Slashdot Mirror
Linux Foundation Calls for 'Respect for Microsoft'
kripkenstein writes "Jim Zemlin (executive director for the Linux Foundation) gave a talk at LinuxWorld saying that the open source community should stop poking fun at Microsoft. From the VNU article: 'Open source vendors have to recognize that Windows is here to stay and that together with Microsoft it will form a duopoly in the market for operating systems. This also requires that the Linux community respects Microsoft rather than ridicule it. "There are some things that Windows does pretty well," Zemlin said. Microsoft for instance has excelled in marketing the operating system, and has a good track record in fending off competition.'"
Duopoly? Microsoft and Linux? I thought OSX has more market share than Linux does. Well, okay, at least in the desktop market.
So he's essentially saying I should respect Microsoft for thinking up all the dirty tricks it used to get it's monopoly in the first place. ... I am not convinced.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
What is this, Hug a Grizzly Bear Week? Be Nice to the Sharks Month? This man Zemlin is obviously either a shill or a sad deluded man who needs to be shipped off to the re-education camps as soon as possible!
Go somewhere random
So what he's saying is that Linux excels at being good software, while Microsoft only excel at marketing practices? Sounds like a double-edged compliment to Microsoft to me!
Yeah, acknowledging MS's strengths is a lot like going to your grandparents 50th wedding anniversary; you're thankful for the legacy that they've left behind but at 70 years old and playing Friday night bingo, they're not quite relevant in the same way they use to be.
MS has lost it's way ( as documented in Joel's "How Microsoft Lost the API War" ) and with applications moving more towards the web as a platform, things don't look to improve.
Jim
RunFatBoy ( http://www.runfatboy.net/ ) - Exercise for the rest of us.
Poking fun at them is only a sign of overconfidence as Luke once said to Darth Vadar & Emperor Palpatine Your overconfidence is your weakness.
My work here is dung.
This also requires that the Linux community respects Microsoft rather than ridicule it. "There are some things that Windows does pretty well," Zemlin said. Microsoft for instance has excelled in marketing the operating system, and has a good track record in fending off competition.'"
Saying all Microsoft has ever done well is marketing and fending off competition is setting an example for not ridiculing them? I believe he's just being sarcastic.
Nah the summary states that Microsoft and Windows will form a duopoly. Sounds about right. :(
Microsoft operates in the real world - in the real world I only give respect to those who have earned my respect, or who have it by default and have done nothing to lost it; Microsoft fits neither of these to me.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Microsoft's marketing strategy is actually quite simple. It follows the triple E system. Embrace, Extend, Exterminate. It also has another strategy is the triple B system. Buy Out, Bloat Up, and Bilk.
You should also respect them for publicly claiming that Linux "violates" X patents owned by Microsoft.
And that anyone using Linux (unless specially licensed) owes Microsoft some money.
And for Microsoft's continuing attempts to kill / marginalize the ODF standard.
Yes, Microsoft deserves your respect and not your disgust. So says an executive from a company that has purchased a "partnership" with Microsoft.
How about they stop making shitty software and play nice with everyone else?
Have you ever used XP or 2000? It's not "shitty". It's certainly not the best thing ever, but it sure as fuck beats using Linux for a desktop machine. Please note that I ran Linux as my only OS from 1997 through 2002 and then went back and haven't returned.
Vista was a mistake (much like 3.11 or ME) but they have made some OSs that are quite solid, work just fine for the majority of users, and are deployed (tactics or not) on 100s of millions of computers.
I don't think Microsoft should be hailed for their business practices but they certainly haven't always made "shitty" software.
Yeah. I read it on the Internet so it must be true!
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
That's akin to telling the viewers of Fox News that it's important to "stop making fun of liberals, because they've here to stay, and they've made important contributions to the progress of the world at large".
No matter how important a role some group plays towards making something else important work, the nature of humans and comedy are going to have everyone and everything important to everyone mocked constantly. And no matter how bad that paints a picture of the large groups who mock other groups as part of that process - people are going to be mocking eachother as long as mental associations can be made.
The message behind this suggestion seems to be more a message to "act more professional people, you're making us look like bozos". Yes... it's nice to imagine sometimes that a loose community of groups and individuals didn't have to act exactly like the kind of human grouping it is. But we are humans, and Windows IS fun to make fun of, and most of us say that as Windows users.
