Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft & Linux Should Co-Exist In China

alabamarasta writes "In a recent report from China titled "Embattled Linux fights back", it appears that Microsoft is just as embattled." From the article: "Citing an executive at Microsoft headquarters, Lu said Linux and Windows should co-exist. Microsoft in recent years has been struggling with an increasing number of security flaws on its Windows platforms while Linux is generally regarded as more secure. 'For users, openness increases the trustworthiness,' said Lu."

162 comments

  1. The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Chinese market will be the decisive battle ground between Linux and Windows. Indeed, whoever manages to become the leader in that market will soon become the world leader. Why is that? Because the Chinese market has the potential to completely dwarf both the American and European markets. Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by mordors9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just curious after reading your assertions. How many average families own computers? Or do you fall back on "Once...Chinese market has matured", when will this occur? Will the market ever mature while it is not a free market? Do you seriously feel that the EU and US will ever have economies on the scale of Jamaica?

    2. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It depends on what regions you're considering, with respect to how many families own computers. Not as many people in the rural areas have computers, but that's offset by them being very prevalent in the cities. Of course, the population of just the cities of China are several times the population of the entire United States. But then again, individuals and families aren't the only computer users. Businesses also require PCs, and operating systems to run on them.

      Remember, China is just beginning its growth as a modern country. It's perhaps where the US was in the mid 1800s. It's transitioning from basically a slave-based economy towards a true enterprise economy. It'll be a mature market before you, the US and the EU know it.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    3. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Decaff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Chinese market will be the decisive battle ground between Linux and Windows. Indeed, whoever manages to become the leader in that market will soon become the world leader. Why is that? Because the Chinese market has the potential to completely dwarf both the American and European markets.

      This doesn't make any sense at all.

      Firstly, there is no single battleground between Linux and Windows. There are a number of separate battlegrounds: mobile devices, embedded systems, home desktops, corporate workstations, small servers, mid-range servers, enterprise servers, e-mail servers etc. Winning or losing in any one of these may not have much of an impact in any other.

      Secondly, what happens in one area of the world in terms of OS dominance does not imply or force success elsewhere. For example, Microsoft technologies have far more dominance in the USA than in Europe.

      Thirdly, there is a huge and growing market that has a tendency to appreciate open source - India.

      So, the idea of there being a 'decisive battleground', and this being China, does not make sense.

      Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica.

      Extremely unlikely. America and the EU are far too large and skill & resource-rich by comparison.

    4. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I disagree.

      As long as fossil fuels power modern economies and the global supply of oil fails to increase, there is a hard limit on how much economies like China and India can grow.

      The US gets first "dibs" on international oil. China doesn't have any oil of its own outside of small deposits like the South China Sea.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    5. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's to say that Linux won't take over in all those areas that you mentioned? You're assuming incorrectly that it can only "win" in one area. That's far from the truth. It could easily become dominant on all sorts of devices, for all sorts of applications, in China.

      Indeed, India will also be an important battleground. However, China is far more coherent as a whole than India. India is a big locomotive, but it's not fully up to speed yet. China is just as big, and it's going far faster.

      America and the EU are far too large and skill & resource-rich by comparison.

      That's what Europeans said about America a couple hundred years ago. And witness how the economy of America overtook that of Europe for many decades. It happened once, and it may very well happen again. The upstart will overtake the existing economies.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    6. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Homology · · Score: 1
      The Chinese market will be the decisive battle ground between Linux and Windows.

      Why? Most users don't care that much in the first place what OS they are using as long as it does what they want. Indeed, whoever manages to become the leader in that market will soon become the world leader.

      World leader in what? Shoddy software? Why is that? Because the Chinese market has the potential to completely dwarf both the American and European markets. Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica.

      Who cares what some grubby investors think?

    7. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by miffo.swe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And who does the Chineese rather pay their money to, a foreign company or a couple of domestic ones? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Its politics and i dont see Microsoft having any chance of alter the view of the Chineese government. China is not as corrupt as the US just yet.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    8. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      What's to say that Linux won't take over in all those areas that you mentioned? You're assuming incorrectly that it can only "win" in one area.

      I'm not assuming that at all. In fact my view is that Linux is indeed likely to win out in many if not most areas. My point is that any statement about a single 'battleground' either in an area of IT or geographically, is far too simplistic.

      That's what Europeans said about America a couple hundred years ago. And witness how the economy of America overtook that of Europe for many decades. It happened once, and it may very well happen again. The upstart will overtake the existing economies.

      Well, yes. That is reasonable. But that was not what your original post said.

      You said "Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica."

      This implies that China will reduce America and the EU to total insignificance. A very extreme view without much foundation.

    9. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica.

      I wonder what they'll think of the Indian market then.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    10. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by fastgood · · Score: 1
      The Chinese market will be the decisive battle ground between Linux and Windows.

      Except that Microsoft will still be getting nine out of every ten Dollars (or Yuans)
      spent on operating systems whether they have 80% or 20% market share.

      Bill Gates won't particularly care about his piece-of-the pie if there's double-digit
      annual sales growth in that huge market.

    11. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by lokedhs · · Score: 1
      Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica.
      We'll think of the EU as we think of Luxembourg? What the hell are you talking about? Do you mean some other country? Luxembourg is a part of EU.
    12. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by barum87 · · Score: 1

      "It's perhaps where the US was in the mid 1800s." I cannot agree with this statement. Have you been to China? I personally lived in China for 3~4 years, and it's definitely different from what you are imagining. Cities like Shanghai, Beijing and almost every big cities in each province have what we have. The bad news is that Microsoft already has a much better place to start with, even though many of the computers come with pirated version of Windows. (Not talking about big brands here)

    13. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1
      That's what Europeans said about America a couple hundred years ago. And witness how the economy of America overtook that of Europe for many decades. It happened once, and it may very well happen again. The upstart will overtake the existing economies.

      WWII put America in the lead. Not because we're the best, but because we were the last ones standing. Europe is catching up.

      China has its own massive problems. Over population, diminishing rsources, lack of fresh water, desertification of the north, massive flooding of the west and south, cutural strife, to name a few.

      The major advantage China has is that its people are educated. I mean, educated, not what we Americans pass off as education. Something like 2/3 of coastal Chinese hold some sort of college degree. Compare that to America's 40% and you can see where we're failing.

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    14. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Firstly, there is no single battleground between Linux and Windows. There are a number of separate battlegrounds: mobile devices, embedded systems, home desktops, corporate workstations, small servers, mid-range servers, enterprise servers, e-mail servers etc. Winning or losing in any one of these may not have much of an impact in any other.

      Some areas may not have much effect but there are significant ties between the others and Microsoft has often exploited this fact to leverage from one to the other.

      The obvious example is home desktops and corporate desktops. There was a time when home desktops were a diverse lot with Apple and Amiga being big players, and even more diversity further back. Microsoft managed to deal with IBM and so their platform (MS-DOS) became the platform of choice in the coporate world (due to the dominance of IBM in that market). This dominance on coporate desktops slowly but surely bled into the home desktop market, because people were used to their MS systems at work. The dominance in the corporate desktop granted to Microsoft by IBM played a significant role in MS sucessful expansion into the home desktop market (there were, of course other factors, like the availability of cheap IBM clones, but it is foolish to deny the corporate desktop dominance played no role). Now the tables have turned and it is the corporate desktop where MS is feeling a little heat, and now it is the home desktop that gives MS an advantage: everyone uses MS at home and so learns MS by default, whereas other systems will require "expensive retraining" if used on the corporate desktop.

      Similar games are played in the server to desktop arena, where the dominance of Office is used to push MS server solutions which will integrate with the desktops, and the server solutions are in turn used to strengthen the desktop (such as the Exchange/Outlook rerlationship).

      The coming thing could well be embedded and mobile devices, and how well they interact and interface with the system. There's a reason MS is pushing hard in this area.

      In practice while all the different battlegrounds are indeed their own little domains, there are undeniable effects that come into play as success in one domain increases viability in another. One of the reasons Linux is more viable as a corporate desktop now is the past success of Linux in the corporate server market. Were Linux servers significantly less common it would be much harder to create a viable desktop to compete with the MS desktop which would have far better server/desktop integration.

      Jedidiah.

    15. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China doesn't have any oil of its own outside of small deposits like the South China Sea.

      Actually China has some pretty significant deposits in the western regions, the problem is that the infrastructure hasn't quite reached there yet.

      Also China uses coal (which they have a relatively large reserve) heavily to lighten it's dependence on oil, that's why you hear about the coal mine disasters in China all the time, as the demand is so high opportunists began to mine illegally without proper preparations for quick profits.

      By the way, as far as I know every major power in the world is trying to move away from reliance on fossil fuel into more flexible range of sources of energy. Also, market economy has the incredible power to adjust itself to fit supply and demand; if an economy is short on energy it will focus on improving efficiency (eg. Japan and Europe). Generally speaking a temporary shortage on energy won't hurt an industrialized economy too badly as a healthy economy can always find ways to compensate for its shortages, unless you are fighting a war, in which case the demand would rise so rapidly the tolerance for the shortage is much more marginal.

    16. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Some areas may not have much effect but there are significant ties between the others and Microsoft has often exploited this fact to leverage from one to the other.

      One of the reasons Linux is more viable as a corporate desktop now is the past success of Linux in the corporate server market.

      I largely agree, although I think the degree of linkage has been hugely overstressed. For example, the primary reason that Linux is viable as a corporate desktop is that there is Linux software that can deal reasonably well with Microsoft formats and a wide range of networked resources, including those presented by Windows servers. My view is that the success of Linux is not about linkage - it is about integration. In the same way, Linux servers can in many ways transparently replace Microsoft servers.

