OSDL CEO: Microsoft Has to Accept Linux

PenguinCandidate writes "The OSDL's Stuart Cohen has been in the news lately following a clandestine meeting with Microsoft about a dubiously independent TCO study; a study that has since been rejected by the OSDL. The idea of an independent Windows/Linux TCO comparison may be dead, but did Cohen have an additional card up his sleeve? In this interview, Cohen states that while he "awaits the reply from MS's Martin Taylor on the results of his internal investigation" into how an off-the-record meeting became public, he will continue to promote his belief that MS will eventually have to accept Linux as customer demand increases."

Comments

Already accepted

[fembots]

I thought Microsoft has long accepted Linux's place in the market, otherwise why would it bother to come up with those TCOs and FUDs?

I hope this is not exposing the lack of maturity in "Linux People", who acts like a little brother, and always try to get recognition and comparison with his older brother, and in trying so, will forever live under the shadow of the latter.

Re:Already accepted

[Snake98]

Microsoft has realizes Linux place in the real word, if they didn't they wouldn't spend a ton of money showing their side of TCO and try to displace Linux.

Re:Already accepted

[Eberlin]

Recognition vs. Acceptance vs. Surrender

MS has recognized Linux's place in the marketplace. They know of Linux's server market growth and its desktop push. Ms recognizes the choices in Open Source software (OO.o vs. MS Office, for example).

MS has not accepted this. Probably will not either. Thus the TCO fudging and other FUDs. If Microsoft accepts the qualities of Linux (and OSS), they wouldn't FUD it. They'd acknowledge its benefits and make THEIR offerings better.

So once you make the distinction between recognition and acceptance, the statement pretty much pans out ok.

Re:Already accepted

[ewe2]

In an odd way, that's exactly what I believe Microsoft wishes the situation to be: Linux the junior partner to Windows. Microsoft will not accept Linux as the dominant server in the enterprise in any way. It has been suggested that recent acquisitions in the area of enterprise management by Microsoft is to ensure that whatever the Linux/Windows balance is, Windows will be in charge of the data centre. All the better to enforce its IP rights, no doubt.

I hear MCSE's praise Active Directory to the skies and claim that Unix ACL's can never match W2K's group attribute management. I don't really see anything a competent Unix admin couldn't match with OpenLDAP and efficient automation, but that's not the point, its the idea that whatever Linux can do, Windows has already done it and in a superior fashion. This is the direction I expect the pro-Microsoft argument to run once they've "accepted" that their TCO argument has failed.

The true value of open source solutions involving Linux and the *BSD's is that you're not trapped into one management model, and only the larger adoptees seem to have grasped this. If Microsoft insist on being the gatekeeper in the server market, they might have more resistance than they expected.

Re:Already accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

"has realizes"? "has realizes"? BAHAHAHAHA!!!

Re:Already accepted

[eneville]

> The true value of open source solutions involving Linux and the *BSD's is that you're not trapped into one management model,

Thats not true. We're using something OpenBSD/carp/pfsync provides, and I've never seen it offered in Linux or windows. So in a way, I'm trapped by what OpenBSD provides and there's no alternative!

Re:Already accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the most popular businesses ignore thier competition. You never hear McDonalds telling people that they're better than Burger King. If they did that, that'd make people think about whether they like BK better than Mickey Ds. Instead, the potential customers should be thinking "Oh yea, a Big mac does sound pretty good right about now!". Granted, Operating systems are a lot different than french fries, but business is business; and marketing is part of that game.

Re:Already accepted

[nocomment]

Funny little known fact. Microsoft runs Linux. My predecessor here at my job, left to go work for Microsofts Xbox division managing their Linux developer stations, because a lot of the Xbox developers wanted to develop on Linux (note: this wasn't MS developers wanted to run Linux but third party and so MS had to support it becuase they wanted the developers more than they wanted a pissing match.

Re:Already accepted

[GWBasic]

Your "little brother" statement is certainly true about Linux on the desktop. It offers no significant advantage over Windows, and at best is nothing more then a cheap knock-off. When Linux on the desktop can offer must-have features that matter to non-technical people, then it'll stand a chance.

Re:Already accepted

[aCapitalist]

I'm guessing that there's lots of people that use/enjoy Linux at Microsoft, but they just don't make it a religion.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Microsoft started making software for Linux in the not too long-term future. At the end of the day Microsoft wants to make software and money - which is what they're supposed to do.

Hell, I wish Microsoft would put out a desktop for Linux, but that's way too much wishful thinking.

Re:Already accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

> I wouldn't be surprised at all if Microsoft started making software for Linux in the not too long-term future...
> Hell, I wish Microsoft would put out a desktop for Linux, but that's way too much wishful thinking.

I can't figure out why Microsoft doesn't go beyond that and make their OWN Linux distro. What's stopping them? Not the GPL!

Then they could tell their customers: "Want Windows? You got it. Want Linux instead? Get it from us! We have the best, easiest to use and configure distro."

Embrace and extinguish, baby!

Re:Already accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hell, I wish Microsoft would put out a desktop for Linux..."

But how is Microsoft going to apply its ball and chain EULA to a Linux OS? They might get half way there but their normal, beloved control-freak EULA will have to cave in. I can't see them doing that. It is too much of a culture change.

Re:Already accepted

[rtb61]

Religion ? It is only appropriate that the redmondites be forced to make Linux a religion as it was Microsft's PR department that launched that marketing concept years ago (the only real zealots are bog balls and wee willie and their worship of greed ;-)).

Sure microsoft will be making software to run on Linux but what kind of profits will it be generating, the same kind of profits it generates from it's xbox division or the profits it used to generate from it's office and os division.

Microsoft has to continue in the current marketing vein of all or nothing (not that it has to be real, it just has to convince it's share holders that it is real, as they are the ones that control it's share value). With out the effective monopoly, which is currently evaporating before their eyes, to be blunt, they are Flocked.

Have you really got evindence of microsoft "making money" if so, I am sure the US secret service will be very interested (after all that is what you implied in the context that you used it).

Re:Already accepted

[minus_273]

actually, ms has some linux products. a good example would be the windows media server and C# compiler which have linux versions. they probably did this because of the presence of linux in the server side of things. The logic this guy is using is that a similar thing will happen when linux has a bigger piece of the desktop. However, keep in mind that there is no asp.net version for linux or apache even though they are probably the majority of servers.

Re:Already accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that CARP is a clone of a proprietary Cisco protocol. You do have an alternative -- buy a frickin' PIX.

Re:Already accepted

[koekepeer]

i don't understand you guys! why is something enabling (yet unique) a trap?

the way i see it, there's problems and solutions. sometimes BSD can prodive a unique solution, sometimes linux, sometimes microsoft. pick which one solves your problem, and be happy that you don't have a problem anymore.

if opensource means so much to you, always takle the OSS solution when available. isn't life gorgeously simple?

Re:Already accepted

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Microsoft will make Linux software if they determine that there's money to be made there. Many Linux users think all software should be free (as in beer, speech, or both), and a commercial software studio can't make money selling software to such a customer base.

tco and the customer

[ch-chuck]

If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20. If I have to take it to Quicky Lube it's about $32 (plus they try to sell me a bunch of useless stuff). Obviously TCO of the same car varies depending on the expertise and willingness of the customer to crawl underneath and get dirty.

Similarly, if a customer has to hire someone to edit his inittab then it's probably going to cost more than a Windows jockey clicking on services attributes. Dunno, there's just too many indefinite variable to compare complex systems.

Re:tco and the customer

[eneville]

Very true words. Except the Windows jockey probably doesnt know the difference between automatic and manual and probably wont know what a service is till they use something Unix-like.

It's also a matter of what oil you use. If you don't use performance oil then your engine is just being suffocated.

Linux is still a specialised topic, therefore the cost of employment is higher, so I guess it all has a knock on effect and the two products cost about the time. The only difference being that Windows boxes need more attention, and higher licence fees. Everything else is more or less the same.

Re:tco and the customer

[syrja]

Actually, your own time used for oil change is part of that TCO. Time is money...

Re:tco and the customer

[whizzard]

If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20.

But this is really only true if your time has no value. Even if you can change your oil as quickly as the Quicky Lube, you're using time that could be spent on another activity (even if it's reading a book in the Quicky Lube waiting room).

This seems to apply even more so to using a computer: do you really want to spend 10 minutes tweaking /etc/inittab (to use your example), or would you rather have spent that time writing code, playing solitaire, or reading slashdot?

Re:tco and the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20. If I have to take it to Quicky Lube it's about $32 (plus they try to sell me a bunch of useless stuff).

If I change the oil in my car, it costs me about $20 too. If I take it to a generic quicky-lube, I check one of the million coupons around, find one for generaly $9-$15, take it in, and usually don't buy anything extra (Though I've bought windshield wipers at one once, because I needed them, had a coupon for them as well, and the oil change coupon was for a free oil change, anyway). Sure, they tryed to sell me more. But you don't have to buy.

Moral of the story? The big stores get their supplies cheaper, because they buy in volume. Similarly, big software vendors (Be it Sun, Microsoft, IBM, whoever) can offer service cheaper than you can sometimes do it yourself simply because they know the system better.

Furthering the analogy, sometimes these vendors will offer the draw (Software/Oil change) at a loss to get your business for more profitable things which you'd need anyway (Car Maintanance/parts or computer hardware... Microsoft doesn't fit in here, but Sun, Apple, and IBM sure do).

My point? TCO is dependant on a hell of a lot of things, and there's no way to say "X is cheaper", only that "In $RANDOM_SITUATION, X has a lower TCO".

Re:tco and the customer

[vinn01]

Even if you could change your oil as fast as Quicky Lube, the time it takes you to clean up after "getting dirty" could easily double your overall time spent.

There are lots of subtle time sinks that most TCO studies do not address either.

vb

... and then you have disposal of the used oil

Re:tco and the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20. If I have to take it to Quicky Lube it's about $32

You've missed another important point in the comparison: take it to a company like that, and they suck the oil out from the filler tube, which leaves all the crap in your engine's sump. Do it yourself, and you get the opportunity to undo the sump nut, thereby removing all the crap.

In other words, do it yourself and get it done right...

Re:tco and the customer

[DrCode]

Exactly. But the waiting time could be significant. I usually do my own minor plumbing repairs because waiting for a plumber to show up could take half a day, a lot more time than my own fix, say 2 hours, even though the plumber gets it done in 10 minutes.

Re:tco and the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

and the unix jockey probably has the gear shift completely shoved up his ass... generalizations seriously suck, just as much as windoze when compared to unix.

Re:tco and the customer

[indigoid]

It's also a matter of what oil you use. If you don't use performance oil then your engine is just being suffocated.

spoken like a true automotive engineer... not.

actually even the "performance" oils available today (ELF, Mobil 1, blah blah blah) are pretty crap. a friend has been doing some reasonably careful testing of many different oils and oil additives (old Datsun L-series cylinder head modified to mount in a lathe bed with the camshaft attached to the lathe chuck) and found that none of them were particularly good.

What he did find during this testing, however, is that there is an additive you can buy that apparently used to be present in performance oils (since removed for pollution reasons) that when added in a 4-parts-per-100 ratio, or even less, makes a massive difference to the length of time that the oil will protect surfaces that are moving against each other (camshaft lobes and valve buckets in this test)

in summary, he found that "performance" oils do make a difference, but not a terribly significant difference.

Re:tco and the customer

[MBGMorden]

Not really. For the VAST majority of the population, time is free. You're not paying yourself, and you wouldn't be off doing a paying job if you weren't changing your oil. Afterall you're not using a vacation day to do the job are you? The reality of it is that for most people they have more spare time than they have activities to fill it with, hence the popularity of stupid television shows and such. Using some of that time rather than sitting on your ass doing nothing doesn't equate to a cost.

Re:tco and the customer

[tez_h]

If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20. If I have to take it to Quicky Lube it's about $32 (plus they try to sell me a bunch of useless stuff). Obviously TCO of the same car varies depending on the expertise and willingness of the customer to crawl underneath and get dirty.

Yet, if someone set out to use CarA in his routine life for a month, recording all costs related to the use and upkeep of that car, then did the same the next month substituting another car, CarB for CarA, and discovered that CarA cost him, say, 50% more than CarB, wouldn't you conclude that CarA likely had a higher TCO?

-Tez

Re:tco and the customer

[the_weasel]

Time is NEVER free. You sorta missed the point. Perhaps the problem was caused by the use of the phrase "Time is Money" in the grandparent post.

Lets fix that. "My time has value".

Extending the analogy - I would consider the extra 12 dollar cost of the 'professional' oil change in comparison to my willingness to spend the time changing my oil, my ability to do so legally in my parking lot without violating the terms of my condo's bylaws and my enjoyment of the task.

