Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Concludes Linux Will Remain Second Best
watzinaneihm writes "A Harvard Study which uses formal economic modelling to determine "Will OSS ever displace traditional software from its market leadership position?" came to a (not so?) surprising result. Linux is likely to remain second best as long as Microsoft has a first mover advantage."
Now that Macs are developing/supporting a BSD based OS, I think Linux will also lose some desktop share here as well.
In fact, I know of a few friends who chose to get a MacBook and keep OSX on it because they described it as "Linux with more hardware support" (or at least better support directly for the Mac). Not saying this is true, but that it is another well supported Unix alternative.
Surprisingly enough, I'm finding the exact opposite to be true.
;)
I've talked at length about how I deploy an entirely Microsoft-enabled enviroment for my college. 600+ machines, all running XP and Office 2003. 24 servers, all 2000/2003. A pretty typical Microsoft-enabled environment really.
However, I've personally just gone down the Linux route for my work laptop, and I'm giving projects like Edubuntu serious consideration for older, non-Vista compliant hardware.
I have no doubt that companies with ££££s to throw around will buy new machines that are pre-loaded with Vista, and they'll inevitably begin the Vista rollout come SP1. But big business is not everything; I know many of my fellow network managers in education are giving serious consideration to OSS solutions.
We're educating the business people of tomorrow, and if they are introduced to OSS at a younger age, I think we'll see some interesting changes somewhere down the line.
Well, I hope so...
When we (and by we, I mean the linux community) hit a larger portion of user base, say 10% of desktop market (if that will ever happen) linux is going to be well known, and I don't mean that just by the name, but people will actually from time to time use a computer that has linux installed.
Then and not until then will my mother think "why do I need this windows for anyway?" and might try linux out on the home computer. Then the kids start getting used to it (from home, school and most important, friends) and the adoption to linux REALLY hits, because no household will pay $$$ for an operating system if they know one that's usable for free. Not to mention the applications.
Alongside, user friendly distros such as ubuntu, mandriva and feodora will grow even easier to use (as a matter of fact, I think ubuntu is easier (and faster) to install than windows XP or 2000).
Intel always thought they'd be #1, eh?
I think Vista is where Microsoft will fork strongly. There are several smaller forks out there, people who refused to leave NT or 2000 or 98 SE, their PC's do what they want and they see no reason to buy new hardware everytime Intel or Microsoft say "Yow! New! Must have!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It is like saying Tiger Woods will remain number one as long as no one comes along who is better. Or this guy will live as long as he does not die.
You need to go to Harvard to come to lame conclusions like this? Nah, you need to go to Harvard to write escape clauses like this. If Linux become dominant you just declare, "MSFT no longer has the first mover advantage, so I am right". If Linux fades to obscurity, you can go "See, I told ya, Linux will never become numero uno"
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Short version in English: Harvard says that because MS has more market share, it will have more market share.
Isn't that the thinking that kept IBM in control of computing in the 1970s?
--
make install -not war
As with economists, you could lay all of America's business professors end to end and still never reach a conclusion.
Linux does not aim to be best, second best or ninety-third best. Take Debian: it aims to provide a free universal operating system. How well it does, in the perception of others, is only incidental to Debian's core purpose. So, looking at all this in terms of winners and losers or best and worst is largely illusory. Linux is doing just fine and does not have to hit some arbitrary bar - such as overtaking Microsoft's market share - to continue to do just fine.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
here? You would think that to some people, knowing someone used a Microsoft product was akin being spit on. Why? I'm a mac user but that doesn't mean I really give a damn if someone else uses Windows, Linux or anything else. Hell, I use Linux at work. It's no skin off my back, my OS doesn't stop working because someone is using Windows.
I consider my operating system to be a tool, not a way of life, not something that defines me. Maybe that is why I never understood OS evangelism. Can someone please explain to me that when someone says "Linux will not be the most popular desktop operating system in existence" Linux users feel the need to sling such insults as "numbnuts"(which by the way is not very mature and not likely to win you very many converts) towards them?
Monstar L
``That's because MSFT had a goddamn 10 year headstart.''
Did they, really? Slackware 1.0 was released in July 1993, years before Windows 95. Being Linux, it was 32-bit, had proper multi tasking, separation of tasks, permissions, the ext2 filesystem, etc. It also had X, and there was a dos emulator included, so you could run old DOS programs. Basically, a lot of features that Microsoft's offerings would only have years later.