      It is Microsoft that is trying to impose linkage, and only with moderate success - although it dominates the desktop it has not had much growth in its share of the server market for years.

      But anyway, my point was not that there was no linkage, just not there is no single battleground.

    17. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1
      WWII put America in the lead.

      Arguably it was the combination of the collection of territories in the 30 years following the Spanish American War and WW1, not WW2 that put the USA ahead. Due to this (and due to georagphy to some extent) the USA was able to be such a decisive force in WW2.

    18. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The US gets first "dibs" on international oil.
      No, the oil flows to whoever will pay the most. Unless there's armed conflict, of course. But if we were to try and fight China, who would make our soldiers' uniforms? Joking aside, the oil shortage would have to be *very* bad to justify war between China and the US, because the disruption to trade would devestate both our economies, and that we do not have dibs on oil.

      Anyways, my prediction is that the Chinese will be quicker than the West to adopt Nuclear power if oil scarcity begins to crimp their growth.

    19. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Anyways, my prediction is that the Chinese will be quicker than the West to adopt Nuclear power if oil scarcity begins to crimp their growth.

      BusinessWeek had an article on that a few weeks ago. China is already planning on building quite a few nuclear reactors to generate electricity. I don't exactly recall how many sites were planned (15? 18? 24?), but it was more then a handful. IIRC, these sites were already out for bidding and might have even started construction by now.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    20. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, "free market"! You really are an idiot.

    21. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fantastic statistic, alas, you are comparing COASTAL CHINA with all of America. I am sure if you left out the Rural areas of America we might see some difference.

    22. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Linux could become dominant?. Linux "IS" becoming dominant. It allows for localisation of software development with support ,servicing and eductional resources being free of licence fees and external control. It is the logical way forward in a technologically inter connected world. Licencing of this global interconnection to one monopolistic company is well, just plain stupid.

      Microsoft and Linux can't coexist, microsoft have stated over and over again that it is nothing but a competitor and that they were going to destroy it and to date they have left no stone unturned in abusing the software and the proponents of Linux. Apart from the odd smarmy marketing tactic, microsoft has shown no true change of behaviour.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by patiodragon · · Score: 1

      "It's perhaps where the US was in the mid 1800s."

      "I cannot agree with this statement. Have you been to China? I personally lived in China for 3~4 years, and it's definitely different from what you are imagining. Cities like Shanghai, Beijing and almost every big cities in each province have what we have. "

      I was in Shanghai and Beijing in 2003 and you are most correct. The original post is absurd. -KB

    24. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I don't think Linux will win any time soon in China. For 95% of the average PC users, they even do not know there are such alternatives beside MS, especially WinXP and Office suite. They all use pirated ones. And MS seems to keep a blind eye on this issue because they know exactly what this will bring them: when the government and corps have to use MS products due to its employees' ability, they have to pay the money. And that also makes sense even if MS gives away the OS as free ... If Linux wants to win, the first thing it should do is to make the users know the name "Linux" and get familiar with it. You can't simply reply on the "openness and freeness" to fight the battle, because nobody even cares about that here. :(

    25. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. Well, a couple hundred of years - I don't really care about that since I'll be dead.

      And last I checked, Jamaica and Luxembourg don't have a nuclear arsenal and have 8 million square miles of valuable resources separated by thousands of miles of ocean.

      China will be powerful, but not like that. If the US is Microsoft, China is Google. There's a lot of hot air but little substance behind the idea that Google will kill Microsoft. Microsoft is simply too entrenched and powerful for that, but that doesn't mean Google won't also be a overpowerful titan.

      By the way, on the subject of Google, it makes no sense for them to kill Microsoft even if they were in the position to. The last thing they need is the government slapping sanctions on them the same way they did Microsoft. My prediction is that after they've had their catfights, much to most ./'rs dismay, they will actually become semi-pals. Like IBM, Sony, and others.

    26. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by ThesQuid · · Score: 1

      China is not as corrupt as the US just yet.
      This has got to be the most ill-informed comment I've seen in a long time. I live there and have daily contact with the police system, the court system and the prison system. China is corrupt beyond your comprehension of the word.

    27. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by sad_ · · Score: 1
      For example, Microsoft technologies have far more dominance in the USA than in Europe.

      where did you get that idea? i would say there is no difference between US and EU in MS usage. don't be fooled by those few reports of cities switching to linux, in percentage it means nothing.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    28. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      You should really talk to someone who has the same contact with the US court system and police. Bribes arent something uncommon in the US. Things are done more smoothly in the US but you are fooling yourself if you think the US is better in any way than China.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    29. Re:The Chinese market is the battlegrounds.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      "For example, Microsoft technologies have far more dominance in the USA than in Europe."

      where did you get that idea?


      By regularly researching the usages of a range of technologies.

      i would say there is no difference between US and EU in MS usage.

      You are wrong. There are differences in many areas.

      don't be fooled by those few reports of cities switching to linux, in percentage it means nothing.

      I was talking about far more that just the use of Linux vs Microsoft on the desktop. It is a wider range of technologies. For example, .NET is much less used as a development platform in Europe than in the USA.

  2. Profit Making by geomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lu, also a former senior government official, was responding to a report released by the China Software Industry Association (CSIA) in late August which called for the government to review its preference for open-source software. The government's "excessive preference" for the open-source Linux platform is harming the domestic software industry, and Linux's business model is flawed as the low, or no, charge is thwarting the profitability of Linux developers, the CSIA asserted in the report.

    Now while I am not opposed to people making money from their work, nor am I opposed to people making huge profits from their businesses, I find rediculous the whole idea that government should intercede in a free market because somebody can't make money from a commodity. If you can't make a living or profit from something, then find a new line of work or business. Why should the government demand that something make money?

    So what is the solution to their "problem"? Are they going to ban open source software because it drives profit making companies into the ground? Does this mean you have to get a license to write software, or work for a profit-making company to write code? Where does this protection racket end?

    I know that many /.ers make a living writing code and take offense at the notion that they should have to give up a living because someone else does their job without asking for money. But consider the fact that no one charges you for the air you breathe. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, would love to charge you for that air and the fact that you get it for free means some poor schmuck can't make a profit from it. Hell, we should demand that the government get involved and require everyone who breathes to pay a toll to some company who will ensure that air is always available for us to breathe.

    What is funniest about this whole 'software industry can't make money' discussion is that no one considers the huge profit potential of every thing someone does for another person just because they like them or want to help.

    Charities rob profit-making enterprises.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Profit Making by Decameron81 · · Score: 1
      "I know that many /.ers make a living writing code and take offense at the notion that they should have to give up a living because someone else does their job without asking for money. But consider the fact that no one charges you for the air you breathe. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, would love to charge you for that air and the fact that you get it for free means some poor schmuck can't make a profit from it. Hell, we should demand that the government get involved and require everyone who breathes to pay a toll to some company who will ensure that air is always available for us to breathe."


      Your analogy is flawed. The air we breathe is not the result of someone's work. Nobody had to spend time creating it and it would exist anyway. Software is created with the time and effort of individuals. Without these individuals, software would not exist.

      However, while I disagree with the example, I do agree with your points. People should be free to do as they will in such a context, and be able to eventually not charge for what they create. Companies will eventually start offering products that are not so easy to implement, and money will keep flowing in, while the industry will evolve and become more competitive. Of course, if these companies expect to be selling 20 years from now the same products, they will inevitably disappear. I personally wouldn't want them to survive and make profit out of easy-to-create, obvious, and outdated technology forever.
      --
      diegoT
    2. Re:Profit Making by unixbugs · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you can't make a living or profit from something, then find a new line of work or business.

      The "software" I write is more of a system level interface to various services and how they interact. Managing things like group activity and payroll are done by taking bits and pieces of existing tools and cobbling together what I need along with substantial code of my own to make them interoperate. This is the beauty of OSS development and is something very painful on a closed source platform. The "business model" that is so "flawed" is the people who focus their efforts on large scale one-size fits all application suites like Microsoft.

      That said I just want to point out we have two sides of this coin: application development and implementation. Its always going to take some smart people to implement the application, just as it takes smart people to write them - the difference is on Open Source platforms you have the ability to add as much functionality you need in order to completely change the software to suit your needs. Software developers who do nothing but write code are at the mercy of this kind of organization because eventually someone is going to pick up where they left off and improve upon it, having no more need for the developer.

      In the same sense the implementer or sysadmin IS the developer. This is the way it should be, and this is the kind of "other job" people should be looking for. IMO. Sitting around in a think tank storming up code and features for something someone might need is just asking for it. Welcome to Microsoft.

      Instead, a better approach overall might be to focus on the small tools and modular nature of the systems people need and provide interoperability between those tools. This is how UNIX was proliferant in the beginning and is the key to its success. I like the C language and all but even Torvalds himself once said his favorite "programming" language was bash of all things, and its easy to understand what he meant.

      When you bring a Microsoft rep into your business for consultation and demonstration they eventually tell you how to mold your business to their software. This is counterproductive in many ways, some of which are regarding basic reliability of those individual applications, subsequent support, extensibility, and especially the life expectency of the system. All of these things are dependent on one point of potential failure: Microsoft.

      By much contrast an OSS system provides the business with a completely different albiet more chaotic IT presence, but your well being is not left to that single point of failure. Moreover the bigger picture shows us that your business does not conform to the software, the software conforms to your business. It takes talented individuals to engineer this kind of system. This is the direction I foresee business software systems and job markets moving, and this article and the fact that I have a great job that I love are nothing but direct evidence.