I despise working on my engine, I hate getting greasy, and I have no place where I can do the oil change in my townhome anyway. So having someone else do that work for me has value.

The grandparent is correct - for someone like me who could care less about changing his own oil, those becomes factors in the TCO.

Re:tco and the customer

[Ikester8]

You've missed another important point in the comparison: take it to a company like that, and they suck the oil out from the filler tube, which leaves all the crap in your engine's sump. Do it yourself, and you get the opportunity to undo the sump nut, thereby removing all the crap.

Uhh, undo the what and the whozit? And drain out the crap how? Oh, look, I can divide my mileage by 3000. Time to go to the quicky-lube! Yay!

Re:tco and the customer

[MBGMorden]

But that's only your situation. I live 20 miles outside of the city with no community requirements whatsoever. I can change the oil in my garage or out on the lawn if I so wished.

I've got the extra time, and LOVE working on things. I build my own computers, I work on my own guns (rebuilt 2 Mausers and built a 1911 handgun from all aftermarket parts), and I'm working on building my own airplane (a Zodiac 601XL for anyone into the homebuilding scene). To me, I actually take ENJOYMENT out of things like this.

It's all a matter of perspective. Saying that just because it takes time then it's a cost is not accurate. There are some things that even if it were of equal cost to pay someone or do it myself, I'd still do it myself.

And the same applies to my Linux system. I like tinkering with it to get it running just right. And besides, my knowledge of Unix-like systems helped me get my current job.

Re:tco and the customer

[Scoth]

Er.. what? I've had my oil changed at numerous places, as well as done it myself plenty, and never have I had a place suck it from the oil tube. Not that there's nowhere that does it, but I've never had it happen in the time I've been driving. Incidentally, there really shouldn't be all that much crap in the oil pan unless your car is having problems that's putting metal shavings in the thing. Most of that sort of thing should end up in the filter. Although it might be a nice diagnostic thing.

Re:tco and the customer

[cwebster]

your intake, air filter, intake runners, imperfiections in the manifold, size of intake and exhaust ports, cam timing and exhaust system are what are suffocating your engine. not your oil.

Re:tco and the customer

[seriesrover]

For the VAST majority of the population, time is free.

This is nonsense. Time spent \ education \ actual costs are all part of the TCO equation. If I'm a lawyer I can probaly earn $100 in the same time its cost me an extra $12 to get someone to do it. And relaxation \ downtime \ rejuvination is also part of TCO. For some people its a nightmare to change the oil - for you not so. You don't relax with stupid TV shows - guess what, others do.

Re:tco and the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, whatever. So what was this magic ingredient? Or is that a secret the world is not ready for?

Re:tco and the customer

[runderwo]

If by "crap" you mean dirt and carbon particules, they are held in suspension in the oil and sucked out at the same time. If by "crap" you mean sludge, you should fix whatever is sludging your oil (probably a stuck open or missing thermostat). If by "crap" you mean metal particles, your motor has got some problems that an oil change is unlikely to fix.

Re:tco and the customer

[Baloo Ursidae]

Wow, sucks to be you. Costs me about $10 to change it myself, or $20 for WalMart to do the same work for me...

Re:tco and the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this analogy would work only if you could actually piss oil!

Re:tco and the customer

[sadtrev]

In tribology the term "normal wear particles" refers to metal particles with a max dimension of 50 micron or less (for car engines - for high performance bearings like in helicopters the figure is more like 10 microns). These constantly shed from metal surfaces in contact and will build up in the lubricant. There is a magnetic plug in the system that will take a lot of them out but there is still an advantage in draining the system as completely as you can.

Larger particles usually indicate fatigue wear or (worse) cutting wear. These are a sign of trouble and indicate a real problem (lubricant breakdown, misalignment etc).

I could attempt to stretch this analogy as far as comparing it to somebody who likes to look at the bad block diagnostics from fsck. Really, though, it's all a matter of what interests you : I have no interest in cars so I'd buy a cheap one and let somebody else look after the oil. I do like computers and I routinely delve into the arcane details myself.

Re:tco and the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is really only true if your time has no value. Even if you can change your oil as quickly as the Quicky Lube, you're using time that could be spent on another activity (even if it's reading a book in the Quicky Lube waiting room).

You hear this kind of bullshit an awful lot. It's a modern disease. Do you really understand how pathetically effete it makes you sound? My time is *so* important that I don't want to spend it changing the oil on my car... bollocks.

It's more like:

1. You don't want to get your dainty hands dirty.
2. You don't know how to do it.
3. You are enough of a snob to think that manual labour is beneath you.

You just don't realise that the process of learning how to do it and putting in the work yourself makes you a much better and more useful person. This whole reducing it to a simple-minded cost/benefit analysis is just an excuse to avoid admitting to snobbery and a pathetic helplessness in the face of real work that needs a bit of elbow grease to do. WHy don't you jsut start wearing a bra and panties and get it over with.

Re:tco and the customer

[rtaylor]

True, but he also would have used some time taking it into the shop to have them do it.

Re:tco and the customer

[sjames]

Agreed, it is a complex set of variables. At the same time, if the customer DOES hire someone to edit their inittab and the like, he/she/it can put together a quick script to roll out a custom set of changes across the entire server farm at once. The same admin can configure the servers to exactly fit the customer's needs. MS's TCO arguments inevitably focus on cases where the defaults are exactly what the customer needs. They also depend heavily on ignoring the fact that Redhat, etc defaults are at least as likely to be exactly what the customer needs, and on sweeping the cost of pre-installed Windows under the rug.

Re:tco and the customer

[Suppafly]

If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20.

that's weird.. I can get about 3 oil changes done myself for ~$20.

Re:tco and the customer

[Suppafly]

Time is an opportunity cost, come on this is like econ 101 here. Unless there is nothing in the world you enjoy more than changing your oil, you are changing your oil at some cost to yourself.

Re:tco and the customer

[runderwo]

Normal wear particles only "build up" in the oil if the oil filter has been saturated and is bypassing. That's a maintenance mistake. If you have a magnetic drain plug, those particles are already out of circulation, so how would an oil change reintroduce them into circulation? Yes, at the limit, it's possible for the magnet to become ineffective. (And a magnet won't help you much with an aluminum motor.) But you'd have to work pretty hard at not maintaining your engine to get it to that point.

I'm not biased; I change my oil and filter every 3000 miles or less by the normal drain plug venue. I just think the arguments presented for not having a shop change the oil are poor ones. Better arguments would be ones that center around the lack of interest the typical oil change employee has in your car, even at a dealership. This results in poor workmanship like stripped out or forgotten drain plugs (something the machines are designed to avoid), or forgotten replacement oil. At dealerships it tends to be even worse because the know-nothings are the ones assigned to oil change jobs while the real mechanics take the big dollar jobs.

Deep Penguin

[Stanistani]

Did he meet the MS fellow in a parking garage at night after carefully placing a flag in a potted plant on his patio, then receiving the "meet" time in his delivered newspaper?

Linux: A Force to be Reckoned With?...

[Anonymous Coward]

OSDL to Microsoft: You must acknowledge the power of Open Source!

Microsoft to OSDL: No we don't!

Y'know what's curious?

[Otter]

I was about to shrug off the utter pointlessness of this story: OSDL to not perform a hypothetical study, Linux to continue nonetheless. As noted journalist CmdrTaco put it about an equally pointless story about Google buying some print ads, it's news "from the nothing-else-happening-in-august dept."

What occurred to me is that there's something rather bizarre about how little interest has been generated by the complete destruction of a major US city a few days ago. I've barely blinked (sent money, couldn't do anything else, shrugged and went back to work) and in general there seems to have been a lot less fuss than I certainly would have imagined something like this would prompt.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[twilight30]

You're right, there is. Remember how after 9/11 we had Taco and others going on about volunteering to help the rescue effort in NYC would not have space for OSS-specific appeals? 'Let's get the job done, and worry about the bits of it later'

Compare and contrast ... I guess New Orleans just doesn't have that geek chic, so no one here talks about it. Now on the 'Girls Gone Wild' site, on the other hand ...

Pretty fucking sad, eh?

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[chris_mahan]

> and in general there seems to have been a lot less fuss than I certainly would have imagined something like this would prompt.

Most people are still in shock, the two of us included.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Mr. Sketch]

You're right. I also just sent money and can't do much else, except check the news feeds. There are some impressive before/after satellite images here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ne w-orleans-imagery.htm

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[alxc]

I really wanted to mod you up on what you just said,but there isn't a mod point to give you.So the new mod point scale should have a 6 and you just got it.Isn't anyone paying attention? PS.Thanks again for pointing that out.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

we're sheep. we cant afford to look at it. it might ruin our fragile reality. i spent last night watching entertainment tonight, and that one actress is soooo lucky to have been able to get out of nawlins.

(Actually, I think it's a disgrace that we arent doing as much as we could too. I am thinkful some people who are more able and closer are doing stuff - dig around the net you'll find some "humanity isnt so bad" stories. like the people who have set up websites for people to let others know they are okay, sites giving information about what is damaged. check out craig's list, people are offering free housing to people.)

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[HermanAB]

What I find totally astonishing is that the USA is unable to air drop 200,000 MREs a day into New Orleans and surrounding area. That is what is needed to keep the people alive and they are absolutely unable to do it. People are dying on the sidewalks, dying in the hospitals, dying in the highrise buildings, from a lack of food and water. Sending in more guard troops to stand around and look at the water is useless, they have to air drop supplies and the almighty USA simply can't do it...

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[geomon]

Nice link. Thank you so much.

I've been looking for recent satellite photos of the affected area. Unfortunately, the aerial photos from the AP pool don't provide the extent of the disaster that a satellite shot can.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Mr. Sketch]

The LATimes also has an interactive (pan/zoom) photo of the area:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- 090105astrodome_lat,0,4770689.story?coll=la-home-h eadlines
Click on the 'Satellite Photo' link on the right.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

see also the Biloxi paper . . . quote "

We are not calling on the nation and the state to make life more comfortable in South Mississippi, we are calling on the nation and the state to make life here possible.

We would bolster our argument with the number of Katrina casualties confirmed thus far, but if there is such a confirmed number, no one is releasing it to the public. This lack of faith in the publics' ability to handle the truth is not sparing anyone's feelings, it is instead fueling terrifying rumors.

While the flow of information is frustratingly difficult, our reporters have yet to find evidence of a coordinated approach to relieve pain and hunger or to secure property and maintain order.

People are hurting and people are being vandalized.

Yet where is the National Guard, why hasn't every able-bodied member of the armed forces in South Mississippi been pressed into service?

On Wednesday reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics.

Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!

When asked why these young men were not being used to help in the recovery effort, our reporters were told that it would be pointless to send military personnel down to the beach to pick up debris. "

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[westlake]

What I find totally astonishing is that the USA is unable to air drop 200,000 MREs a day into New Orleans and surrounding area

I wonder if this will be remembered the next time the military tries to consolidate all its regular and reserve forces to the southern Atlantic and Gulf states.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Less fuss? It's being reported every hour of the day by almost every single news agency in the world. It's talked about by almost everybody. You can't swing a dead e-cat without hitting a website that's mentioning it in some way, shape, or form. What more do you want?!

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

USA is unable to air drop 200,000 MRE

USA doesn't want to drop MREs, it pretty obvious it wants those poor people to die, meantime your reps are busy playing guitars for their friends while drinking champagne and profiteering as fast as they can so THEY can live in absolute luxury for 100 generations, they dont give a shit about a bunch of poor people

if i was in other parts of the USA i would be organising a march on Washington to kick those corrupt bastards out of congress and the whitehouse and start society again
if it takes force then so be it, USE those rights

sometimes you HAVE to reboot the machine

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[HermanAB]

Well, the US has a friggen aircraft carrier off the coast at this very moment. That one ship probably has a million MREs on board, but they are physically unable to take those supplies and go drop them off. They simply don't have the ability to move hundreds of tons of food over 200km of mud and water, yet they would have no problem to move hundreds of tons of bombs over that distance.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[dsci]

Why would an aircraft carrier have 1,000,000 MRE's on board? It is not a supply ship fcol.

And just a nitpick: people are not dying on the sidewalks from lack of food. It takes more than 2-3 days to die of starvation. Dehydration would do it, but not lack of food.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[RealAlaskan]

People are dying ... from a lack of food and water.

You can live about 2 minutes without air, about 2 to five days without water, and about 2 weeks to 2 months without food.

I'd say that the priorities should be

• getting people out of the water right now,
• getting them drinking water today,
• getting them out of the area entirely real soon now and, finally,
• getting them food once all that really important stuff is taken care of.