I think GNU/Linux was there first...it just didn't have the marketing that Windows had.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
When ever I talk about purchases of computer and OS to bigwigs. It basically breaks down as LInux is a Free OS and could be considered good enough to do what they want to. What usually sowers the deal with Linux is the fact that the company usually has some software that is for windows only and moving off it is out of the question. Many times it is a CAD Program, other times it is some old custom app that cannot be replaced (Cheaply) and the people who made it are long gone. And on some other situation companies just went threw a painful migration from old Unix to Windows and they are not willing to go back to a Unix like platform for a long time (Even though Linux and newer Unix have far more to offer then their 1989 SCO box).
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A lot of us aren't in OSS for the the ride to the top. I personally couldn't care if 1% of the population used OSS or 99%. As long as I have the freedom to use the software that I want when I want to, then things are fine with me. And _that_ is one of my peeves against the Microsoft Corp.: by the very nature of their marketing/functioning the people who use their software tend to be drones in that they know not how to function with anyone else doesn't have the dam 4 colored Windows logo all over them.
I like Linux and the majority of OSS tools that I use because I prefer them to their Window's based counterparts, with a few exceptions. I have found that explaining to someone that Linux is "better" than Windows is like explaining gold is better than silver - they have a jewelry box full of a silver and their minds just aren't willing to absorb new information on that topic - and why, they think they are happy with what they have. All that will happen is that eventually, I will not know enough of Windows to troubleshoot their machines anymore
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
In case people haven't noticed, linux has not only caught up, but surpassed Windows, in terms of stability, modularity, customizability, ease of install, maintainability of the code base, etc.
That last one - maintainability of the code base, is a killer. There will be no Windows after Vista. Even Microsoft has alluded to as much.
BTW - That "etc" I mentioned includes REPUTATION. What is the reputation of linux vs windows? Ask any virus-writer.
If you are selling garden hoses, the cost of switching to a competing brand is just the replacement cost of a garden hose. If a company is switching software from one vendor to another, the switching cost is considerably more than just plain cost of new software. Like changing the garden hose requiring you change all the plumbing fitting and pressure valves in your home! The first mover advantage is directly proportional to the switching cost. Where are Lycos and Hotbot now? All vendors know that and they strive hard to increase the switching costs, from AutoCAD, Ansys, Fluent, Cadence, to Oracle, MSFT every dominant vendor in the market tries as hard as possible to make it inpossible to switch.
The reason why garden hoses, light bulbs and tires have low switching cost is because of standardization. Standards defined by independant third parties, not by the manufacturers themselves. People, consumers and corporations are beginning to understand the issue, as seen the recent moves by Massassuchetts to mandate ODF as the archival format for its documents. It is inevitable that people will see the advantages of interoperability and standardization. The first mover advantage will diminish as consumers level the playing field by demanding interoperability and standardization. At that time the "second mover" into these fields will be OSS with value added services.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You can make the entire discussion as complex as you want, but there is only one reason why Linux doesn't succeed on the desktop market: Most commercial application are written for Windows, among them are a lot of specialist applications like ERP systems and to name another example "analysis software which interoperates with an advanced metal detector to detect explosives in the ground". With these kind of applications you can't just switch to an alternative, because there are just too few that match your needs and often NONE of them support Linux. The only way for Linux to succeed in these kind of settings is to make Wine work flawlessly. While Linux suits my home needs and server needs -very well-, it's useless on the desktop at the company I work for.
I'll wait to see what Yale thinks, Thank you very much...
God Be Gone
I disagree. The article is quite interesting.
/. summary doesn't quite get the conclusion right. From TFA:
They do point out that OSS is coming from behind in terms of market share becasue it is much newer. In addition, the
Our main result is that in the absence of cost asymmetries and as long as Windows has a first-mover advantage (a larger installed base at time zero), Linux never displaces Windows of its leadership position.
One of the things the study suggested that MS will have to do to maintain its dominance is significantly lower Windows' price to the point where price is not a factor when choosing between MS and OSS. There were cases in the model where OSS 'beats' Windows, but they all assumed a significant price difference between the two, which, as OSS threatens MS more and more, may become less and less likely, due to MS lowering it's prices.
