a f***ing start menu on the user interface so that you can claim it's just as good as Windows, is goofy. Sun has made this mistake, and so have most frontends under Linux.
So the community shouldn't be trying to kill Windows, it should be ignoring the Windows UI entirely and focusing on good interface practices instead. People are quicker to adapt than we give them credit for.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions.
Dear Mr. Windows
Thank you for your application for the position Enterprise Do Everything Software Platform.
We regret that we are unable to futher consider your application for the following reasons:
[ ] Doesn't scale down to mobile platforms.
[ ] Not usable as Desktop OS.
[ ] No Support for low end servers.
[ ] No Support mid range servers.
[*] No Support for high end servers.
[*] No Support mainframe class machines.
[*] Poor Standards Compliance.
[ ] Lack of Mindshare
[*] Vendor lock-in
[ ] Cost.
[*] Security.
[ ] Stability
Once again we thank you four your interest in the EDESP position, and regret that the position does not match your skills at this time.
Sincerely,
The Enterpise
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I can understand your complaint, but it is more likely that you have not used quality Java apps
I'm afraid this is not the case at all. EVERY java app I've used runs painfully slow and uses a ridiculous amount of resources for what it does. I don't care how badly something was written it should not perform this badly. There's a lot of software out there that is poorly written and none of it comes anywhere near the shabby performance that I see with ALL java apps.
Microsoft will never put a dent in the audience of people made up of people like me.
:)
I'm not your average user or admin. I'm an artist first and a computer guy second. Therefore, I need maximum flexibility in the tools that I use. Microsoft Windows cannot provide this because until recently, they've ignored the art community and instead focused solely on business. They've also ignored the needs of people who want to do more with their computer than just buy software and install it. Some people try to belittle this audience as "computer hobbiest" and relegate them to a very small group who do little to further technology. But the, so called, hobbiests are the people who cause technology revolutions. Steve Wozniak did it with the Apple Computer. Linus Torvalds with the Linux kernel. And people like Adam Curry with iPodder.
Microsoft and it's supporters make the mistake of thinking that people like us aren't worth supporting by making a truly flexible and hackable OS + applications. The most important people in technology are the tweakers. The people who will take something apart and rebuild it so it's faster, better or just more fun. Microsoft doesn't allow for that and has therefore lost me as a customer/user. And even when I did use Windows full time all I ever did was gripe about how much it sucked and prevented me from doing what I wanted to do. Linux changed all that.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Linux can't kill Windows. Just like Ford can't kill GM. That has
never been the point. Your article seems to have missed the point.
There have been a very few "sea change" events in computing. Some of
them are:
1) The PC (Macs, too) brought computer out of the "glass house".
2) TCP/IP standardized computer to computer communications. No more
closed protocols
3) Dell forced PC manufacturers to compete on price using commodity
components. No more can someone say my PC is better than yours cause I
use the cool custom thing inside it.
4) Linux has emerged as a way of providing enterprise class OS and
applications on nearly every piece of hardware (from those commodity
PCs on up). No longer can iron vendors use the "My *NIX is better
than yours" to sell hardware. In fact, for most "iron" vendors their
efforts in maintaining the custom version of *NIX cost them money. The
customers want interoperability. Linux (and the many BSD variants) are
providing that interoperability. Vendors only have to deal with
writing "device drivers" for their specific hardware things.
Windows was never meant for anything other than the x86 space (for a
while it was on Alpha) and for a while Itanium. Linux runs on all
those and much more. So while Linux might not kill Windows, Linux will
be everywhere Windows is not and many places where Windows is today.
I use linux 40hrs a week as my work desktop. I boot into windows about once in a blue moon on the same machine (came with the machine). Its amazing how much more responsive and solid windows xp feels compared to my Ubuntu and FC3 desktops.
One day linux will have an amazing desktop environment but its not even close right now.
You know, I honestly don't care if this is true or not. So what if Linux can't kill Windows? Windows can't kill Linux, that I'm positive of. And that's really all I care about. Sure it'd be nice if enough people abandoned Windows in favor of Linux to "kill" Windows, but whether that happens or not, I can still use Linux to my hearts content. If other people continue to use & support Microsoft, that's up to them, and while it will have some effect on me, I doubt it will be a significant enough effect for me to really care.
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
1991 : Linux? A plaything for college students. It'll never work like *real* Unix.
1996 : Linux? So it makes a simple web server. It'll never scale as an enterprise server.
2001 : Linux? Yeah, it's nice for my enterprise servers, but it'll never give end-users any satisfaction.
2005 : Linux? So hackers have pretty desktop. Didja see the effort they had to go to make it work? It'll never be easy enough for our secretary Jane Typist.
Nope, Linux will never compete. Not even that Novell Linux Desktop that has proliferated our workplace and made every desktop look the same (but secure). It'll never happen.
H0ek
Think you're smart? Prove you've got brains!
All java apps. You are just flaming....the only thing you are serious about is being flamebait.
Deserving got nothing to do with it.....shuffle
Windows was never going to kill DOS because DOS had all these applications and people already knew how to use them. In addition, users had to use different software and buy one of those mouse things that only Apple users cared about.
So, Windows will never kill DOS. It may gain a small market share of techno-geeks that just like playing with the newest toys, but, the majority of the market will stay with what they already know.
Oh, wait...
... just like the few critters that the strongest antibiotics are unable to kill.
I'm not sure what the point of the author was. I don't recall that Linus ever seriously said anything about killing off Windows being a goal of his. My goal is rather modest: to use "Software That Doesn't Suck®" (my thanks to whoever first coined that phrase). I think that's what most people want.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
>...There is not even a single definition of what "Linux" is, except a bunch of software running on top of a specific kernel.
I think what's needed is a good bridge between the two operating systems. You can get people to walk over to the dark side (mouahahaha) without giving them a bridge. The bridge between Windows and Linux is cross-platform apps, like Firefox and OpenOffice. Get everyone using these apps, and then point out to them that "hey, you could actually use the exact same apps on linux, why are you paying for windows?"
.. like... ONE person using OpenOffice. Since everything's working fine they have no need to switch OS, but if their Windows installations ever got totally bunged, I might suggest Linux.. and since they're already using these apps, I think they might be more open to it. Of course, they're using Firefox now so spyware isn't much of a problem for them... so the chances of them needed to switch OS is down about 90%... ah the irony..
You have to take things one step at a time. First the apps, then the operating system. Change everything at once and it won't work.
I've gotten a couple of people using Firefox, and
the reason I gave up Windows on the desktop and in the server room, was stability, reliability and security.
If you thinks windows beats Linux in any of these areas. you are NOT a geek. You're a 17 year old.
If your not 17, then you arestuck in a 17 year old (or younger) way of thinking about the world.
well, at least it's properly labelled as an "ADVERTISMENT" ;)
I've never used Linux past installing it and booting to the desktop so I'm no expert, but if it's as you describe, shouldn't there be a central library manager?
If everyone has different libraries installed in different places, the OS should have a central manager to search for and keep track of what is where. Then, apps should make calls to the manager when they need a library and the manager returns the location and configuration. Developers could then build for redundancy so if library B exists instead of library A it could adapt, download the right library or quit gracefully.
You could still have as many libraries as you want, just as say Quicktime has tons of codecs, it would just be organized so that the middle-app would liaise betwen library and app.
After using linux on my desktop for five plus years and not touching a windows box but to clean virus and spyware off them. I had to use a XP box for the last two months to run an app that hadn't yet been ported to linux.
The first week I felt like someone cut my legs off with a chainsaw, and that gentlemen still hasn't changed. After the first month I found
most of the tweaks needed to make the machine stable.
After two months of dealing with an Operating System that gobbles up ram and cpu time like a football team at all you can eat dinner. All I can say is that it's the bloated OS that will be the death windows as we know it. The stupid tricks used to make the it seem fast became almost a joke which would have been funny, but for the work I was trying get done.
On a possive note... the app I'm using has been ported to linux, so now just need to find the time to move that work off XP. I know how fast the same box deals with the same work loads running Gentoo Linux so my coffee breaks are over.
Great tools do only ONE thing, but do that ONE thing very, very well.
Why do we keep seeing these types of articles? I think we all understand that Linux has a fair market share and many people use it to their advantage daily.The same can be said about Windows.
Obviously the future will bring surprises, happiness and problems to users of both systems. My real question: when will this extreme crap be done with? When will people understand that Linux and Windows are here to stay? When will they stop speculating about which one will conquer the other?
My personal opinion on the outcome of this sort of ongoing battle is just to see where time takes us. I'm sure what will really happen will probably not be Linux taking over the desktop world, but probably also remaining a good piece of competition that suits the needs of many people. The proverbial pendulum mentioned is just the nagging back and forth of "linux will never be ready for desktop", "windows sucks", "linux will conquer the world!".
That is really the question. Personally, I'd like all of the "script kiddies" to stay on Windows and leave Linux as the peaceful and safe place that I have grown to love. Besides, this article has absolutely no point. There's always someone saying exactly the opposite as the author out there, & they're all just producing hot air. If he just used his time a little better instead of wasting it on this crap that people have been saying for years, then I wouldn't lose 2 valuable minutes of my life reading this. (Yes, I know it was my choice to read the article, but I didn't know how pointless it was when I began...)
This is the year of linux on the desktop!
Yeah right!
Linux will continue to grow in cell phones, Tivos and server rooms, but not on the desktop. The only way it can put a real dent in Windows' share of the market is if it betters it in easy of use (not that impossible) and if it gets a killer app.
What might the killer app be? Maybe a USB device that turns your PC into a PVR but costs ~$10.00 (ie, a ~$10.00 TV Card with a full linux distro). Or some kind 100% free skype to phone suite with video.
All very inlikely, but so is Windows defeat. I don't even think a few more summers of slammer virues would end Windows use.
That said, I don't think M$ will have a good time trying to get Windows out of the office and into your livingroom or pocket.
And then there's Apple.........?
.\.\att Clare
At first I thought it was some guy who just wanted to spread some FUD about Linux but check out the last paragraph:
Linux and Windows don't compete. Sun Microsystems sees this as an opportunity and has struggled mightily to position the combination of Solaris and Java as a platform. It almost makes it. I'd choose J2EE and Solaris over Linux for nonuser-facing server applications in shops that have expert administrators. But, similar to Linux and other flavors of Unix, Solaris is a nonstarter on clients, and that's enough to hurt its capability of competing with Windows. There is only one platform that can stand toe-to-toe with Windows, and that's the combination of OS X and Java.
Now this guy is making sense.
Carpe Diem: Seize The Day!
It's like combat: the force with the superior size and resources is going to be unbeatable until they make a major tactical or technical mistake. Use the Iraqi War if you want an analogy: the US is cleaning shop, and it's because of superior technology, tactics, and sheer size (of the establishment, not the deployment). Training, too: Windows (say, all the futuristic military tech) is damn easy to set up and install, and everyone knows how to use it, so anyone can use it. Linux, on the other hand (say, a trial-and-error mortar system) is difficult to use for someone unfamiliar with it than Windows is, and it's not always as straightforward to get a system up and running.
The Vietnam War would be a good example of how the superior force (size and resources) can still lose. Shitty M-16 rifles, poor coordination, and the disadvantage of not being on home ground (ie, the other side had "home team" advantage) all made things difficult for them. If Linux were to get a wide corporate install base, I think things would slowly start to get away from Microsoft.
Also, I think RedHat (the company) is a big problem for Linux adoption. Their support is pretty bad, and they tend to still have a very "non-corporate" software attitude. Bug in your kernel? "Here, try this beta kernel." It's not a very corporate-friendly attitude, in my opinion. Are there any other good corporate options out there? No, not really, unfortunately.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Linux is "a way -- and probably the best way -- to make system hardware do what it's told"?? Are you kidding?
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that there is commodity PC hardware that won't even work properly under linux, and I'm speaking about some brands of 802.11g wifi, video cards, tv tuner cards, etc., becasue there are no fully functioning device drivers for it. Let's set this aside.
The fact that you have to re-compile the kernel every time you install any hardware is completely insane. This is the best way to interface with hardware - recompiling the OS every time the hardware changes?
In many cases, under windows xp you don't even have to reboot when you install new device drivers for hardware.
Ok, you can all start the flaming about security etc. It's very easy for linux to be secure when the OS won't recoginze the network card.
All the diversity and options that are a Linux operating system are its greatest strength. It is up to the distros to develop platforms, not the community. Their job is to innovate and create new options for Linux as an operating system. Platforms using Linux would include distros like Suse, Redhat, Xandros, etc. All of which have put much time and effort to make a standard distro of Linux to be developed for. People look at Linux the wrong way. They see Linux as a single platform, and that it is not. Windows, Mac OSX, Suse, etc fall into that category
10 years ago IT was only beginning to look at Windows and did not seriously thought of Windows for most of their server infrastructure.
Now people say the same thing but about Linux.
Why did Microsoft succeeded ?
1/ network integration with personnal computers
2/ marketing
3/ ease of use
4/ price compared to Unix systems
5/ drivers & software
Points 1 and 2 are Linux weakness.
Point 3 had a lot of improvements.
Point 4 : Linux is at advantage (until you dont buy Red Hat Server that costs more than W2003 SRV).
Point 5 is improving for linux.
Some experiment in our corp. We wanted to use Linux to host antivirus repositories & Windows Update Service & hardware+software inventory tools. None of the tools we selected work with Linux. Therefore we have to pay a W2003 for each box... hardware : 1300 euros, system : 700 euros, software : free or licenced per user. We plan to have tens of such computers.