      --
      You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
    3. Re:Profit Making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy is flawed. The air we breathe is not the result of someone's work. Nobody had to spend time creating it and it would exist anyway.

      No kidding. Granted, you wouldn't call it 'someone', but try removing all photosynthesis-based life forms (or, alternately, sunlight) and see how long the air you breathe will exist. You'll last a while, but don't bet on reaching too old an age. Hint: what you need to breathe is diluted Oxygen, within certain concentration limits - and you're by far not the only one needing it; so all that is needed is to lower its partial pressure in air enough so that the corresponding one in your blood is no longer sufficient to keep your brain alive.

    4. Re:Profit Making by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

      Heh. My point was simply that if no-one created it or made it available in some way, no-one can really expect to be paid for it. Expecting to be paid for software, is thus not the same as expecting to be paid for air.

      Unless, of course, these life forms want compensation. = P

      --
      diegoT
    5. Re:Profit Making by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1
      I find rediculous the whole idea that government should intercede in a free market because somebody can't make money from a commodity.
      I know. Look at how much money is made from selling bottled water. That's a commodity if I ever saw one.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:Profit Making by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know. Look at how much money is made from selling bottled water. That's a commodity if I ever saw one.

      It's quite unbelievable really. And the US has to be one of the worst cases. I mean consider how much is made by some major purveyors of bottled water in the US.

      Jedidiah.

    7. Re:Profit Making by julesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what is the solution to their "problem"? Are they going to ban open source software because it drives profit making companies into the ground?

      The solution to their problem is the same approach that I usually propose to all government IT spending: when assessing the options available for any project, an equal but opposite factor to the cost of the project to the government should be the tangible benefit that will be derived by the local economy.

      So, for instance, say we need to equip a department with a file server and twenty workstations, and get a support contract to ensure that they're kept operating. We have a company that's offering to do it with Windows, and will charge $15,000. We have a company that's offering to do it with Linux for $16,000. Both companies are local small businesses. Which one is the best deal for the government? Clearly the Linux company, because they will be keeping a larger volume of the cash. In the case of money that goes to MS, they will have to consider whether it will cause MS to employ more people in their region (unlikely) and what the benefit to MS shareholders in their region will be (small).

    8. Re:Profit Making by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      In a truly free market the prices will always get driven as low as possible.. For software this will be free or close-to..
      The only cost of producing software is a one-off development cost, and this can be offset by reusing code that has already been developed.
      The price of software has been kept artificially high, while hardware has gone down in price massively.. However software has much furthur to fall.
      There will always be things that will have to cost money, because there is an ongoing cost to provide them, hardware may drop to razor thin margins due to competition, but it will never be free due to the raw materials and manufacturing process. Support also will never be free because someone has to physically provide it.
      This is why sun is starting to give their software away for free, while still making money on support services and hardware.. This is also why microsoft is trying to diversify into services (msn etc) since their existing business model is doomed to failure in the long term.

      Selling something (in this case software) at such a hugely inflated price relative to production cost (the initial development costs of most popular software has been recouped many times over already) is tantamount to fraud, and the sooner companies are no longer able to get away with this the better.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Profit Making by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Hey, those trees making the oxygen you're breathing are growing on MY land. My trees made your air. Pay up!

    10. Re:Profit Making by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I can't remember all the details, but it boiled down to the Navy needed a new ship, and they could choose between two shipyards, say Norfolk and Boston. It would be more expensive to build it in Norfolk, but they chose it anyway. Turns out that if they didn't build there, then the shipyard would have to shut down. Then the Navy would only have one operational shipyard for any future projects. It was decided that it would be cheaper to use the more expensive yard in the long run.

      The government often subsidizes US farmers. The thinking is that if they aren't subsidized in bad years, they won't be around in the good years, and eventually everyone will starve.

      Maybe some Chinese officials think likewise.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  3. The proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    This is the missing link in the argumentation that so-called "Free Software" is actually a thinly veiled method of subverting US-America with un-American doctrines. China will use Linux to power its nuclear weapons that will destroy Taiwan.

  4. My fave: "Linux's business model is flawed" by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's hard to argue with success, but claiming Linux's business model is flawed? It isn't like Linux got to where it is today through tied selling (bundling), being subsidized by other business units, government mandates, being sold below the cost of production or anything else which might conceivably be called a flawed business model.

    If this is the spread of a flawed business model with nearly no ad budget, just think how successful it could have been if it had followed the antitrust-attracting model of some well known competitors!

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:My fave: "Linux's business model is flawed" by unixbugs · · Score: 1
      It isn't like Linux got to where it is today through tied selling (bundling), being subsidized by other business units, government mandates, being sold below the cost of production or anything else which might conceivably be called a flawed business model.

      All the major distributions "bundle" software in one way or the other. Look at SuSE, you can install 20 GB of software by default. While this isnt "bundling" in typical context it still has the same taste coming out of your mouth.

      As for corporate support, etc., SuSE is owned by Novell and in the future I wouldn't be a bit suprised to find more and more big companies doing what Novell has done. IBM is no stranger to the community as a whole, but the point is that Linux is just so much bigger than Microsoft from my perspective.

      I am in no way arguing with you, I just wanted to back up what you said about the whole "business model" Linux has. Linux doesn't have one - its very hard to compare this to anything out there because at this point "business models" are independent of what software platform they use until you can crunch the numbers enough to calculate TCO on a per-endeavor basis. Until then, free is free, and the people who can implement free software are peering with those who write closed source in financial terms, the only difference is that companies like Microsoft profit from closed source coders and everyone else profits from shelling out a few bucks to pay someone to implement open source. This just goes back to the nature of Open Source - if you are implementing and need more features just get on IRC and add them like everyone else. If you are implementing closed source software good luck getting Microsoft to add a feature for you since it is illegal to alter their software.

      --
      You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
    2. Re:My fave: "Linux's business model is flawed" by slowbad · · Score: 1
      the spread of a flawed business model with nearly no ad budget

      Going from 95% market share to 80% market share is a great thing if anti-trust laws exist.
      Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank while still maintaining ninety percent of dollar-share.

      The only thing better is if your competition gains no money stealing part of the pie. Oh wait...

    3. Re:My fave: "Linux's business model is flawed" by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      There is a territory that even M$ won't go near. Look at RedFlag Linux. It's got a penguin carrying the communist flag proudly. From the political standpoint, RedFlag is a no brainer. Sure windows can have chinese fonts, but I don't think M$ can go any further than that.

    4. Re:My fave: "Linux's business model is flawed" by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The bundling of suse is very different:
      Suse don't gain anything from bundling lots of third party software, it`s merely done for convenience.
      Suse bundle multiple apps performing the same function, to give users choice, there is nothing to stop someone coming along and offering them additional software.. For instance if they were bundling a browser, they wouldn`t refuse a request from netscape to bundle netscape`s browser aswell.
      Apps bundled with suse can be REMOVED..

      Suse`s bundling is more like what dell does than microsoft. Everything they ship is removeable (tho you may need to do a clean install in the case of dell), and you can go to another vendor if you don`t like it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  5. common business practice by icepick72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lu said Linux and Windows should co-exist (and then you put square brackets around what was inferred ... however this is what I am guessing was inferred) ... [so that Microsoft can get its foot in the door, however MS still doesn't care about Linux.]
    Not every relationship is mutually beneficial. Parsitic relationships are valid relationships too. That's what business has to do to get the foot in the door whether it be Microsoft or somebody else.

  6. In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacific by ozzee · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Steve must be going nuts over this article

    Seriously though, not even Microsft can stop the widespread adoption of Linux and this article is just the beginning.

    Especially when it comes to China and India. These countries have loads of good engineers and they can't be held hotage to someone in Seattle. Microsoft is forced to play nice.

  7. hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I find it funny how every MS topic has a flood of off-topic trolls ranting and raving about the evils of MS, yet nobody does the same in topics about a country like China, that has killed tens of millions of people. If yall REALLY cared about evil in this world, we'd be seeing lots of posts about China's murder of its population. Check out http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.1.GIF for numbers.

    1. Re:hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. Most Slashdotters seem to be antiCapitalist. Therefor they are more than happy to overlook the "excesses" of China. So China is free to murder and enslave its people all it wants to, just so long as they stay Socialist/Communist.

    2. Re:hypocrisy. by rmpotter · · Score: 1

      Yes, given the huge problems in the world, Slashdot's anal focus on Microsoft used to bother me also. But, Slashdot is nothing if not about small things: gadgets, nanobots, lego hacks and crazy conspiracy theories float endlessly down a collective river of desire for free software, free music and free movies. We keep reading because there are occasional flashes of brilliance and once in a while the editors actually post some "Stuff that Matters".

      BTW, the "demoicde" numbers you post are interesting -- and depressing. I don't see the United States listed on the chart though. Seems like killing 240,000 people with nukes during WW2 would count as democide: [ http://www.freep.com/news/nw/hiroshima5e_20050805. htm ]

      --
      Is this sig nificant?
    3. Re:hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People killed during wars are not counted. And the US killed those 240,000 to prevent having to kill the rest of the country. You need to learn some history, every man, woman and child in that country was instructed and trained to kill US troops, it's estimated we would have had to kill almost the entire country without the nukes forcing them into submission by making them realize resistance was useless, definitely like 10 million people would have died without the nukes. So you can call the nukes democide if you like, but the fact is they saved millions of japanese and US lives.