All of us would hate going without food for three or four days, but most of us would be better off for doing it occasionally.

I think that they've got their priorities pretty straight, and that dropping MREs at random into the mess would just add to the mess and make the cleanup that much harder.

I hope that the various relief agencies are getting soup kitchens set up where the refugees are, but that has nothing to do with air dropping MREs.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[DiarmuidBourke]

Yeah that and the 1000 Iraqi's that got killed, and the Beslan schools 1st Anniversary. Oh don't forget the ongoing war in Iraq, the evacuation of the people in isreal from that place (cant rem its name) gazza strip? and the after effects of the Tsunami. Any others?

Back on topic: Cohen is right, M$ will have to accept linux and stop making these TCO's. Linux doesn't want to fight.

---
Diarmuid B.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[xs650]

I find it more curious that the US -is- capable of getting adequate food and water to those people and isn't doing it.

Dropping the food and water under the present conditions isn't the answer, but there are other ways. Either lowering in cargo ners or impovised landing areas. Food and water should have been moving in there in large quantities as soon as the winds died down.

If those people in the Toilet Dome were in the tax brackets that Bush and his cronies in Congress gave tax relief to, you can be damn sure they would be getting all the help they needed.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[HermanAB]

'Been in the army... ;-)

MREs are used during battle. I guarantee you that they have unfathomable amounts of MREs on board that carrier - that ship is gigantic. During normal circumstances, they eat freshly prepared food of course, else the soldiers will revolt!

The navy can afford to unload all its MRE supplies on land - hell, they can even unload all their fresh and frozen food too, if it would do any good, since the soldiers can go without food for a week, but the people on land (well, in the mud and water) can't.

First of all, most of those people are the poorest of the poor who could not afford to leave the city and were undernourished already, others are young or old and frail. Secondly, they don't have drinkable water and by now all the convenience stores have been cleaned out.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yet where is the National Guard..."

Uhhh... I bet they followed their budged riiigth to Baghdad?

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[WillAffleckUW]

What occurred to me is that there's something rather bizarre about how little interest has been generated by the complete destruction of a major US city a few days ago. I've barely blinked (sent money, couldn't do anything else, shrugged and went back to work) and in general there seems to have been a lot less fuss than I certainly would have imagined something like this would prompt.

Well, when almost everything coming out in the news nowadays is part of a long string of unending failures, why are you surprised?

It's like the fact that few people care about processor speed anymore and Net speeds are what matters.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[xactuary]

Mod me off-topic along with parent but hear me out. This nation is eating a mountain of anti-depressants (and yes I was once eating them myself) and with this Gulf news and the war in Iraq, global warming, right- and left-wing crazies it seems the reaction is pretty much the same... no real, viceral reaction. Even the stock market is stuck in a narrow range with all the change happening in the world. Can anyone rule out the effect of anti-depressants in our collective reaction to the events of this world?

Just my musings, I suppose...

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[sheldon]

You don't understand how our new President works.

Those people didn't vote for Bush, so therefore they aren't worth saving.

But we are looking into additional Tax Relief for Trent Lott who lost his mansion, so don't you worry none.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Maian]

It has nothing to do with anti-depressants. There's just too much shit in the world that we can't care for all the shit.

Not that the shit has been on the rise - it's always been there. It's just that we're becoming ever busier in our daily lives that we can't afford to pay attention to it all.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the undeniable fact that delivery of 100 million bombs would not require that the payload survived the delivery. The MREs might be "nearly" indestructable, but they might be a little weird after being dropped from the bomb bays of high-altitude bombers.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The MREs might be "nearly" indestructable, but they might be a little weird after being dropped
> from the bomb bays of high-altitude bombers.

It's fairly traditional to use parachutes and crates when you do food drops.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Minna Kirai]

AC: On Wednesday reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics.

They're airforce. They fly, not swim. They don't have training to operate boats, trucks, buses or even helicopters- and more importantly, they don't have that equipment. The New Orleans superdome contains 4000+ able-bodied young men, who are useless because they don't have vehicles to travel in and out. More manpower by itself won't help: it'll only divert supplies from the needy.

Furthermore, those Air Force men have a mission involving national air defense. Wouldn't it look great if a terrorist succeeds in an airliner hijack because the fighter pilots were all wading around in Louisana mud?

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[bhiestand]

Thank you for defending the air force, but you're rather incorrect.

The air force has a large fleet of helicopters, and they are frequently utilized by pararescue men (among the best swimmers in the military) in domestic search and rescue operations. There are a lot of articles on the work they did after the tsunami. The air force also has quite a few large and heavy vehicles (very important in maintaining air craft, transporting equipment, and transporting personnel).

I'm not sure why people are coming up with these conspiracy theories. The AF rescued 221 people on August 31st alone link.

Here's some more info from a different link:
In addition, about 100 Airmen and four Pave Hawks from the 55th Rescue Squadron at Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., will depart Sept. 2 for Jackson where they will stage while conducting search and rescue missions.

Two Air Force Reserve Command C-5 Galaxy aircrews from the 439th Airlift Wing at Westover Air Reserve Base, Mass., flew a cross-country mission Aug. 30 to March ARB, Calif., to pick up rescue teams and supplies to help the victims of the hurricane. A third C-5 assigned to the New York Air National Guard's 105th Airlift Group also joined the airlift effort.

Another C-5 from the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis AFB, Calif., and a C-17 from the 305th AMW at McGuire AFB, N.J., transported tanker airlift control elements and contingency support groups to Gulfport and New Orleans respectively.

A C-130 Hercules from the 403rd Wing at Keesler AFB, Miss., flying out of Asheville, N.C., returned home to deliver supplies to the base hospital.

The 908th AW at Maxwell AFB, Ala., geared up two C-130s, aircrews and aeromedical evacuation people to help move people.

The 5th Combat Communications Group at Robins AFB, Ga., left for Keesler AFB and New Orleans on Sept. 1. The group members provided Keesler and a makeshift hospital in New Orleans with much-needed communications networks. A priority of the relief mission is to provide public telephone capabilities to the base and medical facility, said Col. John Lent, 5th CCG commander. The 5th will set up voice data communications, e-mail and air traffic control communications. The group is also packing additional loads of communications equipment for quick response to any additional needs for the relief effort.

Two aeromedical evacuation crews from the 932nd Airlift Wing at Scott AFB, Ill., flew out Sept. 1. They will enter a medical staging area and put their skills to work helping move patients where needed. The aeromedical crews took supplies with them including litters, heart monitors, ventilators, power converters, portable oxygen, assorted medicines and bandages.

A C-9A aircraft is also being flown by the Air Force Reserve wing to shuttle two active-duty medical teams to New Orleans.

"This is a difficult time for those directly affected by the wrath of Hurricane Katrina. Our medical crews will join with other agencies on the ground to give what medical aid they can, and make a positive difference in the lives of our fellow Americans," said Col. Maryanne Miller, 932nd AW Operations Group commander.

Re:Y'know what's curious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Elders and ill people doesn't have this margins, they are firsts to die, help is needed now.

but when?

[jshaped]

"MS will eventually have to accept Linux as customer demand increases."

Yes, `eventually' they will... if/when customer demand ever does warrant MS Office on Linux.
I personally don't see this happening in the foreseeable future.

For those diehard Office-loving-Linux-using people, wine has come to the rescue already.
A native version of Office is not what's holding people back from adopting Linux.

Re:but when?

[Foofoobar]

LOL. Who'd want to put a piece of crap onto a thrown of gold? :)

Re:but when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throne. Idiot.

Re:but when?

[Foofoobar]

Throne idiots? Not recently but you can be the first. :)

God that was two eezy. Heh

Pissing in the wind

[Skiron]

MS don't get it that people use GNU/Linux because it is "free". The propation war they like to think is a battle isn't at all. People/Company's are using it because it is there. It is pissing in the wind. The bad shame is the techy sites that relay 'news' to the common plebs are read by the common blebs, and don't know what the hell anyway.

Re:Pissing in the wind

[Anonymous Coward]

MS don't get it that people use GNU/Linux because it is "free".

Yes, it's not as if Microsoft has ever managed to completely destroy a competitor that was giving away their product.

Re:Pissing in the wind

[chtephan]

You're missing the point.

He meant free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Netscape didn't cost anything, but it was closed source. At admit it, at that point it also was majorly broken. That's when Netscape was dead and decided to release the source code they started to work on it and it was basically completely rewritten.

A lot of volunteers were involved at that point, resurrecting the beast. It's only when things started to look like something when Netscape jumped onto the bandwagon and put some muscle behind it. But that's different.

What a load of horse hockey

[suitepotato]

This is like saying that Chrysler must accept Toyota. No they damn well don't and if they want to run a competition to put them out of business, then that's their decision. If MS wants to fight Linux, more power to them. MS doesn't have to "accept" anything. They are free to fight it as they should. I don't recall anyone saying that MS should "accept" OS/2 instead of offering incentives to IBM shops to ditch it for NT Wkstn.

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[fjf33]

If they start using illegal means to do that then they may get stuck with being labeled a monopoly and broken down. The US does not tolerate that behavior from anyone, look at what happened to Standard Oil? (So you feel the irony?)

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[KiltedKnight]

Agreed.

A while back, I saw something that talked about business models and Microsoft. It basically said that when Netscape went about doing its thing creating a web browser, it did just fine. It turned profits, was successful, etc. When it changed and started comparing what it did to Microsoft, it started its downward spiral.

Linux will not usurp Microsoft... nor will Macintosh. However, if Linux and Macs make it easier to have interoperability, there will be an easier path to acceptance in the workplace.

Basically, an homogeneous corporate network (all *NIX, all Windows, all Mac, etc) is great for administration, but horrid for security. An heterogeneous network (mixture of various OSes) will make it much easier to keep at least part of your operation running, should another part fall victim to a virus, worm, or other attack.

He said it best in the article when he talked about interoperability being the route to go for instead of war.

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Microsoft already get branded a monopoly... with nothing was done to them?

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[geekoid]

CHrysler must accept Toyota is a market force...has to accept that there a competitive Car company ...has to accept they loose sale top them, etc...

Jeex people, it doesn't meen that have to be buddy buddy with them, just accept they're a FACTOR IN THE MARKET!
  to make an affirmative or favorable response to

note the 'or'.

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[SpaceLifeForm]

BS. MS is a convicted monopolist, but the bush admministration tolerates MS. There was *NO* penalty. NADA.

Where have you been? Did you recently figure out how to connect to the net?

If not, then don't spread misinformation. There is no comparison between MS and Standard Oil in terms of penalty, because MS received no penalty!

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[turbidostato]

"Basically, an homogeneous corporate network (all *NIX, all Windows, all Mac, etc) is great for administration, but horrid for security"

Yeah! That's why each and every cell on a state prision is different from the next ones. Being all of them equal with the same security mechanisms would be a security nigthmare!

It's good for you to bring back the "monoculture" paradigm, but don't forget evil lives in those pesky details. Any corporation is better secured by homogeneus systems (at least at the organizational unit level) *because* it is great for administration. On the other hand, what good brings your, say, workgroup fileservers being up when your workstations go nuts?

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[KiltedKnight]

On the other hand, what good brings your, say, workgroup fileservers being up when your workstations go nuts?

Umm... remote workers can still access the stuff. Customers can access your web server, if that's where the stuff is maintained. Your systems going down because of a virus infection or a worm tunnel doesn't necessarily mean your customer service has to go away.

Re:What a load of horse hockey

[fjf33]

I guess you don't feel the irony uh? To me it _IS_ pretty ironic that MS did not receive any penalty while Standard Oil did. I guess we have different definitions of the term, or maybe I should not be writing ironic comments in \.

Wow, so which is it?

[LegendOfLink]

First was IBM's results claiming Linux TCO was lowest, now it doesn't matter!?

OK, let's base it off something else...maybe security? Oh wait, I got it, who has the easiest to configure applications?

No...it has to be something more. Maybe we should see who has the better mascot. I think that's Linux, considering Windows doesn't really have a mascot; although personally I think I'd vote for Windows is their mascot was a caricature of Bill Gates getting pied in the face.

oh you are in for it now

[tont0r]

you took MS's side on /.
now the mods are gonna eat you alive.
saying MS isnt the devil or that life will be okay without firefox = automatic damnation here

Re:oh you are in for it now

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones that make STUPID, IGNORANT posts about linux/firefox/whatever get modded down and the losers who wrote the posts think its because they went against the mindshare, when really its because their point was hollow and incorrect.


eek. you are -1. troll feeder.

5 stages

[pizza_milkshake]

• Denial
• Anger
• Bargaining
• Depression
• Ultimate Acceptance

Microsoft is somewhere around 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief

Re:5 stages

[Net_Wakker]

I'm not sure whether your post is funny or insightful. It does seem to reflect reality though.