The lack of software compatible with Linux costs a lot of money. And slows down the propagation of Linux.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
...I bet it'll make a great iPod killer!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
How do I mod the article flamebait?
The big reasons beta lost were shorter play/recording time and the fact that manufacturers had to pay licensing fees to Sony to use it. VHS was the free and open standard that won. Also, as the above poster pointed out, beta came first.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the analogy was the wrong choice.
Walmart + Shorthorn might...
will make you stronger.
I have a homebrew computer...dual monitor setup using 2 vid cards made by the same manufacturer...Works perfectly in windows without having to go through any hurdles to get both monitors working just how I want them to...
I have yet to find a single fix, after months of scouring the internet, that will get both monitors working... One of my monitors will go to 1600x1200...linux won't do that out of the box...Linux has some nice features that make it fun...and the whole tinkering aspect is exciting...but when it comes down to it...If I want my PVR to do it's job I have to be in windows...if I want both monitors to work properly at all settings I have to be in windows...
Even with all the nice new installers coming out they still can't get those two seemingly mundane and simple things right...why? I would love to use linux...but until the wifey doesn't have a problem jumping online on one monitor and watching lifetime on the other then Linux will just be a tinker toy on a secondary partition on a secondary drive...
So in conclusion...until Linux will install and run as fully and easily as windows it will not have a chance at grabbing the all important mindshare of the general populace...
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Au contraire. I am one of the biggest fans of Mac OS X, simply because I cut my teeth on REAL computing on Sun workstations and VAX clusters. I also owned several Macs. When Apple made my Mac a Unix box, I was smitten. I already KNOW Unix, and this just made my Mac all the more precious to me.
However, my wife has NEVER used a Unix box in her life. Yet she immediately gravitated towards Mac OS X. She's a much better expert at the iApps than I (okay, maybe not with iMovie, but I'm only barely more adept than her - she's never used it).
Using Mac OS X to the fullest does not require you to learn Unix. It's just that there's this wholesome crunch goodness Unix layer underneath an already great platform.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
... when it comes to shitty columns."
Heavens Crickey - what a load of bullcrap in such a short comment. (I dare not call this an 'article').
Yet another wannabe expert on computers babbling incoherent filler-talk about "pendlum swings" and OSS OSes being a "bag o legos" and whatnot.
I've seen articles pitting Linux against Windows and pointing out the advantages of 'doze over Linux in a professional manner, but this one isn't even good for a bad joke. In fact, it's a perfect example of how _not_ to write on this issue.
And then this sorry excuse of a cliffhanger conclusion: "Stay tuned; i'll tell you all about it."
No thanks, Tom Yager, after this my Crapometer is at max for this quarter allready. And I want my 90 seconds back.
The linked column is nothing else but the new media equivalent of trolling. Move along.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
What does branding it, boxing it and putting on a price tag, have to do with a tool doing a job?
Everything. as soon as you expect someone to take it off the shelf, trust it, and use it without more than vague reasoning towards security (which no one understands) and reliability (which is quickly failing argument in modern Windows). free doesn't mean better, quite the opposite in the minds of most. security is a nebulous concept that many don't understand, otherwise they'd be torching LexisNexis. reliability is second to responsiveness, and i'm sorry but Xorg/Xfree86 still fails, not that reliability is the problem it once was in Windows.
One Word:
Spyware
I really could give a flying fuck about Windows. I use Linux, I like it better for what I do. As long as I can keep using it, and it keeps improving, I don't care if it "takes over the desktop" or not. If "taking over the desktop" means that the mass population of the US uses it, then I sure don't want that to happen. Because the American Public is, collectively, stupid. We fall for Nigerian scams, watch NASCAR, sit our fat asses in front of the TV for half of our day, eat fast food, watch American Idol, and vote a complete moron into the highest office.
I don't want Linux to take over the desktop, and I am not sure why anyone else does either.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
to quote "it will never put a dent in Windows' mind share or market share"
Hasnt linux already largly DENTED windows mind and market share, how many governments moved to open source and nix from windows systems, those XX,000 Systems dont count as market share?
Linux wont ever replace windows but, your a fool to think windows will remain uneffected.
Linux is the manifestation of Ayn Rand's 'rebellion of the intellect' projected in Atlas Shrugged. Computer professionals were constantly being knocked back to square one whenever management decided to change the company IT structure. Since the early 1950's it was normal to expect programmers to master a dozen languages and systems, all theoretically similar but with arbitrarily different structures. It was the modern equivalent of the Greek myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned to push a boulder to the top of a hill, only to have it roll down again, forever.
Linux changed that. Computer professionals are telling management that they will work with one standard OS. Their OS. Designing and building it themselves and distributing it freely is a brilliant strategy to counter management's claim that some other OS was cheaper.
All this happened concurrently with the widespread introduction of powerful inexpensive desktop computers into the workspace. Office computing adopted the Windows OS in order to maximize the productivity gains that could only be achieved by having the entire world adopt a single standard. An incredible stroke of luck for the company selling that standard. The price went to the company that was the most relentless and focused on forcing the world to adopt their standard. That company was also flexible and intelligent enough to integrate huge positive feedback loops into the process of getting the world to adopt its product. The astonishing success of the company in selling a product that the world was desperate to buy doesnt mean that they can do it again with another type of product.
The widespread introduction of powerful inexpensive desktop computers was predicated on the condition that the performance/price ratio of the PCs would double every few years.
The current problems that result from the conversion of all other Operating Systems to Linux are temporary. They are being addressed; they will be solved. The widespread introduction of powerful inexpensive desktop computers was predicated on the condition that the performance/price ratio of the PCs would double every few years. The entire next generation of desktop computers may find their doubling of power completely dedicated to transition from Windows to Linux. In other words, it may take a doubling of computer power to make Windows applications run on Linux with the same speed and efficiency that they currently run on Windows OS. This will be denounced as a complete waste by IT professionals. Theyre correct, but it will be a necessary step anyway.
There are a few things in this article that I found a little amazing. For one, that linux can't present a complete solution in business is a bit of a generalization.
It might depend a bit on your business, wouldn't it?
I think he has a point on mindshare. Everyone in the Business mindset has the opinion that no matter what, you still cannot get fired for picking Microsoft products.
But I think that everyone in a desperate mindset: a position where all options have to be explored or perish -- cost, performance, stability, whatever will have a different opinion since most of these people have been driven to this brink as the result of some failing in Microsoft (or someone else) products to begin with.
Over time, Linux will have an effect on Microsoft. It doesn't have to compete directly, but it will always make an influence on anyone exposed to it.
You'll fit in very well here.
Use the Slashdot story generator and your story is sure to be accepted.
Philip
Signatures are broken
It's nice to see that the legacy of Jesse Berst is not forsaken...
I typed the above message into Microsoft Word 2000 in order to use the integrated spelling checker.
When I cut and pasted the text from Word to the Slashdot message text box, none of the apostrophes transferred correctly. All the "don't" and "won't" became "dont" and "wont".
Any operating system that makes its users look illiterate is doomed. It's just a matter of time.
I had toyed with Red Hat versions 5, 8 and 9. It was fun initially because it was different from Windows. But it's really not for the average person. I don't know about the other distros or about Fedora 3. But from my experience with RHL 9, I must say I wasn't very impressed. Or should I say, once impressed, but not any more. Once I tried to get RH to detect my scanner. I googled for answers and asked at forums and was advised to download some drivers. Did that and installed the drivers but nothing happened - didn't even know whether the installed files went to! On another occasion I wasn't able have RH detect my ADSL (Aztech) modem and I sort of just up. It's different with Windows. Your scanner or modem would probably come with their own drivers and all you've to do is place the CD or diskette into the drive and everything is taken care of. Things run on Windows and that's important for productivity. The average Joe isn't interested or have the time to figure things out. Recently, I installed Freebsd 5.3 and I got excited again. I like the fact that it comes in 1 CD and you can practically install everything no-core after the installation through ports or ftp or whatever. Very cool. More importantly, it detected my router and I was able connect to the Net. Otherwise, it wouldn't be of much use to me. As with my experience with RH, I still can't get some things to work. For example, I haven't yet got the printer to work despite trying out known solutions.
Linux is already making huge inroads on the desktop market and according to both Gardner and IDC research the percentage of Linux desktops is estimated to reach between 15% and 20% by end of 2005. According to the latest studies the Linux market is among the fastest growing markets and is projected to exceed $35.7 billion by 2008: http://www.techweb.com/wire/showArticle.jhtml?arti cleID=55800522
Looks like Linux is becoming the standard desktop OS much faster than anyone had expected.
You have particular, personal requirements for which this level of choice is useful. However, for the proverbial Vast Majority of users (i.e., all those people who simply want to get out from in front of the monitor as quickly as possible while devoting the minimal amount of brainpower to the appliance they have to use), all of that gets in the way.
Put it another way: it is not an upgrade to ask users to make choices among things about which they should not have to care at all.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
This should be ONE WORD: Different way of handeling things. There will be attemps on spyware for linux in the future but the fact of the matter is the only way you will be able to get totally infected is if you run your Browser or "spyware" as root. Then you are asking to get infected.
:) )
It just wouldnt happen, unless you want it to happen
(please feel free to respond or add anything. Educate me if i am wrong!
Linux is my operating system.
Not to mention the large number of corporate desktops that have been switched to Linux.
I think too many people only look at what OS people buy with their Dell or Best Buy computers, and assume that's the way all computer are.
Lets focus on the open source world and making it better and better. If Windows sticks around good for MS and MS lovers. As far as I can see there will be no benefit in focusing on killing Windows or on killing any other product. Competition from them will make our open source products better.
People care about *price* first and *effort* second. Some people will crawl through mud to save a nickel. We call those people "the majority".
...and it is so very much true.
That has got to be the best statement I've read in a long, long time.
If this was true, a majority of computer users would ALREADY be using Linux, since for the individual home user, it's free. You might argue that most people get Windows "free", because it's pre-installed. But in fact, it's already possible to buy computers (at least from your local white box outfit) that have Linux or no operating system installed. Without the MS tax, they go for significantly less money than those with XP pre-installed... but most people don't buy them.
People will take the path of least resistance, even if it costs them money.
I have no problem with the rest of your post.
Sean
Lamp is Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP. The reason I point this out is because PHP used to be an Apache Foundation project and had built in MySQL support (hence the AMP). PHP is also the number one Apache module and therefore is often bundled WITH some Apache builds.
Python and Perl developers like to claim that the P in LAMP stands for Python and Perl (and it CAN) but it traditionally refers to PHP.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
He's right: The Windows app stack is deeper: OS + DB + app server (of sorts)
Linux does not compete with that.
But you can get Linux + Oracle + WebLogic or Linux + mySQL + JBoss (if you want to be Open Source all the way). And that is equivalent.
So Linux on its own is no competition for Windows. But it was never intended to be.
Did anyone else read the article and feel very confused...?
.net platform is consistent and scalable? oh REALLY? sql server can span across multiple nodes? like oracle RAC? to name but a few...
At some points its hard to even know what exactly he's refering to, desktop, server?
take for instance this: "Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions. Windows wins. Linux doesn't lose, because it can continue the legacy of another nonplatform, namely Unix, that needs to be refreshed and extended"
If i were talking the desktop, then what has scalability to do with it?? adding more users/desktops? well, windows win's on the desktop by sheer weight of numbers... But he says server solutions.. what kind of servers is he refering to?
the
and the whole middle of the article is just so very vague.. The the last 2 paragraphs make no sense what so ever... he mentions "linux and windows dont compete" yet he also mentions j2ee... my god, does he even bother actually doing any research for this? if your going to mention j2ee and your talking servers, this is exactly where unix and windows compete... and unix wins...
Then his closing comment... "There is only one platform that can stand toe-to-toe with Windows, and that's the combination of OS X and Java"... what exactly about OS X + Java is a competitor to windows? Or, windows + something_else?
i've never seen a (published) article that was at once so extremely vague and mis-directed, it felt like george bush writing an article in dr dobbs...
truely bizare...
The /. heading is mostly flamebait, but unfortunately it is true. Forget the OS/Platform part. I have been watching Linux for nearly 15 years now, and it still has not made a dent in the one area where it will gain recognition - the DESKTOP. Until it does the same job as Windows, is compatible with Windows, and most importantly, is already installed and working when the user buys his or her system, it will never capture more of the Windows market than the server part. As far as I can tell, it has not moved much in the past two or three years. We users/promoters make a lot of noise and we know which is best, but the general public knows nothing. Linux probably needs more PR than anything else. And it needs more companies like Lindspire that sell a complete working package.
"Linux Can't Kill Windows..."
Perhaps Linux no longer needs to try...
"Khaaaaaaaannnnn!"
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I'm sorry, but coming from someone who has used both Linux and Windows extensively for both work and play, I believe that Linux can not, and will not beat Linux. That's it.
I'm just talking percentages here. I personally believe that Linux servers kick ass, seriously. I've had, and hated, Windows-based web servers; however, the server market is a small (though incredibly important) slice of the computer-using pie. The real meat lies in desktop solutions, and as much as it may pain you to hear this: aesthetics, simplicity, and abundance win. When average joe goes to a computer, he expects it to be Windows, if anything else, he may see a Mac, but there have only been a very small handful of occurances in my life where I sit down at a random computer in a lab somewhere and have a Linux-based system sitting right in front of me.