    4. Re:hypocrisy. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And what the grandparent poster also neglected to mention (and most do, because it sounds so much cooler to say that the U.S. is the only country that "nuked" someone, the implication being that we did it irresponsibly just to see the big flash of light and murder a bunch of innocent civilians because we're, you know, like, evil) is that the fire raids leading up to the dropping of Fatman and Littleboy actually caused substantially more devastation and loss of life. I mean, I understand that napalm is a mere "conventional weapon", hardly worth mentioning in comparison to atomic munitions. But when you drop thousands of tons of the stuff on cities built of bamboo and paper ... well. That would have put paid to any ordinary enemy. But the Japanese stood up to the fire raids! After entire square miles of cityscape were leveled, they still wouldn't surrender.

      More recent historians claim that the Japanese diplomats did, in fact, try to surrender before the bombs were dropped but had their entreaties rebuffed. I don't know if that's true or not. If it's not, dropping those weapons was justified, I think. If it was true, if they did try to surrender ... some serious questions should have been asked. But it's hard to second-guess history.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:hypocrisy. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And it's not as though Japan was the only country to get such treatment. How about the residents of Hamburg and Dresden, don't they count?

  8. This *IS* interesting... by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems to me that the issue at hand is not the way F/OSS works, but how China can work F/OSS.

    FTFA: "If China manages to set up a Linux community, it could take advantage of the talents and resources of the global community to better develop and promote Linux and foster top-notch software developers, Lu said."

    While MS has had a good run of dominating the software industry, it would appear that there are those that don't want to play ball with MS, and are looking at ways to go around that little licensing issue.

    Linux can milk a cow, but how do you milk an industry without a licensing scheme that fills your bank account? Is there plans for China to be the next big 'outsourcing' server for software development?

  9. Re:In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacifi by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft have been incredibly slow to realise that Windows can always go back to being what it was when it first got really successful at version 3.1, a GUI. Most people don't know what an OS even is, and wouldn't be aware of any difference (except increased stablility) if what they bought from Microsoft was a GUI for Linux instead of an actual operating system with GUI built in. Taking this approach (albeit with a Unix core) hasn't hurt Apple's OSX.

    AS soon as Microsoft realise this, they can cut their development costs massively, and keep the same sales figures. I have no idea why their shareholders are not demanding this already!

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  10. m$ will have to get rid of the stripped down os by saurabhdutta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    M$ has been aiming at countries like china, thailand, india, brazil etc. with stripped down Win XP. Who on earth would in right minds pay $300 or so in these countries for a full fledged OS when alternatives are available for free. Even pirated copies are sold at every street corner with no watchdog around. M$ seriously needs to rethink its marketing strategy to penetrate these economies and counter growing support for OSS. Maybe a different pricing strategy or leasing out the lisence for a period of time might work.

    1. Re:m$ will have to get rid of the stripped down os by houghi · · Score: 1

      Who on earth would in right minds pay $300 or so in these countries for a full fledged OS when alternatives are available for free.

      That is the same for any other country. I guess the answer is because people are stupid. It reminds me when I was selling cigarets at school. Another person started doing the same for a lower price.

      I then told people that buying cigarets from me was an immage thing and if they bought cigarets from me, people would know they payed more and that would make them look cool. Shut down his business immediatly.

      OK, not a real business if you sell about two cartons a week.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. Doesn't matter yet by LaughingCoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IMO, it is currently very difficult to make a profit selling software (or indeed anything distributed digitally) in the Chinese market. Protections against illicit copying (which is rampant) are rarely enforced, and black-market copies are ubiquitious (this goes for Windows, DVDs, music CDs, other software titles). As China evolves these protections will have to be developed and enforced; they'll need them to protect their own content-creators, not just foreign ones. Only then will it make sense for Microsoft to aggressively pursue the Chinese market. Until then, "co-existing" with Linux is the smart strategy to adopt.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Doesn't matter yet by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      Outside of the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe, copyrights are ignored. Iran has a 99% piracy rate- one person buys one copy and then copies it 1,000,000 times. China's is 94%. There is no vested interest (home-grown industry) into preventing piracy, so the governments don't waste their time and money protecting somebody else's assets.

      Until the rest of the world produces a lot of copyrighted works, piracy will run rampant there.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    2. Re:Doesn't matter yet by B2382F29 · · Score: 1

      [...]has a 99% piracy rate- one person buys one copy and then copies it 1,000,000 times. [...]

      You learned RIAA-math in school?

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    3. Re:Doesn't matter yet by tyler_larson · · Score: 1
      As China evolves these protections will have to be developed and enforced; they'll need them to protect their own content-creators, not just foreign ones.

      That's an interesting opinion. The whole concept of "owning" the content you create is fairly new and, in fact, quite artificial. There really is no pressing need for a country to create any sort of content-protection scheme. If musicians don't get paid for the songs they sing, you may lose the whole celebrity rapper subculture, but the country really isn't any worse off economically.

      In fact, the quality of the content that the country generates does not necesarily have to even decline: sure, you'll lose quantity, bot not necessarily quality. Othe only ones creating content will be the ones who do so for the love of the work they do, rather than those just looking for money.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
    4. Re:Doesn't matter yet by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      People will still make music to be famous (and fame will amount much higher if copies of the songs are available for free) and musicians can still generate revenue from live shows, you can`t pirate a live show and a live performance is a physical job that will always have a price associated with it, unlike mass reproduction of digital media.
      Allowing media to be copied for free while charging for live performances will be a much fairer system..

      Poor kids will be able to have just as large a music collection as the rich kids..
      Artists will have to actually WORK to earn money, instead of sitting on their ass while songs they sung 20 years ago are reproduced endlessly.
      Artists work will have more exposure to the public, and better music will attract more fans who will attend more live shows.
      Poor quality manufactured bands will be less prevelant, as music will be less of a "get rich quick" industry and the poor music will discourage people from attending live shows.. Also there will be far less hype surrounding these manufactured acts.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  12. What's so different here? by totallygeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hell, most of the networks I encounter have Linux and Windows co-existing. Sometimes even interoperating!

    1. Re:What's so different here? by DanteLysin · · Score: 1

      As companies consolidate, they consolidate data centers and IT staff. I continually find more teams supporting both Windows and UNIX/Linux environments. Unless one can completely dominate the other, we'll continue to see different operating systems used by various corporations.

  13. My fave is: buy M$ and make more money. by twitter · · Score: 1
    The government's "excessive preference" for the open-source Linux platform is harming the domestic software industry and Linux's business model is flawed as the low, or no, charge is thwarting the profitability of Linux developers, the CSIA said in the report.

    Yeah, we all know that the best way for China to make more money is to spend gobs of cash on Microsoft. Don't tell Bill that China is robbing him blind that way, he'll have Steve throw a chair at you.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  14. Re:In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacifi by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    It's not that easy. They'd still have to find a way to maintain backwards compatibility with existing Windows applications. And that's not necessarily very easy to do over a system like Linux, as shown by the Wine project. Sure, some apps work, but it's nothing like real Windows. Often times it is more unstable than Windows, and that is unfortunate.

    While they may be able to reduce their development costs on the software underlying the GUI, they'd immediately lose such benefits because they'd need to reimplement much of that functionality over the Linux (or BSD, etc.) kernel.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  15. windows will disapear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think soon enough widows will start to disapear. as more and more people hear about linux i think people will start dropping windows. after all the security flaws alone and constant updates required to keep it "safe" are enough reason to switch. my site (so im not so anonymous)

    1. Re:windows will disapear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. As long as Windows ships with computers as the default operating system, and as long as the same features aimed at the intermediate users in Windows are aimed at the advanced users in Linux, and as long as my Grandmother doesn't know what an Ext3 journaling file system is, Windows will stay on top. Also, my website so I am not anonymous, either.

  16. Re:Look out, Monkey Boy is gonna throw another cha by Saiyine · · Score: 3, Funny


    How do you say "monkey dance" in Chinese?

    Easy: Ballmer dance.

    --
    Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
  17. Capitalism and Communism in the same country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Only in China.

    1. Re:Capitalism and Communism in the same country? by efuzzyone · · Score: 1

      Capitalism for the rich, and members of communist party.

      Communism for the poor and peasants.

      --
      Creativity uninhibited www.kreeti.com
  18. Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by CDPatten · · Score: 0, Troll

    "while Linux is generally regarded as more secure". Ya, just like Firefox is more secure then IE. http://www.symantec.com/press/2005/n050919a.html

    While the author is smart enough not to make the statement definitive ("regarded as"), the implication is clear. Just remember, Firefox was "regarded as" bullet proof until it started gaining market share, and as soon as it did, there came the holes.

    The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux. The fact of the matter is Linux, by all market saturation to security flaw/bug ratios (e.g. bugtraq), is just as vulnerable as Windows and OSX.

    Two exceptions for Windows that don't apply to OSX/Linux is that the Media reports MS holes, and "techies" try to come of age by bashing MS.

    Look at many of the people on Slashdot, some are talented and have some good personal reasons for hating MS, first hand, but most don't. Read the posts and most of it is a bunch entry level guys just out of school trying to sound like they know what they are talking about... they just blanket bash MS with a vengeance. Others spread FUD about MS just as much as MS spreads FUD about Linux. Again, intellectually dishonest.

    Media? Look at Google News, they headline MS holes for weeks, and rarely a mention of Apple's never ending software updates. Linux, well, anyone who uses it knows the answer to that, no press though.

    I'm so tired of people bashing MS just for the sake of it. Admittedly MS isn't perfect, and puts out some crappy products, but not all, and the alternatives aren't all rosy like the Linux/OSX group like to pretend. The reality is MS makes a flawed product, just like OSX, and just like ALL the Linux distros. Get over it.