Re:5 stages

[sn0wflake]

What if we turned it the other way around by looking at it as a Linux user?

• Denial of all Microsoft products
• Anger at Microsoft
• FOSS apps appearing more and more in Windows
• Don't think anybody would be depressed about choices of OS :D
• Ultimate acceptance will never happen from either side

Re:5 stages

[thesandtiger]

Which stage is "Rolling around in an ocean of cash so large that if they never sold another product and just invested their Cash On Hand they'd still be making an ungodly amount of money"?

Re:5 stages

[Anonymous Coward]

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win. /M Gandhi

Re:5 stages

[Jeremi]

Which stage is "Rolling around in an ocean of cash so large that if they never sold another product and just invested their Cash On Hand they'd still be making an ungodly amount of money"?

That stage is called "retirement". It's certainly an option for Bill and friends, but it's not the same thing as running a successful world-dominating software company.

It seems inevitable.

[hungrygrue]

Linux users already outnumber Mac users. Linux is growing fast, and estimates are hard to pin down of the shear size of the user base since there are no receipts or other records for most of us. My computer came with Windows installed originally, even though I have never used Windows on it or any other machine in over a decade. As far as the sales records go, I am a Microsoft customer. I have purchased CDs for any distro, I have always downloaded CD (and long ago floppy) images. Since Google's Zeitgeist no longer lists OS and browser statistics, here's a good site to check out: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

Re:It seems inevitable.

[whizzard]

Sometimes two little letters can change the entire meaning of a sentence: I have[n't] purchased CDs for any distro...

Re:It seems inevitable.

[hungrygrue]

Yup. Can't type worth crap today. :-)

Re:It seems inevitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux users already outnumber Mac users.

That's entirely untrue.

Linux may be relatively popular among w3school.com users, but certaintly not among the general popular. In the statistics for the sites that my company administers (including a large national charity which receives huge amounts of traffic) Mac usage outnumbers Linux usage 20 to 1.

Re:It seems inevitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Linux users already outnumber Mac users.

> That's entirely untrue.

But you forget that a "Linux user" is defined as any person who has ever, at any time, connected to a server running Linux!

Re:MS will never have to accept Linux

[E-Rock]

Wow. If that's true Apple's in deep shit. Of course they aren't. The market is big enough for lots of players.

Linkage to...

[Anonymous Coward]

"awaits the reply from MS's Martin Taylor on the results of his internal investigation" into how an off-the-record meeting became public

Not exactly

[ezweave]

MS accepts that it must compete against Linux, but I think that Mr Cohen is trying to point out some of the dumber MS practices, in regards to interoperability.

In my experience alot of this is related to how MS wants to integrate it's enterprise level products into the OS. The two biggest examples I can think of are:

• SQLServer
• .NET

Basically they both run as services (IIS, I think) on Windows OSs, making them inherently incompatible with Linux or any other OS. It's all part and parcel to this Microsoft mentality that to make the most money, we need to be an end-to-end solution; for everything.

So what is my point? Well, if MS was really about making the best product you could run it on a multitude of OSs. Because if SQLServer and the .NET (web apps) were really that good they could be more OS agnostic. The alternatives, Oracle, J2EE, PHP, etc run almost anywhere. It would also be nice to see Active Directory provide full LDAP support.

And it isn't even the end-to-end solution that bothers me. It is also the lock out of everyone else (but, I guess Microsoft can always say, "Look how well we play with ourselves" ;-) ). This also seems to be half of what causes all of the OS security problems and release delays. Instead of having each app provide its own services (to some extent), the OS comes with bits and pieces for other MS apps. Some of these bits don't seem to get used much, but everyone gets them. This all adds to the complexity of the OS. While Bill and Balmer spout that it makes "everything easier to do", I disagree. I would rather set up a cluster of app servers for J2EE than attempt that nonsense for .NET using the built in configuration options (from the control panel).

I think it is possible that Vista/Longhorn will not be that sucessful. Then MS will have to make SQLServer and .NET web apps run on something else... like everything else in the world. That is just conjecture (or wishful thinking, perhaps), but that will be the only way MS can hold its ground in the long run (at least in the business IT world). Ceterus Peribus.

Microsoft Accept Linux??

[Eric Damron]

Exactly when did hell freeze over?!

Re:Microsoft Accept Linux??

[petermgreen]

Exactly when did hell freeze over?!
according to the /. headline it happened when debian sarge was released.

Re:Microsoft Accept Linux??

[Anonymous Coward]

and its a good thing, because when MS does accept linux they will probably turn it into a money whorin g project... then we would come to hate linux and love a new OS, then the process willl continue :(... for linux's sake i hope ms NEVER accepts linux

Re:Microsoft Accept Linux??

[carlmenezes]

Not yet...they've just gotten air-conditioning installed. Still a huge bunch of demons down there...

Re:Microsoft Accept Linux??

[hugesmile]

Exactly when did hell freeze over?!

Didn't the Sox win the world series or somethin'?

I don't want to hint at any cause and effect... but don't you find it interesting that the Earth has this Global Warming thing going on, while Hell is Freezing over...

If there IS causality and you WANT Microsoft to embrace Linux, get out there with your aerosol cans and fill up your gas tank BEFORE 6PM.

Re:Microsoft Accept Linux??

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that would be bad for the environment variable.

It's time for a serious talk about the state of /.

[hackwrench]

The better articles are getting rejected, and when a topic does get published it's after several people have submitted it and they do not choose the best submission.

Re:It's time for a serious talk about the state of

[geomon]

I agree. But we are just the customers and this forum is beginning to look more and more like Microsoft.

YOU VILL TAKE THE ABUSE UND LIKE IT!

Unmeasureable

[Skiron]

Very good point. One thing that *really* buggers up accountants is things being free with no spreadsheet 'cell' to accept NULL.

Unaccountability according to the business world.

Now to Linux users. How many? Who can guess? Nobody... Microsoft measure sales (and as it is almost illegal to sell a Computer without MS Windows [pre]-installed)...

Get a clue

[Bullfish]

MS does not have to accept linux. I hear the phrase "so and so has to..." and I shudder almost each time.

Unless it is legally mandated, they don't have to accept anything. Hell, the can say gravity doesn't exist. You can think of them as stupid, but they don't have to accept it. They can go and live with my ex who is queen of the region. You know de Nile.

Re:Get a clue

[geekoid]

well, if you think about the context then it makes sense.

MS has to accept Linux if they are going to continue to grow.

Accept it as a market force, that is.

And you have to accept that gravity exist if you dont want to be looked at like a loon...or come up with a scientifically valid alternative.

how is it the little brother's fault...

[sum.zero]

that the big brother started a public conversation re: a supposedly off-the-record chat?

also, it is the big brother that is constantly doing the comparisons and seeking the recognition against the little brother.

how you got modded '5, insightful' i'll never know.

sum.zero

You do know it's September, right?

[kronin]

Maybe you meant "from the nothing-else-happening-in-september dept"

Or maybe nothing had happened in August, so the month decided not to change (because August felt like it didn't get its fair share of news, as if a hurricane isn't enough).

Windows is the Younger Brother

[nukenerd]

In fact Windows is the younger brother (Unix has been around much longer), even if Windows has grown up looking like Tyson.

I am not interested in "recognition", whatever that means, nor comparisons. MS and their customers (pointy haired office managers and Joe Sixpack home users) are welcome to go their own way. Linux has by now established a viable user base.

I just want to see MS pressurised or forced to use open file standards.

Givashit

[pandrijeczko]

Who gives a damn whether or not Microsoft "accepts" Linux? Why does the ignorant media base Linux's success on whether or not Microsoft acknowledges its existence or not?

Linux exists *despite* Microsoft, not *because* of it - the "UNIX way" started 30+ years ago, long before Microsoft even had MS-DOS, let alone Windows.

Linux is my chosen way because it's stable, fulfilling to use, and makes me feel good being part of a global movement where people create because they want to rather than because of financial gain.

However, at the same time, my wife uses Windows because she does a lot of work with Excel, wants ease of use with her digital camera and just wants to stick with what she knows. She's aware Linux exists, she occasionally uses one of my machines to surf the Internet and now prefers Firefox to IE. But she has no interest in shell programming or command line skills.

The point I am trying to make is that neither Windows or Linux provides the answer to everyone's computing requirements and those of us who advocate Linux should only do it in so much as to make Windows users aware that there are alternatives to the Microsoft way.

However, there is *no* intent to destroy Microsoft or to aim for "more Linux desktops than Windows ones by 2010" type targets - if such is ever the case, it will be because people have chosen it to be so, not because of Linux winning some kind of "war".

So move along now, nothing to see here...

Re:Givashit

[jonfr]

Microsoft has great money in it Windows OS. Since that is among the few product it actually makes money from. The other product is Office.

Linux is a threat to that exact proft for Microsoft so it does matter to them. They act as all monopolyes, they try to destory the other product. In this case it is Linux. But Microsoft allows Apple to remain on the market for "legal reasions".

Also, i think that the internet will be alot better place to be on when the Windows dies out. No viruses or worms. Spam is a diffrent matter.

Re:Givashit

[pandrijeczko]

No viruses or worms.

Hmmm, not sure I agree with that statement. Whatever the adoption of Linux in the future, I think it's safe to assume that Joe Sixpack will only ever use Linux in a "standard" distro format like "Lindows" for example. And as soon as you have a widespread "standard" distribution, you have a whole heap of PCs that potentially suffer from the same security holes that all need the same software updates in order to become secure again.

On top of this. look at the number of Joe Sixpack users who currently log into their Windows PCs with administrator priveliges and you can bet the same people will always use "root" on their Lindows sessions.

No, viruses and worms will never be as bad within the Linux community as they are within the Windows community but targetted attacks designed to buffer overflow specific services on Linux PCs which haven't been locked down correctly will certainly increase.

To be perfectly honest, I'm more than happy for Linux to remain an operating system where you *must* spend some time learning how it works before you use it and let those people who just want a PC they can use a desktop machine stick with Windows.

As for spam, that's also very much a "Windows" thing. I receive spam mail but I never get to read it because I've setup procmail and SpamAssassin filtering that now deletes just about all of it before I ever see it. If everyone filtered spam mail, it would rarely get read and therefore negate the need for it to be sent in the first place. You can blame Microsoft for engendering the idea that you just install applications with little need to configure them that causes Joe Sixpack to use mail clients like Outlook Express without any thought of applying mail filtering.

MS tactics......

[budword]

MS is using tactics that time has show work very well against a rival company. They are very confused about why it isn't working this time. They haven't ever competed against a movement before, and don't quite know how to go about it, so they seem to flail around a bit. If you can see the bigger picture, it's pretty funny, watching their pointy haired cubical drones shoot in random directions, then stand around bewildered, "Why haven't they fallen yet ?" Linux doesn't have a single company or target to focus on. Until they come up with a way to connect against a movement, they are going to seem like a boxer who keeps wiffing, and can't figure out he's in the ring by himself.

Less Useful Than USENET?

[geomon]

Long-time users are asking the question: Is Slashdot becoming irrelevant? More posts express that sentiment as the number interesting stories are being buried by accidental and deliberate duplicate entries, and the flood of Linux vs. Microsoft war stories, grows by the day. A collective yawn has developed among nearly all three-digit UID members and it is now moving into the four- and five-digit UIDs at an alarming rate. Can Slashdot stop the slide into sheer obscurity?

Re:Less Useful Than USENET?

[Just Some Guy]

I don't know and I don't care.

Re:Less Useful Than USENET?

[geomon]

I don't know and I don't care.

The lethargy is expanding!

Oh, the humanity!

Re:Less Useful Than USENET?

[cyberdemo]

Oh noes!!

interoperability?

[sum.zero]

when ms get around to properly documenting their apis and start to use industry recognized open standards, interoperability will improve.

tell me how linux and apple are supposed to improve interoperability with these invisible, constantly moving goal posts?

sum.zero

Re:interoperability?

[Sponge Bath]

...improve interoperability with these invisible, constantly moving goal posts?

Use the Force to influence the midichlorians?

Re:MS will never have to accept Linux

[RealAlaskan]

>>Bottom line, the world needs something that accually works, and is open-source.

>Wow. If that's true Apple's in deep shit.

Not really. OSX actually works (so they say), and significant portions of it are open source. Not the eyecandy, of course, but the foundations. If the world really needs what he said, Apple may do just fine. Is that really what the world wants? I haven't seen much evidence of demand for either ``actually works'' or ``open source''. I hope I'm wrong about that, but history suggests that the inferior product has a huge advantage.

The market is big enough for lots of players.