Windows is just better at doing the things most people need to do. I'd say, and I'm just pulling this number out of my ass, that at least 80% of people will never have a need to use any of the advanced options their system has to offer, nor even the simple customization options such as changing window themes or something. Linux systems, typically, thrive on customization and users tweaking various options - it's the only way that the "hardcore Linux users" that I know are able to tweak their system to a usable state (by their standards). As of right now, I have yet to see any mainstream computer users ever even MENTION the name "Linux." Ever.
The only real competition I see for Windows, as far as its mainstream audience goes (and, as sad as it is, the mainstream is generally the top priority for most companies) are Macs. People love pretty things, and Apple does a fantastic job of making things ridiculously pretty, whether it be their OS, their systems, or even their various peripherals. Hell, even if Windows users love Windows, they can generally still go to a Mac and easily work their way around (especially since most of the Macs I've used in recent years have an abundance of Microsoft software installed).
The other main thing that I think is killing Linux's "popularity" is the fact that there are so many goddamn distros. People like simplicity, one brand name, that's it. Most of the people I know get confused over what edition of Windows to boy (2000, XP, etc.), but at least the brand name is consistent (Windows, Windows, Windows; or even Apple, Apple, Apple for that "other" crowd). With Linux there are so many distros that occasionally it just overwhelmes someone who's interested in trying it out with no prior knowledge; even if all of the distributions have the same goal, their names may be different enough to confuse most people.
Rant over and I'm sure it's scatter-brained as all hell, while still reaching no ultimate conclusion, or even if it did, there was nothing really to back any of my statements up, other than personal opinions.
Trent Polack
www.polycat.net
The fact that you have to re-compile the kernel every time you install any hardware is completely insane.
You poor chap, you really did meet the wrong person in IRC didn't you. I have only *needed* to recompile the kernel to use new hardware precisely because I prefer to work from a skeleton kernel. Five years ago, it was a little rough, but now I barely need to think about driver support. Windows however is an ongoing nightmare, actually having to download drivers from websites - hard to do when you're network card isn't 'detected' out of the box (to use your own example).
You however would have been better off with a Desktop distribution of Linux, like Mepis or Ubuntu, which in my experience (and I'm talking about many highly vareigated install targets) work out-of-the-box. Join #mepis sometime, these kids don't talk about compiling kernels, they talk about how cool each others KDE themes are.
Linux itself supports many many times more hardware than Windows, count them!. In fact, support for legacy devices and peripherals is one of it's pre-ordaining advantages.
> My guess is that the bushman will have a hard time figuring out what the mouse is for. Most likely they
> will use the mouse as a slingshot and head back into the jungle.
By definition, Bushmen live in the desert (aka, "the Bush"), not the jungle. That would be one lost Bushman who went to the jungle.
I guess you could argue, though, that the mental exhaustion from trying to understand computers would cause enough disorientation send any desert dweller to move to the jungle. I know there are work days that end with my feeling the same way.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
It has killed the main thing that made Windows immortal. It destroyed the perception widely held in the early 90s that everything would eventually move to Windows. As a result, people are willing to consider alternate platforms, and those who take them up are more often than not finding advantages.
I love the work Apple has done with OS X, but without Linux having broken the "Windows everywhere" mindset, OS X wouldn't be getting much attention.
Increasingly, computer experts are seeing a OS monoculture as a bad thing, which is a huge change from the early 90s. And it was Linux that made that possible.
... I'd be a lot more worried about GoogleOS than Linux.
But I'm not Microsoft, so instead I'm looking forward to both GoogleOS and future versions of Linux.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
It took way too long to get wireless support for Linux. Sound card support was a mess for years. We are still fighting the video card suppliers, who treat Linux as an afterthought if they release drivers at all.
More Linux users mean a larger mindshare of the people who make the products we use. Larger mindshare will lead to better support.
Whether Linux kills Windows for the rest of the world is irrelevant to me personally, because in my little world, Linux has already killed Windows. I know some of you have personal business interests in the widespread dominance of Linux, so for your sake, I hope Linux wins out there too. If what I've seen on the desktop in the past couple of years is any indication, Linux has a bright future there. This guy's article didn't appear to have much credibility to me.
This article (like so many others) is a complete load, based entirely on false assertions and a lack of understanding of the differences in the Linux Model. A sampling: "Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions. Windows wins" Why? consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms are the reason the SuSe's, Red Hats, etc, of the world exist. They provide stability and consistency in programming apis, scalability tools and resources, and pre-packaged solutions for common IT environments. In addition they offer the Freedom in Linux to expand those solutions to meet customer specific needs. M.S. does all of these (except the last one). "No one is so foolish as to make what can be acquired cheaply or free; it's wiser to pick one from among hundreds of platforms and modules that fill in the holes between open source Unix and your applications. In contrast, Windows fills in all the blocks between the hardware and your apps" The author seems to be contradicted by the evidence here. People who use Linux distributions in the enterprise do so by and large because they can fill in the gaps between the set of components that they obtains from other sources, the operating system and their application, effectively tailoring a solution specific to their environment. They choose to do that because it provides a better solution than the pre-fabricated one size fits all solution that Microsoft offers. For many people the M.S. solution works well, or at least is "good enough", but as is evidenced by Red Hat, Novell, etc. financial reports, more and more people are realizing that Linux lets them do better than "good enough" "An operating system is a rack into which device drivers and APIs are inserted. A platform is a rack into which applications are inserted." And how exactly is it that Linux doesn't fit this bill to a T? Windows of course does as well, but with far less flexibility than Linux offers. In short, the whole article seems to be based on the notion that what the enterprise really wants is a platform that lets them make a custom environment within the confines of strict rules, that ostensibly provide a greater level of integration ease. I would argue that Linux provides a greater level of this ease of integration while at the same time allowing for a far greater latitude in design choice.
Any schmoo who write about this controversial topic is bound to get some /. attention. I am sick of seeing Bob Nobody try and predict whether Linux will pre-dominate and/or Windows fail. Unless they have something valuable to add or some new prespective (which this article lacks) then I move on and forget the damn thing. If only a fraction of these articles had authors who actually researched the topic a little more and pulled out some numbers then maybe there would be one good article a month, MAYBE!
[[ the only 15 letter word that is spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable: it may soon be, however. ]]
Firstly, people were giving away software long before anyone thought of making money from it (let's face it, that's how UNIX took off in the first place). And whilst the big players in the commercial software world have risen to get to where they are today, there have always been people giving software away whether you used a PC, Amiga, Commodore 64, etc. The fact that free software is so prevalent today is due to more people writing it, sure, but that's because the Internet allows programmers to form communities and distribute what they've written much easier. What I'm trying to illustrate is that Windows, as a commercial operating system, became popular despite a FOSS movement being there anyway.
Secondly, many Windows users and supporters always seem to forget a very basic, intrinsic concept - Linux is just the operating system kernel; everything else is FOSS software, much of which can only run sensibly in a UNIX-type environment but a great proportion of it is available to run on Windows perfectly happily - Mozilla, OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. etc. So FOSS software benefits anyone on any OS, not just Linux.
Thirdly, a lot of Linux users are angry at Microsoft & the media turns in into a "Windows v Linux" war. However, the anger (amongst the non-zealot FOSS community) is actually aimed more at proprietary file formats that are deliberately designed to lock users into particular OSes and applications. Remember, for any specific task in Linux, there are probably several applications to choose from to perform that task - therefore, FOSS users are used to choice and do not like being locked into specific vendors purely because a closed file format restricts them to using MS Office, etc. Who cares whether a file is in ."doc", ".ppt" or ".xls" format as long as you don't have to change your whole way of working and operating system in order to read those formats.
There are no killers here, no "victories", just people exercising their rights to use what software they like when they like using.
End of story.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Today, most (all?) distributions support loadable kernel modules. If there is anything you have to compile, it would be the module itself, not the kernel. Most of the modules, though, are already pre-compiled - just pick and choose what you want, set up any flags or options (if needed), and go. You may have to frob a file or two in /etc if your installer is lame, but most do that for you today, too.
About the only time I can think where you have to recompile the kernel anymore is if you want to eliminate a bunch of options from shipped "stock" compiled kernels, so that things that aren't needed by your machine aren't included (ie, you like to run very lean and mean) - or if you have a *very* esoteric piece of old or interesting hardware that you want to be made a part of the kernel and none of the stock kernels handle it, or offer a kernel driver. That, or you want the module in the kernel for some other reason (performance or something, maybe - where a loaded module won't work for you).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Which is why he insists on calling it the GNU/Linux system which contains not only the Linux kernel, but all of the other modules that sit between the kernel and your business application. It is strange that we keep getting these 'Linux can't reduce Window's market share' when it is doing just that on the server side, and just starting to do the same on the client side. If China, India, and South America start installing significant numbers of GNU/Linux computers, Windows world wide market share will go down. The author is right that GNU/Linux can't kill Windows on the client, but who cares? It doesn't bother me if somebody else choses to use Windows as long as I don't have to.
Not to mention the large number of corporate desktops that have been switched to Linux.
I have not heard about that. What large number would that be?
But I fail to see, even without reading the article, why Linux could not take over Windows as a predominant OS in the market.
.NET. Microsoft's Windows platform makes that all come to life.
Let's discuss a few things.
First, you have multiple developers working on the same OS. Redhat, Mandriva, Novell (SUSE), etc... they all work to the same end, to create a suitable Linux desktop environment as well as a hardened server environment for intranets, web serving, file serving, etc.
Next, you have inherently great security built into Linux. Windows requires more of a careful hand, and is far more prone to virii, but the sheer number of developers reviewing Microsoft code pales in comparison what an established open source product can do. Just look no further than Firefox to discover that, Linux is merely another example.
The strength of the Windows platform does NOT lie in its products. It does NOT lie in its technological marvels. It lies in its simple interoperability with other applications that are polished. Microsoft Outlook ties in great with Microsoft Word, Excel. Microsoft BizTalk ties in great with
What the Linux field of products need to start working on is not making Linux great -- it's making Linux EASY to implement and complement a suite of products. If let's say, Redhat and Novell decided to combine efforts to fully develop Open Office to rival ALL features of Microsoft's Office program, then it could be done. In turn, Mozilla's Sunbird (calendar) could be integrated with Thunderbird, to make a proper Outlook replacement, with more stability and functionality. Running on Linux is only a plus, as the software would undoubtedly run smoother and cleaner. Coupling that with the open source nature of both aforementioned products, efforts could be made to make sure that the Sunbird/Thunderbird combo integrate and meld well into OpenOffice's architecture. Make a complex spreadsheet with graphs and equations, database pulls, etc... then simply click 'File -> Send To Mail Recipient' and Sunbird/Thunderbird launches and sends the file to the intended recepient.
It doesn't have to stop there. Products that are offered in a Linux environment can rival Microsoft in terms of sheer technology. That's not what this game and this race is about. It's about interoperability. That's why most businesses nowadays choose Microsoft's Exchange, because it molds so easily into their environment.
Give people a choice with Linux, make it work well TOGETHER, make it simple to use and understand, and you will show the Microsoft crowd (myself included) that Linux CAN make a humungous dent in the chinky armor that Microsoft wears.
The tools are there -- we just need to leverage the open source 'movement' and mobilise it in a way that will show Microsoft that development does not need to come from a corporate structured environment in order to flourish, or in order to be superior in any way.
You don't think that Steve Balmer would be sending memos about how 'Linux is our greatest threat' unless of course, it is, do you?
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I read this somewhere along the way, so I'll regurgitate it here. A study was done on people who had never used computers before. What they found, was that the platform OS didn't matter, be it Linux; Windows; or MacOS. They each had their own learning curves, and regardless of the operating system they had just used, moving to a new OS did not reduce the learning curve by much for that OS. The study also observed that regardless of OS, the subjects were usually against changing, due to the learning curve. It also noted that MacOS had the lowest learning curve (this was circa MacOS 9), and Linux had the highest learning curve. If I could remember where I read it, I would link it... maybe someone else knows.
So, I guess we could infer from that study, that there will always be Microsoft people: because they don't want to learn anything new; And there will always be Linux users: because they like a challenge; And MacOS 9 users are just lazy...
http://www.accelerateglobalwarming.com
The author says "usinesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions. Windows wins."??
Are you sure that he didn't say it the other way around?
consistent - Within a Linux distro one usually finds very good consistency, although the pace of change of Linux sometimes means the changes are greater than what one finds in a new windows release. When's the last time MS improved the cmd window, as opposed to the last time GNU updated gnome term.
predictable - not sure what this means, maybe the author is saying that the Linux interface doesn't look 100% like his NT box so its impossible for anyone to figure out where explorer is.
scalable - Windows is more scalable than Linux/unix? Really?
self-contained - Windows comes with everything you need and Linux doesn't? You mean, like drivers?, like a compiler? Like image manipulation software, like an office suite?
This guy is on crack.
The real killer app for widespread acceptance of desktop Linux would be Microsoft Office (or a 100% work-alike). Openoffice.org and Evolution have come a long way, but they're only (IMHO) about 85% there in terms of replacing MS-Office.
The other thing which would drive acceptance of desktop linux would be the availability of games. If Joe User could walk in to Best Buy and see that all the popular games are available in Windows and Linux versions, he might consider switching. As it is now, even hard-core Linux geeks usually have a Windows partition for gaming.