    Alright, I'm off my soap box. Begin the /. flaming.

    1. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux.

      I'm confused. How do they keep coming up with new kernel versions if no one is hacking Linux? Maybe Linus has switched to using an infinite amount of monkeys rather than kernel hackers.

    2. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by Mongoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the media only reports Windows problems since most people don't even know a server from a copying machine. The market share argument doesn't hold any water -- look at apache, squid, etc. These are servers and are more targetted than simple desktop clients. Why do you think people 'own' Windows desktops? To attack the servers where the real money is controlled! Do I have to trot out the well-known numbers of httpd market share as example?

      Your argument to prop up Window's lack *social responsibility and inter-business policies is akin to saying 'all bridges are basically just as safe as the other'. Generalizations in reguards to comparisions show you didn't dig very deep. I think you can see why I'm underwhelmed by your reasoning. Also Firefox has a much quicker turn around on patching any issues they encounter, and you can't say that Microsoft is anywhere near on par.

      Please try again. ;)

    3. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by arevos · · Score: 3, Informative
      Ya, just like Firefox is more secure then IE.

      As of writing, Internet Explorer 6 has 20 unpatched vulnerabilies, one or more of which are marked as highly critical. Firefox has 3 vulnerabilities, with one or more marked as less critical. So yes, Firefox is more secure than IE.

      The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux.

      I would not rate a 30-40% webserver marketshare as 'incredibly tiny', and yet Red Hat, the most popular Linux distribution for servers has 0 unpatched vulnerabilities whilst Windows Server 2003 suffers from 8 unpatched vulnerabilities and Windows XP Professional suffers from a full 26 vulnerabilities one or more of which are marked as as highly critical.

      How can claim that Linux is less secure than Windows, when it has less unpatched vulnerabilities?

    4. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1

      The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux. The fact of the matter is Linux, by all market saturation to security flaw/bug ratios (e.g. bugtraq), is just as vulnerable as Windows and OSX.


      Your statement is just as groundless as the ones you're ridiculing... Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do have a reliable study that proves this? In that case, please give us some references.


    5. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Do I have to trot out the well-known numbers of httpd market share as example?

      Please no. That non sequitur has already been debunked too many times. No reason bringing up an invalid example yet again.

    6. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      I would not rate a 30-40% webserver marketshare as 'incredibly tiny', and yet Red Hat, the most popular Linux distribution for servers has 0 unpatched vulnerabilities whilst Windows Server 2003 suffers from 8 unpatched vulnerabilities and Windows XP Professional suffers from a full 26 vulnerabilities one or more of which are marked as as highly critical.

      Just wondering... how can Red Hat have no vulnerabilities, when the 2.6 linux kernel alone has 15 unpatched vulnerabilities?

      Perhaps you don't understand how to read those pages?

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    7. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by burnin1965 · · Score: 1
      Perhaps I am getting the wrong impression, but it seems you are implying that the article lacks "Intellectual Honesty" and yet you yourself point out that it clearly states in the article that linux is "regarded as" more secure.

      Your implication and the article seem to be in contradiction. Anyhow, since you brought up the issue I'd like to point out a few flaws in your arguement:

      Firefox was "regarded as" bullet proof until it started gaining market share, and as soon as it did, there came the holes.

      I think there is some truth the to bullet proof remark as many people assumed there would be no holes in Firefox because they had not seen continual bug reports like they had seen for the Intenet Explorer counter part. However, I think there is still some justification to the perception of a more secure product from the mozilla foundation than from Microsoft. I am basing this opinion off the statistics at secunia.com:

      Internet Explorer stats
      http://secunia.com/product/11/

      Fire Fox stats
      http://secunia.com/product/4227/

      Pay close attention to the statistics charts and you can draw the following conclusions:
      1) The rate at which bugs are found in the two applications is very nearly the same. On average about 2 per month for each application.

      2) Internet Explorer tends to have more bugs which are unpatched or partialy fixed. Fire Fox is much better at patching.

      3) The severity of the bugs found in Internet Explorer tend to be much higher than those of Fire Fox. The bugs in Internet Explorer are more than 3 times likely to be of extreme severity when compared to Fire Fox.

      4) And more of the bugs found in Internet Explorer tend to give system access when exploited than Fire Fox bugs.

      So the perception that Fire Fox is more secure than Internet Explorer is justified. But bullet proof, far from it.

      The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux.

      Somehow I doubt that most of the hackers out there do what they do to make money. But I'm more concerned with you "incredibly tiny" market share theory. Perhaps in desktops the linux market share is small, however, there are a significant number of linux servers out there especially in the web server space. I tried searching for data but the only thing I could find was some old 2001 data from a Netcraft survey.

      http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200106.html

      But based on that survey in June of 2001 there were about 8.5 million linux web servers alone. That is 29% of the market. And if the market share numbers are the same today that number is over 21 million. So I'd say there are plenty of linux boxes just waiting to be hacked.

      And interestingly, when you compare the secunia reports for similar products, Windows 2003 Web Server and Red Hat Enterprise AS 3, you find similar results to the web browsers:

      Windows 2003 Web Server
      http://secunia.com/product/1176/

      Red Hat Enterprise AS 3
      http://secunia.com/product/2534/

      One may look at the number of reported vulnerabilities and say ooh open source security sucks, but then when you dig a little deeper you see that on average Windows security bugs are patched slower, the severity is greater, and they are more likely to provide system access if exploited.

      Others spread FUD about MS just as much as MS spreads FUD about Linux.

      I'd say its rather dishonest to put some Slashdot poster FUD on the same level as the expensive marketing campaigns used by Microsoft to spread FUD. Not quite the same thing. And besides, could you give some examples of non-blog/message board FUD spread about Mic

    8. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      RedHat doesn't use a stock kernel.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    9. Re:Lack of Intellectual Honesty. by arevos · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you don't understand how to read those pages?

      Pray tell, how would you read this:

      The Secunia database currently contains 0 Secunia advisories marked as "Unpatched", which affects RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 4.

      Personally, from this I conclude that Secunia know of no unpatched vulnerabilities in RedHat Enterprise Linux, but clearly there's a hidden meaning! Perhaps you could decipher this message for me?

      Just wondering... how can Red Hat have no vulnerabilities, when the 2.6 linux kernel alone has 15 unpatched vulnerabilities?

      Because RedHat don't use the stock 2.6 kernel. No major distribution does.

  19. 3 cheers for irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For users, openness increases the trustworthiness,' said Lu a former agent of one of the most secretive and repressive governments on earth....

  20. Re:In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacifi by belmolis · · Score: 1

    I don't think that Microsoft would have as hard a time turning MS Windows into a GUI on top of Linux as the WINE project has. Microsoft has a better knowledge of what the MS Windows API is. The WINE folks have to reverse engineer part of it.

  21. Re:Wha? by justsomebody · · Score: 1

    Even more...

    My first assumtion before RTFA

    Yeah, Rob Enderle (aka. MS payed public (dis)figure) is a new viral plague.

    It sounds like any MS battle plan:
    1. Prepare for the holy war
    2. Kill and screw anything and everything by disregarding any moral issue or humanity
    3. In case you find your self on a loosing ground start runing and franticaly screaming "NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR..."

    After RTFA

    My thesis completely fails here because of "Lu Shouqun, president of the China Open Source Software Promotion Union."

    ?? If I would only know where this world is going :?
    ??? And next week, pope preaching about safe usage of nuclear bombs in terrorism and how baptizing people before killing them is a thing to do, a show entitled "who cares for Geneva convention if you have to kill, at least do it properly! says your favorite pope"

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  22. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true that Microsoft and Linux is and will be coexisting in China.
    Promoting Linux does not mean eliminate Microsoft. :)

    --
    Open source, open-minded.

  23. Microsoft & Linux Should Co-Exist In China by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    They should coexist everywhere. Just as with any other useage the proper tool should be used. For most people, who don't care to learn that much about an operating system Windows is a fair tool, it's relatively easy to install the OS, install applications, and use (though the Mac beats Windows in ease of use and installing apps). Linux, although getting better, isn't easy to the average person to use. However unlike Windows Linux is stable and doesn't crash nearly as much.

    Falcon
    1. Re:Microsoft & Linux Should Co-Exist In China by islanduniverse · · Score: 1

      What sort of computer are you using? I am currently running Windows XP Pro with SP2 with no problems whatsoever. Yes, it is definately worth using the product that is best suited for what is necessary, but the thing is (as other people here will agree with), what is the point of targeting the minority product ? When firefox was first released, it was declared rock-solid. Now it is being used by a wider audience, they are discovering more 'holes'. (Anyone know of the status of Opera on security?)

    2. Re:Microsoft & Linux Should Co-Exist In China by Lifewish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, I'm on Ubuntu Linux and I can honestly say that OS and application installation is trivial. Both operating systems have moved on from the historical stereotype portrayed in the grandparent.

      If I were going to compare negative features these days, I'd point to Linux's lack of standardisation (binary compatibility and gui toolkits being the most annoying) and Windows' lack of command line control. A decent implementation of kill -9 would be almost enough to get me using Windows; a consistent user experience would be almost enough to make me swear off anything other than Linux forever.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  24. china should.... by KillShill · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    run the hell away from windows and microsoft if they know what's good for them.

    there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to use windows unless you have a very specific reason and no other way of fulfulling that requirement.

    in other words, NO.

    why get tangled up in the MS web unless your life and livelihood were at stake?

    proprietary software in general and the spyware infested (direct from redmond, not the 3rd party garbage from greedy scumbags) windows is terrible for the computing world.

    if you're a gamer like i am, then i feel sorry for you as well. having to use garbage like windows to run your entertainment. i only wish for WINE or ReactOS to mature more quickly so that i and other gamers can ditch Genuine windows for something that isn't associated with this bugging device desguised as an OS.