I remember before the IBM PC. Back then, when the market was a lot smaller, there really was room for lots of players. There was Vector Graphics, IMSAI, Altair, Altos, Otrona, Kaypro, Osbourne, General Automation, Franklin, Apple, Commodore, Northstar, Tandy, Heathkit (including a kit PDP-11!) and many others, running Xenix, single or multi-user variants of CPM, Pick, and I don't know what-all. I worked on or with them all. I had a diskette with a program which allowed me to read 43 different, proprietary, soft-sectored floppy disk formats. Obviously, that didn't include the 8-inch floppies and the hard-sectored ones like the Vector graphics. There were many manufacturers, and a huge variety of hardware and software.

Then came IBM. Suddenly the market was huge, and there wasn't room for all those many computer makers and their diverse products. Of that list of hardware and software platforms I mentioned above, how many are around today? How many do you even remember?

I'd say the microcomputer market is either way too small for ``lots of players'', or way too big. Right now, it seems to be about right for Wintel (or WinAMD) and a maybe Apple, and Apple's been dying at least as long as BSD.

Re:MS will never have to accept Linux

[westlake]

the world is getting smarter, and is not needing the whole windows user-friendly environment any more. Bottom line, the world needs something that accually works, and is open-source

should I take this as an admission that Linux "works," but is not "user friendly?"

Microsoft could save a fortune

[Andy_R]

If they didn't bother trying to write a real OS, and took Windows back to what it originally was, a windowing system running on top of a simple OS (Dos).

If I was a Microsoft shareholder, I'd be kicking up a fuss about how much more profitable MSFT would be if it stuck to it's strengths of eye candy and API obfuscation and took the free, stable, secure alternative to writing the difficult bits.

Being a front end stuck on an open core seems to be working wonders for OSX. Similarly, Microsoft could stop losing a fortune writing IE then giving it away for free by forking Firefox and calling it IE7.

Re:Microsoft could save a fortune

[pandrijeczko]

If I was a Microsoft shareholder, I'd be kicking up a fuss about how much more profitable MSFT would be if it stuck to it's strengths of eye candy and API obfuscation and took the free, stable, secure alternative to writing the difficult bits.

I must admit, I am truly *amazed* at the take up of Windows XP. Security holes aside, and as someone who can't quite yet abandon Microsoft completely, I actually think Windows 2000 is a pretty okay operating system for general purpose computing that includes gaming & desktop work.

However, in comparison, XP just sucks completely. The desktop eye candy visibly slows a PC down compared to the Windows 2000 classic desktop & the "our way or the highway" security tightening attitude of Service Pack 2 is absolutely ridiculous! I've had countless friends and relatives phoning me because they've got XP SP2 PCs that don't ping each other or can't be seen in "Network Neighbourhood" purely because SP2 treats every user like a 5-year old when it comes to security and, by default, locks just about everything down.

And whereas Windows Media Player 9 seems to play most things, WMP10 locks up and crashes with great frequency (at least on the PCs I've tried anyway).

XP is, very simply, a huge step backwards from Windows 2000 and is completely unusable, in my opinion.

Already giving up?

[nneonneo]

Looks like Microsoft is alreaady moving to support Linux, by supporting UNIX... http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Unix+changes/2 100-1016_3-5845790.html?part=rss&tag=5845790&subj= news

MS response?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft changes its line on Linux every 6 months or so. First they said it is trash software, then they said the GPL is a cancer, then they claimed it has higher TCO, the latest line is that they are going to cooperate with it.

When that line doesn't work, I wonder what the new one will be? Will they claim they are coming out with MS Linux? Will they claim Linux is unamerican? Will they offer $100,000 to anyone who switches to Windows?

s/can't/won't

[Anonymous Coward]

help is coming soon, as soon as DukeNukem Forever goes gold

look Iraq is still going well, a billion dollars a week well spent, plenty of value for money

if you are a Haliburton/KBR/Carlyle/Congress executive that is

Becasue

[geekoid]

if MS 'Accepts' Linux, that means Office for Linux.
If you ahve spent more the 10 seconds in a corporate office, then you would know how big of a deal that would be.

Re:Becasue

[pandrijeczko]

My experience is that the vast majority of MS Office users probably only need about 10% of its features whereupon OpenOffice would more than adequately suffice as an alternative.

Personally, I wouldn't use MS Office on Linux, even if it was available - purely because I do not want to have to store my documents in a proprietary format that is only readable by one specific application. Added to that, I simply don't want to "tarnish" my Open Source Linux system with something that's closed source unless I really have to (as with nVidia graphics drivers for instance).

Plus I'm also of the mentality that if I have to do something clever to a document then I'd much rather have the option of having the document in as close to real text format as possible so I can write scripts and macros in the shell or Perl to do what I need to rather than having to learn a "new" macro language withing the application itself.

In reality, of course, MS Office on Linux will simply *never* happen - it would be partial commercial suicide for MS to do that simply because of the tie-in that Office has with Windows.

If people chose to use MS Office then good luck to them but be aware that, particularly in corporate environments, most people use it because "that's what they were given", not because they had any choice in the matter or need any of Office's advanced features.

Linux just is..

[inkysplat]

Why is there this feeling of Windows has to die, Linux must take over? okay its fair enough to monitor the linux uptake, because it can spark confidence in the community, and also encourage developers to take into account the rapidness of the uptake, however these figures should not be compared to other OSs.

We also have to remember, the majority of users don't switch OSs just because they think Windows is Evil, its almost always down to the "User Needs".

As for all this media coverage over Linux Vs Windows, and TCO Campaigns, when will see news of NEW and INNOVATIVE operating systems, like i recently stumbled on SKYOS(http://www.skyos.org/) which looks promising, and is commercial, none of the usual UNIX FOSS dervatives.

Re:Linux just is..

[ScrewMaster]

Why is there this feeling of Windows has to die, Linux must take over?

Because, well ... it just does, that's all.

Re:Linux just is..

[TedRiot]

...and from the user point of view what does SkyOS offer that none of the current OS's don't?

Only on the server

[cerelib]

So far I only see linux seriously competing in the server market. I think that Microsoft is very well entrenched in the PC market.

Re:Only on the server

[Scoth]

That's never a sure statement to make. Remember any of these? "I don't see Japanese cars seriously competing the automotive market. Chevy and Ford are pretty entrenched in the US Market" "I don't see Compaq competing in the PC market. IBM is very well entrenched in the home computer market" Or any more of them. How about Bell with telcos, local cable monopolies, IBM with mainframes, Intel with processors, Apple with pretty GUIs... the list goes on. Just because a company has a seemingly insurmountable market share now means nothing for the future. History is full of companies that once were the only players that are now also-rans, or gone completely. Give it 5, 10, 15 years and Microsoft may well be forgotten.

Re:Only on the server

[cerelib]

There are some slight differences. What keeps Windows afloat is the availability of production-level software and hardware. Japanese cars could compete because they did not require gasoline companies to supply drivers for their platform. And Bell required a massive government intervention if I recall. If I am a company selling say a webcam, I want to support Windows because it has the massive market share of people that want webcams. I do not want to support linux because that at least doubles the work of my testing department, coders, and doc&support. All for a segment of the market that is not going to bring in even half of that the Windows market does. Face it, Microsoft has a pretty good OS with Windows and it is only getting better. Ruling out major government intervention (Bell-style) it is the PC-related and PC hardware vendors and manufacturers that will have to spur this change. And no, I do not "remember" most of the things that you cited because I am 22.

As the saying goes..

[Anonymous Coward]

You live by the sword...

Another car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is a rinestone covered pussie waggon

And Linux is a 1000HP Honda C90

Linux is made of old world brass and needs half-rimmed equipted engineers to gloot gloot oil on to its steaming back.

Windows is made out of formica and PVC; windows needs no repairman but a happy swing bin.

Windows rules the world but Linux rulz.

Ah one day son, one day, just remember who told yer; Gus Stolavat, thats who, yer see!

"Calm down Gus"
"Pah these youngster they think they know ha they think they know!"
"You where like that once, remember...BILL"
"Hey shut up! Get those WALMART guns in da wagon, we heading north, WAGOOON OOOOHHHH"

Re:Another car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

+100 Brilliant

Airdropping MREs is problematic in a flood.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

What I find totally astonishing is that the USA is unable to air drop 200,000 MREs a day into New Orleans and surrounding area.

Airdropping MREs is problematic in a flooded area: You have to get it to the people. Dropping it in the and mud 20 feet away where they can't get it is useless. But the places they CAN stand are already covered with PEOPLE. Dropping a payload on them could kill more than letting them starve.

They'll have to do it more carefully - and that means helicopters and the like, which have shorter range.

As of this morning news reports say they had already done it at the convention center - one of the two major refuges (though the superdome gets all the press).

What I don't understand is why they don't have multi-tun sandbags already set up to mount in bomb bay facilities and drop into the dike breachs. THAT's a job for precision bombing.

Re:Airdropping MREs is problematic in a flood.

[HermanAB]

There are people stuck in various areas that are fairly dry and which has areas where they can drop food by helicopter - well OK, they have started to do just that - good, thanks Navy! BTW, you can drop MREs in water, provided that it is not so deep that people can't fish it out. It is very well packaged, but I won't bomb sandbags on levees - the kinetic energy is too much.

Who cares?

[i5ku12]

Ok, so windows accepted linux...it means nothing. I've tried to use slackware, wasn't noob friendly and right now i don't have time to learn. but i completely support it. Linux could make a windows by making it look shiny and be user friendly(i say this not looking at all the distros out there). Windows will continue to be on top for a bit since it's trusted(which is stupid IMHO). In the end, who cares?

Re:Who cares?

[kiddygrinder]

I wouldn't bet on it, there is currently a lot of development in the shinyness category on linux. Stuff like xgl can make windows look bad, as long as the X.org devs can get the code cleaned up and implimented before longhorn comes out (it will probably be a bit touch and go imho). I still don't use linux on the desktop much but i'm pretty excited by the whole thing at the moment, not just the eye candy but that's a part of it.

No growth for Linux

[westlake]

Linux users already outnumber Mac users. Linux is growing fast

here's a good site to check out: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

I look at w3school's OS stats and what I see is steady growth in XP's share and Linux treading water.

Re:No growth for Linux

[hungrygrue]

March 2003, the first month they record, had Linux at 2.3% of all vistors. This month is at 3.3% at the moment and 3.5% for both of the last two months. Basically, 1.5 times as large of a percentage of Linux users as three years ago.

Growth of Windows XP is not at the expense of other operating systems, it is at the expense of previous versions of Windows. In March 2003, Windows 2000 was 41.9%, this month it is 17.5%

What is really amazing is that while Windows holds an 87.59% market share as of this month, a quarter of their user base appears to be using outdated products which they no longer support.

Re:No growth for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

According to my reading of W3schools stats, Linux already passed past Apple.

And already passed past Windows 98.

As W2K continues to fall, and Linux keeps growing, eventually Linux market share will greater than W2K's.

Then it will be Windows XP at some 82%, Linux at some 12% and the rest (mainly Apple) at 6%.

Apple did a wise choice some time ago and became based on Unix-like BSD. So, with X11 working well, many Linux programs could be ported to Mac.

This 20% slice might interest some niche players.

Also, M$'s great cash cow, Office, will face greater competition from Openoffice.org -- what is cheaper than getting a pirated product?

Answer: Downloading one, with full upgrade rights and some kind of support, even if via Google (which probably is _way_ better than trying to get M$ support for an illegally copied product).

Also, what happens to XP once Vista comes around? Do poor countries get XP for free? Ever pictured the situation of a free XP competing with a free Linux -- and losing?

Ouch!

Re:No growth for Linux

[hungrygrue]

Not too long ago, I heard some business students at the table next to me talking, one was promising to bring someone a copy of Office and bragging about how he had all of these copies of all sorts of Microsoft software that he copied/stole, whatever, from someplace he worked. I asked him why they didn't just use OpenOffice - he had never heard of it. Even when I explained what it was they seemed to have about zero interest. It was rather frightening and depressing.

As for a free XP, I don't think that's ever going to happen. Vista basically *IS* XP with a very minor face lift. They haven't added anything really new, so that would mean flushing all of their sales prospects.

Re:No growth for Linux

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Linux growth according to those figures) has been something like 20%/year. "Treading water" like that for 15 years or so would make Linux the dominant OS.

I'm not claiming that number has any statistical value, just pointing out that your comment has very little to do with reality.