Yes, Windows has contributed much for everyday users of computers - it has made many things possible that may not have been possible otherwise, and it will continue to be the best path towards many kinds of progress for the everyday use of computers going forward for the immediately foreseeable future... but it's still contains an endless variety of deep flaws that both mock the underlying nature (DRM motivations, artificially segmenting functionality for legal/marketing needs) of the software, and the human nature that lies behind these things, and our reaction to them.
Ryan Fenton
Diplomacy is saying "nice doggie" while you look for a bigger stick.
Well much of their legacy tech is crap (see WinAPI). But .Net, DirectX, Visual Studio are excellent projects. So, I have no problem with MS tech. I do have a problem with their attitude towards others (that is, crush them and grab every single dollar in the market). MS got unpopular because of their actions, not their tech.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
when they start respecting Open Source and Open Standards.
It may not be shitty in an absolute sense, but given the amount of money and time that have been spent on it, shitty it still is. If our industry was composed of several large operating system companies rather than one behemoth and a dozen hanging on by their fingernails we would be much much better off. Microsoft didn't get where they are primarily by the strength of their technology offerings but by other less ethical means. Bait and switch, kickbacks, embrace and extinguish, buyout and extinguish and numerous similar gimmickry do more to describe the company than any feature set, or heaven forbid "innovation" that they are responsible for. They are where they are for little other reason than the federal government (followed by the states) eventually standardized on their products forcing a chain reaction of most companies to do likewise.
If they made any other product than software (which still possesses a mysterious legal immunity) they would have been sued out of business by now.
Given the amount of time and money they have had to spend on it, it would be a miracle if they hadn't achieve some degree of stability by now, as it is, it is a miracle that they have achieved as little as they have.
Glad you are enjoying your Microsoft experience again. I switched to Linux in the late 90's too and have seen no reason to go back. Linux is marginally harder to install, but the "thrill" of re-installing operating systems wore off for me while I was still a Windows user. Maybe you actually look forward to each "new" release.
I too would respect the 400 lb. gorilla, though mostly by keeping my distance.
He's absolutely right on other points as well. If Linux rises to desktop prominence, against a competitor that has a 95% market share on the desktop (a practical monopoly), then the next logical step must be a duopoly, and it is doubtful that Microsoft will ever "go away." They will likely change the way they do business, like IBM did. Perhaps they will produce their own "open source" products, and then the Linux/FOSS community had better be ready for it, because they certainly won't be free software.
Expect it.
They've already proven the first axiom of business. Courts are the slowest moving thing on the planet. Business decisions will always outpace court decisions. That's how they got away with their illegal actions to slaughter STAC and Netscape. It didn't matter by the time the courts had decided. That's how Microsoft managed to pen a patent agreement with Novell, who won the MS-funded patent case against SCO, before the SCO case was even over. Did anyone notice that?
They're moving faster than anyone can litigate. Being right is not good enough here. You have to be right, clever, and decisive. If you can be ethical too, good for you, but ethical doesn't tend to work against an unethical opponent. Try winning a fair fight against a guy who is willing to kick you in the crotch and throw sand in your face some time.
Developers had better keep a careful eye on this gorilla, or you're going to end up working for him. Respect the gorilla.
--
Toro
Microsoft will never go away, so bend over, pass the Vaseline, and enjoy! Linux can coexist, but more so as foreplay.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I wonder what happened in between this article http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may 2007/tc20070525_325967.htm and today's comment.
t /may2007/tc20070525_325967.htm
Can you say "Big chunk of Microsoft change in Zemlins pocket"? I can.http://www.businessweek.com/technology/conten
I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves. - August Strindberg
There are reasons to respect Microsoft, but it's not because of their marketing or the quality of their software.
One should respect MS as a relationship with MS could be compared to a relationship with any other vendor.
A typical non-OSS user won't exactly be enchanted if they see the OSS community treating another company like degenerates. They don't know the difference between MS and any other company, all they see is OSS devs/users treating a company like crap. If you take a one-sided view, that makes OSS devs/users look bad. That's probably the only view they'll be taking since they haven't worshipped at the church of FLOSS.
If you look at the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King encouraged all to be non-violent, not carry weapons, and not give any excuse for others to even mistake them for wanting to possibly even slightly exhibit any negative behaviour or thoughts. That's to take any power away from the enemy, as they can't say anything if there's nothing for them to point out.