The article also went into interesting points like which is better for the people. The conclusion was that an OSS monopoly is better than a Windows monopoly, but that a OSS-Windows mix is not always better than a Windows monopoly, due to a splitting of efforts. As a person who feels that the spitting of efforts in OSS is one of it's strengths due to the choices it gives us, I disagree with that one.
Interesting paragraph from TFA
In addition to this main result, we were also surprised to find that piracy may end up increasing Microsoft's profits. To understand why, notice that there are two types of pirates: those who would not have bought Windows in the first place because it is too expensive, and those who would have bought Windows but now decide to pirate it. The first category increases Windows' installed base without affecting sales. As a consequence, this group increases the value of Windows. And thanks to these pirates, Microsoft is able to set higher prices in the future (because the value of the system goes up). In addition, having these pirates means that Linux's installed base does not grow as much as it would have if piracy weren't there. The second type of pirates (those who in the absence of piracy would have bought Windows) reduces Windows' sales and profit. Thus, if the proportion of first-type pirates is sufficiently large, Microsoft's profits will increase with piracy.
If you measure things on a complexity of say 0-100, then there's only a limited range of that which is profitable. That is, there's no money in making notepad clones and there's no money in extremely complicated features noone is able to use. However while there is OSS software that's trying to make money, a lot of it does not. Even in the darkest post-OS/2 days when Windows was completely dominating Linux evolved in a market that was essentially dead. That kind of development can't be stopped.
That is why I think OSS software will slowly consume normal COTS software, because they will keep going after the commercial companies say "Well, we've now added every feature with a tolerable ROI". I'm not quite sure about the timescale, but I think the OSS software base is only in its infancy. Imagine 10, 25 or 50 years down the road, how many software packages have matured to a point where they're everything a user expects from a word processor/graphics editor/media player etc., feature-complete and bugfree.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Exactly.
It isn't that Linux is not "better" than Windows TODAY.
It is that Windows was "good enough" YESTERDAY.
And yesterday, the companies deployed Windows and locked up their data / training / money in apps that are not supported on Linux
All the companies I see now have their data AND business logic locked up in Access database apps that have evolved over the years to the point where they are un-maintainable. But still "necessary" to the daily operation of that company.
Where the Harvard study went wrong is that new companies are constantly forming and old ones dying. The base of companies are not static. It is dynamic. The new companies will NOT be bound by the headstart that Microsoft has in existing companies.
What Harvard really concluded was there was a better chance of getting an endowment and new Comp Sci building from MSFT than the open source community.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The point is not whether a Linux ditribution existed prior to Windows 95, but whether it existed prior to Microsoft's software being installed on some high percentage of the world's IBM-compatible computers. The latter has been the case pretty much from the word go. When my dad bought a PC, he bought DR-DOS 6 to go with it, but never got around to installing it because the hard drive actually had MS-DOS 5 installed on it at the factory (the hard drive factory, that is -- apparently not uncommon back in 1991-ish). Until relatively recently, it's been fairly rare to find an IBM-compatible computer that does NOT use a Microsoft operating system. Sure, a few people back in the day would run DR-DOS, a few less would run something akin to BSD, although I have an idea the first PC-compatible BSD was for the 386, so that's got to be at least six or seven years after MS started shipping PC operating systems.
Sure, Linux distributions were available before Windows 95, but the same argument made by TFA existed back in 1993 too -- Microsoft's software was entrenched, it was the de facto system on most IBM-compatible computers, and it's reasonable to assume that a high proportion of the people using those would stick to what they have/know, rather than switch to something entirely new. Therefore, despite the existence of Linux, most folks stayed with DOS & Windows 3 until Win95 came along, which was a funkier Windows which didn't need you to mess about with DOS to get it running.
-Q
The cost of switching is a lot higher than just the "Microsoft tax." Most companies are heavily invested in particular software packages (CAD, accounting, payroll, etc). These are very specialized packages that often must be guaranteed (and often certified) to meet specific regulatory requirements. Unless the companies behind those packages can be convinced to migrate, there really is no option to switch for the company. When you factor in the costs like these, it's a no-brainer to stay on the Microsoft wagon. Compared to the overall cost of doing business, the software costs are negligible.