Re:No growth for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Err. I dunno about everyone else here, but I use linux on a couple of boxes here that are servers, but usually browse from my XP game machine. So I might *look* like a windows user, but in truth there's more penguin than glass here.

evolution of a uid

[sum.zero]

you only joined recently.

you joined to defend your 'review' of the ie7 beta in which you praise ms for creating 'superior software' and for adding new, innovative features.

now you claim the linux destop offers no significant advantage, is only for techies AND is a cheap knock off of windows.

the time lost and costs associated with the removal of adware, spyware and trojans is a significant disadvantage for ms windows. and that is just one of the advantages for linux that i care to mention atm.

there are a plethora of desktop environments for *nix, some of which are nothing like the windows ui. have you seen a modern linux desktop?

what are these missing features for non-technical people? file storage - check. internet browsing - check. office suite - check. media playback - check.

every post by you is decidely ms-centric, so i am thinking your experience with linux is fairly limited.

"you must be young, son
because your head is all wrong"
- me

sum.zero

ps i wrote this on a windows workstation

Re:evolution of a uid

[GWBasic]

I really don't like taking cheap shots at specific people in public. To be honest, I joined Slashdot because I've been reading it for so long that I felt it was time to have a real account. Perhaps if you read my post, you'd notice that it was aimed at Linux on the desktop, although in retropect I should have added, "Linux has proven itself to have some valuable advantages as a server and in education, where it is quite popular." I managed to stay in school long enough to be able to have a few homeworks that involved Linux kernal hacking.

Look, I am a professional software engineer for a major player in the technology industry. I've hobnobed with successful technology entrepuneures and attended seminars on how to get new technology accepted. There is a very good chance that at some point in the future you will use a device that is touched by software that I've written. (If you would like my resume to back up my claim, send me an email. http://www.andrewrondeau.com/ I can say for certain that Linux does not meet the criteria required for it to make any kind of dent in the market of consumer operating systems.

If a PC manufacturer is pushy enough to get a Linux-based computer for sale in a store like Best Buy or Wal-mark, it won't be very successful even in its current state. The computer might be $100-$500 cheaper, but that won't make much of a difference. The IPod is kicking the Nomad's ass in sales, yet the Nomad does everything an IPod does for significantly less money. (I am a proud owner of a Nomad, but all of my non-technical friends laugh at me for being too cheap to buy an IPod.) The same applies for cars, (I'm assuming you're American,) even though manual transmissions are $1000 cheaper, so few Americans want them that they're even being phased out of budget cars. Spyware and Viruses will become a problem on any popular consumer operating system, and thus assuming that Linux doesn't have a malware problem or is immune to malware is irresponsible. Many of Linux's features over Windows (Unix-based, open-source kernel,) are already present on OS X, which is very successful in the consumer desktop market.

The only way for Linux to be able to make a dent in Window's market share is for it to have *unique* "must-have" features that Windows and Macintosh lack. The fact that Apple makes unique and desirable applications for the Macintosh is what keeps it in business. The real reason why the DOS-based PC became popular was because it had VisiCalc back in the early 80s, which no one else had. All of Linux's advantages are not important in the desktop market.

Look, Linux has been around for about 14 years, and I've been hearing the same arguments as to why it's the best thing since sliced bread for the last 8 years. (The person who first got me try Linux is now a proud Mac owner.) I think the fact that the first successful consumer desktop operating system based on an open-source kernel (OS X) used BSD says quite a bit.

Re:evolution of a uid

[Anonymous Coward]

I can say for certain that Linux does not meet the criteria required for it to make any kind of dent in the market of consumer operating systems.

Linux doesn't meet the criteria for a lot of things, but that's because these models are all broken and fail to account for Open Source Software. The fact is, desktop Linux use is either almost as big or bigger than MacOS X (Depending on who's figures you believe). Are Apple also not goint "to make any kind of dent in the market of consumer operating systems."?

this means giving up on 30% profits and control

[Locutus]

This is naive thinking IMO. Microsoft makes over 30% of it's profits from Windows and over 30% from MS-Office. They got that MS-Office monopoly by using the Windows monopoly. Why on earth would Bill and Steve allow a competitor to Windows gain any value by putting MS Office on Linux?

Any such move would mean that they have accepted
Their their control of developers and the market would have to have deteriorated so so much for Bill and Steve to allow ANY MS software product to run on another operating system. MS Office for Mac only exists because they needed Apple in the DOJ vs MSFT case. It only exists now because it's a wash to keep it running and it helps them LOOK like they are good citizens. It also helps that they have a monopoly on Mac for office software too.

The day Microsoft releases a critical business software package for another operating system will the the day Bill Gates and Steve Balmer leave the building. They make billions in profits off Windows and Office. Heck, look at the Palm/handheld market for an example. Palm had over 80% marketshare when all the database companies were releasing Palm versions of db access clients. Microsoft, they announce a version for WindowsCE... Speaking of WindowsCE, they've lost money on THAT product every quarter of every year since they started that project. About $1 billion in losses per year for 8 years. Do you really think they'll bring MS Office to Linux?

Unfortunately, such a statement actually lowers my respect for the guy.

LoB

Re:this means giving up on 30% profits and control

[pandrijeczko]

I also doubt very much that many "hardcore" Linux users would install MS Office on their Linux PCs anyway. Sure, MS Office on Linux might convince a few more people to try Linux but the effect would be relatively minimal and the sales wouldn't justify MS doing it in the first place.

I'm no "communist hippie" type - if people want to pay for "out of the box" software then let them do it. But to me, and a large proportion of the Linux community, using Linux means having complete control over every aspect of how your PC runs and installing a closed source application on Linux would be an entirely "alien" thing to do. For that reason, I wouldn't buy or use MS Office if it was available for Linux.

Re:this means giving up on 30% profits and control

[WillAffleckUW]

And here I thought a lot of the earnings I get were from the billions in cash Microsoft had ...

As to your comments on Palm, they split into Palm and PalmSource quite a while ago - one provides the OS (which WinCE competes with), the other provides the actual devices which use the OS.

And that battle is mostly on cellphones and MP3 players nowadays, not the traditional PDA.

Re:this means giving up on 30% profits and control

[gnuguru]

This is naive thinking IMO. Microsoft makes over 30% of it's profits from Windows and over 30% from MS-Office. They got that MS-Office monopoly by using the Windows monopoly. Why on earth would Bill and Steve allow a competitor to Windows gain any value by putting MS Office on Linux?

Because my friend, if they are not in the game at all, it's slam no trumps for linux and open office.

Regards

Re:this means giving up on 30% profits and control

[Locutus]

I agree but also think that the BIG boost in the numbers of GNU/Linux users will happen when the corporations desktops start converting. They won't have a problem installing proprietary software on their systems but IMO, it won't be any Microsoft software.

LoB

Re:this means giving up on 30% profits and control

[Locutus]

And here I thought a lot of the earnings I get were from the billions in cash Microsoft had ...

What's your point?

As to your comments on Palm, they split into Palm and PalmSource quite a while ago - one provides the OS (which WinCE competes with), the other provides the actual devices which use the OS.

Again, what's your point? At the time Palm had 80% marketshare, they were one company. The market for handhelds wasn't hugh but it was large enough that the database vendors felt they needed to have versions of their databases on the Palm devices. That is all but Microsoft. Microsoft felt that it was more important to release THEIR handheld database product for THEIR operating system. Which, at THAT TIME, had a tiny part of the market.

I made that point to show that Microsoft is willing to loose money to promote its operating system(s) at the expense of possible profits from supporting other operating systems.

It's all about Windows and protecting/maintaining that monopoly. Wasn't it Bill Gates who said something like, "Does anybody remember Windows?". I believe it was at a meeting discussing JAVA and that meeting was getting out of hand as the discussion were moving toward working WITH JAVA. We all know how Microsoft ended up working WITH JAVA. It was about protecting Windows.... IMO. Heck, Microsoft purchased quite a number of JAVA based companies just to kill their products. DimensionX and Coopers-and-Peters were two that some to mind. Again, Microsoft will not put its software on a competing system unless something like hell freezing over happens to occur. IMO.

And that battle is mostly on cellphones and MP3 players nowadays, not the traditional PDA.

Ok, your point being?

LoB

err

[Anonymous Coward]

... you die by the natural disaster?

Scoop Johnson!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

One problem is that the "editors" feel the need to post six million stories a day instead of 4 or 5 (2 or 3?) quality ones.

One can only speculate why this is, but none of the possibilities reflect very highly on Slashdot (Ad revenue? Gross stupidity? Boredom?).

Re:Scoop Johnson!

[geomon]

One problem is that the "editors" feel the need to post six million stories a day instead of 4 or 5 (2 or 3?) quality ones.

You are probably right, but overload is not one of those reasons I accept when dealing with service providers. Slashdot has long since past the day when it was a true community-driven entity. If they are indeed fielding that many stories in one day, then they need to reconsider the editing process and allow it to be handled in the same way as the comments - a metaediting function.

It seems strange that the output side of Slashdot is community-driven but the input side is a tightly protected priesthood.

Re:Scoop Johnson!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Well, yes, but than we would have just another K5.

Re:Scoop Johnson!

[geomon]

Well, yes, but than we would have just another K5.

OUCH! ;)

Sure they do

[ScrewMaster]

Stuart Cohen: Microsoft will have to accept Linux.

Bill Gates: No ... we don't.

Does It Really Matter?

[LifesABeach]

Yesterday I had the prideful pleasure of watching my eldest daughter show me how she can play ANY of her CD's on her linux box. She uses FireFox, openOffice, Gaim, Thunderbird, Gimp, and soon Blender3D; All on KDE from a Knoppix distro. Her "Jump Start" games are starting to collect dust next to the Win'98se master cd. When she asked what is "BSOD"? I said, "It's just your father dating himself."

Re:BINGO!

[mpapet]

Mod parent way up!

Microsoft must be planning to capture the most wealth from Linux. At this point, it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Linux vendors haven't done such a good job at converting Linux's killer feature set to profits. Microsoft will take their lunch money before they know it's gone.

In many markets, Microsoft is outside IBM's customer base, so Microsoft stands to capture a great deal of revenue from very many new linux customers.

It would be interesting to see if Red Hat becomes Microsoft's "Mini Me" once the Debian Core Consortium gets going.

Total Cost to 0wn someone's Windows box is lower

[chmilar]

Given the networks of tens or hundreds of thousands of zombie Windows computers, it is clear that the Total Cost to 0wn (TC0) some AOL user's Windows PC is very, very low.

I doubt you can 0wn a Linux box as cheaply.

Then Chrysler must do what Toyota says

[WillAffleckUW]

This is like saying that Chrysler must accept Toyota. No they damn well don't and if they want to run a competition to put them out of business, then that's their decision.

Well, it's called marketshare. Right now Toyota and Honda are eating Chrysler, GM, and Ford's shorts, because they sell Hybrids that are mass-manufactured - and thus cheaper and more reliable - while Ford et al sell hand-made hybrids and reluctantly at that.

While gas goes above $3 a gallon (twice what it was before the current Failure-de-chef), the market is demanding FEWER Giant Trucks and Giant SUVs - just as the market is demanding the OS price drops when laptops sell for less than $500.

So, yeah, Bill G could increase his burn rate on the $80 billion in cash - but he can only do so for so long.

Remember when IBM was a giant and MSFT was teeny - the same holds true for MSFT and OSDL today in terms of Win vs Linux/BSD.

Re:Then Chrysler must do what Toyota says

[le_defaut_tragique]

GM and Ford are falling flat on their asses because they make cars that no one wants. The fact that Toyota and Honda make hybrids is secondary to the fact that they make well-made, long-lasting, fuel-efficient, attractive, and affordable cars.

Chrysler is making a comeback because they make cars people want to drive and want to buy.

This is way off-topic, I know, but the car market right now deserves some study because- although it isn't analogous to the OS market now- it could foreshadow the OS market in the future: fierce competition between some very innovative companies, with competitors that can't keep up (the old American boys) getting very obviously shut out. The car market is a good example of what proper competition can do for a marketplace, and comparing it with the computing market shows the kind of damage that a monolithic, abusive monopolist can do to competition. -cooter

Re:Then Chrysler must do what Toyota says

[Minna Kirai]

GM and Ford are falling flat on their asses because they make cars that no one wants.

Nope, not at this particular instant in time. GM is doing poorly because some people want their cars. Each time GM sells a car, they lose $1227. GM's real problem is that they made overly-generous retirement promises to ex-employees, which means they can't compete on price with new or foreign companies that aren't subsidizing legions of unionized nonworkers.

Table of mean per-vehicle profit by manufacturer:
Nissan....$1826
Toyota....$1488
Honda.....$1203
Chrysler...$186
Ford......-$139
GM.......-$1227

For short term savings, GM should stop selling any cars at all... except that it would signal they never intend to sell them in the future either. If not for competition from non-union makers, GM could charge more per vehicle, collecting enough to cover their costs.