As an aside, Given the success of live CD distros like Knoppix, I'm suprised that game makers haven't considered releasing their products under a custom bootable Linux distro.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I don't think Linux is un-brandable, un-sellable. The real reason that Linux (or sadly OS X) will never beat Windows lies in the reality that the best technology doesn't always win.
Linux (and to a much lesser extent, the Macintosh) are populist movements which have produced deliverables which are at worst on par with and at best far exceeding the quality of Microsoft's products. The problem is that Microsoft a) doesn't need to rely on populism since it has a monopoly, b) doesn't need to innovate because it has a stranglehold on the market and c) doesn't have to worry about looking over its shoulder for competitors because it knows that the vast majority of computer users just don't care.
That is the thing that really sticks in all of our craws, since we all care so deeply about our destkop environments, our platforms, our shells and the like. But Joe Blow doesn't giving a flying flounder about open standards or browser vulnerabilities or even clunky GUI metaphors. They're used to it, it (generally) does what they want it to. They have no reason to change.
There's always going to be a (thankfully growing) minority of users who are heavily invested in using OS's and environments that are more well-rounded, more secure, more stable than Windows, and thank heavens for that. But the truth is that the "who's going to beat Windows" ship sailed a long time ago, and the geek community would be much better-served to accept that and move on. It doesn't mean that innovation in the OS space needs to die, but it does mean that we need to be realistic about why we want to innovate. Because if we're in it to change the world and take Windows out of the equation, we're setting ourselves up for bitter failure.
"Don't matter how New Age you get, old age is gonna kick your ass." - Utah Phillips
Poor Infoworld... used to be a great, important publication in the industry. Now it's a rag pandering to an ever-diminishing cluster of advertisers. Have you seen the magazine recently? It's shrunk so small it looks like a pamphlet. I refused to renew my subscription more than a year ago, but they still keep sending it to me. The only thing sadder than the publication's futile attempt to stay in business, are some of the ridiculous claims they assert.
Linux is in fact, a very viable platform. Tivo being a great example, among many others.
Linux doesn't even have to be as good as Windows -- it just has to beat the spread, which in this case is a 6 or 7 digit price differential. People say "Oh but you still have to pay for support!" but big companies are paying for support for Windows already. Any company that has an IT department that does system installs and end user support could just as easily be employing Linux trained people as Windows trained people. Your support costs won't change based on whether you're using Windows or Linux.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
From the article:
You can code with the tools of your choice and in the programming language of your choice, and unless you stray too far from the rule book, everything you create will interoperate with everything others write for Windows.
As a "former" Windows programmer, this is absolute bunk. In the first place, I've found that with the exception of Visual Studio, the development tools available on Linux have always been of higher quality than those available on Windows. Furthermore, Windows is typically the last platform for tools to be ported (consider Tcl, Python, Bash, gcc, etc...) But worse to get two applications to interoperate in Windows requires (using the "recommended method of OLE"):
Compared with Linux, which requires:
Windows apps don't interoperate with each other unless specifically designed for such. The UNIX design philosophy makes interaction standard. But what is even more embarassing is that for Windows' lack of cooperation, it has far more security holes than Linux/UNIX, even though the Linux/UNIX model has far greater potential for abuse. (Consider a random user typing: cat /dev/zero > /dev/hda)
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
if windows continues to commit suicide with its liscencing and heavy handed approach to business linux won't have to do anything.
We won in Brazil, we can win elsewhere.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
I'm sorry, am I the only one who sees the words "never" and "no matter what" in a article about technology trends and just passes it by?
Will someone please tell such authors that to say "never" gives them away as having:
a) no sense of history, tech-related or otherwise
b) no imagination
c) no clue
d) all of the above
Yeah, we'll never need more than 640k either, right? Riiight.
No sig.
Large number? What fucking large number? Almost every corporate desktop I've seen is Windows based. You linux fatties are getting delusional.
You all seem to make the same fundamental misconception:
:)
Linux is _not_ an OS, it's just a kernel, nothing more, nothing less. It does not control how your applications behave, but just provides a means to control your hardware.
GNU is more of an OS.
This was my first troll post on slashdot
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
That's why http://reactos.com/ was born: if you can not beat your enemy...
I see some of the replies to your post are very flamatory, which is unfortunate.
Windows is not consistent. Meaning, without a bunch of tinkering around, the UI is a lot different. They changed the start menu, the control panel, the login screen, the theme.. just about the only thing that's the same is the minimize, close, and maximize buttons.
If you compare Windows XP to Windows 2000, or KDE to Windows 2000, you'll probably find that KDE is a lot more similar.
Beyond that, Windows may be easy for us geeks to use but it's NOT for the end users. You show me ONE, *one* home user that hasn't managed to fuck up their computer just by using it (not deleting stuff) then I'd like to meet this person. Seriously - all you do is browse and you get spyware, EVEN IF YOU NEVER CLICK YES to a dialogue. There's been so many automatic-install vulnerabilities in IE that it takes zero user interaction to get infected with the shit.
Just like any other "computer guy" out there I'm forced to fix friend and family computers all the time. Sometimes it takes hours to clean up someone's machine after spyware has ravaged it, and it's never been updated.
The funny thing is that most people just don't install any software anymore with the Web. Sure, they might need Office installed. But most users just do e-mail, and browse. And because of this, the OS is becoming increasingly marginalized. If all you do is browse, play java games, and do e-mail - Linux is a lot more "works out of the box" these days then Windows.
I've had trouble getting XP installed on so many machines, that I still think it's funny when someone says it's so much easier and reliable to install it then a modern Linux dist.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Windows has the advantage that there is lots of it. My wife doesn't really like computers but has learnt to use Windows so she can do stuff she wants, e-mail her friends and so on. When she visits her sister she can leverage those same skills to use her sister's computer, since that also runs Windows.
The same situation would be unlikely in a Linux world - if my wife had Ubuntu with Gnome and her sister had SuSE with KDE I just don't think things would work out.
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
Linux could compete for industry-specific applications, if it had the tools to compete with Access, Visual Basic, and the other facilities that ISVs and MIS departments rely upon. Ease the transition, provide better tools... in some ways, I think that is what Mono was meant to do, by bringing the .NET "platform" to Linux.
If Linux is to become universal (even even significantly competitive) in the business world, it needs to understand how that business software is created.
All about me
I have been working a contract job (mostly C/C++/Perl) recently where I mostly work on moving windows apps to Linux (needed to enable the apps to be in aircraft cockpit).
But since I have not been on windows since 1995, I am in many ways a newbie. Well, earlier this week, I had to create a simple windows apps. No problem. So, when going into visual C++, do I do sdk, mfc, atl, managed, etc. etc. etc. I picked sdk as this is a simple app. Since then, it has been battle trying to figure out which calls to which library set works in this. The help in vc++ is a disaster. Absolutely horrible to follow. Of course, I could have used Borland or a number of other compilers but that is different set of widgets with their own set of issues. In the end, I have found that Windows is much more diffcult than Linux even when you go with the MS path.
From where I sit, it is much easier for Linux to beat Windows at the places that Linux lags, than it will be for Windows to beat Linux where Windows lags.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Fast sanity check: if Windows is such a superior platform for servers, why is Windows having such a hard time making it into the server room? :)
why will windows continue to win out over linux or any other flavor of unix? distribution channels, plain and simple. the average PC user orders their ready-made PC from Dell, Gateway, etc, or buys it prefabbed from the local Best Buy or Circuit City. your everday user is going to be challenged enough installing applications, much less a new OS. having thus invaded the home market, businesses are not going to spend the additional dollars needed to train their employees up on a separate OS, meaning that user-facing OS in most businesses will be windows based....and the trickle-down continues from there.
is more appropriate
IBM Mainframes are still around because they still fill a niche in the IT world.
Windows 98 and even DOS are still around despite Microsofts attempts to get users to upgrade to the latest and greatest.
Once a platform achieves critical mass it develops enough inertia that eliminating is virtually impossible as long as while compatible (real of emulated) hardware exists. Close systems such as DOS, Windows have shorter lives since drivers, etc. stop being updated, and eventually they will run out of viable hardware to run on.
Windows, Linux, Macs and Ataris has all achieved critical mass.
BTW. The definition of critical mass varies with platform.
But at the CompUSA store, I saw Red Hat Enterprise and Suse on the shelf under a sign that said "Linux" . In boxes, with brand names on them, and pricey stickers. It's OK by me whatever the squares want to believe. The one nightmare I have is for Linux to become as popular as Windows, because that would kill it.
"guaranteed to be available on 100% of Windows systems (sic)"
/correctly/. Win 9x and ME are emulated within XP, so parts of their functionality don't work. Also, there must be a reason why the "application compatibility wizard" exists.
1) Win 3.1 is not supported by WinXP.
2) Just because it is available, doesn't mean it will work
Note: Linux does have problems with things working properly, too.
"A set of APIs and an ABI for writing graphical programs"
You got me here, I must say. Linux doesn't have any stable graphical APIs and ABIs.
Oh, wait. I forgot. There are several that run on it though. GNUStep, Qt & KDE Libs, Gtk/2, and (if you are insane) you can even use raw X11. (And the spec for that hasn't changed, and is still supported, for over 15 years).
Now, it is true that there have been several changes within many of the APIs listed above. However, whenever they break binary compatibility, the major release number is changed. And -- get this -- you can run several versions of the same libraries on the same system. And you don't have to go through DLL HELL to locate the right one. Imagine that. So, yeah, the support is there...
I'm not saying that Linux is perfect; I'm not even saying it's better. I am saying that you really should know what you are talking about before speaking.
This is where people get all up and at em about different claims from different people. At the end of the day linux is only a kernel. Its not an entire operating system. Whilst windows is a full operating system it cant do many of the things that linux, unix, bsd or any ofthe other flavors of *nix can do. There is where unix is strongest and always will be. Windows can have 30 different versions but it will never be as adaptable as unix has been and will always be.
Much as Apple has a small share. They may ( not trying to start a debate here ) be better, but they will never be 'better enough' to get past the marketing power of Microsoft.
The battle was won on marketing long ago, not quality. And once the monopoly exists, its damned hard to unseat it even with better products.
"good enough" while in power, is good enough..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Isn't Cocoa/Carbon the same as GNOME or KDE. Its not something impossible in the linux world exactly.
name linux "doors" or "curtains" or "that sofa you had lost your virginity on before you gained it back from slashdot" and it might compete with "windows"
Let's remember that at one point millions of people didn't know that AOL was not the Internet (I can't remember how many times I've explained that AOL was a private network with a gateway to the Internet as one of its many features, not the Internet itself).
Let's note that Netscape advertises its free "web accelerator" on TV as if it's a great thing, but it actually causes serious degradation to many graphics on the web. People buy the whole "surf up to 5 times faster" and then complain to webmasters that their sites look lousy because they don't know that the acceleration is achieved by the ISP running a highly lossy compression on all graphics at the proxy server.
As my mom once said: "those manuals would be easier to understand if they used words like thingy and whoozit like we do."
Start a happiness pandemic
Someone should mod the parent post out of Flamebait status, as it's far from it, as previous replies to it have pointed out.
Having been a user of older computers for many years, Java has always been a scourge to me. It was one of those things where I would literally sigh out loud when I'd come across something that used it, because I knew I was in for a horrible experience. Many times I'd just close whatever it was immediately, because it was pointless to try and suffer through it. I could run XP on one of the particular machines in mind, even, but not Java!
Even now, on a modern speedy machine, I still have no use for it, as a user nor a developer. Software created to "bridge the gap" between platforms is just never what it's cut out to be.
It's part of the reason why Linux can never be a true platform like Windows has become, because too much of it has been created to just work on anything, making it slow and bloated overall. A program will call a script that runs some interpreted language, which may in turn call another, etc. Granted, this makes for a very configurable system, but generally results in a big performance hit because of all the processes (and processing) involved.
Windows is only aimed for one type of system, using mostly compiled code, so you get the speed and lower memory usage that your average user wants. Linux can just never have that, not without reworking it to the point that it's not Linux anymore.
I'm sure hardcore Linux advocates will disagree with most of what I said, either telling me I'm wrong or that their systems "run just as fast as Windows", etc. I've heard it all before, and will never believe it, because it's just not true. I use Linux on some machines myself for various reasons, but my primary desktop machine is Windows. I want no-fuss and the best performance I can get for my general computer usage. So does the average user.
The easiest way to illustrate this peacock argument is to take a bushman from the jungle and get them to figure out what a computer does.
Why would a bushman be in the jungle?
Bushmen live in the bush, i.e. the Kalahari Desert.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139922&c id=11715979 works for viruses too. The whole mentality that linux is immune because its linux has to go. As soon as you start switching over Joe User, you will be switching over his carelessness and his ignorance. The box says click, he will click. The box says root, he will type it in.
you say it will be their fault then, however, these are the people you are trying to convert. Its grandma who can't tell the diffrence between ebay.com and ebay.com/redir.dll/http://www.scamsite.com.
Like many /.'s, I'm a big fan of Linux Everywhere on Everything.(TM) BUT, ./. In the real world where PHB's make the decisions in the business market and individuals make decisions in the consumer market, Linux has a long, long road ahead.
Arguing technical points is fine and good on
1. M$ Longhorn. To the PHB's and consumers it will look like it kicks ass. Just because it's not released yet, the media is giving Linux some praise because it creates tension and conflict. As soon as Longhorn releases, Microsoft will be certain to make Linux look like a stinking pile of crap. And the media who takes Microsoft's money will spread the word because it fuels the tension and conflict.