I don't think those trends say much of anything. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there's more searches for Linux because people need more help using it and getting it to just run properly? How many searches for "Macintosh" is someone with a Mac going to do if their Mac is running perfectly from the start? Just how many of those "Linux" searches are desperate newbies to Linux who are in week 3 of trying to figure out how to get wifi or wpa encryption support on their laptops or to get their monitors to run in the right resolution or to get CUPS printing working? One linux user might initiate dozens of search queries for anything linux related. A Mac user on the other hand would be searching for non-computer related stuff cause their computer is already working as it should be.
Apple is selling Macs hand over fists. The Apple Stores are always jam packed, the company is sourcing a third provider for notebooks and can't currently meet the demand they have for MacBooks and MacBookPros. The overwhelming majority of people who use Macs don't even know what UNIX is or that Mac OS X has a Unix core running underneath. Apple just doubled its laptop marketshare to 12% of the US market. Add in Apple's installed base all over the world and its pretty clear to me at least that not only are there more Mac users than Linux users but its going to stay that way for quite some time. Even if you account for the fact that it is nearly impossible to track Linux installs because Linux can be downloaded for free you should also admit that a lot of those downloads are probably never installed. I myself run Kubuntu Linux on a spare laptop and before I settled on it I downloaded at least 8 other distros. Some people download more distros some download less but the point I'm making is that only a fraction of the Linux downloads that are happening end up being actual installs. And sometimes none of them end up being permanent installs as the OS is still too rough around the edges for many users and they either go back to Windows or OS X.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
It does matter which operating system other people use, because companies like Microsoft and Apple take steps to ensure that as a Linux user, I can't communicate properly with users of other operating systems. For example, I tried to apply for a job recently, and the government department that I was trying to apply to sent me a Microsoft Word .doc file. These files are in a secret, proprietary format that Microsoft won't tell people how to open. They want to ensure that only Microsoft Word will open such files.
Another example, there's a radio station that I like to listen to online, and because they only offer Windows Media streams, I had to break the law (due to software patents) to play them on my Linux computer. Breaking the law isn't something I enjoy doing, and it shouldn't be something I have to do in order to not be excluded just because I am not using Microsoft software.
The problem isn't that people aren't running Linux, it's that they're running software from companies who are trying to exclude me (a Linux user) from being able to communicate other people (Windows and Mac users).
Actually, there is, I think. a lot of interesting stuff buried in this study. Too much to assimilate and comment on quickly. For example, they seem to have found that so called "strategic buyers" (governments, large corporations) could drive Microsoft from a segment of the market if they trust OSS code -- which they can look at -- more than Microsoft code that they maybe can't.
There are lots of hidden gems. e.g. Microsoft would benefit from changing its pricing strategies to make older products cheaper over time. I have no idea if that is true, but it sure seems to me that selling MSDOS licenses for $5 would bring in more revenue than telling folks that if they want to use MSDOS 6.22 they will just have to pirate it. Well, sure ... if that's really how you feel about it ... -- let's see "diskcopy a: b:", right?
And there is an interesting discussion near the end of Microsoft strategies to deal with OSS. e.g. make it hard to run Windows software on the free Unixes, but make it easy to run OSS software on Windows. ... etc. Might pay system administrators to look at these closely just to see what Microsoft might do in the future that might have nasty side affects.
Anyway, I think there is at least one basic problem with the study. It assumes that Microsoft is progressing toward some goal and that OSS is forever following. Could be, but the Vista fiasco looks to me like floundering, not progressing. So, one wonders if the model were altered to reflect a shrinking lag between Microsoft and OSS capabilities and also, an increasing fraction of the marketplace where OSS is good enough or better than good enough, if the results wouldn't be different.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
They didn't predict that linux will remain second best at ALL. In fact, given the current conditions Linux will WIN!
"Having obtained this basic result, we investigate the conditions that will warrant that Linux ends up forcing Windows out. We do this by modifying the model in two ways. First of all, we look at the effect of having buyers such as governments and some large corporations committed to deployment of Linux in their organizations. We call such buyers strategic. In addition to cost-related reasons, governments back Linux because having access to the source code allows them to verify that sensitive data is treated securely. Binary code makes it hard to figure out who has access to information flowing in a network. Companies such as IBM, in contrast, back Linux because they see in OSS one way to diminish Microsoft's dominance. We find that the presence of strategic buyers together with Linux's sufficiently strong demand-side learning results in Windows being driven out of the market. This may be one main reason why Microsoft has been providing chunks of Windows' source code to governments."