    --
    Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
  25. Concerns about security more than bugs by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The 2003 Chinese directive that government ministries must use exclusively locally developed or open source software was not just based on perceived better code quality or cost. The Chinese authorities at the time (and probably still now) were very concerned about possible backdoors for US security agencies in US closed source products. IMHO, their concerns have some merit. A Google search for "Lew Giles" is interesting.

  26. Re:In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What backward compatibility? As any virus so eloquently demonstrates, a Windows vulnerability is not only backward compatible but also future compatible.

  27. Chinese oil by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The US gets first "dibs" on international oil. China doesn't have any oil of its own outside of small deposits like the South China Sea.

    Ah but China has trouble with some of that oil, Viet Nam has claims on some of it as well.

    Falcon
  28. How can we move to China? by elucido · · Score: 1

    If America is such trash and the jobs are all going to China, how can we all move to China? What the hell are us programmers and engineers going to do for a living? Buy stock?

  29. I'd agree, but... by petrus4 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The problem is that the GNU trolls are likely to be just as opposed to co-existence on Linux's side of the fence as Microsoft are.

    People continue making out that Microsoft is always the sole bad guy in any such argument...but the truth is that there are a lot of people associated with Linux who don't appreciate diversity of opinion, either. The GNU crowd want just as much a monoculture of their own as Microsoft does. Try advocating the use of *any* other license to a GNU zealot sometime and watch what happens, if you don't believe me.

    1. Re:I'd agree, but... by MarkByers · · Score: 1

      the truth is that there are a lot of people associated with Linux who don't appreciate diversity of opinion, either.

      Linux is all about diversity. Just look at how many Linux distros there are.

      --
      I'll probably be modded down for this...
    2. Re:I'd agree, but... by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      To the aforementioned GNU trolls among the moderators:- Your character (or lack thereof) is really showing here, guys. I might have expected to get modded Flamebait or Troll, but Offtopic? The parent was in no way Offtopic, and you moderating it such is a blatant display of your percieved need to squelch dissent where GNU or the GPL is concerned, at any cost.

      What do you find so threatening? The fact that, deep down, somewhere within your mostly vacant little minds, maybe, just maybe, you realise that I actually am right? ;-)

  30. Chinese Officials are funny, or maybe divided by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    openness increases the trustworthiness

    It's teh communism!

    1. Re:Chinese Officials are funny, or maybe divided by malelder · · Score: 1

      'For users, openness increases the trustworthiness,' said Lu."

      yeah, that struck me as a pretty funny line too (; Maybe coming from anyone except the Chinese, I'd buy it.

      --


      Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
  31. In a global economy we need a global workforce by elucido · · Score: 1

    What about workers? Will workers have the ability to move back and forth? Will telecommuting make it so that workers all over the world can keep or find a job?

    The idea of having an expanded workforce is good, but we need to find ways to efficiently put these workers and markets to use. We need to be profiting for a reason other than for profits sake, what are our goals?

    1. Re:In a global economy we need a global workforce by fastgood · · Score: 1
      What about workers? Will workers have the ability to move back and forth?

      Cheap labor versus cheap O/S -- why would a demographic group offering services that are
      10x cheaper *not* want to go with an operating system that is at least 10x cheaper up-front?

      Although in 4000 years, the free alternatives for sex hasn't put street hookers out of business.

    2. Re:In a global economy we need a global workforce by cnettel · · Score: 2, Funny
      Although in 4000 years, the free alternatives for sex hasn't put street hookers out of business.

      A full analysis of the TCO will tell you why.

  32. Article summary by pjrc · · Score: 3, Informative
    For anyone who didn't bother to read the Embattled Linux Fights Back article, here's roughly what you missed:

    Lu Shouqun, leader of a Linux advocacy group believes the Chineese govt should make more use of Linux and open source.

    The CSIA (an industry group, likely funded in part by Microsoft) claims (in a "report") the govt preference for open source is harming the software business.

    Lu says open source is high quality, low cost, and can coexist with Microsoft, openness is good. Lu cites (but no actual citation info is given, no link, no name, no exact quote, no date, nothing) that someone at Microsoft said Linux and Windows should co-exist.

    CSIA says GPL destroys profitability. Lu says they misunderstand the GPL, admits China linux businesses are unprofitable, and claims that community and international collaboration is needed.

    CSIA spews FUD... patents might destroy linux. Lu replies that proprietary software faces more patent risks.

    Lu says community in China is needed.

    .

    The other article is pretty much the same thing rehashed and edited down a little.

    Pretty much more of the same. Linux/open source/free software advocates say one thing, Microsoft shills say the opposite.

    1. Re:Article summary by westlake · · Score: 1
      The CSIA (an industry group, likely funded in part by Microsoft)

      Whwn China joied the WTO, Microsoft was the first foreign corporation invited into the CSIA.

  33. Apple? by Legodude522 · · Score: 0

    Apple would be the liberal rebels against the state led by their leader Chi Jobs.

    --
    Because I have low karma, I need pills.
  34. China will never be America by elucido · · Score: 1

    America is successful because it accepted all of the best people in the world. China is not welcoming immigration, in fact China is xenophobic about foreigners at this time. China may accept you in, but doing business in China is like going to war on their turf.

    So when the Chinese economy is built, will China accept American workers in the same way America accepted Chinese workers? If China is about to become the new America isnt it time that we think about moving there?

    1. Re:China will never be America by tsa · · Score: 1

      They don't need foreign people; they have enough people of their own.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:China will never be America by elucido · · Score: 1

      Yeah and what about our people?

  35. A little backwards by Hershmire · · Score: 1

    Does anybody else notice how silly it is to suggest true competition between the two should take place in a communist country?

    --
    if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll); //Stupid roommates.
    1. Re:A little backwards by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1

      Well, fair competition between the two hasn't happened in capitalist countries so far, so I guess this is worth a try...

  36. Even if its true by elucido · · Score: 0, Troll

    We need a plan. First, we need a free workforce. Our workers need to be free to work anywhere in the world, whereever there are job, and this means China needs to open its borders and we need to open up the immigration process.

    The problem with things as they are now, China is going to kick all ass and look, if you hate America just come out and admit it, because China kicking ass is BAD for America and American workers UNLESS we allow our workers to globalize along with the economy.

    Finally we need a goal, if we are going to boost up China's economy so we can profit, fine, lets do it but lets also profit from it because right now China is keeping all the profits in China and making us buy stuff from them. It looks like we are being suckered into just giving them all our wealth.

    Finally, if we are going to build up China, what about the rest of the third world? Shouldnt we learn from our mistakes with China? What is the plan to globalize the world and what are the goals? This has to be more than just about profit.

  37. Obvious answer? by adolfojp · · Score: 0

    I believe that there is a right tool for each job.

    Linux is great but Windows will still be needed for running apps like those from Adobe-Macromedia. Of course, you could also use Macs but those can be expensive.

    Cheers,
    Adolfo

    PS. No, Gimp and Inkspace don't cut it. Yes, there will be other apps that Linux wont be able to run.

    1. Re:Obvious answer? by 0xC2 · · Score: 1

      It's called Inkscape. Fairly familiar with the program, are you?

      --
      Be heard || Be herd
    2. Re:Obvious answer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A little on slow side are we? Adobe and Macromedia are western companies, they dont want to buy their software either. They will develop their own solutions to these tools also.

    3. Re:Obvious answer? by Hosiah · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea. How about we shut all the Adobe-Macromedia zealots out of the whole conversation? The whole world does not revolve around Adobe-Macromedia and you A-M zealots absolutely never miss an opportunity to try to turn everything into a Gimp-vs-Adobe flamewar, even things that have nothing to do with it at all. I'm starting to think that Adobe is just as bad as Microsoft.

  38. Ballmer flip-out, take two. by GhaleonStrife · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ballmer: "I'm going to F***ing kill China!"

  39. Independence Day Transcript by tektek · · Score: 1

    Linux: Can we negotiate a truce? is there room for co-existance?
    [...]
    Can there be peace between us?

    Miscrosoft (with alien voice): Peace? No peace.

    Linux: What is it you want us to do?

    Microsoft (with alien voice): Die.

  40. How do you say "monkey dance" in Chinese? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Mandrin: hóu wû
    Cantonese: haùh móuh

    Falcon
  41. If investing is the new American workforce by elucido · · Score: 1

    Shouldnt we be microfinancing in Africa about now?

    As much as I support investment, why should we put all our eggs into the Chinese basket? Yes Linux should be spread to the third world, and yes there will be new markets in the third world 40-50 years from now, but why is China the central focus?

    We should be spreading linux everywhere and investing everywhere we can, basically if a country is not at war and has a growing economy we should invest. Microfinancing would allow average citizens to invest in the third world and profit in the same way that billionaires are investing in China.

    Show me a mutual fund which we workers can use to microfinance the third world. Use this chance to give us an education on microfinancing, because China for most of us is just too risky of an environment to invest, and too competitive.
    Linux is one thing because its easy to spread linux, but to invest and get your money back in a market like China's, you are going to have some problems.