2. GIVE USERS A COMPELLING REASON TO SWITCH TO LINUX and they will. I don't care which PC reseller supports Linux. They won't sell many unless there is a compelling reason to buy. Linux servers are a fantastic example. Features, functionality and price are there driving the adoption. What's it going to be on the desktop?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I think the one thing that's really slowing Linux on the desktop uptake are all the dependency nightmares and package inconsistencies. Yeah, things like yum, apt-get, emerge, et al have made things a lot easier, but they are not perfect. Last night I was trying to apt-get (I hate yum with a passion) proftpd on my FC3 box and no matter what I tried in the config, users could not authenticate - I kept getting "bad password" in the logs. I ended up compiling from source and guess what, it started working. Apparently the binary package had something funky going on with its UNIX auth module.
And then there's this thing that happened yesterday. I'm experimenting with groupware and picked up Conflux. My boss walks in and sees me looking at the demo site they have, and says "that looks cool, install it". It was winding down to the end of the day, and I say "Eh, I'll do it tomorrow", to which he says "You just can't click on the "Install" icon?"
That's when I told him the tale of how I had to get the following operational on the system first: apache2, python, mod_python, postgres, and a smattering of other libraries. Then I had to write the config files to make it all work together. And I've never worked with postgres, so I don't even know how to define users or a database in it yet.
The moral of this story is that installing software on any flavor of Linux is still a royal pain that Joe user won't tolerate. Without a unified base distro and a universal package management system, that will never change.
-R
user@box:~>ps -A
PID TTY TIME CMD
1 ? 00:00:04 init
...
3286 ? 00:00:04 sshd
3300 ttyp02 00:00:05 wine
4800 pts/7 00:00:05 ps
user@box:~>kill -9 3300
user@box:~>ps -A
PID TTY TIME CMD
1 ? 00:00:04 init
...
3286 ? 00:00:04 sshd
4806 pts/7 00:00:05 ps
user@box:~>
See?
Q: Why does Linux not dominate the market?
A: Linux geeks do not want it to!
I write code for both Windows and Linux, and I'm sure I'm not unique in this endeavor. My perspective on all of this is:
Linux users/developers want to maintain a niche market more than they want to expand to a bigger market. The Slashdot crowd, on their high horse, wave the banner of technical superiority, bashing Microsoft on every front, no matter how insignificant. Microsoft spends it's energy in a much more productive way, developing and marketing apps and OS's that people buy. I didn't say the apps and OS's were better, or faster or more secure, only that they were desirable by more than a handful of geeks.
Linux refuses to learn the lessons that Microsoft learned long ago. Granted, Microsoft has a reputation of doing some unethical business practices, and the Linux crowd is not willing to stoop that low to gain market, which is admirable. Linux developers tend to believe that embracing every new technology will gain them market, this is clearly not the case. Hell, Linux strength is it's biggest weakness! All the diversity has created a UI that is mayhem. There's not even a standard cut and paste between applications, no consistency! End users require, nay DEMAND consistency in their user interface. Windows provides that, and will dominate as long as it does.
I won't even get started on the differences in writing applications and installing them between the two systems, because it's too painful and close to me, but I will say this:
If I could choose between platforms to develop on, I would choose Windows over Linux 9 out of 10 times.
A message to Linux geeks/gurus/developers: Please stop wasting your time comparing OS's, bashing MS and complaining about the unfairness of it all. Put your money where your mouth is and deliver some progress. You wanna topple Microsoft, you're not going to do it with words, regardless of how inflammatory or true they are. Every minute you rant instead of developing a decent method of IPC, Microsoft gets a little bigger, a little richer, and little smarter.
"I'd rather win in an ugly car than lose in a pretty car" - Jari Lahdenpera
Perhaps Linux can replace Windows without becoming a platform.
What operating system does your car run? How about your toaster? How about your house's electrical system? How about your phone?
We're used to the concept of cars, electrical devices, and phones "just working", perhaps the key is to get computers to the point where "software" "just works" on "computers" the way "computers" "just work" when you "plug them into the wall".
Note that this is not the same as the "appliance computer" idea, since that said everyone had to use the same Model-T computer.
It's also not the same as the Java Virtual Machine, since that said everyone had to use the same Model-T virtual computer.
Some of the more recent Debian-derived distros (Knoppix being the first prominent case) are going in the direction. Here's some software, stick it in "a computer" and watch it go. Neat.
There will always be computers used for more specialised purposes that can't be treated as appliances, but the majority of email/web/im/word users could use a nicely configured linux distro and be happy.
so many "smart" people still dont get it.
:)
And the people who do get called a troll.
Too funny
This article was more of a teaser than anything - and it certainly worked considering all the replies on distros, widgets, compiled binaries, etc. ad nauseation.
I think most users of both Windows and Linux would agree with the meat of the article (what little there was), but would also point out that the article could have just as easily been called "Windows Can't Kill Linux."
Both have their place. If a person admits that it is cheaper to outfit a business with Windows than with Linux, they have to concede that Linux "...can't kill Windows." If a complete benefit/cost analysis reveals that moving an office from windows to linux generates more cost than gain (with a dollar assigned to inconvenience for people like Gladys in HR), then it's a simple fact that Linux can't kill windows.
My question is, since when was linux trying to kill windows? By its very nature, linux is a cooperative venture; 'killing' windows implies that it's a competitive venture.
This guy could have just as easily wrote an article titled, "The Sky is not the Ground." Or maybe I'll publish my own article: "Apples Can't Kill Oranges." That would certainly get the Johnny Appleseed zealots talking
Y'know, several years ago I read an article making a similar point, except it was a joke:
MICROSOFT SAYS RIVAL LINUX HAS NO FUTURE, SO LINUX INDUSTRY WILL STOP NOW.
Seriously, I think this guys has his head up his ass. He manages to point out some of Linux's weaknesses, but he doesn't offer any justification for making the leap between "these are some problems facing Linux" and "these problems cannot or will not ever be fixed." But I'm guessing he's not being paid to be right so much as he's being paid to attract attention.
Many comments so far criticise the article with a technologician's understanding of the words "scalability", "consistency", "predictability", and "self-contained." However, we have to realize that this article is targeted to businesspersons. These words have a different understanding in a business sense. I try to point out the "business meaning" here and reassess Linux on those merits.
If you don't care about businesses using Linux, then what I say here is a waste of time for you, and you can skip the rest.
Scalability does not mean excatly if a computing cluster can scale from a few nodes to a huge number of nodes. But rather, in a more general sense, can I scale the system from one solution to another solution? In particular, if I change my business model, can my solutions scale with me?
This also includes scalability in size as one factor. As the business grows, the solution must also scale in size, therefore the underlying platform must also scale.
The problem with Linux here is that there is a high initial cost of deployment in labor, though justified by the software being free and low maintenance thereafter. However, the high cost of labor in deployment must be paid again whenever a new solution is deployed. So Linux is not scalable for new deployments. The fact that many businesses, especially those migrating from Windows, need a pilot program already says that Linux costs too much.
Windows by itself also has a similar cost of labor for deployment, but asset management solutions exist that lower that cost. (OpenCountry is selling software for Linux asset management though, but don't accuse me of putting a plug here. You did not read this text inside the parentheses.)
Consistency, in the sense that if I learn one thing about an application, then it also applies to another application. People in business do not have time to learn everything over and over. Training only makes sense because supposedly you learn everything you need to know.
The difference in distributions is only one minor factor to inconsistency in Linux. The problem is that user experiences are different for applications like OpenOffice.org, Firefox, GNOME desktop environment, KDE, etc. A trick or two that you learn to do is not "portable" to another application.
There is no hope for consistency if open source developers only care about programming for their own itches. Fortunately, many developers are willing to stick to a certain guideline if it means more people can benefit from the program.
Predictability is the ability to answer for "what if" scenarios. Although systems crash unpredictably, but it has become a general expectation that all systems fail at some point. One must be able to tell "what if that happens?" Who do you turn to in order to get help? For commercial products, including commercialized Linux distributions, you turn to the vendor from whom you bought support. If you reaped a free version of Linux distribution, all you can do is search the web for an answer. It is unpredictable where you get your answers, how much time it takes to get it, or if you'd even get your answers at all.
Self-containedness, if you take that to mean all-in-one packaging, then Linux distributions are much more feature rich than a Windows installation CD. However, it should be taken to mean "what solutions can I buy for $10,000?" You may say "infinite" because "Linux is free." But that also means you can't buy a free Linux solution with money. An ideal business is that you invest in some money, you get profit from it, then you reinvest the money for growth, which earns you more money more quickly. Money is self-contained; Linux is not contained in money.
Again, commercial Linux distributions come close by pulling Linux into the circle of money. Linux vendors should go further to sell prepackaged solution to business. Heck, they should even sell a business model if they know how. Notice that Microsoft actually
I once had a signature.
[With Windows Scripting host] you can choose what language to use (unlike AppleScript, which forces you to use Apple's horrible proprietary COBOL clone).
Do you still feel the same way about AppleScript after reading this page?
First: Exactly what things break up when you do anything to your kernel (except binary drivers, but then the problem is binary drivers).
Second: Do you really think that it could do so well in the "server niche" if any modification in the kernel broke things?
Third: What has gui consistency to do with the kernel?
Linux will capture developers first...
Then everyone else has to follow for the software. And the support.
Linux will not capture the average user first, but when the average user needs help/cool software in 5-10 years, and none of the average user's nerd friends/children can help, this is where conversion will happen.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
... is that Linux is no enterprise that depends on success. It is just running and running and running and running... no matter what its market share is. Linux' growth depends on a few enthusiasts. And it is growing steadily. Right now, I barely see any need for any major improvement. There are even some great games available under the GPL (asc, wesnoth, crafty, lbreakout2, ...)! I can control my mobile phone through Linux, I have a complete desktop, more than one complete office suite, multiple browsers (incl. firefox for which there are a lot of excellent addons, eg. a scrapbook), half a dozen or even more excellent mail clients, a lot of nifty tools incl. compiler-compilers like yacc for parsing of formal languages, graphics processing, scripting, lots of programming languages, LaTeX, vector drawing programs, desktop publishing, rendering, video, sound, sip, skype, icq clients, desktop search, Google mail checker, advanced security implementations, a working and secure multiuser environment, a great printing support that does not need any configuration, access to windows file shares, access to UNIX file shares over ssh, kerberos, lvm, software raid, hibernation, and endless more...
And the best of it: all of these utilities are usually installable in a default way. On Gentoo Linux, for example, just enter "emerge skype" and Skype is installed. Under Windows you will get all sorts of spyware and each utility must be fetched from the net by hand.
Linux and Windows are manifestations of different computing cultures and, dirty tricks aside, I don't see either cleansing the other from the face of the Earth. It should be that way; diversity is important for data to evolve.
That's not to say that Windows and Linux can't be responsible for their own destruction, or that one can't outlast the other.
"People with opinions just go around bothering one another." -The Buddha
For the record, I wrote the parent.
No linux variant works "out of the box" if your hardware is slightly different than what you'd find on a 5 year old pc.
And yes, you do have to compile either the kernel, modules, or the drivers routinely. Look at the instructions for LIRC, nvidia and ATI graphics cards, and wireless networking.
Sorry, I guess downloading drivers is really difficult. But you know, when you buy network cards "out of the box", there's usually a windows driver disk in that same box, so there's no need to download anything.
That is why I stick with my commercial unix and keep linux on the side for none critical environments.
"A platform is a platform only if its stable" Wrong. A platform is a platform only if someone buys & uses it. Windows vs. Linux is not about technical superiority or stability. It's about market share and the ability to obtain greater market share. In the end, nothing else really matters.
While everyone is making technical arguments why Windows can't be killed, there is a probably even more important reason which has got nothing to do with technology.
It's all about society. Namely: Microsoft is seen as one of the greatest corporations ever, Bill Gates as a rock star among upper management decision makers around the world.
These CEOs, CFOs truly believe that Microsoft is the most advanced IT company in the universe.
If a Microsoft product fails, well - that's what technlogy can do at this time. If Microsoft can't make it better - noone else can.
Most IT Directors will not argue with this. Not only because they know that they will never be able to convince their bosses otherwise. Windows for upper management in IT is like life insurance.
Noone ever was fired to deploy Microsoft products in the corporate world. If you run your shop with Microsoft, you will never have to face suspicion from the CEO, that you may have made a big mistake and you are ruining the company. If in the corporate world something goes wrong on the Microsoft platform, you can always explain it. And upper management will understand.
If for nothing else, because an often used corporate weapon against any other third party supplier does not apply to Microsoft: noone can afford to sue them for demages, lost productivity.
Try that with Linux or any other open source software. If anything goes wrong, the very first question will be to argue with your judgement about not using Microsoft.
IT directors are the least likely persons to change this. They are simply managers, not IT guys anymore. If their primary focus was in technology, they probably would not have become IT directors.
The reason linux will never penetrate the desktop market beyond single digit percentages is that the Linux system model is fundamentally flawed.
Under linux, the operating system is the commodity. It's free, and comes in a wide variety of distributions tuned to different purposes. You can take linux, and do anything you want to it.
The problem is that under linux, not all hardware is created equal. Some network cards, particularly wireless, take more effort to get working than others. To unleash the full power of an NVidia or ATI video card, you have to compile new modules, etc.
In other words, under Linux, hardware is not a commodity. So to get a linux box working, you have to shop for specific models and revisions of the hardware device you want.