Another reason is that truth can come from anywhere, and a good argument will stand no matter who makes it. If we simply expect everything out of MS to be garbage, then we will also miss any jewels, and that's just hurting ourselves.
Anyway look. Bottom line is to be better than MS, we can't let ourselves go by saying "Oh, well, MS fucks up, we can too, just not as bad." That's pretty asinine. Nope. To be better than MS, we have to actually be better than them, not stoop just as low as them.
Twinstiq, game news
Linux geeks should just treat Microsoft the way the Chinese government treats the US Government... a necessary enemy. Only there as a stepping stone to sovereignty or self sufficiency. Let them tout themselves, let them think they're winning, and then, when the chips are down, yank the last card from their house of cards... and watch them fall.
Sun Tzu was right though, you can either wean yourself off the enemy and create your own destiny, or you can destroy Darth Vader and take his place at the Emperor's side. Either you choose a side, or you don't play their game. Most Linux geeks have chosen a side, and will eventually find themselves in Darth Vader's shoes. It is inevitable when one takes the path of confrontation. One monster must be created to oppose the existing one, unless the wise man fends off the monster and lets it die of its own irrelevance.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Yes they are. Here's why:
#1. The registry. It's too fucking brittle AND it is constantly open by Windows AND it is not automatically replicated X times over Y days so you can recover when it does break. And it will, eventually, break.
#2. Which is why Microsoft shops advocate the "Wipe & Reload" method of "support". It broke, don't spend time trying to fix it. Fixing it is not an option. Wipe it and reload the "base image" that your shop uses. Sure it will take 30 - 60 minutes, but even if you have to do that for a dozen machines a week, it's still faster than finding the real problems.
#3. Viruses, trojans & worms. At least with Linux I can boot from a "Live CD" and chroot the local hard drive and check it / edit it to remove problems. WITHOUT losing all the data that the user has saved to it (see #2 above).
#4. No packaging system (see Debian & Ubuntu). And don't start going on about how you can make a "package" in Windows. That just shows you don't know what you're talking about. In Windows ANY app can replace ANY file when you install it. Under a real package management system, each file is owned by one AND ONLY ONE package. That file is NOT replaced unless you upgrade/remove the package that owns it. (or choose "force" and know that you're probably fucking up your system)
Some of the end-users prefer Windows. That's fine. It's personal choice. But it's still a "shitty" operating system based upon "shitty" decisions.
OS X is only part of a package. You cannot use it by itself, so it is not really an operating system available for general use, it is part of a niche product.
Boyfriend asks girlfriend to suck his cock. Girlfriend says she won't because then he won't respect her. Boyfriend promises to respect her and take her out for a big dinner at expensive restaraunt if she does. She sucks his cock, and later they go out for dinner. The waiter arrives and the boyfriend orders for both. He orders lobster for himself, and for her: "...and bring us a steak for the cocksucker here. She loves to eat meat."
Zemlin is a cocksucker. Microsoft is his meal ticket.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
It is A registry. But I can boot a Linux box WITHOUT it. And one I can boot it, I can fix it.
BULLSHIT. I'm typing this on a machine that's been upgraded, online, to Gutsy Gibbon all the way from Hoary Hedgehog. (Hoary - Breezy - Dapper - Edgy - Feisty - Gutsy)
And I've upgraded during the ALPHA portions of those releases. And I still don't have problems.
It's called "Computer SCIENCE" for a reason. It's not magic. If something breaks, it can be backed out.
And I would use that, how, to fix virus/rootkit on a Windows machine? Be specific.
Strange, because that kind of contradicts your other claims. It's the packaging system that allows me to validate the operating system and apps. Which allows me to smoothly upgrade from one release to the next. Which allows me to remove old packages or upgrade them.
And I haven't even touched on Windows security.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
by that standard, HPU/X, Solaris and SunOS,Irix and all the DEC Unixes weren't operating systems either.
The provision of "general use" is unecessary. A platform is a platform.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
As long as they claim to have the most secure operating system ever: No.
As long as they count one defect against Linux multiple times in comparisons: No.
As long as they treat paying customers like criminals: No.
As long as their software comes without a warranty and they use a lack of a Linux warranty as a reason to not use OSS: No.
As long as they do not count "maintenance windows" as part of downtime in their uptime/availability comparisons: No.
As long as their marketing literature is based on lies/FUD rather than facts: No.