Currently we have large stratigic buyers who are buying into linux in a big way. China is no small fish. This sounds more like the situation as it stands now. What he IS saying is that Linux will NEVER displace Microsoft "On it's own merits" because the superiority of the OS doesn't defeat Micosofts current large install base. We DO need things like the Free Software Foundation, it is critically important for linux that governments see the advantages of the development model and buy in.
You can see from the actions of Microsoft that they have known this data for quite some time, or at least are reacting in much the ways that the study recommends. So this IS a fight and the winner is by no means certain. One thing that I got out of this was that while Linux can accually defeat Microsoft, MS can't acctually defeat Linux and force it to dissapear. Think about that for a while.
``Slackware is free. Windows is not. Microsoft can afford to pay thousands of employees. Slackware cannot. It's a tradeoff, and in fact "users" (that would be brought by marketing) hurt OSS. Developers are the lifeblood of free software. Users who are the lifeblood of commercial software. They are fundamentally different models.''
It's an interesting view, and OSS and proprietary software definitely have different dynamics, but I don't agree that "\"users\" (that would be brought by marketing) hurt OSS". Many of the behaviors a user could exhibit are the same for OSS and proprietary software: bug the developers, complain to friends and acquaintances that the product sucks, helping other users, recommending the product, writing about it in columns, etc. In either case, users may or may not be required to pay for the software (which can help maintain it), but it's never given that they will: a lot of software is free for use, and if it's not, there are always ways to avoid payment.
The big difference is that users of OSS can and will help maintaining and improving the product.
So, if anything, more users is an even bigger boost to OSS than to proprietary software; at least that's how I see it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The summary is not as much fun as the article, which declares Microsoft's future dependent on FUD, sabotage, intentional waste and dumping rather than code quality. The whole summary reasoning boils down to, "It will be like this tomorrow because it's like this today." Even M$ knows that's not true. What M$ and IBM did to DEC used to keep Bill Gates up at night, and still might despite all of his ill gotten wealth. The authors have much more interesting things to say and do not really conclude M$ will always be around. The authors, while they do overplay the importance of an undefined "network effect" don't make such a gross error.
The authors don't really understand free software development but they do understand what M$ must do to stay alive. They understand the M$ network effect, which is difficulty working with people who don't have the latest and greatest M$ crap, but completely miss the free software networking effect and much of free software's social benefit. The more free software does, the more it will be used and the more it will grow. It's a power function, not dependent on large organizations and we are still at the very start of the curve.
One of the key flaws I found in the author's reasoning was this:
However, with a monopoly, the efforts to develop new software and improve the platform are directed towards one system only and this may turn out to be better from a social welfare perspective.
That's seriously flawed for two reasons. First there is no such thing as a "Linux Monopoly". It's only freely publish standards that make it look like a coherent whole and it's only M$ intentional ignorance of those standards that keeps both systems from interacting freely. The second, they seriously underestimate the size of the free software community and it's growth potential. The free developer community is and will allways be larger than the non free community. The whole point of the non free monopoly is to charge people money to participate. Free participation will never cost more than time and effort. GCC comes with most GNU/Linux distributions and there is a fantastic library of source code for every purpose no further than a network request away. The cost of a full version of M$ Visual Studio is close to $800, after you have paid the OS tax, and you need to buy a new one for each programmer every year or so. How economists could miss such a basic part of their model as cost of raw materials is beyond me, but part of it is a flawed assumption that free software is dependent on government and business support:
This questions the social desirability of policies aimed at guaranteeing Linux's survival. ... This [corporate] support is important because there are tedious portions of the code that would rarely be developed spontaneously by members of the Linux-developer community.
Wile corporate and government participation are welcome, studies don't bear out the necessity of their involvement. Companies and governments are going to increasingly use free software because of the tremendous flexibility and cost savings. There are hosts of things you just can't do with non free softare and most programmers spend all of their time making things work. Most programmers would be just as happy or happier with free software as long as it does the job.