Under windows, all of the hardware is commodity hardware, but the OS is not a commodity. The OS is a rather expensive part of the machine, but this cost is easily absorbed byt the fact that you can build a perfectly functioning windows machine buying the cheapest of every part you need without having to worry about whether it will work - if the hardware didn't work under windows, they wouldn't sell it.
Interestingly, Apple has avoided this problem by selling you the OS with the hardware. But this tends to make Macs more expensive than PCs, which means they can't compete in certain segments of the market.
I think the future of linux is jeopardized by competition from Macs, not Windows. If you want to see desktop unix, forget linux, check out OSX.
I didn't say it was as complete, but generally he same idea as they are both GUI APIs. Or does cocoa/carbon provide some sort of mystical thing never heard of.
The problem isn't porting between completely different platforms, the problem is that Linux, itself, has no platform. It is a kernel, nothing more. GNU is wrapped on top of it, but between distributions there is little consistency as to what makes the platform. Silly things like where to stick programs, or how to configure menus, change drastically.
Linux's advantage and disadvantage, at the same exact time, is choice. I'm sure you like to be able to have some obscure window manager that does things Just Your Way(tm), and the ability to do that is a beautiful thing. But user applications also are developed against specific window managers in order to be able to reuse large amounts of functionality. The end result is that you need the libraries for every window manager and widget set up to date just so that multiple applications can display what they consider to be a button to the end user.
Choice is good, but choice is also complicated. It's the apps, stupid. Most users don't give one flying fuck about how their system is configured, or how they can completely change that, aside from their cute background picture. But by having a constantly moving target and shifting intertwined dependencies that you can never depend upon you significantly complicate the development and deployment cycle. Simply put, you will scare away the commercial developers which offer the applications that users look for.
do we really care what infoworld says?
why not just listen to cnet and news.com.com, etc., like some lamebrained CIO corporate scrub who can't grasp the concept of interoperable co-existence.
the debate about windows vs. linux is as pointless as digital vs. analog.
It's all subjective to the user, the environment, the purpose of use, budget, and experience.
Use both, why limit your capabilities!
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
it's ok, you just haven't taken the time, or have the interest to actually do some research. saying "No linux variant works "out of the box" if your hardware is slightly different than what you'd find on a 5 year old pc." is however simply untrue
a distribution like Mepis for instance already ships proprietary drivers for nvidia or ati, and simply does work out of the box on a great many portables with wifi cards. i have the responsibility of installing it on 30 workstation machines for a course in game development, thus i did do my research; just like anyone, i don't want to be spending time downloading, or compiling such drivers.
Letter to the Managing Director of Infoworld.
Dear Managing Editor,
Today I read an article by Tom Yager, that frankly surprised me. As the president of a VoIP provider I have to keep my head above the water and make sure we are sailing in the right direction. I figured that a managing editor has plenty of "hands on" to understand my view.
Some 35 years ago when I ventured into computers we did not have much in terms of eye candy. One worked with configuration files and with the birth of Unix it still got more so. It offered a practical GUI, but eye candy was not high on the list.
Then Windows came along. It was, to some of us, a playground for GUI developers. Not that a GUI is bad at all, but under Windows the efficiency we seek was not there. Over the years Windows has improved, but rather than seeking the best path for users it only seeked the best short term path for Microsoft.
Corrupt standards they left in their wake soon proved that for a developer or integrator, Microsoft really did not try to be the best it could be, to borrow an army slogan. Microsoft never played in a way that really helped us to use open standards (read; easy to integrate with various other platforms) that makes it easy for us to build our solutions.
The fact that the combination of eye candy and promised ease of use sold many people on this dream, did not make it any better. True, Windows have improved by leaps and bounds, and is not necessarily bad, inspite of methodically ignoring security and reliability issues.
But what they have is a behemoth, which includes all the (by them) corrupted open standards, unknown closed standards, tie-down into a technology that we as problem solvers don't really need or want.
It is comparatively neither reliable, secure, open standard based (for easy integration), efficient or fast, compared to solutions like Linux and the BSD's.
Now I can see that Infoworld, wanting to hold on to its Windows readers, publishes articles like Linux Can't Kill Windows. It makes them feel better in their choice of platform. I've not looked into your sponsers to see how much is Windows based but it's probably as obvious as it seems.
What does surprise me is that Tom Yager as a technical director says what he does about Linux. My 14 year old daughter build her own Linux systems. The City of Largo in Florida completely converted from Windows with very little hassle. I spoke with the City Manager and he was ever so pleased.
People, cities and even governments world wide, are switching to Linux from Windows. Yet he proclaims it's not a Windows killer.
Microsoft who has never, ever, dropped their prices for anyone, is now not only discounting Windows but is even creating a discount version...
Not that I care if Linux is a "Windows Killer". In the industry people make their choices. The more correct choices they make, the better they do. The market will settle where it wants to be.
Linux is winning largely because it makes it easy for us solutions providers to create and support solutions. It scales from wrist watches to supercomputers.
It's strength is in its undying pursuit of technical perfection. Not in the all mighty dollar.
This is the fundamental difference between other commercial solutions and Open Source. Look at OpenBSD. It is persistently more secure than the big commercial alternatives. Why? Because its not money driven.
We see the choices Microsoft has and is making. They so clearly seem to be based on one thing only, provide an as apparent, compelling reason, as possible to use Windows. But then are incapable of delivering what the industry needs.
Let me expand on that. If a child asks to have a gun. Cries for it. Throws fits for it. Makes any kind of threat for it. You are not going to give that child are gun, now are you?
Why?
Because you have some sense of responsibility.
Even though it would stop all the crying etc, etc, you know that in the long ru
The clean/"simple" (note the quotes, this solution makes sense, but would be extremely difficult to implement) solution to this is to standardize the interface to the html, multimedia, windowing toolkit, etc across all *nix options, and allow different implementation to exist under them. That way a program can call up an html rendering object in a standard way, and the real work will be done with whatever implementation the distribution author/user/sysadmin set up to be used as the back end (khtml, gecko, ghtml, whatever). Developers for third party apps would then have a sane, predictable API to develop for, and the community would still have the choice it values so dearly. I could see this as an extension to fd.o's agenda, if it really is a good idea.
Note: I'm no software architech, this just seems to make sense to me. Does it to anyone else?
Let me get this straight: you want(ed) a Linux box to host antivirus and windows update stuff? Linux dosn't use either of those things, so why would it have support for them? About hardware and software inventory tools I can't comment, because I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Possibly some kind of customized database applications?
1) This can be solved by holding down the Command Key and M. It's OS X's standard stroke for minimizing.
2) Not sure what you mean by this. Command-Tab shifts apps and Command-` shifts windows. Albeit, the later is more obscure, but it is used consistently. Therefore, on OS X, it is standardized. In addition, you can use Expose to that purpose as well.
3) Sure you can. Open up System Preferences, Keyboard and Mouse, Keyboard Shortcuts Tab and check "Turn on Full Keyboard Access".
4) You can. Just click the arrow to the left of the save dialog. You'll see your hierarchy. It's sort of like "simple" save vs. "advanced" save.
5) Au contraire. In the Finder (first off, set the thing to Column view, if you're really into efficient directory browsing) you can Command Click the window title to see the directory tree leading to your current location. In addition, there's the "back" button, which is more a list of previous directory locations browsed, but if you tunneled in to get to where you are, it'd work as you want. In addition, you can drag any directory from the Finder onto the save dialog and have it instantly jump to that location.
6) There is. It's called "TinkerTool" and it's a free download. However, this one's a valid point. The option should be included as part of the Finder's preferences.
7) Since 1984, the Mac's used Command-C for copy, Command-V for Paste and Command - X for cut. I'd say that's pretty consistent. Apple's really been strict about functional consistency and I think if an app is built against Cocoa, the copy-paste functionality is included by the library, functioning as described. You'd have to name the manners in which you see it as inconsistent, since it's never been a problem for me.
to reply to anything having to do with the original article, whichis incohernet and poorly written.
Tom Yager couldnt explain how to pound sand down a rathole without pictures, much less can he say anything usefull about a complex subject like market share for competing computer systems.
I'd agree that there is a lot of variation within the various distros and software versions, but there's absolutely nothing that says a user can't pick one distro and go with it. There's also absolutely nothing that says a user can't wait until the next major release of their distro in order to upgrade, so that everything gets done at once. Following these two options will eliminate about 90% of the arguments I've seen against linux in this thread.
I'd also be willing to bet that much of the talk of "coolness" applies mostly to things that qualify as 2-minute eye-candy.
The 'final, annoying, painful step' from software to product is where there's room in the OS world to take money. Say what you want about Shuttleworth, but he's smart enough to see that, and courageous enough to step into that niche.
At least two of the uses you specified, antivirus repositories and Windows Update Service, are simply unwanted overhead for your existing Windows deployment. That Linux is not helping you there is not really a surprise is it? As for your existing inventory software, talk to the vendor. If they did not do anything excessively clever when they wrote it, it may even run under Wine.
Our company has off-loaded 100% of web-hosting, mail, and file/printer sharing to Linux. The entire company server network runs without any additional attention 9 out of 10 days. We have a single admin managing 50 machines in four states and we have excess capacity. Using Linux where it's strongest is the best way to get a feel for its capabilities.
-Hope
Google and Tivo are two examples of companies using custom Linux kernels to deliver specific applications. Both are wrapped in boxes that you can just plug in and turn on and they get to work. Having not to pay a license fee to Microsoft presumably drives down the cost to the point where you're just paying for the end product, without the OS being of concern.
So why don't we see more of this from the likes of Oracle et al, who could be shipping if not custom boxes, custom distros complete with the database, app server, whatever, ready to go. Put disc in machine, x minutes later you have a database server with a kernel tweaked specifically for that task.
Thus it takes windows out of the equation in terms of ease of use...we've one-upped them because instead of making for a simple installation of windows (oh, and patches patches patches) and then your app, it's like putting a disc into a game console and you just start using it.
Image editing. l do fwarcraft/
.) here's an example of a "Unix-like environment" that wins on all the fronts you bring to the table.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/
Midi sequencing/Audio Editing.
http://developer.apple.com/audio/coreaudio.html and http://www.apple.com/support/garageband/
World of WarCraft.
http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2004/11/wor
None of these are even feasible under any unix-like environment let alone faster.
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
Granted, it's not Linux or open-source (well, there's Darwin, but anyways. .
"unlike AppleScript, which forces you to use Apple's horrible proprietary COBOL clone."
/ index.html
OSAX, which is simply a part of Applescript, enables you to use any language which has been made for it. Although it isn't that widely used, Javascript is available for use instead of Applescript. here it is http://www.latenightsw.com/freeware/JavaScriptOSA
It's just WSH, where, at the moment, you can use VBS, JScript or Perl.
It shows how much you know, and why you're posting as an AC
And VHS will never kill Betamax. Oh, and DVD will never kill VHS either. And Windows will never have more marketshare than Mac. And OS/2 will come back from the dead.
Who moved my sig?
NBC Can't Kill ABC
AMD Can't Kill Intel
The question, of course, is, "so?"
A product doesn't have to kill its competition in order to be successful. In fact, they have a word for that...
If those who are as technically literate as this don't get Linux, how will the "average consumer" ever get it?
Easier than you might think, precicely because the average consumer doesn't have the preconceptions of someone who considers themselves "technically literate" based on a limited world view. It's better to be ignorant and humble than half-smart and prejudiced.
"You can quit proclaiming Linux the Windows killer."
Actually most Linux developers don't give a flying shit about killing Windows. We just do what we do because we love it. But as long as you want to throw the gauntlet I'll pick it up.
"Linux is established and has a niche that, as various pendulums swing, will grow and shrink."
The Linux market share is growing faster than any other operating system and is beginning to bust free of the "niche" label that Microsoft shills such as yourself want so desperately to hang on this superior platform.
" Show me charts and stats and benchmarks that prove Linux superior to Windows in every measure and I'll not argue with you."
There are plenty of statistics showing Linux superiority to Windows. I'm glad you agree that it's a better operating system.
"But no matter how much money and dedication is poured into Linux, it will never put a dent in Windows' mind share or market share because Linux is an operating system, a way -- and probably the best way -- to make system hardware do what it's told. But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
"But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions. Windows wins. Linux doesn't lose, because it can continue the legacy of another nonplatform, namely Unix, that needs to be refreshed and extended."
I see, three paragraphs saying that Linux is superior but could never really compete with Windows with a really lame justification.
Redhat, Mandrake, Suse and others are working to provide a consistent, predictable and scalable platform. That isn't even an issue. In fact by the very nature of Open Source applications they are more stable than proprietary software. How many applications have we purchased only to find that the business stopped supporting them or discontinued them? That's not a problem in the Open Source world. If the creator of an Open Source product quits there are many other developers willing to pick up the project and continue on so don't give me this crap about the Linux platform (and yes, it already is a platform.) not being predictable. You think Microsoft is predictable? The only think truly predictable of Microsoft is their continued anti competitive practices.
" In contrast, Windows fills in all the blocks between the hardware and your apps. It does it in ways that you can't alter, but which you can use in different ways. You can code with the tools of your choice and in the programming language of your choice, and unless you stray too far from the rule book, everything you create will interoperate with everything others write for Windows."
Yeah Windows is so integrated that indeed everything will interoperate including viruses. Microsoft's misguided integration is not an asset and it is laughable that Microsoft shills such as you keep pushing it even in the face of documented security flaws that this hackers paradise provides.