As long as their 2007 "3D desktop"'s features barely matches that of what OS X could do in 2003: No. Want a proper 3D desktop? Check out XGL and Beryl on Linux, 3D Desktop on OS X.
I think we'll be making fun of Microsoft for years to come, as long as they keep up their FUD and they keep promoting minor cosmetic changes, DRM, and annoying features like [CANCEL] [CONTINUE] as innovations.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Have you ever used XP or 2000? It's not "shitty". It's certainly not the best thing ever, but it sure as fuck beats using Linux for a desktop machine. Please note that I ran Linux as my only OS from 1997 through 2002 and then went back and haven't returned.
Yes. In fact, I'm responsible for system management for a number of them.
I'll happily accept that XP and 2000 are miles ahead of '9x.
The main problems I have are:
1. Their lack of respect for established, published standards. Linux and Mac OS X can both be fairly easily configured to authenticate against LDAP out of the box - Windows requires that you use a Windows domain (either NT4-style or AD). (Yes, I know AD is in essence LDAP+Kerberos+proprietary addons. Please point me at a third-party functioning implementation if it's so standard. Shouldn't be that hard - it's only existed since Windows 2000).
2. Their cavalier attitude to logging issues. Practically every Unix system I've ever seen could log almost everything that happens on the system in an absurd level of detail. Windows, on the other hand, has the Event Log which isn't even very widely used by Microsoft software, let alone third-party apps. Have you any idea how much easier it is to troubleshoot a system when there are logs available?
Doubtless I could think of a few more, but those are the most obvious that spring to mind.
For example, see how much Linux has improved by comparing Slackware 1.0 to Kubuntu Feisty. Crap. Bad analogy.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
We don't have to respect Microsoft, but we should discuss our differences in a respectful manner. I used to attend Comdex in Vegas regularly several years ago. I remember the first year they had a Linux area on display. Some of the "vendors" that were representing Linux and OSS were extremely unprofessional. They acted more like the anti-Vietnam protesters of the 70's. I did not have any issue with their point of view but as a believer in OSS I was embarrassed by their behavior and could see the negative impact that it was having on those who did not know a lot about OSS. So my recommendation is that in professional work settings and business oriented discussion boards and forums, we should act like professionals and clearly articulate our point of views based on research and personal experiences. On sites like Slashdot, Digg, Delicious, etc. it is ok to flame although there is little to gain from it. Acting like a whiny child on a Computerworld.com or CIO.com website is really bad for OSS.
"This also requires that the Linux community respects Microsoft rather than ridicule it."
He's another computer professional with zero social experience. People don't like Microsoft because Microsoft is abusive. For example:
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" or
"The whole world is our beta tester" or
"We can release sloppy, sloppy code because we have a virtual monopoly" or
"Security vulnerabilities make us money because many people with infected computers buy new computers, and therefore buy another copy of Windows".
Bill Gates is the Chief of Grief in the computer world. When you partner with Microsoft, you are partnering with someone who will be partly an enemy if that makes more money.
It's surely a joke, right?
I mean, there are some things Microsoft have done right. You can't say anything about their gaming tools, for one thing. So this Jim Zemlin guy must be some kind of very sarcastic hatemonger :)
I went to 4 LinuxWorld Expos in San Francisco, where I live. I enjoyed the first two, primarily because of the conferences, and the camaraderie. Once I get through two years of the conferences, the following years' repeats of the same conference topics was uninteresting. After the large corporations started getting tons of floor space, it became even less interesting (seeing the Novell Sales Guys hype up SUSE to with absurd marketing-speak was disheartening). Now, with this statement, it becomes very clear that LinuxWorld isn't for people who like Linux for it's own sake, and I'm not sad I haven't gone for the last couple years. It's now just for people who like and admire money and large corporations, and see F/OSS and Linux as the way to get more cash. Not that that is so bad, but it isn't why I'm interested in Linux. Why not rename this conference "LinuxMoneyWorld"?
And think about how it got to be that way. Remember when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997? The most memorable moment of his keynote was hime saying microsoft doesnt have to fail for Apple to win and he called for huge respect for Microsoft. Today, Apple has grown into a huge company again.
It's nice to know at least one person here on /. respects me.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself!
This isn't the sig you're looking for...