Re:Then Chrysler must do what Toyota says

[le_defaut_tragique]

Yes, GM has complained about the unions (they blame healthcare costs to a large degree as well), but it WAS their job to negotiate contracts with the unions in the first place. Frankly, it's looking more and more like GM is on a proverbial Death Spiral- they can't make the numbers work anymore.

It's a shame, really.

No. Microsoft does accept it

[einhverfr]

If not, wouldn't Microsoft actually *try* to attack Linux's core markets? Why not release *affordable* Windows servers to ISP's while today licensing prices Windows out of the market. Same with simple web servers. Same with much of the embedded market.

Sure they are trying to release a cluster edition but nobody I know even at Microsoft takes this seriously. (I think we can call it the Cluster$#%^ edition.)So again, this attack is pretty pitiful on Microsoft's part.

The FUD is directed at protecting Microsoft's core markets and in helping Microsoft win in areas where they are actually trying to compete.

study

[dpete4552]

following a clandestine meeting with Ford about a dubiously independent TCO study; a study that has since been rejected by General Motors.

Re:MS will never have to accept Linux

[the-build-chicken]

first rule of marketting...all markets converge to have 2 dominant players...the convergence time may vary, but it will still happen.

Re:MS will never have to accept Linux

[E-Rock]

Not safe to make assumptions, especially with the breadth of a site like this. I remember a time before the 8086, and most of the companies you mention were niche players. Just like HPUX is a niche player today, and doing quite well (we just picked up one machine for a quarter million).

No one was mainstream at that time, since most people didn't have (and didn't need) a computer.

I still stand by my statement. There's lots of room for all kind of *nix based systems, some like BSD, some like Linux (a million flavors in one), some like their old school unix. Some shops run Windows, some run Apple. There's lots of room. Maybe not everyone will be a gazillionaire, but if the open source movement is to believe, they really don't want to be.

I like lots of different ways to get the job done. Not every problem that looks the same at first glance is best achieved in the same way. I like to pick the tool that does the best job (or sometimes best fits the budget).

As always, YMMV.

aren't you proud of yourself

[sum.zero]

that was a rambling and self-congratulatory non-response to my statements.

reality does not concur with your arguments [and logical fallacies]; linux continues to gain traction in pretty much every area. frankly, considering how effective ms has been at protecting tehir monopoly in the desktop, i'm surprised linux has come this far this fast.

froth away though...

sum.zero

Re:aren't you proud of yourself

[GWBasic]

If you want to continue this, I suggest using email. (I couldn't find your email or web page.) This discussion isn't meant for a public forum. You know how to contact me.

CORRECTION: Will Linux Accept Microsoft

[argoff]

I think everyone is thinking about this the wrong way. Software companies that try to controll and manipulate how people copy things are not workable in an internet information age world. The forces that they choose to hold themselves accountable to are not compatable with the ones we have held ourselves to. This is not a matter of "can't we all just get along", we can't - it's a matter of how long it will take till everything blows up in our face and forces us into a knock down drag out fight to the death.

Re:No. Microsoft does accept it

[DenDave]

What is the "core market" of something that no-one owns, no-one manages and has no mission plan? "Linux" has no "core market", there merely many systems using linux based OS' in a scattering of roles. Microsoft attacks these roles according to value. The Desktop is mucho value for MS and as such, MS is sticking the FUDge everywhere. Ditto for the application server. Webhosts contain no added value for MS, the scale is too big the profits too low. However, MS will attack the corporate intranet servers as this is a niche in the webserver market, it's actually slowly moving towards the application server! Embedded is of value and MS is on the move, same with media/entertainement.

Acceptance

[amyamie28]

I believe it would be very smart for Microsoft to accpet linux and embrace it's abilities.And not because it has to but because it should.

Inverse

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that is Linux which should be accept Windows. Don't forget who started all this MS vs Linux crap.

Now we're talkin' !

[Hosiah]

Finally, a sane note in the Microsoft/Linux conflict: That it is in Microsoft's best interest to co-operate with other systems. For instance, they could allow Windows Media Player format files to play on a Linux system, so we can watch CNN.com's film clips like everybody else. Instead of the boondoggle that is Windows security, they could simply admit that running Linux and Windows on the same machine cleans up much of Window's act for them. Free software ported to Windows enhances the value of Windows, after all, like with FreeCD.org's product. I remember when I got Microsoft's visual C++ compiler for Windows (way back in '98, it was version 6.0), it came with, of all things, EMACS!

For once, Microsoft marketing could focus on co-operation instead of gratuitious incompatibility. Windows would have so much to gain that way, and consumers would have an easier time getting the two systems to co-operate on the same machine, which is what a lot of people want, anyway.

Hey, howza bout a live Windows CD I could run on my Linux machine without having to install Windows? All they'd have to do is copy-protect the CD, ensuring that each purchased Windows license equated to Windows running on only one machine at any time. I'm tired of the burden of co-operation being on Linux all the time!

Re:Now we're talkin' !

[SComps]

I'm tired of the burden of co-operation being on Linux all the time!

Would you like some cheese with that?

In all seriousness though, you do have some good points about MS opening up at least the formats their software uses to allow for interoperability. On the other hand, it's not Microsoft's problem when it comes down to something a Linux desktop can or can't do. You said that you were tired of the burden being on Linux all the time. Well yeah, that's true. It is up to the underdog to conform with the pack. A car manufacturer has to make cars that pretty much look and work like everyone elses, If I made keyboards and decided to put the space bar smack in the middle of the thing, and paint it dayglo green, I probably wouldn't have many customers (over the age of 14).

Conformity in the marketplace is the way it works. Linux is *not* the old timer here. It may be using insanely old technology that has been brought up to par with todays technology, but Linux is relatively new. It doesn't have the market share to command a standard or conformity.

Hell even Apple didn't have that kinda clout or we'd be looking at a ] prompt instead of C:\>

In the late 70's to early 80's damn near every wide eyed child was sitting in school staring at a cute little Apple ][ or clone. They had penetration, but IBM swept in with the original PC and turned the whole [educational] computing world upside down almost overnight. That put familiarity on the side of IBM, and once you have familiarity with your product (do you call them Band-aids or adhesive strips?) you can command conformity until somebody else makes a bigger splash. If Linux wants to stop bearing the burden, it needs to pull off one great big belly whopper and hit the deep end of the pool. I look forward to the day that happens too! Don't be surprised to see MS trying to rapidly drain the pool though.

Re:Now we're talkin' !

[Hosiah]

On the other hand, it's not Microsoft's problem when it comes down to something a Linux desktop can or can't do.

You mistook my point. Linux can handle everything just fine. A media player that could handle Windows Media formats was already introduced to at least Linspire. Microsoft blocked them and said, "You can't release that." Linux is more than happy to partition the drive into sectors to allow for every system under the sun. Install Windows, and it arrogantly munches the master boot record as if it were the only operating system in the world. Linux files compact themselves to fit into the smallest possible physical space, saving more room on your hard drive. Windows is like having a sloppy roommate, it spreads out into as much space as it can and flings garbage everywhere. Linux can format and read removable media in every known format, including FAT32. Stick a floppy with ext2 files on it into Windows, and Windows has a fit.

And so on. What I was talking about, is that if only Microsoft were merely indifferent, it'd be easier to work with. But it's deliberately hostile every chance it gets, so programmers for other systems have to work ten times harder just to deal with all the problems that Microsoft causes when it doesn't have to.

Do you know that you're dealing with a lower quality of graphics online just because of Windows? I'd love to be able to use a lossless compression format like .png to display my graphics art on my blog, but if I do that, Windows browsers don't support .png files evenly (some do, some don't). So we all have to look at .jpg's, and have lots of swirly noise in the files when we save them. Thank you, Windows, for forcing me to use sub-standard quality just to be compatible with your trashy browsers!

And yes, I'd love some cheese with my wine. Do you have any red Leicester? Oh. How are you on Tilsit? Tish, tish. Four ounces of Caerphilly? Bel Paese? Red Windsor? Stilton? Ementhal? Gruyere?

Awful English

[Anonymous Coward]

a dubiously independent TCO study

This means that you think that the study is independent and is dubious because of that independence. I suspect your awful English skills led you to say the opposite of what you meant.

I think you're looking at it wrong...

[OwlWhacker]

I think the point is that Microsoft can no longer continue to shut out Linux and block all interoperability with it via anti-competitive actions.

Microsoft is having to integrate due to customer demand, customers are really forcing Microsoft to stop acting as if Linux is insignificant.

Windows Vista automatically successful

[tjstork]

All of the OEMS bundling windows on their PC's will get the new version of Windows automatically. It's interesting that the areas where Vista is going is where Mac has gained something of a foothold and where Linux is weakest - in 3d desktops.

10-K anyone?

[SComps]

If the author of the original article had spent a bit more time checking Microsoft's latest 10-K filing with the SEC he'd have noticed that they already *do* accept Linux as both a competitor and threat.

Is this just another OSDN literary masturbation session?

Time to die

[crovira]

Without air, 4 minutes.
Without water, 4 days.
Without food, 4 weeks.
Without sex, 4 get abboud it!

Precision bombing requires smart munitions.

[crovira]

While we may be able to blow the snot out of anything we shoot at, I think we should at least wait until we evacuate the city before we adopt that option for 'reconstruction.'

And sand, specially wet sand, is HEAVY and, being sand, is GRITTY. The two worst things you can ask to transport in a plane.

I don't see the Navy having any use for precision guided sand bags. Sorry.

This is a business people

[Anonymous Coward]

Why else would MS want to legitimatly compare TCO with Linux? They think they are the better business and personal OS solution and are looking to prove it. It's a 50/50 deal, winner takes all, and someones being a pussy....

"Because I Can"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just one of those expressions like "Because I can"... nobody takes it literally, they just read it as "because I want to." The idea that MS "has" to accept Linux is -- that they can't rationalize a denial that is based in reality.

The real TCO debate to be had?

[beforewisdom]

When I was listening to a radio talk show on the way to work the other morning the DJ asked one of the callers what he did for a living.

It turned out he was a network administrator. The DJ asked him if there was anything people could do about viruses, worms, spyware and crashes. The caller replied. "No, get a mac".

I see a lot of articles on slashdot about total cost of ownership (TCO) for Microsoft windows vs GNU/Linux.

I think a real TCO debate would ( or might someday ) would involve Microsoft windows vs a mac with OSX.

Macs are famous for "just working" and you can make shell scripts for a mac box instead of having to buy utilities. Lower cost of ownership right there.

Maybe Apple doesn't have the ease of use for which they are famous for networking hardware/software yet and maybe mac boxes aren't competitively priced for the server market, but I think Apple could achieve that.

I think there are network administrators who would take a cut in pay to have a mac server network that was as easy to use and as easy to take care of as a mac desktop.

Even if a mac server was more expensive to start with the TCO would be smaller with less futzing being required over time.

If that every happened, these TCO debates would be about the TCO for the mac vs everyone else.

BTW, I am a Linux use, though if I wasn't a Linux fan I would go mac...so that is my bias. What do others think?

Re:What a load of horse hockey --- no it is not.

[SmellTheCoffee]

You are comparing car industry to software industry. Cars are not suppose to interoperate or lets put it other way, you cannot drive a Chrysler and Toyota at one time...however you can use Linux and run microsoft products within it. "Accept Linux" means acknowledge the fact that Linux is a viable alternative to your (MS) products and stop the subversive software practices that MS is famous for. Coming back to your Chrysler-Toyota example, Toyota and Chrysler both implicitely accept that they are competitors and they both try to make good products...it is just that they don't interoperate due to the nature of industry they are in.

Firefox also loses support for 3rd straight month

[I'm Don Giovanni]

I see the Aug 2005 browser stats at http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp also show Firefox losing support for the 3rd straight month, including 0.9% percentage points each of the last two months. That loss in browsershare went to IE.

Yes, they get it

[Anonymous Coward]

They get it, but as long as they don't acknowledge it, then they won't pass this knowledge onto its customers, and their customers won't begin to value software that you are free to do whatever you want with (OSS), as opposed to software where you are restricted in what you can do with it (proprietary).

no thanks, but...

[sum.zero]

i guess i'm under the wrong impression as to the purpose of /. see, i thought it was a discussion forum...

frankly i don't see any real point in continuing this 'discussion' at all, never mind in private. i don't expect the quality of your responses to improve or for them to be any more on-topic than your previous posts.

ciao.

sum.zero

Re:no thanks, but...

[GWBasic]

You called into question the nature of my membership and said bad things about an article of mine that was linked to on Slashdot. You are free to say what you want, but the article that started this thread is not about me. I will gladly address anything you want, including your opinion of my merits, IN EMAIL.