  42. Distrust Of The West by Weedlekin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder how much of the Chinese determination to use open source, develop their own microprocessors, and generally make moves towards implementing an internally self-sustaining IT infrastructure may be driven by a profound distrust of Western governments and companies. After all, both have treated China pretty badly in the past, and they probably feel that we only allow them to trade with us today if they play by rules which benefit us far more than them. Add to this the fact that the US in particular has displayed a penchant for suddenly prohibiting the sale of certain technologies to countries that it doesn't like, and you have a set of very good reasons why the idea of not becoming dependent on Microsoft, Intel, or any other Western company could look very attractive to them.

    It is also likely that they are telling the truth about Linux' better security being a key feature for them. Totalitarian regimes are invariably paranoid, and even if MS could prove that the versions of Windows being sold in China haven't got back doors that the US government can use to spy on them, the fact that it is rife with keyloggers, bots, etc. is pretty good evidence that the CIA or similar could infect their systems with spying software quite easily. Far safer then to use not only an OS with a pretty good security track record in its own right, but also one with source code that they can examine for freedom from back doors, and modify with their own specialised security features if they want.

    Read up on the history of Sino-Western relations over the last couple of centuries, and then ask yourselves one question: if you were them, would you trust us not to totally fuck them over if there was a buck in it somewhere?

    --
    I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    1. Re:Distrust Of The West by SleeknStealthy · · Score: 1

      If I were China I would truly distrust the west especially since I was benefitting of the United States alone by a $160 Billion dollar trade deficit. I would say Chinese dumping policy, lack of IP protection and human rights violations to their own citizens should be enough for the west not to trust them at all. It's amazing what cheap labor, lack of choice and a pegged currency can do to help a country exploit the worlds industry. my 2cents

      --
      Math
  43. Look, I'm not against building new markets BUT by elucido · · Score: 1

    Let's have a plan. What is the plan? Give all our money to China? Why? Oh I know!
    The national debt!

    Look, if we have to pay China back this way to make up for our debts to China, then fine, we should at least admit that we are paying what we owe. Otherwise we make our workers into suckers and our investors get to lose their money.

  44. You're a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Average GDP at Purchasing Power Parity per capita in the People's Republic of China - 6193$

    Oh yeah, they're just ROLLING in disposable income.

    Keep sucking communist cock, comrade. Maybe one day it'll pay off, but not today.

  45. Linux is for APOSTATES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Faithful know what must be done.

    Praise Allah!

  46. What sort of computer are you using? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Currently I'm using an HP with Windows ME. I use it mostly at home and it's the newest I have, I got it in 2000 or 2001. To my left I have a Power Mac 7300/200 I got used at about the same tyme. And to my right I have a Microway DEC Alpha running both Windows NT 4.0 and Linux I got in 1997. However I haven't even booted up either the Mac or the Alpha in more than a year. For my next computter I plan on getting a Mac Powerbook, probably in January or February.

    When firefox was first released, it was declared rock-solid. Now it is being used by a wider audience, they are discovering more 'holes'. (Anyone know of the status of Opera on security?)

    Nothing should ever be declared "rock-solid" in security. Given enough tyme more than likely someone will break it. As for the status of Opera I don't know. Years ago I used it but I haven't in since about 2000. I've got the new version but haven't gotten around to installing it. Though I'm not using it right now I have both Firefox and Netscape 8 installed, right now I'm using Netscape 7. Occasionally I use IE 5.5, but mostly to save a webpage. I can use Netscape and Firefox for this but when I save using IE IE inserts the url of the webpage being saved whereas neither Firefox nor Netscape does. Sure I can open the page once saved and insert the url into it but why go through the extra steps, and yes I save a lot of webpages. For a previous reply I made I opened a page with special charactors I had saved so I could see how to type different accents.

    Falcon
    1. Re: What sort of computer are you using? by superflyguy · · Score: 1

      When firefox was first released, it was declared rock-solid. Now it is being used by a wider audience, they are discovering more 'holes'. (Anyone know of the status of Opera on security?)

      Nothing should ever be declared "rock-solid" in security. Given enough tyme more than likely someone will break it.


      No, the problem is not in calling something in security "rock-solid." The problem is that people have a tendancy to overestimate how solid rock actually is. Given enough people trying to break a rock, several of them will eventually succeed. Depending on the type of rock, it may also have holes in it. Even diamonds can be destroyed if you have other diamonds to spend time grinding away at them with.

  47. Irrelevant by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whether China has "killed tens of millions of people" in the past is not relevant to a discussion about Linux being adopted there today. You must be new here if you haven't realised that Slashdot is a site for technology and IT news; if you want to discuss politics or history there are plenty of other sites for that. It is off-topic here.

    As for ranting about the evils of MS, the ethics of MS are entirely relevant to a discussion like this because we are talking about business deals between Chinese entities and MS. The alleged evils of MS *are* in its business dealings. OTOH alleged human rights abuses by China have no bearing on its adoption of Linux because no-one in the west, no blockade, could prevent that adoption - all China needs is one DVD copy or one phone connection to the rest of the world to download it and start distributing it anyway.

    If you have an issue with China, why not approach MS youself to persuade them not to do business there? The very fact that you and others might succeed is one of the good reasons why China wants to adopt Linux.

    1. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In the past"? China still kills 1 million people a year according to orginizations like amnesty, how is it "in the past"? Because it was not all done this instant? Absurd. And your excuses don't wash, people are fanatically anti-MS and even topics like MS giving away money or equipment manage to get dozens and dozens of virulent, violently anti-MS posts. Sorry it's nothing but hipocrasy from a bunch of small minded people. They want to act like they are a force of good instead of being a force of good. MS has killed no one and gets way more hate then the most prolific mass murderers of the modern age (the soviets, though #1 in the graph I linked to, are no longer mass murderers). It just shows how shallow and empty the anti-MS movement is, really..

  48. Embattled Linux by Ranger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that a new distribution?

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  49. A Google search for "Lew Giles" is interesting. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I did google "Lew Giles" and nothing came up. AltaVista however came up with 55, Mooter came up with 13, and Teoma came up with 72.

    Falcon
    1. Re:A Google search for "Lew Giles" is interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously did something wrong... Lew Giles

  50. Re:In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacifi by spectecjr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Microsoft have been incredibly slow to realise that Windows can always go back to being what it was when it first got really successful at version 3.1, a GUI. Most people don't know what an OS even is, and wouldn't be aware of any difference (except increased stablility) if what they bought from Microsoft was a GUI for Linux instead of an actual operating system with GUI built in. Taking this approach (albeit with a Unix core) hasn't hurt Apple's OSX.

    What would the point of that be precisely? The NT kernel is better than the Linux kernel anyway.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  51. Bang bang you lose, round eye! by FishandChips · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sure looks as if Microsoft is faced with a lose-lose in China and most likely the other major developing powers. Essentially it boils down to the fact that those powers use piracy as a political tool. The argument is really "Let us use Windows on a pirated basis, or at least a token-cost basis, until our economies are stronger otherwise we will take up Linux en masse and you will lose this huge market forever." What is left unsaid is that as soon as their economies are stronger, these powers will take up Linux or something else en masse anyway. They are never going to make themselves dependent on a US corporation. In the meantime, Microsoft is left doing darn near give-away deals (as in Indonesia) or issuing dinky cutdown editions for these markets that fool no one.

    Perhaps what we are really seeing is the beginning of a Microsoft withdrawal from swathes of the world that will accelerate in the years ahead. Microsoft's bastions are North America and Europe. The colony in China turned out to an expensive venture that led nowhere. The locals had other plans. They decided to produce not merely their own software but their own computers too.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  52. Tell it to Microsoft by Cyno · · Score: 1

    They're the ones with all the patents and lawyers and restrictive EULAs.

  53. Ah yes.... by Chiisu · · Score: 1

    An open-source OS adopted by a Communist government /sing w/ me, ironyyyyyyyyy

  54. Re:In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacifi by Physics+Nobody · · Score: 1

    "These countries have loads of good engineers and they can't be held hotage to someone in Seattle."

    As a resident of Seattle I can assure you that there isn't nearly enough hotage here.

    --

    Physics is good

  55. Ob. Bash quote by khedron+the+jester · · Score: 0

    Japan, China and South Korea team up to plan an operating system to rival Microsoft Windows.
      man i can't wait to try Rindows

  56. Great Thought! by rlp · · Score: 1

    "openness increases the trustworthiness, said Lu."

    Might want to mention that to your government, Mr. Lu. On second thought, you might want to wait till you're out of the country before you mention that to your government.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  57. correction by cosminn · · Score: 0

    Citing an executive at Microsoft headquarters, Lu said when it comes to China, Linux and Windows should co-exist

    However, the US should remain M$-only.

    This is so much f***ing crap. When M$ controls things, it's all good, Linux is communism, OpenDocument is inferior to .doc, people should change their HTML to make it work with IE because IE is a core component of Windows, and Windows and ONLY Windows should be on a PC.

    The moment some gov entity kicks M$ out the door, they start acting as victims.

    I'd love to see at least a day when, accessing a site through a Windows machine with IE will have a pop-up that will say something like:

    We detect you are using "MSIE 7.1 Internet Explorer 7/WindowsVista". Due to standards non-compliance, this browser is not supported. By clicking OK some pages might not render properly. Please use a standards compliant browser:

    Link-to-Mozilla
    Link-to-Firefox
    Link-to-Opera ...

    Then I want to see Bill advise webmasters to change their pages to render properly with his shitty browser.