Aren't you guys getting a little pedantic? He didn't say OS-X "wasn't an OS" -- he said it "wasn't an OS available for general use"
And he has a point as well -- OS-X has never been seriously positioned as a server OS like AIX, HP-UX, etc. It's not realistic to expect Apple to become a major server OS player with the machines they sell right now.
Even on the desktop - Apples market share might be increasing but it's very hard to see them go past 10 or 20% of the market. You can argue both ways about whether that needs to be counted or not (in said duopoly).
The reason I say Apple's share is unlikely to increase past that point: It's because they don't license OS-X for use on PCs (or create a Mac spec and license it out). That's a huge problem for the h/w industry. If Apple were to get, say, 80% of the market and for this year they only offer nVidia cards and Intel processors in their machines, well, AMD will go bankrupt. If they stick with Intel wifi chips, Atheros might go bankrupt. Basically the whole industry will have to come up with a way of ramping up and scaling down production as and when their products get selected/deselected for use in Apple's lines -- if not, the entire computer hardware industry will become a one-horse-race for any component that goes into a computer.
According to this mailing list post, he's a marketing guy. Since when do we listen to marketing guys on slashdot now? Did I miss the memo or what?
Europe, 1940s: Allied forces have to recognize that the Nazis are here to stay and that together with Hitler it will form a duopoly in the world for colonising smaller and less developed countries. This also requires that the Democratic community respects Hitler rather than ridicule him.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Why should the Linux Foundation be counseling respect for an organization that has for years smeared Linux at every opportunity and has stated that it considers F/OSS generally un-American? Microsoft has done and has stated it intends to keep doing all in its power to bring FOSS down wherever it can. Frankly I think the Foundation should be called to task for such a treasonous pronoucement.
'Mac OS-X, (like all the Unixes), is closer to being a "real" OS than Linux or Windows'
In what world? Perhaps you have some sort of strange unspoken defintion of "real" the rest of us aren't using? OSX isn't an operating system at all. The operating system is Darwin (its kernel to be technical) and the distribution that is based on that operating system is OSX. Linux is a real and complete operating system and there are many distributions based on it. Windows is both an operating system and a distribution.
'Dissing it as "not a real OS" or "not available for general use" is an exaggeration at best, or really just a troll.'
I wouldn't really go around saying it isn't a real OS (technical distinctions aside) but 'not available for general use' certainly applies. Most of us define general use for an operating system as 'general use on commodity hardware'.
'Also, your argument about licensing out the Mac OS has been shot down so many times I won't even bother to get into it.'
It's been discussed anyway. I'm pretty sure the only ones who walk away feeling it was shut down were those who felt that way from the get go.
'you seem woefully... biased in general. OS-X is... arguably the best desktop operating system'
Perhaps you should consider yourself before saying others are biased. OSX being the best desktop operating system is something that MOST informed individuals would dispute (I don't give my own opinion because its beside the point).
Like it or not, not everyone who makes a negative comment about MacOS, Mac's, or Apple is a troll and this is an open forum where people are entitled to think OSX, Linux, or Windows sucks. If you are modding people down simply because they think your pet system sucks you are abusing moderation privs. In fact, if you (or anyone) are modding people down for any reason you are probably using the moderation system incorrectly. Moderation is primarily intended for modding up worthwhile comments, not censoring comments you feel unworthy.
John Siracusa recently wrote an interesting bit about why this is so. His basic thesis is Apple has not made headway in the Enterprise because it focuses all its efforts on the end user, and focuses its marketing on the enduser. To make real headway in the Enterprise, one needs to focus on the IT department, whose needs, constraints, and goals are often very different from the end user. You can rattle off a list of things that Apple does not do that makes its products and services a poor fit for corporate IT, and this list has not changed for years. [my emphasis]
Siracusa also notes that in the case where the IT department is the end user, Apple develops products and markets them to the IT department as if the IT department were the end user. Check out the Apple web page for IT professionals.
One thing worth mentioning about the suitability of Apple technology for running servers. Apple technology is used to run both Apple's website and iTunes, neither of which are what anyone could call light weight. Granted, Apple has to eat its own dog food, but didn't Dell run it's website for a while on WebObjects? And they had to make a painful transition over the MS technology at the behest of Redmond?
Anyway, I said at the outset that you held a common misperception, but I hopefully made clear the qualifications on that statement. You are partially right about Apple vis-a-vis the Enterprise and partly wrong. Also, in the case of an IT department that is very focused on the end user as customer (usually the focus is on management being the customer; the endusers aren't signing the checks), Apple might be a good fit. Read the article. It's not very long.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Torvalds: I personally think it's mainly another shot in the FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] war. MS has a really hard time competing on technical merit, and they traditionally have instead tried to compete on price, but that obviously doesn't work either, not against open source. So they'll continue to bundle packages and live off the inertia of the marketplace, but they want to feed that inertia with FUD.
CW: Do you think you and the open-source software community are prepared for this battle?
Torvalds: I don't actually see it as a battle. I do my thing because I think it's interesting and worth doing, and I'm not in it because of any anti-MS issues. I've used a few MS products over the years, but I've never had a strong antipathy against them. Microsoft simply isn't interesting to me.
And the whole open source thing is not an anti-MS movement either.
Bottom line is that ones energies are much better focused on creating a great product, and not fighting a battle. Personally, I think the firebrands and the rabid dogs on either side of the MS/FSF debate just get off on the emotional charge of being outraged or are manipulating others with it. You see this sort of stuff a lot in politics. (Oh, and, what's the last program RMS wrote and how long ago? That should provide a nice outrage high for one of our friendly rabid freetards.)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Actually, I was aware of Apple's Xserve/SAN offerings when I wrote my post. I didn't mean to imply that Apple is absent in the Server segment, though I guess it's easy to infer that - so my bad.
The context there started with Windows and Linux forming a duopoly and then someone pointed out that OS-X wasn't an OS with 'general availability', and got pounced on. I attempted to defend him saying that unlike Linux and Windows you can't buy a sundry 1u blade and run OS X Server on it (afaik - pls correct me if I'm wrong). i.e. Apple limit the 'general availability' of their OS in the server scenario as well, similar to the way they do in the desktop scenario. I guess AIX was a bad example...
With due respect to John Siracusa's article, I don't think it was very informative. He went on repeatedly about the iPhone in the enterprise, which is far from relevant to Apple's presence there. He also claims that Apple is being high-minded and deliberately ignoring markets where it has to sell to someone other than the end user. Well, that would be any bulk contract. I don't think Apple sells the macs in schools and colleges to the kids there directly - they sell them to the universities and boards controlling the money. I don't understand this attempt to put an altruistic/high-minded/whatever spin to Apple's intentions - they're a company like any other.
Then he repeats classic Jobs sound bytes such as:
Want more? Here's Jobs's response to a question about Apple's neglect of the low-end of the market (e.g., $500 PCs, $100 phones, etc.):This can all sound pretty smug. For a more grounded interpretation, you can try to look at it from a business perspective--profit margins, avoiding commoditization, the potential for growth and so on--but there's no getting around the results. And no matter how you slice it, the decision to ignore markets where you must sell to someone other than the end user is pretty high-minded (for a corporation). It's also perhaps the only way to ever create great products, products that customers actually love.Think about this the next time you're peeling stickers off your new laptop at work.
This is where Apple and Jobs let themselves down. It comes off as smug and disrespectful towards companies and individuals who buy budget PCs. At my previous company we had about 1000+ corporate employees who's PC use consisted of productivity apps, and enterprise app front-ends, so a fairly common enterprise scenario. Bbudget PCs and laptops are exactly what they need. And they need to be easy to maintain, upgrade etc. If style/brand positioning is getting in the way of these criteria, taking pot-shots isn't the solution. They need to find the right compromises -- and they will do this if and when they are able to focus on this segment. Until then, the high-minded thing to do would be to refrain from snide remarks of this nature.
I have no doubt that OS X is a credible server OS. That's not the point. There are many reasons it's not present more in the enterprise. One of them is that Apple doesn't focus on the different Enterprise verticals and sell complete solutions. It's more like, here's Xserver and OS X Server, and Web Objects, and oh btw: there's all this cool OSS stuff that you can run on it as well. Over generalization, I know, but the point remains.
They seem to know it, and they don't want to get spread too thin, so they're picking battles they can win. Right now the consumer desktop is one such battle, so I think they're doing the right thing by nibbling away at the desktop market first, while keeping the enterprise thread alive until they're ready to make moves there as well. This is a much more credible explanation than Siracusa's -- contrast Apple's manpower to MS and IBM's, and add the "we delayed Leopard because we moved a lot of devs to the iPhone" and it gets even more weight.