Please respond publicly only if you wish to continue discussing Linux and not my merits.

apt-get install msoffice

[Anonymous Coward]

apt-get install msoffice

Re:No. Microsoft does accept it

[einhverfr]

When I use the term "core market" I might better be saying "stronghold market." The core market is the area where the product is not only widely used but derives a dispurportionate aspect of its sustinance. Core markets in this way are very hard to attack.

Microsoft's core market is the corporate workstation market, due to the dependence on Microsoft RAD tools, office suites, and operating systems. If this market falls, Microsoft falls software ceases to be the influence it currnetly is.

Similarly, Linux's core market is in the low-margin technology-centric world of the ISP, the embedded system vendors (TIVO), and hobbyists. ISP's were early adopters, and many employ maintenance developers part time for products like Linux, Apache, etc. If the ISP market would have gone to Windows in 1999, it would have set Linux back decades. If Microsoft had been able to convince embedded system vendors to use Windows CE (maybe free licenses on all products manufactured in the next 5 years), the same might be true today. And had Microsoft ever been able to leverage hobbyists the way Linux can, we would be in trouble.

The fact is that Microsoft is in a "containment" strategy. They are not trying to eliminate Linux at the moment. They are trying to keep it out of their core markets. And they are failing.

not really

[sum.zero]

i made several exactly on-point responses to your statements about the linux desktop. reread my initial post.

i did use your posting history to establish that you have a clear pro-ms/anti-linux bias and to make a guess ["i am thinking..."] that you have limited experience with the linux desktop itself. i stand by that.

you did not respond to my statements on linux desktops or speak to me about your extensive experience with linux.

instead you chose to puff up your chest and rant about how successful/important you [think you] are and that i should just trust that your opinion is correct because you just know it is ["I can say for certain that Linux does not meet the criteria required for it to make any kind of dent in the market of consumer operating systems."]. you also engaged in a number of logical fallacies and strawman arguments based entirely on conjecture about ipods, cars and windows vs. linux.

as i said in my last post, i don't see any point in continuing this discussion because you haven't shown the ability to stay on topic or to distinguish between your own opinion and fact. 'please respond only if you' are going to make accurate, verifiable defenses of your statements about the linux desktop.

thanks.

sum.zero

Re:not really

[GWBasic]

Sorry about huffing out my chest; I have pride.

I'm going to assume that you agree with the following statement: "Linux is popular on servers and in education because its advantages are desirable in those markets." I also agree that Linux on the desktop can do essentially everything needed on a desktop OS. (Word processesing, web, email, games) I hope you understand that my point will have nothing to do with Linux's existing merits.

Let's put the virus/spyware argument on hold. Windows malware might be able to slip onto a Linux computer through Wine or another emulation layer. There is no garuntee that a malware author will not target Linux in the future.

So now to start to establish my point: Let's think of a hypothetical situation where someone can walk into a store like Best Buy and choose from three similarly equiped computers, one being Mac with Office, one being Windows with Office, and one being Linux with Open Office. (The Windows computer has suffient malware protection for the sake of this argument.) In this situation, the Linux computer is the cheapest.

Just because the Linux computer does everything that people want, (web, email, ect,) and is cheaper doesn't mean that it will sell well. (I tried to prove this with the Nomad/iPod and automatic transmission examples)

My point: Linux on the desktop needs a good desirable feature to differentiate it from Windows and Mac. This could be a game that's unique to the platform, a new killer app that doesn't have a good clone on Windows or Mac, or even very-stylish cases. The salesperson needs to be able to point to something cool in order to sell a Linux-based desktop computer; price, lack of malware, flexibility, and open-source are not convincing enough. Do you understand my point? It has nothing to do with Linux's existing merits.

With regard to my experience with Linux: I try it every few years but I've never found any features compelling enough to switch. Windows 2000/XP are stable, secure, and customizable enough for me.

Re: Your point

[Chexsum]

Linux on the desktop needs a good desirable feature to differentiate it ...

Most GNU/Linux distributions are developer-friendly as opposed to the constrictive alternate operating systems. :)

that is not what you said

[sum.zero]

you originally said linux"

"Your "little brother" statement is certainly true about Linux on the desktop. It offers no significant advantage over Windows, and at best is nothing more then a cheap knock-off. When Linux on the desktop can offer must-have features that matter to non-technical people, then it'll stand a chance."

i responded to that statement and you now admit that my response was 100% accurate.

on to the rest.

linux doesn't need to do anything differently. despite your assertions, it is gaining marketshare in the desktop segment quite rapidly [depending on figures, at or above the level of osx now]. your assertions and flawed ipod/transmission analogies just don't hold up to the reality of the situation.

while you may want to gloss over the inherent unsecure nature of windows, i won't. linux provides a more stable and more secure platform on the average. yes, you can secure a windows box, but it will continue to have the flaws inherent in the incredibly poor design of ie, amongst other things. some of these flaws have not and may never be patched. these flaws lead to massive loss of data by individuals and very high-maintenance costs for it departments when the latest worm/virus does the rounds. every time this occurs, someone somewhere considers whether they might be better off without windows. and no, wine does not allow for the execution of system breaking viruses. there was an article about this on /. not too long ago.

as linux is an open system that supports open standards, you will [it is happening now] see increased interest and uptake by governments. governments represent the largest purchasing departments in the world. these entities are increasinly concerned with the behaviour of ms re: monopoly abuse, lockin and access to data. if ms doesn't jump on the clue train, they will be relegated to once beens. they have a substantial lobby around the world, but its influence isn't what they'd like outside of the us.

there are linux boxes available at walmart right now and they sell just fine. i believe they have linspire on them. walmart is not my cup of tea, but they have massive retail influence and have enough purchasing power [larger than some countries] to dictate terms to their suppliers. they dictated linux exactly because they grew tired of the ms tax on every computer.

in fact, most non-technical people want a device that does what they need for the cheapest price possible. they don't care what is in it. yes intel and windows have mindshare now, but this is also changing. people that didn't even know there were other oses now are aware of linux. further, large, well-established companies like ibm are now actively developing and promoting linux heavily. this will increase consumer confidence and mindshare.

linux usage is also growing by leaps and bounds in developing nations that cannot afford ms software [even crippled versions] and are unhappy with ms' business practices. this represents a vast potential install-base for linux. i only see it increasing, especially as it is pushed by the local governments with regularity through technology inititiatives.

ms has consistently shown themselves to be ethically challenged. while you may think that means nothing, it does. we have likely not seen the last of the legal actions against ms on anti-trust grounds. regular people may not care about this much, but when faced with a never-ending stream of headlines about the latest bad dealings and security holes in windows, people will and are starting to question whether ms is the right choice for them. freedom is important to people and a negative image harms your business in the long run. just wait till vista and people discover how it cripples video to non-drm equipped displays...

as another has said, because linux is open, it attracts developers. this leads to rapid advancements in many areas and provides an excellent testing environment across a large range of hardware. ms can't compete with this. look at teh c

Re:that is not what you said

[GWBasic]

ALL CAPS is yelling. Bolding is to make a statement stand out without yelling, so you can read it first if you choose.

The problem is that every advantage that you've stated about Linux on the desktop can not be proven. Even the cost advantage can be negated if Apple or Microsoft decide to lower their prices.

My point is strictly about marketing, not technical merits. I suspect that you're unfamilar with how companies market technology, and thus would you please explain your experience in and knowledge about how companies get consumers to choose their product?

Besides, I've never been trying to prove that Linux on the desktop is better or worse then another operating system, which is what you seem to be trying to do. I'm trying to explain that all of the advantages that you've stated are either temporary, irrelevant, unproven, or blatently wrong; and that in order for Linux on the desktop to be more then a cheap knock-off, it has to have features that will be attractive to people who will pay a few more dollars to stick with a brand (Windows or Mac) that they are comfortable with.

And now back to the technical debate.

With regard to security, everything you've said about Windows is also true about Linux. http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-27.html http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=51200210 Yes, Linux historically has less issues, but it is not immune, and given Microsoft's recent attention to security, I find this argument moot for now. (BTW, Wine is not the only Windows compatibility layer.)

Linux becoming popular doesn't mean that it's making a sizable dent in Window's market share. Commercial Unixes like SCO and Solaris were the biggest victim of Linux.

Prove the argument on Linux attracting developers for desktop applications. I don't believe it. Every developer who I know, including people who are die-hard Linux users, loves working with Microsoft Visual Studio .Net. With regard to developing desktop applications, give me an example of a popular development environment on Linux? Remember, GCC is just a compiler, personal versions of VS.Net are free, and the Mono project provides some support for applications written in VS.Net on Linux.

The open standards argument doesn't apply here. You can run software that adheres to open standards on Windows. You can run other browsers and other office suites on Windows. (There was an alternate Word Processor bundled with my laptop.) Open Office runs on Windows and Mac. There is no garuntee that Microsoft will not support open office standards in the future.

With regard to content protection on Vista, it is primarily implemented in hardware and exists to appease the movie industry and to help keep documents secret. Given that restricted content will only exist if people create it and consume it, I've decided to take a wait-and-see attitude on this subject. Besides, what garuntee exists that a desktop Linux distro will not support content protection someday?

I don't think that it's a good strategy to sell a Linux-based desktop computer by calling Microsoft evil. Do you? Is "moral right" a good selling point?

Please put your comments on Vista on hold. We're talking about how to sell a desktop computer with Linux, not how to sell a desktop computer with Vista.

You can not walk into Walmart and buy a desktop computer with Linspire. They are only available off of Walmart's web site.

Again, before continuing a technical debate, I'd like to know how much experience you have in marketing. My original "knock-off" statement only had to do with marketing, and not Linux's technical merits, which I really prefer to avoid because its merits do make it desirable in markets other then the desktop.

Re:No. Microsoft does accept it

[DenDave]

Ok, MS is trying to keep Linux based products out of thei core markets. I will agree with that. But to say "Linux" is a product with a core market goes one step to far for me. There are myriads of products and projects availabel based on linux but their is no monolithic linux product, the kernel is a big one but in itself does not constitute a product.

look, i responded to exactly what you said

[sum.zero]

again:

"Your "little brother" statement is certainly true about Linux on the desktop. It offers no significant advantage over Windows, and at best is nothing more then a cheap knock-off. When Linux on the desktop can offer must-have features that matter to non-technical people, then it'll stand a chance."

this is clearly an attack on linux and a statement that windows is superior. i responded to precisely this.

you then told me how great you were and made this ridiculous statement:

"I can say for certain that Linux does not meet the criteria required for it to make any kind of dent in the market of consumer operating systems."

factually challenged? - check.

you keep trying to change your arguments, including introducing numerous strawmen, and making entirely unproven assumptions about my knowledge/experience [i have handled marketing budgets in excess of 100k/month].

the facts are not with you. you may feel that your arguments make logical sense, but they do not square with what is actually happening in the real world: linux is gaining significant marketshare from windows and will continue to do so for the reasons i outlined.

i however haven't been evangelicizing. everything i have said re: linux is actually verifiable. what you have said is conjecture, faith-based and utterly incorrect [developers don't like linux as a development platform? lol! open standards don't matter? jesus.]. i don't have time to educate you further, but you can google your way out of ignorance in about ten minutes if you want to. hell, there have been stories on /. in the last day to disprove many of the things you say [eg ms just said they will refuse to support open doc].

i am done with this conversation. good night.

sum.zero

ps thanks for attempting to tell me how superior you are to me again. i thought you said you were a developer; what's your marketing background? don't bother replying because i don't really care.

Re:look, i responded to exactly what you said

[GWBasic]

Point me to a store where I can buy a desktop computer with Linux pre-installed! Show me an article that describes ordinary people buying Linux-based computers. So far all I can do is order a laptop online. I've been hearing your argument for the last eight years, but I've never seen Linux pre-installed on a desktop in a store. You're either blowing hot air at me, or you should be able to give me many examples of where I can buy a Linux-based desktop computer as a way of backing up your assertions of its popularity.

Remember the only true saying

[armandojnc]

Keep your friend near your enemies real close Eventually every good aspect of Linux will become part of Microsoft They DO have the money WHO HAS A BIG HOUSE ( A Rich) right or im blind? WHO HAS A LUXURY CAR ( ONE WITH MORE MONEY) right again... Can you see where i am driving... get real enjoy Open source while it lasts I DO ITS THE BEST FOR NOW...(Slack is the fastest on P3s up..get real... I tried them ...all DEB, GENTOO best teacher...etc) They allready have the samba people with them (The ones that make you share stuff with windows...) Remember the one that controls the information WINS...(Think of China for instance...think what do they want to do with people.....control the information they send or get....) I am off ...