Your article is nothing more than Microsoft FUD.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Tom Yager is a Mac fan, which explains much. His point is: Linux can't, but Mac OS X can.
Tom Yager is a smart guy and I think Apple has almost all the pieces in place to get into the datacenter. Server software, Unix engine, storage servers, nice interface, tie-in soul-destroying corporate control, etc.
It may even turn out he's right, but I think he is just writing down his wishes. With more and more companies successfully running their datacenters on Linux, it's hard to argue for Mac OS X.
No one can read the future. Except me.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
I believe this is one part of where economics or competition between OS's is deterimental. It's good to have flavors of different OS's for different tasks, but to standardize an OS for general usage (i.e. a platform, say like CD's, DVD, etc) it's better to co-operate then compete.
It would be nice if linux and windows would share their Intellectual property (source code, etc) with one another, I'm sure both would benefit in this regard. This is of course a socailist wet dream but it shows the power of co-operation over sectarian (trade secret) competition.
It would do much more to advance things on the OS front since OS's are so complex in the first place, to be able to share at least some of the intellectual property for standardization and interoperability, without having to resort to reverse engineering and 'emulation'.
That is the problem, there are alternatives. Most don't search them out. Did you check Google?
There are many antivirus programs available for Linux as well inventory programs.
If the goal is a move to Linux systems, then windows -only solutions are the worst and proprietary is acceptable until free software catches up in that market segment.
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
I'm not certain, but it looks like applications can be entirely written in Cocoa (without any direct use of POSIX calls), in the same way that applications are entirely written in Win32 (without any direct use of NT calls). If so, the 'platform' would definitely be Cocoa, and not BSD/POSIX.
There is a way M$ can fall flat on its face all by itself. I imagine some day we won't be using the current IAwhatever based systems. M$ is the only software corp of its size that is utterly devoted to platform dependence. All it would take is a new architecture to come along that everyone says: "This is way better/cheaper than a pc". I am sure it is not trivial to port all gazillion lines of spaghetti code to a new platform and not skip a beat, let alone guarantee interoperability. On the other hand, every other major software vendor has already had to port code to something at one time or another. Still not trivial but at least they have experience doing it, and maybe even the forsight to plan it from the start. I'm sure when M$ writes something new they aren't saying: "But if we write it this way it won't be portable!"
Not only that but I do believe that M$ market dominance overseas is slipping. It may not happen over night but their dramatic rise to the top is over, now its just wait and see how long they can last. Doesn't mean they will be reduced to ashes but someday they will be just another largish software vendor.
OSX is so easy to use even a journalist can figure it out. Hence their infatuation for Apple.
In fact, I just installed Yellow Dog Linux on an old G3 I had at work with the blessings of my superiors. I'm still a newbie, but that will change over the coming year. I will decide for myself (as I think everyone should) whether or not Linux can compete with Windows.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
It is try that at it's current stage linux has no chance of even putting a dent in the windows world and Microsoft knows that. They don't even have to run any of the anti linux campains because the linux world does that itself. IMHO the linux world need an ideology chech and certain parts of linux and the projects that go in most distributions need new leaders and a new direction. It is about time to stop accepting mediocre programers just because they know one of the better developes in the team. Also the linux community needs to start educating the world and especially the corporate world of the benefits of OSS and how OSS can help them. This might actually lead to slight restructuring of licences so that they are more clear and easier to integrate in the existing environment. This does not mean easier to keep code hidden at all. Also people have to stop this dumb arguing about linux is better than windows because the bottom line is that it is not and never had been. Linux does however have the potential to be better than windows one day and the linux community needs leaders that are willing to drive it there. Linux seems to be all about patching things and getting things done the fast and dirty way and maybe patch them or rewrite them later. Well all this does is create problems down the line and also waste time. It is about time that there is a group of people whose only purpose is to make sure that the submited code is good and works. Kinda like the testers depts in just about any software company that deals with closed source. It is ridiculous to depend on the actual user to report bugs in the code. If they wanted to do that those users would actually be developers. Yeah testing is never fun but if linux is ever going to move away from the hoby status that it has then there really need to be a little bit more profesional environment. There are a lot of good things that the linux community can learn from large scale corporate businesses and it is about time that they turn this whole thing arround. If you don't know how to write good code I really don't care who you know but you are not going to be developing my OS. You can't complain about not having any control over Windows when there are bug reports about faulty pci code in the kernel that has been outstanding for over an year and noone seems to care about it. Also it is about time that linux developers decide to support as many devices as thet possibly can get their hands on and not only the ones that they use. After all if you are going to aleanate the hardware manufacturers and you have no way of convincing them to write a driver for linux it is up to YOU as a kernel developer to do that. There are manu companies that wii provide you with sample hardware for testing and even more users out there that will sign up to be testers. Plus that way you won't have Joe who just finished his 2nd year of college writing carppy software and believing that he is the next Linus Torvald. It is time for the OSS community to unite in the name of a common goal rather than create thousands of APIs and thousands of duplicate software. Linux and the OSS community arround it has the chance to create something that no company has ever done but until that community startes acting like one and stops forking projects for dumb reasons that potential will never be realized even partially. It is just a damn shame that in over 10 years there is not a single distribution that has even reached the level of OS X which exists for under 5 (plus whever it took before). Mac OS X is a living proof of the superiority of the corporate system over the hoby driver one surrounding linux. And as far as Novell goes unless they take over most major projects out there I really don't see how they can succeed.
the only reason linux can;t kill windows is because MIcrosoft is doing such a great job of killing windows. Lets all raise a cheer for "THE Blob that ate NEw York"
I am saying that you really should know what you are talking about before speaking.
/correctly/. Win 9x and ME are emulated within XP, so parts of their functionality don't work.
And you should really learn how to read before telling someone else they don't know what they're talking about.
So which should I use, QT, or GTK2? GNUSTEP? Who will be able to use it, and what will they have to spend a day or two installing, configuring, and hacking, before they can even use my app?
No such problems on Windows, CreateWindowEx just works, every time. I can write a program, against ONE API layer, and expect it to work 95% of the time on 100% of AVERAGE USER'S systems. Can the same be said of QT, or GTK? I think not.
Also:
1) Win 3.1 is not supported by WinXP.
Bullshit. All the Win16 API calls that 99% of apps ever used (save for *undocumented* calls, and the ones that "aren't there anymore" still work, they're wrapped around the new Win32 call anyway) work on WinXP. Go try it. I just did. The ones that don't work, or go away between versions, are non-standard APIs. Get over it. You shouldn't be using them anyway.
2) Just because it is available, doesn't mean it will work
What? SendMessage still works, with the same parameters that were present in the Win3.1 days. Hell son, I could install progman.exe on XP and it *works*. Of course, it doesn't hook into the start menu and desktop and shit, because that stuff didn't exist yet.
And what do you mean, Win9x and ME are "emulated" within XP?? Have you ever, once, taken a look at the fucking Win32 SDK? I can develop against the same one from 1998, and my programs will compile, and run, as expected, on every Windows version from Win95 on up. The mechanics behind the API mean shit to me. If my app works 99% as expected, I sure as hell don't care about the details. Programming a simple GUI app for Win95, is the same as programming one for WinXP, except in very, very few cases.
I think it is you who don't know what they're talking about.
Same goes for about every other Linux-FUD spewer I've ever run across. The loudest ones of you honestly have no clue how windows works, or how to develop windows applications, and it shows.
The ones who do, are the ones who use Win2k at work, and OS X at home, and admit it.
Oh, and the next person who brings up "DLL HELL" needs to be fucking smacked, it is a non-issue these days, for any competent windows user (especially since VB cleaned up it's act)..try getting the same people that experience dll hell on windows on a linux machine, and let them install some apps, haha, talk about dll hell.
But that is only if he is talking about all of the Linux based OSs I think that this guy hasn't tried to deal with MS lately I just tried to transfer a copy of XP from one machine to another with a full install disk not preinstalled on a machine and they tried to go against their own EULA stating that you can move an install internally onto a machine as long as you completely remove it from the prior machine... Section 4... I think that when people start running into this problem they will finally get fed up and ditch MicroShaft...
Where's that cap to the Decanter of Endless water???
windows systems are self-destructing ...
I think this is where he lost me. This is exactly the difference, in my mind, between the linux afficionados and the Microsoft fanboys (throw OS X'ers in there however you like). The Microsoft way is, "it works." The linux way is, "it might work better if..." (And the OSX way is, the linux guys made it work better in this way, so let's adopt it.)
If the entire world were happy with accepting the first solution that arrived for a given problem all the time, there would be no linux, as linux simply re-solves a bunch of 'problems' that were originally solved elsewhere. The point is, sometimes it turns out the wheel you thought was round was really an octagon, and with a little rework you can make it a decagon, or maybe more.
Having the insight to see that there might be a better solution to a problem, the determination to find it, and the courage to use the solution, these are the stepping stones of progress.
But for many people, an octagon is enough, and the extra work of dealing with the decagon isn't worth it. They view the progress as wasted time and effort, and they always will. You can sneak a decagon into where the octagon was, but they won't understand why you did it. So what if there are two more sides? They don't understand why it matters, because to them, it doesn't.
My prime example growing up was my dad in this respect, when I was the teenager always wanting to fiddle with the computer. Sample dialog:
Me: Dad, can I add another 8 MB of RAM to our computer?
Dad: Why?
Me: It will make things run faster and better.
Dad: So, why?
His point was, 'it already works fine.' And he was right, it did work fine for him. It drove (and still drives) me insane to work on his Celeron 533 with 128 MB of RAM and 500MB peak virtual memory usage, where it takes 3 minutes to swap programs. But this is a problem I have created in my own self -- I expect something else.
The real issue of windows vs. linux? Linux people think windows is broken, and windows people don't.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
3) See the problems that remain even with this enabled.
4) I'll repeat my statement on the prior response: DOH!
5) Nice, albeit rather unintuitive! Now, is there a way to show the entire path to folder in the title bar? That would complete my wants for Finder ease of usability. The folder drag is a nice almost expected feature.
7) see my posting that includes more than merely cut, paste, and copy. Movement, selection, etc, are included.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
In what context are you referring to operating systems in - Networking, Programing, Desktops applications. What? Surely you can be as bold as to say that Windows is better at all aspects of computing and if you are. You are one simple minded bastard like a previous post said. You ask for proof that you need a benchmark telling you that Linux is better in every measure. Of course not one OS will ever do that so what your asking for is impossible. And how do you define every measure? Does that include kernel level access and source access. You are coming out very biased so what good would a benchmark do you proofing Linux is better. Need to use it to see the truth. Linux is not perfect. Some of the desktop Applications need improving. The question is how do you dumb down applications so the everyday users can use them. Thats sorta like dumbing down an F16 so Susie rotten crotch can fly it. Heres a good article about the Samba vs 2003. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32673_p.htm/ Another good general article is this. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32648.htm/ But of course I am interested in what your proof is. According to your article there will be more.
...Linux (and other Free Unices out there) have already put a dent in the Windows market, or at least slowed Window's growth. Otherwise, Microsoft wouldn't be worried about Linux at all. They are however, and they have good reason to be.
Windows wins because when people sit down at PCs, they are completely unaware of the thing called Windows. They equate it with their PC. It has nothing to do with user interface or how many CPUs it runs on. It came with it out of the box.
If you're offering an alternative to a product that customers aren't even aware of owning, you can't win.
No matter how good linux is; Window's can't be killed. It is just far too established, it will never go anywhere, ever. Neither will microsoft. It's pretty simple.
well, 1% to 4% of all corporate desktops of the world already be a very large number. assume it's 1% to 4% and that accounts for your "almost".
The partial flaw of your analysis is that the memory "allocated" to the loaded shared object (in linux) is only virtually allocated, you are right. But, to page granularity, if you don't use the code paths then they arn't actually loaded anywhere and don't really take up any meaningful space.
/alt/(compiler_version)/{bin lib etc} trees I can have disctinct runtime inferance trees. Executing the programs is then a matter of point-and-shoot with LD_LIBRARY_PATH or the configuration of ld.so. It doesn't practically matter that I have an /alt/(version)/etc/ld.so.{config cache} as long as the executables know which one they are supposed to use.
In point of fact, the shared object mechanisim isn't broken in general, it fails "in detail".
I have several (Linux) systems with distinct and conflicting versions of the libc.so working just fine on a daily basis. [Yes, this is by common logic quite dumb, but it is necessary for reasons I will not go into here.] If you build the overall system "right" this is very easy to do.
By setting up
It "doesn't matter" to the system because the virtual file system in Linux will efficently deal with the multiple mappings of the same text images even if they come from separate loaders. That's what it is for.
Similarly, targeted dependencies via the definition of "versioned symbols" isn't rocket science either. It's all there to use, and the kernel does this very thing for its modules if you want it to, but the developers have to use the techniques.
"The system" cannot be relied uppon to make these issues go away.
Consider "nice portable Java", given or take deprecated interfaces and JINI, this system suffers from many of the things its designers tried to design away.
Even statically linking everything isn't a solution because the underlying hardware, and therefor the executing OS, simply _must_ evolve. And evolution isn't 100% backwards compatable.
So if people work on forwards compatability (new versions being supersets of old versions etc) you can do "pretty well" if you make sure not to install old stuff on top of new.
And that is an administration task that is only somewhat automatable.
At some point, people have to stop being dumb or suffer the consequences of their own ignorance.
Life sucks. 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
"Linux isn't a viable product. It changes too often, and there are far too many versions. You pointed this out yourself. Can you imagine Windows ever being popular if there was a version for students, a version for corporate markets, a version for Grandma, and a version for average (stupid) users? It would never work."
Linux is most certainly a viable product and is becoming better everyday. I've used it for years and am at this very moment writing this reply using Suse 9.2. Yes, there are various flavors of Linux but that isn't a big deal. Linux is Linux no matter which distro one uses. KDE and Gnome look and act the same weather I run Suse or Mandrake. Open Office is Open Office no matter which platform I'm running it on. Firefox runs just the same on my distro as it does on anyones. There are a LOT of window managers available but by default KDE and Gnome are installed. However if I choose to use one of the others I have a CHOICE. As far as corporate versions I think the parent post made it clear that the difference is primarily the default application load. Not some strange and different animal as you suggest. I would assert that if Linux isn't a viable product like you say there wouldn't be the mass migration to use it in other countries.
"Windows is a commercial success for several reasons:
-It's a monopoly, even though Linux and Mac OS exist
-It comes bundled on a lot of systems, thereby saving the user the trouble of learning enough about their computer to install something by themselves
-It Just Works. Almost all hardware manufacturers write device drivers with Windows in mind, and since Windows is so common, the proprietary software it uses is also widespread. This means that any hardware you toss in the system should Just Work. Any documents Mom sends you should Just Work."
Well we agree that windows success is in large part the fact that it's a monopoly. I would add however that it's a monopoly willing to abuse its monopoly position to maintain its strangle hold. Not exactly a company with which I would choose to do business.
It comes bundled with less applications than most Linux distros and it's no harder to click through the default load of a Linux platform than it is for a Windows platform.
I haven't had any trouble with drivers for my hardware but you are correct that Linux is slightly behind on some of the newest hardware. But only slightly. As Linux becomes more and more common this will change and is in fact already changing. I have found that older hardware is better supported under Linux than Windows primarily because Linux will load the drivers for any hardware that it sees where as for Windows I have to spend an extra hour or more installing the third party drivers that came with the hardware and God help me if I've lost the CD or floppy.
"Linux can do all these things, but sometimes it takes a bit of work. Linux isn't an all-in-one solution that Just Works. Instead, it's a fast-paced, rapidly changing way to get your computer to do the most possible."
Again it doesn't take any more work to point and click in Linux than it does in Windows. Linux IS more flexible for the people who need it but doesn't really take anything away from the Mom and Pop users. Until recently the focus from the Linux developer's has been on the server side. However, Novel has just announced that they intend to go after the desktop. Any deficiencies that you might find now will rapidly be corrected.
"Most users don't care whether they can change their ethernet adapter's MAC address. They want to buy a computer, plug it in, and turn it on, and have everything work. If they need to install something new, they just double click the pretty picture, and then click OK a few times."
Most Linux users don't care whether they can change their ethernet adapter's MAC address but for those who do, they can. And if you would take the time to load the newest Suse or Mandrake distros you would find that everything works right out of the b
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The arguments sound similar to that made for unix vs. VMS in the past (unix provides a bunch of legos, VMS provides a 'solution'). If MS is thus comparable to VMS, I guess that may tell us where this is all going.
This is a bit much for the casual user, but no-one has bothered to automate the behaviour. Automating the behavior would go along the lines of - an error due to the wrong library launching a script asking the user if they want to install the correct library and still leave the original library intact for the stuff that needs it.
There's only one way to find out...
... and, please, give Linus a rusted knife! =)
Put Linus and Bill in a ring and it's the last man standing!
As long as we don't kick out FSF, GNU and its homosexual sodomizers, OpenSource will never reach the critical mass!
The biggest hurdle in the way of progress of OpenSource software is FSF, GNU and Stallman!
Maybe you should look around more. Here's one article I just caught today.
a sp ?liArticleID=137912
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.
10,000 desktops sounds like a large number to me.
I have 2 computers at the moment, a windows box and a (gentoo) linux box. I use the windows box for what it's good for: playing games and web browsing (with firefox) and I use the linux box for what it's good for: server and hosting tasks.
Yes, it would be nice if I could install any windows application or game on the linux box and Just Have It Work, as flawlessly as it does on the windows box (insert generic snarky reply about windows stability here) the same way it would be nice to be able to SSH into my windows box, run Screen, and then load up TF. But... why? SSH/Screen/TF works better on a linux box, and the windows applications and games work better on a windows box.
So why change things? To "save" people from having to struggle under the burden of windows? To bring them to see the light of your own personal savior? Nobody likes being converted or proselytized to. A "grand unified OS" isn't really NEEDED anyway, if you think about it. A server going down because someone ran a buggy game on it doesn't sound like a fun time to me. =)
I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
Open source will always be "By engineers for engineers". In order for a project to get development, an engineer has to be interested in it. There are vast arenas of software where the engineering puzzle is mundane but the product is interesting. I also don't see Open Source spending vast quantities of money to do market research to design a product for a customer. Servers and Open source go in hand because the software is only used by engineers.
Let's just say I'm a normal average person: I use my computer to write Word documents, browse the web, send e-mail, do my taxes, maybe fire up Quicken or some other random productivity app. For the most part, Windows XP is just FINE for doing these tasks. Okay, you can harp on IE; but users have the option of Firefox if they really care. WHY would I as a normal user who only needs to accomplish these tasks throw out Windows and buy a WHOLE NEW OS so I can spend MANY HOURS learning new OS conventions (examples: Where is Word in Linux? Where is the "Control Panel"? Why can't I just click on exes from the web and install them? What the fuck is the /mnt/cdrom instead of D:\ business? And so forth...) so I can do the EXACT SAME THING I do on Windows? Hell, you're paying all these hours so you can do LESS. No native version of Quicken/Turbotax that is easy to install. No easy way to run the newest cool little freeware exe your friend tells you to check out. No way to natively install Word: instead you've got to learn a whole bunch of new conventions in OpenOffice. Oh yeah, and sometimes it randomly mangles the Word document your friend sent you.
Face it. No average user is going to sit down at his computer with a free evening on his hand and think, "I know what I'll do! I'll install Linux so I can invest hours learning a new operating system to do less stuff!" Sure, if he invests hours upon hours trolling forums and reading tutorials, he might finally gain the aptitude to do on Linux exactly what he used to be able to do on Windows. But even that is a stretch, considering that most popular Windows applications that Joe Average uses (Photoshop, Quicken, TurboTax, Office) are NOT easy to install (i.e. not native) on Linux.
What benefits does Linux offer to an average user who has used Windows for years? None. Cost? Windows has no cost to these users, it's already been installed. Open source? Average people don't give a shit about the spiels about how application code is shared; they just want to use applications. Better apps? Hell no: OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. are nowhere near their established commercial Windows equivalents. Security? A win for Linux--but then again, you could accomplish the same thing in XP SP2 by installing a 5MB Firefox download. So what's better--installing a 5MB app, or installing a whole new operating system?
The only way for Linux to really make headway is if most popular programs start getting ported--or more realistically, more applications start becoming web-based, like e-mail. But we're definitely not there yet. Until then, expect the network effect and the fact that no one wants to relearn things to do the same thing continue to eat your lunch.
Learn about inertia, people.
Face it. No average user is going to sit down at his computer with a free evening on his hand and think, "I know what I'll do! I'll install Linux so I can invest hours learning a new operating system to do less stuff!" Sure, if he invests hours upon hours trolling forums and reading tutorials, he might finally gain the aptitude to do on Linux exactly what he used to be able to do on Windows. But even that is a stretch, considering that most popular Windows applications that Joe Average uses (Photoshop, Quicken, TurboTax, Office) are NOT easy to install (i.e. not native) on Linux.
What benefits does Linux offer to an average user who has used Windows for years? None. Cost? Windows has no cost to these users, it's already been installed. Open source? Average people don't give a shit about the spiels about how application code is shared; they just want to use applications. Better apps? Hell no: OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. are nowhere near their established commercial Windows equivalents. Security? A win for Linux--but then again, you could accomplish the same thing in XP SP2 by installing a 5MB Firefox download. So what's better--installing a 5MB app, or installing a whole new operating system?
The only way for Linux to really make headway is if most popular programs start getting ported--or more realistically, more applications start becoming web-based, like e-mail. But we're definitely not there yet. Until then, expect the network effect and the fact that no one wants to relearn things to do the same thing continue to eat your lunch. Learn about inertia, people.
Why on earth do you consider the Windows box good for that?
The main reason I've have a gentoo partition is for secure web browsing and internet banking.
I have the windows for games.
I don't do any server and hosting at home.
What kind of "please keystroke log my internet banking password" eegit has a gentoo box, but uses windows for web browsing? You want to give away all your money?
Tom,
You're right.
Linux and Windows don't compete.
Almost nobody buys Windows. Windows is forced onto people by OEMs who bundle the price into the hardware.
Linux has to be purchased, or acquired by burning a CD, which takes time, and then installed, usually by deleting a copy of Windows.
People actually spend money and/or do work to acquire Linux.
So, no, they don't compete...Linux is in a class by itself...
John A. Bailo
Compatibility. That's what is needed to make Linux a leader in the PC platform/workstation/desktop arena. I use to be a really big Linux bigot and wouldn't go near a Windows machine unless I absolutely had to. Well, I got into gaming - specifically, online gaming - and walla, I'm back on a Windows system. I have a few Linux systems sitting around, but they hardly ever get touched. Okay, I do more on a system than just play games, but I don't need/want dual boot systems - been there, done that. I will not carry around a different system for each OS that's out there. I still have to send/receive documents from clients using Windows and while Open Office is close, it's not 100%, so I need Windows for that. When there are zero differences between how a program runs on a Windows system or a Linux one, then Linux will start to inch forward and maybe even surpass Windows. Until then, Microsoft is holding the compatibility card and they are not about to let go of it.
Perfect is ALMOST good enough.
Closed source and copyright/patents are crippling society. We could be moving a thousand times faster if people followed open source's lead.
Besides, we're supposed to be the most intelligent species on this planet. How did we miss the whole "diversity is the most important feature for survival" lesson?
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
I'd choose J2EE and Solaris over Linux for nonuser-facing server applications in shops that have expert administrators.
If he thinks that his Java + Solaris can best my custom Debian Sarge for performance he's got another thing coming.
That is why people keep using the consistent look of the following user interface:
c:\>
And surely you are going to tell us now that people migrating from Windows 95 or 98 to WindowsXP do it because the user interface is consistent. And it matters to them of course (like if the poor sods had any say in the matter).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I see so many posts on the subject that linux will never gain any significant mindshare because it is too "fragmented" and eventually this fragmentation will cause linux to break up into many smaller OSes. First of all this will never happen beecause all major distro have to adhere to compatibility standards such as the LSB to ensure their distro will work with the standards so in esscence it does not reall matter whether vi or emacs is better or if one perfers fluxbox over KDE or GNOME.
Second, the amount of diversity in the linux community allows for a broader range of choice and user comstomisation. I would dread to see KDE of GNOME totally dominate, as both bring new and innovative features to the desktop and are great in their own ways. The same holds true for package mangement: RPM is great for some, so is TGZ and portage, but personally I like APT+synaptic (Debian) or RPM+YAST (SuSE). With linux, I'm not stuck with a system that I have to install twenty third party apps like in Windows to customise my system.
Therefore, stating that linux will never appeal because it isn't consistient amoung all distros is moot thinking, because its that choice that allows for innovation and competetion. Each distro trying to patch together a compatible, viable, distinct, usable, and attrive package that can be customised to the users needs with a little effort. THat is what linux is about, try getting that kind of customisation in Windows without having to install a crapload of third party apps...
Freedom of choice....
The problem, IMO, is that Linux has too many favors out there to really become a viable "platform". Each flavor, including web and DB servers, creates contention, in one form or another, not only amongst customers but Linux loyalists as well.
"It's not rocket science, Smithers! It's only brain surgery!" --Mr. Burns
other reports have indicated that windows and linux will probably be the only survivors (that still mather).
ofcourse linux is not going to kill off windows, at least not during our life.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Well forgive me for the fact you havn't seen much of the corporate world.
Of course an open source open standards based operating system still would have happened at some time in the future (after all it is only common sence to create one to provided equal, open and competitive global access) but it was Microsoft's efforts through it's monopolistics practices that made it happen so early in the evolution of IT (Microsoft are just paying the price for the profits they made).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
...Significantly, too. Granted, not on the desktop, but in the server arena. And granted, not to the same extent that it's dented Unix. But the mere fact that MS decided to create a campaign (very political-like too, all built on lies & half-truths) to create FUD, just goes to show that Linux is denting Windows. Will it ever replace Windows? No, just like how MS hasn't replaced Apple (they still have their loyal fanbase, and as Apple is the new trend-setter, they'll be around for quite a while.) So, long story short: It's going to be a 3 type arena for a long time: Windows*, Mac*, and Linux*.
The way I see it right now, the only way Linux could severely dent MS's desktop percentage is if Dell and other giant companies that build computers for idiots start providing Linux as OEM, and not to hide it. I know Dell provides Linux pre-installed on a few workstations, but they go out of their way to hide them. And even then, they only provide RedHat. The average computer user isn't a gamer: it's the gamer's parents and grandparents. That, and school kids that download everything they see off of KaZaA, thus promoting the viral population.
Ofcourse, Linux can't kill Windows because Windows is already dead.