  58. Linux & Microsoft in China by john666seven · · Score: 1

    Yes, they can CO-Exist, however, China is a communist country and one of the few where those ideas work for the most part. Therefore providing a free operating system for the people is the way that they will eventually g0----with Microsoft mostly for the new crowd that is in business for themselves and doing business for the US and Canada--like programming for Microsoft. I would like to point out that not all programs for Linux are free. If you don't want a canned program, you have to pay the programmers, so people DO GET PAID.

    --
    John W....
  59. It does matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    5 years ago this was true... Then, nobody cared about Linux because Windows was 'free'. With the help of the US Government, Microsoft pressured China to start enforcing copyrights. Suddenly Windows isn't free anymore, and now China is running Linux.

    1. Re:It does matter... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so the only reason Linux is adopted because it is free? If Windows were free, everyone would use it? Those are dangerous things to say 'round these parts.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  60. Coexist? Not likely by diogenes57 · · Score: 1

    In China 99.9999% of computers run Windows.
    99.999% of them run pirated Windows.
    Why would the Chinese switch to a free OS (as in FOSS) when, to them, Windows is also free (as in pirated)?
    It would take MS enforcing their licensing to cause a change so great as that. And what are the chances of that when MS knows they will still make money on all of their other products that are too difficult to pirate, secure, or install without MS's help? They will turn a blind eye to the nearly 100% pirated desktop OS when the companies that use the desktops must pay for their servers, etc. And when the Chinese government itself is using pirated Windows, good luck trying to stop the average person.

  61. Linux gets attacked all the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is BS. Linux does get attacked. Mostly by ssh password-guessing, but also by holes in various web apps. So obviously someone takes the time to hack Linux boxes.

    However the fact that people usually resort to password-guessing attacks to attack Linux does say a lot about the overall security of the system. If there were an easier way to break in, I'm sure they would not waste their time guessing passwords.

  62. paradox by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 0

    Microsoft and Linux co-existing and mysterious black hole phenomena (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/ 23/1729214&tid=160&tid=14) showing up on the radar in the same week? Do we see a connection? I think the universe isn't prepared for that kind of paradox...

  63. There Is No China Market by grcumb · · Score: 1

    GP: "Once the Chinese market has matured, investors will think of American and the EU as they today think of Luxembourg and Jamaica."

    Parent: "Extremely unlikely."

    Agreed, but not for the same reasons you offer. Every time I see people writing about the 'China Market', I want to repeat the words a friend of mine (and professional China expert) said to me:

    There Is No China Market

    The China Market is a fiction. It is a fanciful conception of how market forces can be imposed on China, promoted by wild-eyed capitalists trying to find the next Gold Rush. The government of China does nothing to dissuade them, because it has the salutary effect of causing major corporate leaders to fawn over them, bestowing loss leader after loss leader in vain pursuit of the billion-plus imaginary 'consumers' that await them if they can only get into the proper, er, position.

    Before anyone attempts to slap me with their Invisible Hand, I'd recommend the position of power from which the Chinese government - and in particular the People's Liberation Army, which is the largest property owner in China - negotiates:

    • Microsoft has willingly exposed its crown jewel - the Windows XP code base - to the government in order to allay their fears about security. To my knowledge, this privilege has never been extended to any other party, ever.
    • Microsoft, Yahoo! and even Google have been willing to breach basic human rights in order to be allowed to do business there. The choices that the government is offering consist, in effect, of 'my way or the highway'. There are few other countries who succeed with this kind of gambit, usually because there's always someone more brib^H^H^H^Hbiddable a few doors down. This is emphatically not the case in China. You bribe who they tell you to bribe and no one else, if you know what's good for you.
    • In almost every commercial agreement that China negotiates, there are conditions that require the emplyment and training of local staff to deliver and maintain the product. This is common in many countries, but never so well enforced as in China. One large telecom that I worked for was not allowed to touch their switches once they'd been installed.

    The thing that people forget about China is that this is not an emerging nation. It has a very long history, and has dealt with the issues of governing a huge populace for longer than just about any other nation. The Chinese take a long view of things and they are just as ruthless in business as they are in government.

    There is a reason that China has always been known to the Chinese as the Middle Kingdom. If they decide to trade with barbarians now and then, that's all well and good. But don't for a moment think they can't stop whenever they like.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  64. Re:Look out, Monkey Boy is gonna throw another cha by ThesQuid · · Score: 1

    hou zi tiao wu

  65. Take ten steps back; look at the BIG picture by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    You folks talking about Linux as if it were another corporation with a CEO and a board of directors...we must not forget a very important factor: Linux is you. Linux is me. Linux is every programmer who has lived and every programmer who is yet to be born. The licensing makes it belong to everybody at the same time. True, corporations like Red Hat, you are not them. But Red Hat is only a teeny part of Linux, what some people came along and decided to do with Linux just like any of the rest of us could do.

    Now, then: What is "our" best strategy? Do we want to see our software continue to improve and be freely available to everyone else as it was to us? Or do we want to give up, all of us give control of the world's computers to a few guys in suits to own forever, while we pay them for the priviledge of being enslaved? OK, not to prolong the straw-man's agony another minute - the public has already shown that it prefers to own and control it's own software, given the choice. It doesn't matter that the choice isn't unanimous - somebody else's decision to keep software free for all gives *you* the right to own and control a piece of it - whether you choose to depart from paid corporateware or not. If you don't pick Linux this year, it will be here next year to pick again. It can't go bankrupt because it doesn't live on money, so refusing to buy it cannot kill it.

    That's the problem that MS is having. They're armed to fight lions and tigers and - dragons (oh no!) unaware that a bacteria is coursing through their veins, defeating them from the inside out. The truth is, Linux belongs to Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, too. So it belongs to everyone who works under them. It even belongs to real dickheads. But nobody can take it away from anybody else. How do you defeat air? or a cloud? or a dream? Linux is just that immaterial.

    So it's silly to say what's in Linux's best interest. Linux doesn't have one. It is just an element. A corporation, on the other hand, is either making money and "alive" or not making any money and "dead". Since, unlike Linux, it *can* be killed, *it* has to worry what a best strategy is. In *their* best interest - is it better to spend the last fibre of your being trying to defeat something that can never go away? Or better to adjust to this new element and live peacefully with it - perhaps even support it?

    1. Re:Take ten steps back; look at the BIG picture by S_M.Merchant · · Score: 1

      Very well said, best argument in this thread. I agree 100% with you thoughts on what Linux represents in the world of OS's. Thank you for your thoughts.

  66. "For users ..." by hisstory+student · · Score: 1

    'For users, openness increases the trustworthiness,' said Lu.

    That's certainly self incriminating, isn't it.

    --
    Heard any good sigs lately?
  67. Re: an amusing simpsons by mholt108 · · Score: 1

    Ya - it just reminded me of a simpsons episode they ran again last nite in sydney .. where France sends a neutron bomb to springfield with an "intel inside" sticker on the nosecone...hee hee .. how do you spell intel inside in chinamaneses

  68. Re:In the news: Ballmer Throws Chair Across Pacifi by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Microsoft have been incredibly slow to realise that Windows can always go back to being what it was when it first got really successful at version 3.1, a GUI.

    That's because Microsoft didn't become spectacularly successful by marketing a extraordinary GUI that everyone wanted. Their 'success' hinged on a stranglehold on the channel and then locking out the competition.

    There's no way for them to go back to that situation.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  69. Absurd. Take an Economics Class. by CDPatten · · Score: 1

    I read your post and I think it is rated at 1 for good reason. You don't offer and evidence to support your point "There Is No China Market". You talk about injustices, but nothing that has to do with the size or existence of the Chinese market. Frankly your post is incredibly flawed at so many levels I really can't address them all in a post. I'll try to just highlight the absurdity of your statement.

    You are incredibly short sited to think that 1 billion people don't represent an enormous potential for revenue. They are in fact an enormous MARKET that is growing at staggering rates. China is what the world refers to as a developing nation. They are not quite the level of the US or Britain, but they are far from Zimbabwe.

    Here are two definitions for market (China fits them perfectly):
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=market

    "A geographic region considered as a place for sales: grain for the foreign market; the West Coast market"

    "The opportunity to buy or sell; extent of demand for merchandise: a big market for gourmet foods."

    Now to one of your most ridiculous points; Red China requiring Chinese trained employees at China based offices doesn't mean Google, Yahoo, or MSN can't make money. It means that China is investing in their people and developing their nation. It's smart. For both China and Businesses that want to make money in China. The more money the Chinese people have, the more they spend/buy, and the larger the market becomes. Many people also believe this is what will lead to the downfall of the Red Party, but that is an entirely new topic.

    Just because all of the Chinese don't drive BMW's that doesn't mean the Chinese don't buy things. They do. and they also buy lots of things on the internet. They have a higher percentage of broadband users then the US. Now follow this tricky train of thought... those people see click ads, and click on them! Guess what that is. Revenue! In the Chinese Market! It didn't matter that Chinese workers worked at the datacenters hosting Google or MSN's websites. Google and MSN still make a profit off of the clicks.

    Now as far as the questionable things those companies do for china... I tend to agree they are morally wrong. However getting in at the ground floor offers amazing potential for MS, Google, and Yahoo. They have the opportunity to shape the impressions of a billion people. Create brand recognition for generations. There is lots of money to be made.

    The Chinese government (to date) is not in the business of building search engines (really no software at all for that matter). That is why they allow US companies to provide those services. They do have some rules, but it's still a profitable business for the big three. The profit margins will grow astronomically as more and more people in china connect. In other words, as their existing MARKET grows, the companies will see larger profit margins.

    I'd continue to point out the absurdity of your other points, but I think this should suffice. No offense but maybe you should take an economics class or something.