Recognition of all the evil things M$ must do, while common here, are welcome from economists and business types. Formal recognition of the SCO and other FUD attacks, dumping by "piracy", the Halloween Documents, even sabotage of free software by "encouraging forks" are nice to see in print from a "respectable" organization. Remarkably, nowhere is there a statement that M$ has or must improve the quality of their code. Their conclusion is telling:
We conjecture that there are multiple equilibria and that the use of FUD to mold perceptions about future value becomes crucial.
Essentially, M$'s future is depends on lies. That's not a very bright future. Admission to that fact is all it takes for them and all of their intentional waste to dissapear.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
FromTFA:
``The basic trade-off is the following: With a duopoly, more individuals and organizations use PCs because prices are lower, and this raises welfare. However, with a duopoly, no operating system ends up exploiting fully its potential because developers' efforts wind up divided between the two systems. However, with a monopoly, the efforts to develop new software and improve the platform are directed towards one system only and this may turn out to be better from a social welfare perspective.''
That is, unless there are standardized APIs between the competing operating systems. As it happens, Windows does not implement the same APIs that its competitors implement, and that's what really causes the duplication of developer effort. If, say, the competition had been between Linux and Mac OS X, the situation would have been much better.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
... it's the thought-process that goes into it.
... Mac OS X has finally gotten multi-desktops, which is nice) YMMV. I also like the apps I can get (free, open source) for Linux; many of these are cross-platform (GIMP, OO.o), and for others I suspect there are work-a-likes** (and I'm sure some of them inspired the Linux analogs I know and use), so a workable desktop can be made using mostly free software on Windows these days, BUT, my Linux systems all crash less than my Windows computers have, don't need drivers for most mainstream peripherals, don't get cluttered with stupid-ware,* and generally (to my eye) look nicer, whether using fluxbox, KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment, or a few other choices.
... NeXTstep, or like the GNOME desktop, or like blackbox? OS X is a perfectly nice looking interface, but being able to choose is nicer yet, since there's no accounting for taste. [NOTE: am I wrong about auto-raise? Was stil true when last I used OS X, I think ...]
... my printer isn't connected. Thanks, I still know that, yes.),
As others have pointed out, the conclusion here is overstated in the headline and over-mitigated in the research; "number one until not number one" doesn't have an overwhelming ring.
But the idea of "better" when it comes to software is not the simple "A v. B" comparison that some people would like it to be. Whether something's better *to you* is the most important thing, and your reasons may seem like dream-logic to me (or mine might to you), but them's the breaks.
A coarse for-instance: There's lots of griping about when Linux "will be ready for the desktop" -- to which I have to admit bafflement that such a question can even be asked seriously. It's been ready for *my* desktop for the past 8 or so years, ever since I bought my first non-Mac computer on which to run it, and spent 1 kajillion hours frustratedly copying boot/root floppy pairs from a CD that came along with The Linux Bible or similar giant book.
I'm afraid I'll never be a real power user, and I sure run into hurdles all the time, but compared to Windows, the frustration level of Linux is ever so much more bearable, and I like the way the various desktop interfaces let me control the look and behavior of my desktop. (Sloppy focus, auto-raise, multiple desktops
Mac OS X fans like to gloat that it "just works," "is more intuitive," etc; maybe that's true for them, and for a lot of people; Apple certainly hires smart people and makes a visually appealing desktop. But until the next version's out, what if the thing I want to just work is "virtual switch to desktop 3?" Or "let windows be selected and automatically raised if the mouse hovers over them"? Or (and this one's not fair, but it's my point) what it I want it to look more like
timothy (using the currently ready-for-the-desktop Gnome 2.14 on a ThinkPad, running under Debian/GNU Linux, installed using the ultra-slick, laughably easy Kanotix installer. Hey, it works pretty nicely for me, despite a few glitches. Certainly nicer than the Windows XP which arrived on this machine.)
*(Like the useless "Printer Status" pop-up window that comes up every time on my Windows XP laptop to tell me that
** Still no Tomboy for Windows, though perhaps there's some decent similarly functional program.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Harvard? Is this the university that bestowed an MBA on George W. Bush?
How can we expect cogent analysis from a diploma mill like that?
Economic modelling is very accurate! It was used to successfully predict 12 of the last five recessions.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist