Slashdot Mirror
Gates: "Linux will have Limited Impact"
tomas writes ""Addressing an audience of information technology professionals in Houston, Gates said there was clearly a
market for free software but this was mainly confined to relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets".
Get the full story and read the full comments. Geez-someone wrap him in asbestos, methinks.
If word processing and spreadsheets are so simple, why does Office 97 take 80MB?
and some dam common sense too. word processing and spreadsheets MY SPHINCTER! The whole dam internet, the VERY THING Gates is pushing his OS torwards, _THE_VERY_THING_ that Gates is putting ALL his money and resources into, is operating on "free software". How much of the net runs off apache, or sendmail, or the countless ftp daemons out there. If all this FREE software is so dam limited, why the hell is he investing so much into an industry based on free software?
BECAUSE IT ISN'T LIMITED!
that m0r0n.
i bet if you scanned all MS owned domains on the 'net, you'd find at least 50% running non-MS "Free" software.
can't we just institutionalize him and forget MS existed?
You Linux geeks sure are missing the point. Look - Linux is fantastic on the server side, but it won't ever make inroads against Windows on the desktop. The reason for this isn't that Windows is better on the desktop than Linux is (although Windows is indeed better on the desktop) its that tens of thousands of commercial desktop applications exist for Windows and they simply do not exist for Linux. Linux makes a great webserver and a great database server, but if you are using Linux on the desktop you are a computer hobbyist - you are not part of the legitimate business world. Commercial software versus free? Free software is terrific, but other than a few very strong isolated examples (Linux, Apache, sendmail) there is little out there that is free that I would trust my business to run on. The idea of all free software is great but very unrealistic. Everything that has happened for free has been subsidized by your COMMERCIAL JOBS or your TAXPAID TUITION and COMPUTER LABS or your parents mortgages. Money is what is driving this fantastic internet culture of ours and it is silly to think that without Microsoft (or any number of other commercial companies) the same progress would be made. Look around you, Penguin boy - Free software didn't pay for the office you are in, the computer you are using, the communications infrastructure you use to get to Slashdot.org. Even Slashdot is subsidized by advertising by companies that are CHARGING MONEY FOR THE PRODUCTS THEY PROVIDE - and you buy it! Flame away, geeks!
Ah, Mr. Gates, there you go again. Here is the deal, we all know that you're hoping some clueless IS "professional" reads your comments and has some ammo to reply to Linux fans in the bowls of the IT department.
Good move, but the problem is, that those same IS people, pay your company many dollars for your "simple" wordproccessor and spreadsheet. Up to 40 some percent of MS revenue as a matter of fact. Even _they_ will see through the FUD you're spreading.
Eventually, it is going to get more and more difficult to explain why a company should run NT Server, when Linux is cheaper and faster and more robust.
The fact is people are fed up with your products and your company. The people will choose to go elsewhere. Companies like IBM, Intel, Compaq, Dell and others are fed up with your bullying, they will be glad to sink lost of money and resources into Linux, in answer to your comments.
The sad thing is this: Many, many talented people have put you where you are, and built some amazing software along the way (we know that, and give you that) but... ultimately, you've sold them up the river.
Never forget the AARD code! Microsoft, doesn't deserve the public trust -- as this latest FUD spreading from Mr. Gates shows.
True smart people will always be a minority. But computers are infiltraiting more and more homes every day. Everybody says Linux needs to be easier to use if its gonna compete with windows. The reason operating systems need to be easy for the mainstream user is due to the fact that Many people that use pc's and are buying pc's never grew up around pc's. The learning curve is much steeper for these kind of people. But slowly more and more kids that grew-up with pc's will be entering the work force and becoming pc consumers. These kids will have been playing with pc's since they were 5 years old. Formating a hard drive to them will not be much harder than dialing a phone or programming a VCR. Ask yourself this question?? How many of you when your parents or grandparents buy a new "gadget" like a vcr, camcorder, camera, pc etc. ask you to come over and show them how to run it. Also because of the increased knowledge kids of the future are going to have and have now, they aren't gonna put up with crap software and they're are gonna be plenty capable of installing and using a real OS.
Actually, I think that this is a refreshing change of FUD. Now the next time some fool says that "Linux doesn't have a user-friendly GUI" I can respond by saying "Well, according to Bill Gates it has five different windowing systems..."
I think it's unfortunate that people get the idea that free software is somehow written by "altruists". Free software is written by three types of people:
1. People who do it for fun. They don't really care about what happens to the code, or at least they don't feel a need to exercise their god-given right to make money off every byte.
2. People (in commercial environments!) who need to solve a real problem, usually by extending some _existing_ piece of free software, and have no interest in selling their extension, usually because it is in itself worthless.
3. People with an a specific reason (political (FSF), fame, being paid (Redhat's programmers))
Altruists don't code.
Have you seen the GIMP program?
:), contribute a piece of code (or even and idea), and "jump out". While that one particular feature made will not make the program, it is a feature that is done and will not go away. Thousands of such contributions, and you have some real stuff going on. And since the code is free (or open or whatever), ANYONE can pick it up later. It doesn't get relegated to the dusty shelf of outdated binaries. Source code lives forever...
:)
:). I'm just happy to be giving something back, because the value I've gotten out of Apache, Gimp, Linux, Sendmail, Fetchmail, X Windows, Emacs, Gcc have been incredible. If my program can be useful to one of the people that helped write those programs, I will be happy :)
It's an EXTREMELY complicated and powerful image processing tool, some say better than photoshop (the leading commercial software in the field). The people in my company use GIMP when they need to do graphics work.
I can see where your argument comes from, that most people will write commerical software instead of free software. The counter to this argument (and the reason I think programs like GIMP and the Linux kernel exist) is that people can "jump in" (well, maybe not with the kernel
Another counter, and one that I think is relatively new, is that now many companies are writing free software for name recognition. I work for a "big" company, and I am writing free software. Why? Because my company wants name recognition. After all, if people are going to use free software, mise well use our company's right?
Well that's how the managers view it
The Cowardly Lionymous
Is it just me, or does it really appear that the room is mostly painted, with Bill, Ed "the Mouth" Muth, and Der Fürher Balmer (ever see him at a M$ pep rally? All he needs is that little mustache) continuing to paint the unpainted part, not realizing that the only place unpainted is that little corner that they're having to squeeze into.
"Simon is English. When I had known him on MSNBC he said he had come to the USA for a job opportunity in DC and that it wasn't working out. He was hoping to get work with Microsoft and perhaps he thought that being the voice of Redmond on the MSNBC/Technology BBS would help. It may have. He now works for MS. But unfortunately he was also right about his current gig not working out. When they learned he had accepted a position with MS which was to start in three months, they fired him at once."
"I am not one of those who is more patient with liars and shysters and disinformation specialists simply because they are polite. It doesn't make sense to me that so many people are. If an axe-murderer says "Excuse me" before delivering a killing blow it does nothing to make his crime less heinous. Still, that brand of online deception is more and more the kind practiced by MS."
source: http://www.pjprimer.com/subscribers/porch.html
Not usually an AC, but sometimes ACdom seems to be warranted. This is one of those times...
What he wants the public to think, though, and the areas where Microsoft is generally quite wrong, are these:
They think they can provide what "most customers" are looking for. However, the Amiga, Atari, and Macintosh platforms were scoring much higher customer satisfaction than Microsoft when they were in business, and the Mac continues to do so.
They think they are relevant in the world of computer science and business. Truth is, their contributions to the computer world are so few and so irrelevant that if they were to drop off the face of the planet tomorrow, there would be a few sighs and some rearranging, but then people would pick right back up where they left off, just with Apples, Suns, Linux or BSD boxes, et cetera. It's amazing how little Microsoft actually contributes to the world around them, for all their behemoth influence.
They think they can halt Linux and free software's influence on their market dominance. Yes, they may be able to hold the attention of the average joes, and more power to them. Do I care? No; I'm not a very average computer user. I also don't deal with many average computer users, either. And I'm discovering that there are thousands of people like me who find Microsoft increasingly irrelevant to the computer industry, and who simply decide not to give them the attention they desire. Hence the sudden growth of the Linux community.
Bottom line, I guess, is that it doesn't really matter who Bill rails against today, nor tomorrow, nor next week. For the rest of the computer industry, life goes on; for the free software community, we can continue in our bliss, ignorant of what Bill has to say about us, since he can't influence us anyway.
For US (not U.S but for us geeks) Gates is irrelevant, he would be relevant if he had SO much power that he could control protocols.. but that will never happen. MS will be split up, or not.. it doesn't matter cause Linux and the Free BSD's will not die. And for all those poeple whining: "Welcome to the Real World, where commercial software development blablabla..". I just don't care about your silly "real word". I know it, I live in it, doesn't mean I have to like it do I?
Don't you get it? There's NO WAY Windows will ever outpower Linux/BSD because it's decisions are based on marketing instead of pure technical issues, making Linux unbeatable.
So please, stop posting stuff about anti-Linux FUD, about misleading Benchmarks etc. Peace Slashdot brothers and sisters!
Its just a VERY big point :)
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Gates said there was clearly a market for free software but this was mainly confined to relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets
Uh... Its been a while since I would call Word or Excel "relatively simple" by any stretch of the phrase.
Modern browsers were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
Guess he hasn't seen mozilla in a while. Furthermore, doesn't it seem that most of the "complexity" [read: badly implimented features] in browsers are due to Internet Explorer.
Gates said, for example, that there were five different windowing systems that run on Linux.
Even if I agreed with him on his definition of "windowing systems", doesn't more = better?!
I guess the main thing we can garnish from comments from "The Man" like this one is that they are scared. Very scared. Now more than ever it is time to support GPLed projects for linux. If we can evolve quickly they won't even notice as we stride past them.
2^5
Again I think this is very odd. We pay hundreds of dollars for these "trivial" applications (such as MS-OFFICE) ... yet they're a piece-of-cake to develop and any joe-blow college student can whip one together in his spare time???
This is quite revolutionary! When are we going to start getting MS-Office for free and have to start paying again for MS-Explorer? Wow, really big news hidden between these lines ... this should be everywhere, spread the news!
Mr. Gates is, again, as bass ackwards as the Mindspring benchmarks that he bought!
Simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets? Suddenly I'm wondering if these 'simple' applications might be free, why in heavens do the microsoft versions cost close to $300USD per app? And why do I need 64 megs of ram to even consider running office and NT?
I often wish we could go back to the good old days, when the press ignored us and it was exciting to see the word Linux in print.
As for the viability of open source software, history has proven it again and again, and it has also proven that you can say white is black but eventually the people that matter while realize that white is white.
Ignore the borg.
Well, there you go.
In the 80s, they said that free software was OK for simple stuff, but it would never come out with anything "production quality".
Then gcc came out, and it was production quality.
In the early 90s, they said that it would be limited to hacker tools, and nobody would ever make things for real users.
Then gimp, kde, enlightenment, gnome and the rest of them came out, and real users started using them.
Now they say free software will be limited to simple applications, and it'll never be able to make anything with more than a few features.
*yawn*. I'm off to hack Mozilla some more.
Remember Mr Bill on the old Saturday Night Live? :-)
Imagining a cool show along those lines, where the "Mr Bill" clay
doll uncannily bears a bit of resemblance to the Mr Bill in
Redmond... "Mr. Hands" could be a sysadmin, and "Sluggo" could become
a bit more penguin-like... just a thought.
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
I guess he means something like Open Source by "university-type of environment." Time will surely tell if you can develop browsers in that kind of environment. I have great hopes for Mozilla, though I haven't seen much yet.
relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets
I fail to find a reference, but wasn't there some quote some time ago that said something along the lines of the free software community being unable to develop advanced features. Features like that red line in their on-the-fly spell checker? Now word processors are suddenly simple stuff?
He is right, though, that everything is working with each other in Windows. Well, as long as you do not install too much stuff that was not shipped directly on the Windows CD. But nowadays, you (the average person) do not need much more than what ships with Windows anyway.
--
Two things: as far as I recall, Gnome and KDE merged to use the same drag'n'drop protocol. To me this is a sign that when it really matters, even "competing" free projects are smart enough to do the technically best thing. We have five (or fifty?) different window managers because there are different needs - but for a DnD protocol the number one need is that you can D anywhere.
Second, the growing rate might be eight times that of NT, but this means little without context. Consider that the user base of Linux had already grown by 1000% when person number ten downloaded version 0.03 (or whatever).
--
Oh, wait, that's not an alternate universe; it's the future..
"Sendmail"
"BIND"
Err..seems to me an office suite would be more complex than Apache anyway. Sounded like Msr Gates
was pitching NT anyway. Funny about the browsers, I thought, whats left commercial wise IE and Opera? Whoop-dee-doo...
It's rather ironic that the distribution that seems to provide the highest level of quality (in terms of features and stability) is Debian: a completely free distribution put together by volunteers.
You're quite lucky, then. I installed RH 5.1 on two machines. The blasted control-panel/linuxconf system simply does not work. For example, I try to fire up ppp with linuxconf and I get loads of disk activity (probably dumping core).
Configuration is a nightmare for anyone remotely familiar with the "traditional" method of system administration (i.e. editing text files). Because the configuration files are auto-generated with invocations of other scripts (sometimes several layers deep), it's tough to wrap your mind around what is supposed to happen. But perhaps that's just me and I'm not "with it." It wouldn't be the first time. :)
Compiling everything by hand gets old fast, especially on my system [p166/48mb].
No argument there. Debian, IMHO, has a much better package system that Red Hat. apt is the main reason.
BTW: I've tried Debian. In fact, its currently on my secondary system [486/66, 64mb]. However, I still haven't gotten it fully configured the way I like it. Stability, yes, but I still have problems getting it to do what I want it to. Its always fun when dselect decides to skip over half the packages you told it to install.
I've had similar problems with dselect, but I attribute that to my lack of reading on the subject. :) I think it's fair to say that most people agree dselect is not exactly the package interface you want to have. I'm not claiming Debian is the be-all end-all Linux distribution. I said it was the best (always IMHO) in terms of features and stability.
Seriously, the Linux community seems to have split into two groups: people who acknowledge that Red Hat has done a lot of good for the community, and those who constantly throw FUD at Red Hat.
It should not be US fighting each other over who has the better distro. I've yet to use a distro that was significantly better or worse than another.
I am not throwing FUD. The Linux community in general and the Slashdot community in particular (I'm including the *BSD, Be, etc. folks here as well) are going to have to face the fact that their favorite system is not perfect. There are problems, and those problems need to be faced head-on. It does no good to cry "FUD" as a defense against criticism. Call what is FUD FUD. Call what is constructive criticism the road to better software.
I don't recall saying that Red Hat has not done good things. They've done a lot. And I would never criticize them for their status as a successful corporation. But one must not get complacent. We can only pat ourselves on the back for so long.
Gee, Mr. Bill has forgotten the little bit of History that created the PC business...A little program called Visicalc for the Apple ][. Suddenly, it wasn't a hobbiest machine, it was a business machine that could do company payroles in minutes what it took people by hand to do in a day.
Then another little package called Lotus 1-2-3 came along, and did much the same for the IBM PC.
SO, spreadsheets are not important...yeah, right.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Is this really possible? Everything I've seen on the subject suggests 1 MB as an absolute bare minimum needed to get Linux running. If it can run on 640KB, how much of that does the kernel take?
The only OS I've used that's efficient and tightly written enough to be able to boot and run useful apps, all in 640KB, is DOS. CP/M probably could too.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Sure, people dislike crashes, but they're willing to put up with them compared to the alternatives. Most non-tech-savvy people I know would rather be mildly annoyed and waste a minute rebooting than spending a few hours (possibly over several weeks) trying to get a Linux box working properly, and learning a new environment.
If you offered them a version of Win98 that didn't crash, I'm sure they'd take it. What they don't want is an OS that doesn't crash but with the caveat that everything is harder to set up, and even the things that aren't harder are still different, so they have to relearn how to do things that in windows they already knew how to do.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Opera fits on a floppy, at least zipped. If you play around with its settings (no disk cache, no optional anything, etc.), you might be able to get a semi-old (one or two years old) version to work from a floppy.
Here's the newest zipfile (about 100kb bigger than v3.5, but still fairly small):
O360E32 EXE 1,307,250 04-02-99 12:13a
Compare *that* to IE or Netscape.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yes, but can you actually use Linux if your computer only has 640 kB of RAM installed? To run useful programs, you'd probably need around 500 kB free, so can the Linux kernel fit itself into less than 140 kB of RAM (as DOS's does)?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Speaking of radio, you mentioned a while back that you were using a radio modem to connect (albeit quite slowly) while your ADSL line was down. I don't think I've ever seen a radio modem. Any links to sites I could get info on them?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've heard that repeated over and over again here, and that's part of the problem, but it's not the whole problem. Windows 95/98 installation is still much easier than Linux installation (even of RedHat). When I installed Windows 95 on this computer, it auto-detected my video card, network card, serial mouse, IDE Zip drive, monitor, and just about everything else. When I installed Linux, the basic OS installation wasn't too bad (though definitely a bit kludgy since it was Slackware 3.0), but in order to get the GUI running, I had to muck around in XF86Setup for quite a while. Whereas Windows auto-detected both the video card and monitor and told me what video settings were supported, in XF86Setup I pretty much had to guess until I got something that didn't mess up my monitor. Ironically, I rebooted windows once or twice during the installation, but I rebooted Linux at least five times before everything including X was running (several times due to messed up consoles after i tried to cat a binary file, and several times due to my monitor getting set into a video mode it didn't support, and me having no idea how to get out of it).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeah, I've been following that story for a while, and submitted it to /. a week or so ago. Apparently, despite its repeated protestations that /. is not a Linux-only site, "Bill Gates makes fun of Linux" is somehow more nerd-news-worthy than spamming through amateur radio satellites. I also haven't seen anything here about the recent FCC rule changes making it a crime to scan cell-phone frequencies (instead of making cell phone manufacturers implement secure communications).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
>>>
Check out the clueless talkback responses for (yet another) another good laugh.
>>>
Clueless? No more so than most of Slashdot, and every bit as rabidly ANTI-Microsoft. Of approximately fifty responses, I think I found one that was _moderately_ sympathetic to MS, the rest bash them as hard as "we" do.
So get a clue yourself before blowing off ZDNet readers. Some of us read more than just Slashdot.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Ummmm....the only reason people use Win95 is for the "simple" apps like wordprocessing and spreadsheets.
What are these complicated apps that Win95/NT runs so well? It sure ain't battleships...
Posted by Morpheus_solo:
There is something that is frustrating about being a Linux user. And that is competing with a company with the resources and commercial power that Microsot has. As a strong Linux supporter (albeit a relative newbie) I see the path of where Linux wants to go and where Linux is. However this is more of a battle of David v. Goliath proportions and the one thing that the Linux community has is belief. Microsoft is a company that has thrived off of a poorly designed operating system due to great marketing and appeasing people's doubts. Linux will persevere in this matter because it is a better product (for lack of better word) and it has the strength of the Computing Community behind it. It is derived from UNIX which has persevered since the late 60's early 70's. Linux may never be the desktop OS, but in this world what matters is that you use a product that you believe in. The best form of marketing is still word of mouth and until Linux can generate enough revenue to support marketing, it is up to us...the few, the proud, the geeks. So do your part in spreading the word. Slashdot is a great place to vent your frustrations, but venting to like minded people accomplishes nothing. I suggest venting out in more public places (for starters MSNBC). If we can't get an above ground audience, then the underground crown will have to make enough noise to be heard by the mainstream. Do your part, spread the word. Have a good day.
Posted by Morpheus_solo:
read my comment titled "Frustrations of right and wrong" it is just above yours.
Posted by Nino the Mind Boggler:
...that people are idiots if they don't at least consider Linux before they dig out their checkbooks and buying NT? That would be like the CEO of Ford saying, "Y'know, for many consumers, a Saturn would be a better choice than anything we produce."
...that Linux is really a great, powerful, versatile, robust and crash-proof OS?
Go back to your lives, people. The show's over.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
If fortune is the source, take up the validity of the claim with them. What you're saying is akin to
"I defy you to prove that water is wet, without using the words 'water', 'wet', or using the substance itself."
LK
Posted by BCDMentat:
Now is spreadsheets and word processors are so simple then M$ must no longer be in that market. Be nice to see free software compete with Office. I'm tired of $300 updates to get more bloated code. Won't be using Office 2000. I'll be using the "simple" KOffice.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>I did read Fortune say that it was Bill, but I can't imagine why he would say that - he wasn't involved in PC hardware design at all.
If Bill actually did say it, the reason would be this, the 640K limit was NOT a hardware limitation on machines like the 386, BUT the way M$ designed their first versions of DOS they were only able to handle the 640K that was the limit on early processors. They didn't think ahead because "640K sould be enough for anybody". That is why XMS and EMS were done. 640K + XMS + EMS maintained compatibility with apps that could only run in 640K while giving extra ram for programs whach needed (or could use) more.
640K hasn't been a hardware limitation since before the heyday of the 286. It IS still a M$ limitation to this day.
LK
Who exactly *wants* all the cruft of a "modern" browser? I was perfectly happy with the early versions of Mozilla/Netscape, quite frankly. Too bad that the current standards are only supported by monoliths of programming inefficiency.
A browser that fits on a floppy....a guy can dream, can't he? =)
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
All of a sudden, Linux is only good for "word processing" and other similar applications.
Funny, I thought that office apps and games (especially games...) were where Linux had the most trouble competing with Windows...
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
This one is a bit too much for me. While Bill might like to run Corel into the ground, I doubt if he would sacrifice his cash cow to do so. MS gets too much of its profits from Office.
The thing is that if Office were freely distributed (like MSIE, not FSF "free"), it would help Windows, at least in the short term. Since most people get PCs with Windows/98 on them, giving them Office encourages them to use it. If someone has to get a different package, they might just end up trying something that doesn't run under windows. This person might then switch to a non-MS OS and that is what would hurt MS. So giving away Office (or at least "Office light") helps encourage the use of Windows by joe sixpack.
But I think that Windows will die on its own anyway, so this would slow things down without stopping the big trend.
IMHO, of course.
- doug
>Where I come from, 64K is a pretty huge chunk of code to waste on something that doesn't add any functionality.
Oh, enough about this. You know why there's a flight simulator in Excel? It's because some of the programmers who worked on the project wanted to sign their name to their work, something the artists of old always got to do. But now that we're corporate cogs, that seems to be taboo. So they sneaked in the simulator, which if you play with it, you'll note has a scrolling list of a lot of people who worked on Excel. I've been involved in a similar sneak to get around PHBs. (My current employer, the CEO being a programmer himself, puts the programmers' names on the product "About" box.)
It's a small act of revolution by some Microsoft programmers, and should be recognized as such, not continually brought up as a golden example of Microsoft wastefulness.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Linux has five Windowing systems? Three weeks ago the Mighty Bill claimed that Linux didn't have a "graphics" interface, whatever that means. Now it has five?
I've been using X -- what are the other four?
TedC
sides of his head. Ok, Linux isn't a threat 'cause it's only for servers in small situations and so doesn't pose a threat to the desktop. BUT Linux also doesn't pose a threat 'cause it's free software and free software is only good for spreadsheets and word processors, which are used on....!?...what....dumb terminals?
Sometimes I just can't stand it. Then again. other times I just reach for the beer.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Whatever happened to John Locke's 'informed public' that is able to 'do the right thing?'
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
If spreadsheets and wordprocessors are such simple apps that can be developed for free than why does MS charge such an insane price for Office (which is one of their biggest money makers)
;)
If they are so simple, maby gates should make them open source... Im mean after all, they cant be worth much and it would be a great pr move
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Heh. The Solaris/SPARC version actually runs? The only stories I'd heard of it were of it crashing machines.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Umm, Hotmail still runs on Solaris and FreeBSD boxen. They _attempted_ to port it over to NT, and it died squealing like a stuck pig. NT couldn't take the load. It was, simply, a crashfest. That's why it's still running on UNIX.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Any chance that some evil cracker might turn his/her abilities to the good and crack an armed military satellite and shoot the Swatch satellite down?
That quote will go down in history right next to "...640KB is more than enough." :)
Unfortunately, the public sees Bill Gates as a Techno Willy Wonka, and Windows as the Everlasting Gobstopper. People will hang on his every word, even though now he's more of a politician/ambassador for Microsoft rather than the technical wizard. We must educate the public without alienating it. After all, whn people think that Bill Gates spent many sleepless nights coding Windows, Solitaire, and Office, there's definately a problem.
Sure but Freed intellectual property builds upon itself much more effectively than non-freed intellectual property. That's the whole point of it to begin with (IP that is).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
or not. the last time my NT workstation crashed was last september when the SCSI controller failed. Since then it's been up running half a dozen servers and heavy interactive use, no problem. YMMV.
it was a zero division error that caused the crash, not the operating system. please check your facts.
I don't expect Linux to be as popular as Windows for one major reason - smart people are, and always will be, a minority.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
For the dancing paperclip, of course. And the flight simulator easter egg.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I have to mildly disagree with you. People are developing on Windows because they are developing applications for idiots who specify Visual Basic or Active Server Pages or any number of proprietary things that are only on the Microsoft platform, even though there are open standards that do the same thing only better.
But I will never believe you when you say that Linux will capture the "grandma technophobe" market. Yeah, Linux is way more powerful, but setting up one of these powerful applications is a major pain in the ass on my Linux machine. The equivalent Microsoft application is limited, bloated and slow, but it passes the "gee whiz" test when my family looks at my Linux box running Star Office and my wife's Macintosh running MS Office, and chooses Office every time. They don't even care that Office has a large probability of locking up the entire computer and forcing a hard reboot and losing their unsaved data. I have no idea why they don't care, but it's that level of unthinking that we have to deal with if we're going to win on the desktop.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
It is impossible to prove that Bill Gates ever said that - he said he never said it, and nobody has been able to find a single source document (interview with him, news release, article about him) that has this quote as anything other than third hand. I defy you to prove that he did. Quoting "fortune" doesn't count - there's a lot of unsubstantiated crap in there.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
My point exactly. They've been trained by the Microsoft Evil Empire to believe that lockups and crashes are normal behaviour, and just reboot and retype what you lost, ho hum. And they're so trained that they won't go to something else that promises crash free operation, even if it's just as whiz-bang and capable of what they want as the buggy crap from MS.
I don't understand it, myself, and the only explanation I've managed to find is "people are stupid".
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Where I come from, 64K is a pretty huge chunk of code to waste on something that doesn't add any functionality. But then I don't work for Microsoft, so producing small, fast applications that are stable and work well is a higher priority than you're probably used to.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Bullshit. There were several MS-DOS (but not PC-DOS) 8088 machines that could address 768K or more. The 640K limitation came from IBM's design, not from MS-DOS.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
fortune(1) is NOT a primary source. I'm asking for a primary source - the people who maintain the fortune database didn't interview Gates. If he really said it, then there will be a magazine or press release or book or something that people can point to where he says it right out. Whenever I put up my standard $100 for anybody who can provide proof that he said it, all I get are third person accounts.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
"don't defend the indefensible"? What the fuck are you talking about? I said that Bill Gates never said "640K is enough for anybody", because 640K was never an Microsoft limit, it was an IBM limit. MS-DOS 1.0 could address anything up to 1Mb if the hardware wasn't reserving it, and there were several machines where it did 768K.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Interesting, but it's not *the* quote. He also seems to be trying to get credit for the hardware design of the IBM PC, which I think is revisionist. Like I said before, computers like the DEC Rainbow could address 768K in MS-DOS because they weren't laid out the same as IBM.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I wonder what this refers to.
I know of three "traditional" window systems:
X11, mgr, Berlin
then rhere are `vgalib' and `ggi', but they aren't windowing systems.
Emacs and screen on a console are window system, but not graphical ones.
Of course, he could mean X11 window managers. There are a lot more than five of those.
And then there are the desktops, with CDE, KDE, and Gnome as the most prominent. Including GNUStep makes it 4, and then there are some minor efforts.
Actually, the folks who make Opera still charge for their browser. That does not justify his comment about browsers -- but it does make you wonder if he intends to charge for IE now that he's all but crushed Netscape.
I quite frankly don't know what Gates is talking about, and I don't think he does either.
:^/
Unless he's referring to CDE, KDE, GNOME...uh, I just ran out...we could throw XFCE in, and some consider Window Maker to be more of an environment than a mere window manager...
There are certainly more window managers than five...
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Aren't the five kinds of people European, stupid, tall, smart, and readheaded? I think that maybe that's right...
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Y'all are stupid if you're comparing KDE to AfterStep. You have no idea. KDE is a group of aplications, which happens to include a windowmanager. AfterStep is a windowmanager.
Get a clue.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Remember DR-DOS? Neither does most of the post-Win95 world. :^(
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Damn. Time to dig out the forms and renew my League membership so we can keep fighting this crap.
What callsign will it be transmitting under? And why can't the Mir folk just refuse to launch it?
--N9RUJ
As compared to redhat auto-detecting your video card, network card, and IDE zip drive?? So you still need to specify your monitor and serial mouse, it ain't that bad..
I thought the microsoft stance was that while linux is very good at doing difficult tasks we were lacking a gui and desktop apps?
Now we've got the desktop apps and 5 window managers and the FUD is claiming what exactly?
Bill G. is just covering his own ass. He Plainly Just Don' Get It.
Let's just hope he continues to have this attitude in public as well as privately, so the full guns of the Microsoft Juggernaut are not brought to bear on our asses.
-- adr
Heh...Actually, there were a lot of features in the original Mosaic that no other web browser has now. Like your bookmarks hanging off your pointer (right-click and there they are), full-screen mode (IE Has this now), annotations, etc. It's bull-sh*t to think that nothing of value can have lots of features unless it's proprietary.
I found the 'central testing point' to be amusing. I call it a 'choke point'.
Let's take this article apart:
Addressing an audience of information technology professionals in Houston, Gates said there was clearly a market for free software but this was mainly confined to relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets.
Like Office 97, which costs more than Windows 98 and is MS's cash cow? It sounds to me like MS thinks that Windows' best applications don't come from Microsoft!
The Microsoft chairman noted, for example, that early Internet browsers had been distributed for free, but said that modern browsers were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
So what's Mozilla, then? It sounds like he's saying that Mozilla doesn't count as a "modern browser". Oh wait, didn't he mean to say "browsing technology"!?!?
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
He's trying to make people think that Open Source software is written only by college students. What a crock.
Gates said Microsoft took Linux seriously but felt that most customers would continue to favor Windows because it was a more homogenous product than Linux, development of which is in the hands of a diffuse band of programmers.
Ha! As if MS's own programmers were any less diffuse. Since when has a corporation's programmers had any direct accountability to the users? Say you find a printing bug in Excel. Can you call the developer who wrote that code at Microsoft and ask him why he screwed up? Of course not! Besides, John Dvorak wrote that a lot of ex-MS programmers have said that the build environment for Windows is so confusing that there isn't any one person in charge of it all.
Gates said, for example, that there were five different windowing systems that run on Linux.
And every version of Windows has a different look to it! I wonder how much money those corporations spent on retraining their employees when they switched from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95.
``The fact that you don't have a central testing point to control ultimately how to build these things probably means that the impact will be fairly limited,'' Gates said.
Testing!?!?!? Did I just hear Bill Gates tout the testing of Windows 98 as an advantage?!?! If those people really tested their software, would it be as buggy as it is?
``People really do want something that's been tested against all the different applications, so that they know exactly what is out there,'' he said.
The only time MS tests with other vendor's applications is when they want to find a way to break them.
This has led some industry observers to suggest that the system, originally created by a Finnish college student, could one day challenge the supremacy of Microsoft's Windows.
I don't use Linux since OS/2 is my OS of choice, but I think Linux is already challenging Windows. That sentence should read "could one day defeat the supremacy of Microsoft's Windows."
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
If I'm not mistaken, Bill Gates was talking about free software, not gratis software. There are very few free browsers. Only Lynx and Arena come to mind, neither of which are "rich" (and I'd like to keep it that way).
No no no, it's Gnome, KDE, CDE, UDE, and GNUstep. And probably more.
No no no, it's Gnome, KDE, CDE, UDE, and GNUstep. And probably a few more.
It's called Earth, and it's big and it has one hell of a lot of testers. Microsoft could use the same testing lab but unfortunately they have no line of communication between this planet and whatever planet they happen to be living on.
While I don't believe this is the case even for a second,if one proceeds on the assumption that this is true, MS is still in trouble. MS Office is their bread and butter. Kill that... ooooh. :)
it's a fair comment to say that ms is good for business. every time a new product is in beta, then sold on the shelf new features are added, and developers have to upgrade their skills/understanding....hence more money is spent hiring/training programmers, purchasing software and licences...but to say open source is only good for word processors etc?
i think he means, 'linux sucks, i dont make money and i loose as the supplier of software'..
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Too late for that (fortunately) IBM, Sybase, Informix, Oracle, Sun, Netscape, Intel.... have all stepped up to the plate to commit to Linux. The tactic you suggest would have possibly worked a year ago. But not now (*giggle* *grin*)
Cheers !
"If you are the best then you will win. "
is unfortunately not always true.
If that were true the US would be metric. And I would have a Dvorak keyboard.
Of course the OS was in ROM - a distinct advantage (in some ways).
But then again, video RAM == System RAM in a 512K Amiga...
But then it's screen res/depth was no hell....
Hmm.... The Amiga sure was a differet beast - but you're right, 512K was enough to impress most people in those days on an Amiga.
OBGates: The way he will (eventually) attempt to control Linux is well rehersed for him:
1. Adopt it.
2. Extend it (Microsoft it).
Smells like Java... While Gates is still talking about how he's not worried about Linux, I'm happy. When he says he's going to embrace it - run for the hills.
What the Linux community will do about this when it happens remains to be seen. If I was Gates I'd:
1. Wait until desktop Linux is a prevalent technology (I'd say within 2 years). I (Gates) never get into something until it's a "sure bet" and well established - you know, like the Internet. Look what I did with it!
2. Put out my *OWN* Linux desktop distribution that incorportated the Windows API.
3. Show everyone how easily ALL Windows applications (particularly *Mine*) worked on MSLinux (with the API).
4. After new Linux users flood to MSLinux and every time "Linux" is spoken in the news people think of Microsoft, the OSS programmers of the world would fade away under the enormous volume of programmers the world over who already know all about Win API programming and who suddenly started coding for MSLinux.
5. New apps for Linux would *have* to be written for MSLinux because no other distribution would be allowed to ship the Win API with their distributions. And nobody would *want* to run a distribution that could not run MS Word...
6. Turn my attention to MSLinux Pro where I would then attack the much harder to crack server market. Of course there are always plenty of Network Admins out there who "fear" command line stuff and just can't *stand* the pressure of doing something complex like Linux... They'll adopt MSLinux Pro easily (just like they did NT). And with my help and my DevKits, most of my 3rd party supporters will be able to easily port their NT apps to MSLinux Pro...
-sigh-. Enjoy it now. I'll bet while he's downplaying Linux in public (gently - have you noticed?), Microsoft is already porting the API. Your only hope is to amass as much great software as possible under WMs such as KDE and Gnome (but there again, the Linux community is already shooting itself in the foot by 'fragging the apps. (Yes - competition is good, but not when that competition is soon to be a Jaggernaught). Gates will be seen as the great unifier... The Linux Hero!
(ugh, I'm feeling sick)
Personally I think you had all better send Corel
your money... While they too are doing their own distrib. they don't have an API or dev. environments that they can leverage against other distributions.
Of course, you never know - Microsoft might just roll over and play dead! No matter how popular Linux got, Gates might just say "Hey, we can use the competition!" or "Hell, we deserve to die a horrible slow death" or maybe even "You know, I never did like that API anyway..."
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Lies, damn lies, and corporate speak.
Are there people who buy Bill-Gates'-speak?
Is the ocean deep?
Maybe Bill Gates thought he was being gracious. Giving the loser something to feel good about. The battle for the server is over.. oh wait, we lost that one.. um, the battle for the desktop is over.. um, oh OK, Linux will have limited impact... that sounds good, vacuous, but good.
OK, he got his two minutes, now I'll go check if the kernel finished trickling in.
No, paranoia is unjustified. There are precedents for such as you have described. The destruction of the hemp industry was the result of such tactics. I'm talking about the fibre that was used for nearly 400 years up until the 1920's for rope and sail cloth. In fact IIRC the US army has/had a special dispensation to use hemp for rope.
The story is that Randolf Hearst the infamous media magnate had interests in wood pulp for his news paper and he was directly threatened by the much cheaper (at the time) hemp.
Hence he ran articles about 'reefer madness' and it is alleged managed to convince some 'friendly' senators to include hemp in the bill covering the prohibition of marijuana.
That was the point I was trying to make. That the whole thing about the evils of marijuana was a ruse by Randolph Hearst to destroy the Hemp industry. There was no real problem with marijuana except through the perception as generated by the movie 'Reefer Madness' and columns in Hearst's papers. I was amused to hear a politician in Australia recently describe hemp as an untried product. I suppose 400+ years of use doesn't count.
In otherwords a simple ruse of perceived evil was used to destroy an established industry.
why does everyone always say that Linux is ONLY FREE SOFTWARE. Its not like we flogging people that sell linux software and dont give out the source. I bet you people would be thrilled if someone sold a game for Linux. Or a DVD player. I mean.. please.. we're not all that cheap, its just that we choose to make it free because we can. Not everyone has to choose that.
Ken Mitchner PHP/SQL Programmer Currently Seeking Employment
I have noticed the sudden increased advertising for the company. The benchmarks, the claims, the coop advertising. Its getting thick with FUD.
It will be interesting to see what about to happen. Usually, a company starts spending massive amounts of marketing money when it or a competitor is about to push something through the door.
Although what you said is probably true, i have a nice pII 350 linux setup right now; even if the kernels stopped coming and everything ground to a halt, i'd *still* have a nice linux setup.
.. just avoid them.
mp3s, netscape, wordperfect, gcc, nice window managers, endless customizability and stability: it's good enough for me.
There will always be hardware available that linux can run on. it's like winmodems
ziffie.
---
"Colors blind the eye
Desires wither the heart."
-- Lao Tsu, "Tao Te Ching"
most customers would continue to favor Windows because it was a
more homogenous product than Linux, development of which is in the hands of a diffuse band of programmers.
Wow. What have I been doing all this time. I'm swithcing to NT right now. Then my software, operating system, and identity will be in the hands on one corporation. Diffuse band. Ha.
I remeber when I used to be totally engrosed in M$ Windows and its related products (Office, VB, NT, etc...). I wouldn't really explain to people that when their M$ Windows machines chrashed....it was usually MICROSOFT'S FAULT. Now...that I'm a little more...enlightened...I try my best to explain to people who run MS Windows, when their machine crashes, that the reason why it crashed was because of MS WINDOWS. Not something they did (because it usually isn't), but because the sh$t from M$ sucks...
Just my two cents...
Palin...
It wasn't Bill, I don't think, but when M$ first came out with 'Zero Administration Windows', the speaker announced it saying they were going to come out with a version that required little if any admin (this was to an audience of IT-types). The audience laughed pretty uproariously, while the M$ drone just stuttered on stage for a couple of minutes.
I wasn't there personally, I just remember reading about it on news.com or some such.
Linux isn't a big threat to Microsoft at all because linux is only used by people who actually know something about computers while MS Windows is generally used by people who don't know much about computers at all.
Windows will always be the main OS for home computing, unless MS manages to kill itself, and then some other Windows-like OS will fill the hole. Linux and OSS will always stay alive. there'll always be geeks and other computer-savvy people who like the idea of OSS and linux and will continue working on it.
OSS won't kill Microsoft, nor can MS ever hope to kill OSS.
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humor,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There's an ITU address in this list, as well as the addresses of various embassies to write to, the FCC, etc.
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This is thr right URL.
Bruce Perens.
Here's the right URL. The posting form seems to have broken for a while, I hope this gets through.
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
www.ricochet.net
Bruce Perens.
The Russian Space Agency took money from Swatch, and they are going to launch the satellite from Mir because they don't want to give back the money. Likewise, they threatened to sue French AMSAT if payment for the fabrication of the satellite was witheld, and French AMSAT gave in.
The bottom line is that every ham organization involved with this has been screwed.
Yes, you should renew your ARRL membership, and look at joining No-Code International as well.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Want to see a real story? Check this out. Big corporation steals, walks all over the law, and when confronted about it shows only contempt for the accusers, mouthing bald-faced lies about what it is doing.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
He can FUD all he wants. I just FDISKed an NT4/IIS4 machine and dropped Linux on it. Even upgraded kernel to 2.2.5 without calling Redmond for help.
I now have 1200+ users grateful that their proxy server doesn't crap out several times per day. I get the benefit of reduced NetBIOS traffic on my network, as well as reduced browser wars and WINS tracking. Sure it's only one machine. But I expect it to be the first of many.
Gates says that Open Source is only going to have impact in the word
processor and spreadsheet markets. That's interesting, considering
that Office is MS's major cash cow. We're in the process of killing
him in the operating system domain, so he redirects attention elsewhere.
Of course, we will beat him at the spreadsheet and word processor game
as well, they're just not going to be expecting it.
This is a classic example of how to spin things. If you're being
threatened in area A, claim that the only real threat lies in area
B. This works especially well if the perception is that you are strong
in area B.
-- Beer. It's what's for breakfast.
one word: Television.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
If an asteroid hit the planet, :-)
it too would have a limited impact
An unlimited impact would result in
the complete detruction of the
universe and another big bang, then
_another_ destruction and _another_
big bang ad infinutm. Limited still
includes wiping out all but one other
OS. Unlimited would be wiping out all
other OSes and the possiblilty of any
other OS ever existing. So, yes,
technically he's correct.
Hey guess what! The sun sill have
limited effect on plant growth this year!
With 54% of web sites in the world running Apache and 80% of mail servers in the world running Sendmail that's kinda hard to believe...
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
He was better to ignore Linux. Mentioning it in that kind of context (Linux is only for the desktop apps) will only hurt Microsoft. Talking about it will only inspire people to check it out. With every day that passes, Linux and it's components become more robust and easy to use. I think a fair to large percentage that of the curious that try it, don't look back.
Are we in the "then they laugh at you" or the "then they attack you" stage now?
I hope we are in the "attack you" stage. We all know what comes after that.
Matthew Newhall
Yes! I'm in heaven!
This is nice.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
So WHY isn't the OS free again? Oh, I get it. Hook the market on IE, including Mac users who know Netscape wasn't fighting their battles on the Mac front anyways..
Now stuff the browser into the NT kernel. Next, pull UNIX and Mac versions of IE off the market after a period of neglect.
Oops, yes the browser if free, see, but you can't run it without our OS, see, and you can't run our OS without the browser. BUT we're keeping our work... it'll always be free. Yeah, um, sure.
Actually, I *am* a Mac user. If I implied otherwise it's because during any one week I've logeed hours on 4 different platforms.
I actually LIKED IE on the Mac... it's much much better than IE on that Windows thing. For example, IE/Mac you can save HTML pages as an "archive" that wraps both the HTML and all graphics into one file. In typical Microsoft execution however that file format is proprietary to Microsoft.
That said, IE isn't so much better than Netscape that I'm willing to help Microsoft win the Browser Wars. Because Microsoft's goal isn't to spend all their money to give away browser code, it's to CONTROL the internet for more than just selling servers (every smart cookie uses Apache anyways). If Microsoft wins the web "View Source" will become a thing of the past, and they'll deliberately leave Mac and UNIX without a browser (or charge for it).
This struck me as really funny. Compare the part about "5 windowing systems" with this. (Warning: it's a link to a pdf file. Not big, but if you don't have a viewer...)
Oh, protect me from myself, Billy. Please?!?! Hehe.
If word processors and spreadsheets are such "simple" applications, why the hell does Microsoft charge so much for their word processors and spreadsheets?
Hrms... Can you say, "insert foot into mouth" boys and girls?
The Amiga can run decent and run an app or two with 512K mem. Unlike DOS, you'll also get pre-emptive multitasking and a pretty GUI too.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
I've got it figured out.
Gates is in denial!
He's denying that applications like Office
are complex, while browsers like Mozilla, IE5,
KFM, etc are simple?
He's denying that Linux isn't good for much,
except that more Internet servers are using
it than any other choice.
He's denying that the bizaar model can't scale
up to provide real and tested solutions, yet
MS does it well? (Then why did Wordpad give me
a BSOD the very first time I used NT just trying
to read a floppy?)
See - he's in denial!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
You are just get on a aircraft for a nice trip to a linuxexpo, or another linux related event. You take your seat and prepare for a routine flight. Then, the pilot gets on the PA System and anonuce that Foo Airlines (the one you are currently using cause they had a good price) has recently "upgraded" their entire fleet of aircrafts a new "state-of-the-art" flight controled system, using (you guessed it) embeded Windows NT!
Then you wake up screaming....
:)
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
...during the LCS 35th anniversary celebration that word processors, spreadsheets, and personal databases will likely become commoditized within the next two years. This suggests that MS is going to have to move into other markets that aren't as ripe for development by the free software community.
There will always be a place for proprietary software (whether that's good or not is another story), because there will always be markets for which there does not exist a critical mass of free-minded people to development a replacement application. I'm guessing this is where MS and similar companies are going to move if Linux et al. win out.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
And Office2000 Beta shipping on 6 CDs?
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
>So WHY isn't the OS free again? Oh, I get it. Hook
:>
;>
>the market on IE, including Mac users who know
>Netscape wasn't fighting their battles on the Mac
>front anyways..
Careful!
Mac users stuck with Netscape to the very end. If not as a statement against Microsoft, at the very least for this reason: IE for the Mac is buggy as hell. For Windows, it does have some redeeming factors, but the Mac version (at least until recently) has been a complete joke. Most Mac people picked up on this.
Remember, Mac users have been hating Microsoft and laughing at Windows long before you Linux whippersnappers.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
....if he was at one of these conferences and the audience just started laughing hysterically at his blatant stupidity/FUD?
Just imagine....((insert dreamy music here))
Billy: "Linux is unstable, and will never have an impact on the market!"
Audience: BWWAAAAAAAAAAAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!! (continues for about 5 minutes)
Billy: "What?? WHAT???" (looking stupid...)
hmm KDE, GNOME, Openstep, CDE and maybe Berlin?
---
MS will die if they have to give Office for free. It's where they get their $$$ from. Besides, Corel is giving WP for free anyway :)
---
Once a release comes out yes. I've used the beta, I like it but it's not as stable as I want it to be (and lacks features). I will use a release though. As far as Internet Explorer... I don't use it, have but never will again.
So I'll be using free over commercial in another area.
--
CodeRed, the lower user #. No relation to SirCam.
The way I heard it was that the end of prohibition was going to turn a lot of federal cops and bureaucrats from important and powerful people to excess baggage so they needed to demonize something else in order to create a new demand for their services.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I haven't had such a good laugh in a while. Bill should be in pictures or stand up comedy.
Most of Netscape's money came from Corporate
site-license sales, not from us piddly little
single-user downloads.
The BIG network companies know that site-license
is better than individual sales. E.g., notice how
the phone companies have stayed out of the home
internet access (something originally expected
they would dominate) and instead have gone to the
big one-shot money of backbone support.
MS knows this, that's for sure. Most Office
upgrades come (due to the incompatible file
formats) when first, the office head upgrades
his copy, then forces his employees to upgrade
theirs in a big site-license deal, THEN
(and here's where the real money comes in) the
employees have to update (at their OWN expense,
and at store prices, not site-license prices)
the copies of Office on their personal portables
and home systems, in order to be able to take
work home...THAT's where Office gets it money...
digusting, IMHO.
joe
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
That is a very good observation. As good as the help I've gotten from the general internet population is, if I had started out as a newbie asking all my questions of USENET or IRC instead of having a "mentor" to teach it to me (thanks, Eric!), I don't think I would be using Linux today. There are a lot of knowledgable folks out there, but the noise of all the angry cowards hiding behind the anonymity of IRC and USENET tends to drown them out and scare off the uninitiated.
That said, I imagine you'd get the same kinds of thing in Windows newsgroups or IRC channels. "I have a question about Windows 95..." "Windows 95 sucks! Windows NT is better!" et cetera... It's not the OS that's the problem, it's the medium of communication.
So the advice here is, if you want Linux to spread, teach a friend, and be nice to newbies on USENET and IRC. Don't just yell "READ THE FAQ!", because they probably can't even find the FAQ... If you're a newbie, try to find someone you know personally who will help you, unless you like anonymous hostility...
Ideally, in the future, we won't need to be as proactive in pointing out the benefits of Linux -- they will be obvious.
Why do we need to now?
Can anyone seriously tell me why I should care if Grandma Joe uses Linux?
Charles Miller
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
Anyone noticed that M$ ceases to mention their "superior" technology? Now it's all about the consumers, and Gates knows, no, defines what "the consumer" wants. FUD at it's best, addressing the laziness to try something new, giving the cozy feeling that this is the standard way to do it. Because this is what you want. You want that, get it? No denying.
He's getting desperate, isn't he?
Bill Gates blurted out....
The Microsoft chairman noted, for example, that early Internet browsers had been distributed for free, but said that modern browsers were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
Since the Browser battle has ended, this could mean IE would become commerical and thus enslave 90% of the computer users in this world with ther commerical browser.
This is a wake up call for anyone who wishes to for the mozilla project and create a better more GNU friendly software development project. The first thing that should be done would be to kill the name "mozilla" and thus stop the link it has to netscape.
If code is forked, and well advertised, I'm sure even JWZ would come to the new browser's aid. We need a good browser. Soon MS would release i386 copies of IE5 for solaris, which would infact run on i386 linux (just like the sparc version does on S/Linux), using iBCS. This might mean a lot of ppl would move to the more advanced browser (netscape has not put in any new standard complaint features into it's browser since 97).
wake up and beat the devil before he puts a price on IE and enslaves everyone. Make a better browser!
--
logan
uhhhh... hemp is marijuana. The strain used for cloth was a hermaphroditic self-pollenizer so it wasn't much good to smoke (you need virgin female flowers to get high)... but it is the same plant. And most of the senators that voted to outlaw the "devil-weed marijuana" had no idea that it was the same thing as hemp, which is, of course, the material used for the paper of the Constitution and the cloth of the first American flag.
I did read Fortune say that it was Bill, but I can't imagine why he would say that - he wasn't involved in PC hardware design at all. In years past I've heard it attributed to various people, ranging from the CEO of Intel to the president of IBM. I don't believe anyone actually "said" it.
Good story, Bruce, but it did not mention what
international law enforcement agencies to contact.
I am not going to write to Swatch about it. If
they are breaking an international treaty, then
Switzerland needs to take action against the perpertators, as do the other countries signed to
the treaty, correct?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Gates is not stupid.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Gates is not stupid.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Gates is not stupid.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Not counting the operating systems themselves or kernels, most of these projects have many many megabytes of source code, and most are quite complex and yet robust and reliable.
I don't remember the last source-code-line-count of Debian, but it's nearing 100 million lines, this is (surely) bigger than W2K + Office2k and yet offers a far richer environment.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
1) is it possible that he's given up on selling
licenses for Office and OSs? MS thinks that in
2003 the infrastructure will be in place to rent
out software. First step: lo/cost version for China.
2) is it possible that he's given up on making
money off Office and OSs alltogether and moving to
do things like billing, databases, erp, eTrade?
3) is it possible that MS will control a different
resource than the OS? Say, patents, formats,
whatever? But then, he may just be bluffing.
One thing that I would like to see happen with developers and Linux is more software engineering. I don't believe there exists any case tools or anything like that for software engineering and I am just starting to use them and see that other companies are useing them. The main reason why it isn't ported to Linux or I can't find any is because companies pay thousands of dollars for just one licence of these things.
:)
M$ unfortantly did on step better by putting some rudimetary case tools into vc++ 6.0. Well unfortunatly for my software engineering concentration I have to try to build an ansi c++ app in vc++. If any one has had to us vc++ before ansi and M$ visual should never be in the same sentence.
My point being after ranting and raving is that for linux to be come a more alternative to windows nt on the developer side we will need to give them the apps they use. If we could get code warrior to have some of the features of the case tools we would be on the way. Big problem is making case tools from scratch for free is a hard tast but if we got a good number of developers working on it it wouldn't be hard.
P.S. I can't spel
Wow. I've never seen Gates compliment us so well! First he claims that open source is only good at simple spplications like spreadsheets and word processesors. Hmm... But those simple applications are MS's cash cows.
:^)
So he's saying that OSS will produce products which people use. Umm... Right.
And then he says that we can onyl produce simple applications. Thanks again! Look at the simple modular designs of open source applications. Pretty amazing right? It makes it easy for people to contribute and add features to that simple application.
Guys... He's complimenting us and making it sound like a complaint! I can live with that.
This
Okay, so Gates says if ya don't have a central testing point, things won't work. How 'bout this: if you follow accepted STANDARDS, things will work together fairly well.
Soon Gates might claim that standards aren't any good because people don't follow them, which is obvious to anyone with half a brain because things don't always work together. So then he leads Microsoft down the proprietary track and stomps on our freedoms.
AfterStep, Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment, and WindowMaker? I think that might be what he's talking about.
save your breath(fingers) this is just Microsoft spreading Doubt about Linux. They will do this first, add alittle 'U'ncertenty, and when that doesn't work they will spread 'F'ear throughout all that they can control. It is the 'F' that can bury a product since they control OEM's, ISV's, and the press. Lucky that the Internet is here because those pretty PR stunts that used to take up to a month to disprove are now disproven in hours and within hours the world knows. Before corrections were not widely spread because of the needed $$ to send mailings to all the media. So it is the 'F' that is dangerous, 'U' and 'D' can be delt with quickly.
Can you hear that DOJ? Stop the 'F'.
Locutus
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I think it was just last year that SCO asked the EU to stop Micros~1 from charging them for Xenix code that hasn't been used for many years. SCO had a license to pay MS for the code to allow SCO Xenix compatability forever. Micros~1 released SCO from the license. Soooo, at some time Micros~1 owned Xenix.
Locutus
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
32bit Win32, slapped onto 16bit Windows, slapped onto 16bit DOS. Homogenous?
How about X+Linux, all 32bit protected mode. Definitely a lot more homogenous. Or if you prefer something more streamlined, BeOS.
Ryan
Actually, with Office 2000 documents supposedly based on XML, we can finally start writing Open Source apps that read/write MSOffice files with a high degree of fidelity.
1) "limited to simple apps like word processing and spreadsheets" is a simply bizarre statement to make. Unless he means real word processors as opposed to MS's VB macro-laden behomeths.
2) "Browsers were free". NSCA Mosaic was free but everyone else (Netscape, Spyglass) charged for their browser. Browsers became free when MS started giving it away, relying on their monopoly-protected cash flow to bury their competition.
On another point, it would seem that Gates is contradicting the view put forth in the DOJ trial; namely that he's calling them "modern browsers" rather than pushing the integrated OS line.
3) Five window systems. The world is changing. The old belief that everything had to look the same and act the same from window to window or app to app is getting stale. The Web changed all that; users are used to encountering radically different navigation schemes and visuals as they hop from site to site. As long as the basics work the same (links are highlighted, buttons push, etc), the look can change. This behaviour has spread into the proliferation of "skins" for s/w like Winamp and the new chrome on Mozilla.
Better to have some choices in a window environment than be stuck with one that's locked into a proprietary OS.
4) "people want something that's been tested". Well, he got that one right! Too bad his company hasn't been able to deliver -- unpredictable and long delivery times between patches, charging users for support to find out why something is broken, forcing users to register, and give personal information to even report a problem. MS has a long way to go before he can start criticing the Open Source model. Linux and Mozilla have led the way by putting bug reporting systems up front and available to users.
I'm basing this on preliminary reports (e.g. http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,22 41138,00.html) which describe how there are relatively minor problems moving between the existing proprietary file formats and HTML-based (stored as CSS and XML). Obviously, Microsoft is going to muck it around such that it's only 98% standards compliant but that would be sufficient for me.
With the freely available XML parsers and other tools (e.g. http://alphaworks.ibm.com) out there, there is *lots* of interesting things that could be done to MSOffice docs!
I believe you're missing the point. Non Microsoft proprietary operating systems will be able to support proprietary hardware. Free operating systems can't, because you're not allowed to publish hardware specs, or driver source, for proprietary hardware.
That's not entirely true. Linux needs a sufficiently large installed base to get the hardware verdors' attention. The code may very well be free, but what good is it if all the hardware you can buy is proprietary, and requires you to sign an NDA to develop drivers for? Free software needs the market share, because market share is what hardware vendors care about. If we can convince them that by supporting Linux they'll sell more hardware, Linux will continue to be a viable option.
You realize that it doesn't matter what Gates says, right? I mean, the man was on a roll for a long time, but he and his company are losing credibility these days. No...let me rephrase that...they're hemmoraging credibility. The main stream press reports what He says, and the main stream press also reports what He does. They also report all the DOJ shenanigans, etc etc etc.
What Gates does or does not say will have Zero impact on this movement. Nothing Gates can say will impact the quality of Open Source code. Nothing Gates can say will stop people who know what they're doing from turning to Linux and Apache for their file server and web server solutions. Nothing Gates can say will stop the growing throng of people who are turning to Linux and Open Source Software.
People who know computers know that Microsoft stuff sucks. Nothing Gates can say can stop that. There are more computers out there than ever before, and the number is growing. There are more people out there using computers. There are increasing numbers of people who understand computers and are experienced with them.
Gates/Microsoft continues to try to keep users from becoming skilled computer users by hiding all the "hard stuff" from them. This is in their best interest, of course, because people who know computers know that Microsoft sucks.
Nothing Gates can say or do can stop this. His company's success in making the computer more prolific is dooming him where it should have created a Microsoft world. You know what their failures are:
1) They make crappy software.
2) They market to the lowest common denominator.
The second anyone tries to do anything with their computer that is outside of M$'s narrow little definition of the "average user" they realize just how horrible and limiting and frustrating MS products can be.
Anyhow...I'll wrap up by repeating myself: it doesn't matter what Gates says. He cannot stop us, so ignore him. Not even the main stream press really takes him seriously anymore...not with everyone in the world launching a lawsuit against 'em.
- dria
First off, does anyone expect him to say it's a threat? Since when has any CEO of any company stood up and said, well, yes, company B over there is hammering our ass, OR "there are signs in the industry that we're rapidly becoming obsolete?" Of course not. Things like this aren't ever said. By anyone.
The interesting thing is what Bill decided to point out as the possible competition by Linux and Free Software. No matter what the outcome of the GNOME/KDE projects, Linux/*BSD aren't going to break the Windows chokehold on the PC desktop. There are several reasons why, but I'll only list them (email me if you want to talk more about this): (close enough to) seemless integration, universal hardware support, and installed base/intertia.
The more important thing here is that Free Software poses a threat to MS in areas that Bill didn't mention, and are very serious ones at that. The continued high quality and increasing availability (from a corporate standpoint) of total end-to-end solutions for the *BSDs and Linux at the server level is a serious concern to MS. At the server level, most of Windows' desktop advantages either are irrelevant or - worse - a detriment. The requirements for a server-level OS are considerably different than a desktop OS, and Windows is in serious jeporady here. This is a very lucrative market for MS, and serious marketshare loss here will really hurt their bottom line.
Secondly, the other place that Free Software is a threat to MS is the thin client/embedded market. See a previous thread for info on how thin clients and the embedded market will (in the relatively near future) seriously hurt the desktop/home PC market. Linux and Free Software have massive advantages in the embedded/thin client market. Microsoft is extremely vulnerable here.
The instances Bill sites (word processing/spreadsheets) are throwaway examples. They're obviously wrong, and are intended to reinforce the idea that Windows is King(tm).
Oh well.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I've come to the conclusion that the reason people don't care is that they have been trained to accept crashes, lock-ups, reboots etc... as NORMAL behavior for computers. I uesd to work as a tech at BestBuy and people would comment about these things being normal. I would stop them and try to explain that this type of behavior is normal for Windows but not for computers in general.
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
My brother-in-law used to work for MS doing phone support. He said the reason for the GO button was to cut down on the number of people who would call up and say "I typed in www.imadork.com but it won't do anything"
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
He's faced with a dilemma. Ignoring Linux doesn't work, but talking about it only brings publicity and that doesn't work either. The mass-marketing machine is ineffective against something that spreads by word-of-mouth. And big glossy ads spreading FUD about Linux would only bring more exposure.
This little bit of posturing is unsurprising and futile - as expected.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
But, unlike proprietary software that's distributed binary-only, free software will always be maintained and upgraded by the people who use it. Proprietary software exists only as long as it's profitable to market. Proprietary software comes and goes, but free software accumulates.
I think the development might be slower when there isn't a lot of money pushing a project along, but the result will be better because there is much less pressure to compromise quality to keep to a release schedule. Mozilla is a case in point.
So, be patient. It is only a few years since there has been a stand-alone free operating system. It will be a few more years before there are top-notch free office suites and slick free browsers and whatever else Joe Consumer wants. But I think it will happen, as long as there are programmers interested in bringing free software "to the masses."
But, unlike proprietary software that's distributed binary-only, free software will always be maintained and upgraded by the people who use it. Proprietary software exists only as long as it's profitable to market. Proprietary software comes and goes, but free software accumulates.
I think the development might be slower when there isn't a lot of money pushing a project along, but the result will be better because there is much less pressure to compromise quality to keep to a release schedule. Mozilla is a case in point.
So, be patient. It is only a few years since there has been a stand-alone free operating system. It will be a few more years before there are top-notch free office suites and slick free browsers and whatever else the "average consumer" wants. But I think it will happen, as long as there are programmers interested in bringing free software "to the masses."
I'm getting tired of the way the mainstream press equates "free" with "zero-cost." Gates, of course, may be using this as a tactic to undermine the credibility of free software. Or he may be just a blathering idiot. You decide.
By now, newswriters should know better. Whether we're on the "free" or "open-source" side of the holy war, we need to stop letting the press debase the concept of free software (whoops, my allegiance slips out). Otherwise Linux and the rest of the movement will be forever misunderstood and dismissed.
All right, I admit I'm off topic. But I would be interested in anyone's ideas about how to fix this PR problem.
I love the Linux. I know that the Windows/Mac is
;) )
somewhat unstable. But the Linux can also crash.
The point is that there is no standard environment
for the Linux. Gnome, KDE, GTK, xform, QT, Athena, etc.. There are too many things.
Well, for hobbyst it doesn't matter.
But for writing codes and make money by doing it,
( I don't think programmers can live without "eating", etc. - live to eat, or eat to live.
To make money, one developer should make certain that compiling for these machines assures that the
compiled program can be run on other machines.
With Linux, sometimes it is not.
MacOS X is meaningless for us, probably. But what makes it different is that it is for commerce.
BeOS, too. And other Unix clones too.
Whether it is pre-installed or not doesn't matter a lot. The Unix variant is diffcult for users to manage. Why people should consider in the situation that the Windows/Mac work just good for them?
I'm not Linux-hater. I like Linux. I use Linux a lot more than the Windows. ( But to do some official things, I should use the Windows. )
But I also know that it is not for "make money".
Maybe things change. Although the Linux itself is free, but there are many distributors who make money by repackaging it. And.. the apps for the Linux can be sold for money. ( Why not? )
If so, there can be some companies who want to make a standard.
As someone said, it is question whether the Linux evolves as a better Unix or become another OS based on Unix. ( like BeOS? )
We all know that Windows is dominant in the desktop market but is it yet dominant in the server or mission critical market?
A lot of these articles seem to suggest that it may be but my impression of Windows is that it barely gets further than Local Office Server. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If Bill Gates is talking about AfterStep, Gnome, et al, then, IMHO he's just another guy who doesn't understand X Windows.
Someone please ``whup him upside the haid'' and explain the difference between a windowing system and a window manager to him.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Yah! I smiled at this one. Doesn't Microsoft pride itself on the casual "campus" environment up in Redmond?
I also found it hilarious that Linux is only good for word processing and spreadsheets. According to the what I read in the trade press, Microsoft's revenues would be significantly lower without MS Office9x. I doubt that Visual BASIC is what's paying for Bill Gates' new house.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The irony is that the same holds for Windows, though the number of "shell replacements" for Win95 are fewer that they were for Win 3.11. One of them (MSIE 4 in "Active Desktop" mode) is even produced by Microsoft. :-)
(That fewer exists may come as a consequence of MS' "borrowing" of features found in OS/2 PM and MacOS Finder for their Win95 hybrid thingy.)
And NCD's PC/X-Ware X11 server for Win 3.11 used the Windows shell as one of the choices for a Window manager... worked swell, too.
Does anybody else see this as *good* news for Linux? I think that MS isn't taking Linux as seriously as it should. I think they're running the risk that eventually Linux will come up behind them and bite them in the butt.
Maybe Linux won't bear the full brunt of the FUD that MS *could* dish out since they don't see us as a serious threat! Or, maybe not!
Ben
This is an interesting comment comming from a company that makes most of its money selling word processors and spreadsheets. These products are basically what supports MS's OS development, since OS development has a comparatively high overhead in R & D and support costs. I wonder if Gates knows this? :-) It's also interesting to note that while he says that the free-software market is only good for these applications programs, he doesn't take into account that free software hasn't made much of an inroads in these areas. Rather, it has made its most visable progress in the OS/Server market a la linux and FreeBSD.
-Sol
Nope. If you look back into the annuls of history, you'll see that the first 386 was released by Compaq running a version of MS-DOS that was modified to run on the 386. Now, PC-DOS that Microsoft was licensed to sell to IBM is a different story. It's development didn't always parallel the development of MS-DOS. So, while everyone else was running MS-DOS on 386en, genuine IBM hardware was running PC-DOS on 286en. I actually just read this last week while doing research for a history paper. :-)
-Sol
>What are the five windowing systems?
Macos, X, Windows, BeOs, Wince(?)
>Oh, and who is charging for their browser now?
Opera
Wrong on first one, don't know on second.
Five desktop environments for X are KDE, CDE, enlightenment, fvwm, AfterStep, but there are more as well...
GNOME is another, anyone else wish to add?
Gates isn't even aware of how these things work, so why quote him when he says that there are only five? I truly don't think that he would ever look at a full list of available Linux software let alone their descriptions. He really thinks there is nothing to learn from it.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
A couple points to consider:
1. While its true that kids who grow up with a computer to play with will be better suited to program and design that doesn't mean they will. At the Univerity where I attend probably 80 or so guys have a computer and of those maybe 20 or so really go beyond the point and click part proficently.
2. Hacking is a mentality not an action. Out of the 15 or so that programers here about 4 or 5 do it because they like to push the edge. It's not for money (though some of them make it) it's brain stimulation. They are creative, tend to make up there own way of doing it even if there is a proven way already, and sometimes just because they want to learn. To me that is different then sitting down and using precanned VB or such. While that will get the job done it doesn't require the creativity that I have seen in some of my hacker friends (I use *Hacker* in a prog/mentality sense).
3. You can be Smart and not know anything about computers. Smart == know_eveything, its about being able to learn. Many smart people may not know how to use a computer proficently and that will change but many of the rest will use the point and click (it works thats all I know) mentality. Too bad.
4. Recongnize the difference between "easier to use" and "dumbed down so anyone can use it"
Yeah, if you think it's bad now, just wait a couple months for the big 2000 PR bulldozer. Should knock Linux right off ZDNet.
/. legend are generally happy with NT4) are going to be understandably wary about Win2000.
Microsoft knows it's in a bit of jam with the Win2000 server upgrade. It contains an enormous number of network services that are untested and poorly understood. IT shops (who contrary to
In fact, many NT shops are still tying their networks together with NBT broadcasts and have a lot of work and brainpower to accumulate to implement Active Directory.
In short, there's a good chance that most of the installed base won't upgrade, much like most of the Novell 3.x base hiccuped when 4.x came out. This opens the door wide open for Linux, if it can act enough like an NT clone from the NOS perspective.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I recall talking to an Netscape sales rep soon after Navigator 1.1 came out. She said that Netscape wanted to give the software away for free, because it was free advertising for the server products. But big accounts kept coming and saying that they wouldn't deploy it unless they could get a support contract. So Netscape "had to" start site licescing the thing. Plausable enough to be beliveable.
There were still many many dolts that bought the shrinkwrapped Netscape box rather than download it.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
This has to be one of the most retarded MS flames of all time. When the maximum amount of memory in a microcomputer was 64K, 640K was a hellva lot.
Linux -- From the guy that said that 2 GB of RAM would be enough. Just wait.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Are you refering to IBM's decision to target OS/2 1.x to the 286?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well, if you look at the average MS Word user, they probably only use 20% of the feature set.
But, if you look across a medium or large organization, you'd probably find that 95% of Word's features are actively being used.
Sure a cheaper, more lightweight, more targeted solution would solve most peoples needs most of the time, but for the more advanced features, you'd have to go with other tools. This creates an integration and deployment nightmare when you are trying to support an organizational "standard".
In short, IT departments that pay through the nose for MS Office know what they're getting. There's been cheaper/lightweight solutions many times before (Volkswriter!), but they've never flown.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well maybe Gates knows something not many other people do -- Microsoft Office has gotten pretty much every feature that could be possibly be devised. Pretty soon, someone is going to come up with a reasonably good enough clone, and then their cash cow is dead.
The long term plan for Office is to turn it into the front end for a client-server document management/groupware/web publishing system. Microsoft has found out that the network is the profit center and may be ready to ceed the 'simple' word proc and spreadsheet market.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Bill has been taking cues from that X-Files Opening Screen:
"Deceive Inveigle Obfuscate"
I think the fact that I have several different window managers to choose from is nice. This might confuse some people, but the majority of people who can figure out how to get X working on their machine can also figure out any wm that's thrown in front of them.
I also think Bill is overlooking the fact that many people are starting to use Linux at home as a server for the other machines in their house. My step-dad, uncle, and about 10 of my friends parents have started doing so... it was a great way to organize their home network and all the PCs they've collected over the years. That, and it made allowing everyone to surf the net a whole lot easier. I can say that none of their decisions to try Linux were based on my recommendation (I'm a big BSD fan).. so I'll assume they got it word of mouth from elsewhere. Most of these people don't even work in tech fields....
I think if Linux pushed itself on those interested in home networking, they might find even larger growth. Once it infects one machine, the others are soon to follow.
-CK
The only time MS tests with other vendor's applications is when they want to find a way to break them.
I'm no fan of MS, but they do test other vendors' programs with Windows; that's how they know, for example, that 40% (or was it 60%?) of Windows programs don't work with the current beta of windows 2000. At this point, other vendors haven't yet been thinned out to the point where MS can afford to completely shit on customers who use their products.
I don't mean to suggest that MS doesn't suck or whatever, but testing like that is one thing that they actually do.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Microsoft Exchange Server in particular we've found to be a very effective platform for email and collaboration
We haven't. We've found it to be annoyingly unstable and (so says the sysadmin) a bitch to configure. Then again, we're probably pushing it past its design limits; we've got only one server running Exchange for six entire people, one of whom is a bit overweight. Granted, most of us don't send a lot of mail, but still.
. . . the advanced stuff (e.g. VBA) is in there as well.
Uhhh, you forgot the smiley.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Is this better? http://www.si.edu/resource/tours/comphist/gates.ht m#tc44
Microsoft and the Mouse
DA: Now Microsoft is primarily a software company, but you actually got into some important hardware development with the Mouse. Do you want to say a few words about that?
BG: Microsoft was playing a much broader role[laughs] than just doing software for this machine. I mean whether it is the keyboard, the character set, the graphics adapter, or even the memory layouts. I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper 384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the software, in any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the microprocessor. That thing generates addresses, 20-bits addresses, that only can address a megabyte of memory. And, therefore, all the applications are tied to that limit.
It was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address base for applications within -- oh five or six years people were complaining.
Another thing that Microsoft did, in terms of getting these new machines out there and really showing off what new uses they could be put to, was we came out with our own mouse product. The mouse was invented by Doug Englebart back at Stanford Research Institute. Xerox used it in the Alto, the research machine that PARC built, has a three-button device. The Star had a two-button mouse. And then went Apple went and did a mouse, they did a single-button. We believed the two-button concept was the right approach. So, we went to a Japanese company, Alps, got them to do some design work, paid the patent fees to SRI and Xerox for this, and came out with this as a low-cost add-on. So, even on a character-mode display, being able to move the cursor around in a natural way, we thought was a big advantage. We tied it to Word so that we had a bundle with Word and the Mouse. But then people who didn't like the Mouse thought they shouldn't buy Word. So, it was a little bit of a problem.
When we first brought this out we ordered 50,000 and it took over a year to sell the first 50,000. Today we sell many, many hundreds of thousands in a month. But, at first it looked like maybe we had made a mistake. This did go on to be a very profitable thing for us and we continued to evolve the design going to a sleeker and sleeker appearance over time.
He don't, if he did he would not feel he had a reason to say what he did.
This is the sick thing about M$ media relations. Half-truths and lies all the way.
I almost feel sorry for the paranoid BillG. (almost)
Linux, coming to a desktop near you!
Actually, KDE has just that. Right click, and boom! I can select "NBA standings" or "Slashdot"
kfm (KDE file manager) has the beginnings, it seems, of a good browser, with integration into the GUI where it's useful. Now, if that new Mozilla layout engine is good, perhaps a kfm variant can be made which uses the Mozilla layout engine.
Did Linus actually say that "2GB is enough"? I thought he just ruled that "if you want more than 2 GB, then get a true 64-bit processor" or something like that.
There were still many many dolts that bought the shrinkwrapped Netscape box rather than download it. I actually wouldn't call someone a dolt for purchasing software that can be obtained for free. During the 3.x versions of Netscape, for example, it was handy to have the CD for reinstalling on other machines rather than downloading the 12meg file via 14.4 or (gasp) 9600 modems which were still aplenty back then. In addition, it supports the company which is creating or distributing the software itself. In the same way I can now download and burn Linux via my office T1 or even buy from CheapBytes for $2 (plus $7 S&H), I will dutifully shell out the $39 to RedHat which I have done numerous times since 4.1. Note, though, that I have never spent one penny of my own money for a Microsoft product. I wonder how many other people out there are following the same pattern. Perhaps a poll, Rob? AC
I actually wouldn't call someone a dolt for purchasing software that can be obtained for free. During the 3.x versions of Netscape, for example, it was handy to have the CD for reinstalling on other machines rather than downloading the 12meg file via 14.4 or (gasp) 9600 modems which were still aplenty back then.
In addition, it supports the company which is creating or distributing the software itself. In the same way I can now download and burn Linux via my office T1 or even buy from CheapBytes for $2 (plus $7 S&H), I will dutifully shell out the $39 to RedHat which I have done numerous times since 4.1.
Note, though, that I have never spent one penny of my own money for a Microsoft product. I wonder how many other people out there are following the same pattern. Perhaps a poll, Rob?
AC
I used to use lynx all the time before i got my cable modem. It was so tiny and fast.
-matt
Linux _was_ a threat...now it's a reality. The thing is, Gates needs to sound like he's comfortable. Otherwise he won't have any followers.
The reality is, Linux isn't ready to be a true threat yet...however, gates doesn't look to the future. Someday very soon, Linux will have the pull of an internal-code system such as Windows. I don't know about you guys...but my university (Temple U.) has several Linux labs, Two Unix Labs, a shit load of licenses for Star-Office...and all these labs are POPULAR. The thing is, "minor" applications are exactly what the majority of microsoft buyers use. Word Processing...your gonna tell me that this is a monor application?
Now...what about the major applications...would CAD or GIMP be considered major? What about the things such as that? How much does photoshop go for? a couple of hundred dollars (at least). Now gimp is free. I for one would definately spend the time to download an OS (which I have) if it'll allow me to have things like that for free.
Gates...he's gotta wake up.
Doesn't that deserve mention? And there's beowulf (admitedly, it's more the distributed computing libs, but they're open source so far as I know). Gnome isn't doing so badly, and from what I understand KDE is doing pretty well (never used it). And then there's gcc/egcs/make/autoconf. (X)emacs is pretty damn impressive. Perl is nothing to laugh at.
I'm not sure how many of them fall into the category of "real" app. I'm assuming that with Bill speaking, "real" means "doesn't run on Linux". However, if you want to talk about "Real" apps (notice the cap), a 128 processor Irix box is probably the way to go.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Has Gates left his brain at home again?
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Has Gates left his brain at home again?
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
And then comments I knew I'd seen were gone.
Oh well, somebody has to debug MySQL!
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I read this a while back, liked it, saved it and now I want people to see it again:
by Anonymous Coward: Linux is gonna slay the billbeast and give him a big f'in wedgie to remember us by. Microsoft has nooooooooooo idea how prepared and spirited the Linux community is. We're an army of Conans wielding the sword of GPL baby, throwing lightning bolts down on Redmond from Mount Olympus!
Cheers to whomever wrote it!
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
I believe he made the same comments about the Internet.
nt
Bill Gates seems to be confusing free with free. As RMS frequently reminds us, free software doesn't mean that you can't charge money for it, and is perfectly compatible with commercial development. Plenty of companies like Red Hat are actively developing free software, and making money doing so.
I think a good part of the idea behind free software is having freely available applications like word processors. Think about: since the 8088 people have been using pc's for the same thing: word processing, spreadsheets, databases, and a few other odds and ends. And that has been the MAIN use computers have gotten, until the recent advent of the net. And businesses are similar, the only have a few actualy applications they run, mostly databases. Sure, the apps have come a long way from what they used to be, but really, sometimes the functionality isn't all that different. With every generation of computers there has been another generation of word processors and databases, etc. But these programs can only evolve so much more... why should people have to keep shelling out to microsoft for them? It would be much better for everyone to have a freely available program that did all these things. Along with a freely available OS and freely available web browser, and a nice freely available gui, free software would take most of the business from companies like Microsoft. Hell, you wouldn't even need a PC, just an "appliance" with a microprocessor to handle these applications.
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
I think there will be more money to be made in spreadsheets and wordprocessors than in OS's for a long time coming. I have yet to see a "free" (read non-commercial, open-source-software (OSS)) spreadsheet or wordprocessor that was acceptable.
Further more I'm convinced that in the future (say 10 to 20 years) money in software will only be made on HIGH priced, but small market products. Things where the user base isn't big enough to support a good OSS project. Or in very limited time projects (Tax software, with a 3 month window of usefullness).
hey hey! /IS/ good hehe =P~
that
good laugh, coz its true =P ZAP!
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
This can be done in any Linux+Unix environment. (NIS+NFS or DCE) And, it was in Unix long before NT
What the hell is that? If we want a standard time, what is wrong with GMT???
Vidi, Vici, Veni
This is like the time when the U.S. tried to change to metric. Yeah, it would be nicer if we all used a system like this, but the change would just be way too difficult to make. Besides, Grenwich (sp?) Mean Time is a standard time already, and if everyone used it the same result would be achieved.
And why do these people go and make a new standard time meridian right through their company? That reeks of a "The Universe revolves around us" attitude. There is already a prime meridian and an international date line, so just base it on one of those.
And "swatch beats"????? Give me a break. That is not a name for a unit of time that will catch on. Seconds are nice because they just seem to be about right for counting off seconds without the aid of a clock. They just seem to have the right natural rhythm (perhaps part of the reason they were invented in the first place?) You need some kind of standard time unit that is similiar to a second (perhaps a little quicker)
One of their "swatch beats" is almost a minute and a half! When you think "beat" you dont think minute and a half. It's not really a 'beat' if they are separated by more than, say, 5 secs max.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
But the sad fact is that there are all too many "tech snobs" among us. This-ready to flame at the drop of a hat-does as much to add to the general FUD of Linux as anything Mr. Bill spouts. Ever try to ask a question about KDE, for example, in IRC? You get roasted by the anti-gui crowd.Ask about Redhat and the Slackware crowd jumps on you..and on and on.Windows is seen as "everyones o/s" and that is one of the things that keeps it on 85% of the desktops for better or worse. The Linux community, to a degree, does not welcome newbies.
Tired of being another body in the flock? Linux ! We are not sheep anymore.
And then you have UDE, which makes it five... But he forgotten the words "at least". And he forgotten that is not the weakness of Linux, it is its strength!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Hmm, that's equal to one DVD.
If only I could buy a cheap DVD-writer....
What the story describes sounds like literal piracy plain and simple. I just wonder two things:
We have five (or fifty?) different window managers because there are different needs - but for a DnD protocol the number one need is that you can D anywhere.
We can have 5 or 50 window managers because they all speak the same protocol to apps. DnD should be the same: as long as the implementations follow the standard nothing should care what implementation the other end uses. Actually, I've wondered why apps didn't simply support X selections as intended instead of inventing a whole new protocol, but there may be issues I'm not aware of there. If the protocols worked through selections, theoretically you could have two apps that spoke two completely different DnD protocols talk to one another correctly because the underlying selections made sense to each of them. This is one of the places we lose Bill: the concept that one part of the system simply shouldn't care exactly which other part it's talking to, merely that that other part talks the same language.
As for growth, Linux has a likely minimum of a million or so users so we're not quite as bad as your example suggests. I think that growth rate discrepancy has to have Redmond worried.
5 windowing systems? Last I saw, there was only one windowing system on Linux and that's X11 ( Berlin doesn't seem to be going anywhere in the near future ). There's a dozen or so window managers, but I haven't met an app yet that cared much about the window manager. Some of the desktop environments might be a different matter, but even there it looks like apps are going to be relatively independent of the desktop. Worst case seems to be that you lose things like drag-and-drop between apps if you aren't running a desktop that supports the right protocol.
Bill, get a clue: Linux isn't Windows and we don't have to live with a tightly-bound mess like the one you created. So we have multiple window managers, so what? They all talk ICCCM and similar standard protocols at this point, so from the app's POV it's irrelevant which one is running.
And if Linux is only going to have limited impact, why's it growing 8 times as fast as NT?
I think your missing a very important factor that is vital to the success and life of Linux.
:)
It doesn't matter what Microsoft attempts to do to Linux. Linux is not just some corporate entity, burdened with the rules enforced by some CIO. Linux has existed for years without any corporate recognition or support. Although Linux does have support now, it could be taken away and Linux would still live.
Linux doesn't play by Microsoft's rules, and it never has. Let MS bring out the full guns, they can't destroy Linux
We'll just see what happens to sales of "Civilization, Call to Power", "VMWare", and the likes.
Or how about a 100% compatible application?
One that runs MORE EFFICIENTLY, with LESS FILE SPACE...
I'm sure it can be done.
Scott
Since when did it take only 80 megs? Try 200...
You can run Linux on a 386 with 640K, if you don't mind compiling kernels. Who could ask for anything more? He was right.
My kernel currently runs in 640K, with about 700K reserved, but I have a lavish 16M, so I can be free with RAM. I am doing wasteful things like building in sound and PPP support, and using a decent sized cache. I even have multiple fs types.
You can customize out a lot of stuff to reduce size: networking, mouse support, SCSI support, CD-ROM support... It all takes up RAM.
I think web browsers provide possibly the best illustration of how wrong he is. Yes, they started off free and open source, and then a couple people decided to try to make money off of it and they went commercial. But now look at the state of things. IE is being given away and Netscape has gone open source. It is worth noting that the open source version of netscape appears to be vastly superior to the old version upon initial impressions. So this doesn't hold true at all.
Linux vs. Microsoft is another good example of how wrong this notion is. Certainly an OS is one of the more complicated things somebody can develop and yet Linux is far superior in every way to Windows NT where it even attempts to compete. Linux may lack in the GUI department but that's because the GUI is a completely seperate project (which by all rights it should be). Without a GUI, the ease of use issue is somewhat hard to compare, but I've generally found Unix much easier to deal with than DOS.
Ironically the things that Bill indicated as being simple (word processing, spread sheets), are the things that he makes the most money on.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Seriously, what instabilities do you see in Red Hat? I've been using it a while, and I currently run RH 5.2 with kernel 2.2.5. I have never had a problem.
Before I started using RH, I used Slackware for about 2 or 3 years. Eventually I decided to try something new, and checked out Red Hat. I'll admit that the Slackware install was slightly easier , but administration on a RH system was a whole lot nicer. Compiling everything by hand gets old fast, especially on my system [p166/48mb].
I've been running Red Hat for about 8 months now, and so far the only program I've ever had crash is Netscape. I hardly blame Red Hat for that.
BTW: I've tried Debian. In fact, its currently on my secondary system [486/66, 64mb]. However, I still haven't gotten it fully configured the way I like it. Stability, yes, but I still have problems getting it to do what I want it to. Its always fun when dselect decides to skip over half the packages you told it to install.
Seriously, the Linux community seems to have split into two groups: people who acknowledge that Red Hat has done a lot of good for the community, and those who constantly throw FUD at Red Hat. Just because its commercial doesn't make it evil or bad. Every day I see posts on Slashdot and other places talking about how Red Hat is instable and buggy, but I've been using it for a wide range of tasks from normal desktop apps to web and ftp servers to anything I could think of programming wise, and I've never had a problem.
Oh, and before people start saying I must work for Red Hat and all that crap: I'm not saying Red Hat is the be all and end all, or the uber-distro. I AM saying that people need to start to acknowledge that RH HAS done good for the community, and that the flood of FUD really does need to stop.
It should be US taking on the uninformed, and trying to show them the path to Linux. It should not be US fighting each other over who has the better distro. I've yet to use a distro that was significantly better or worse than another. Only different.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
You seem to be confusing "Red Hat Linux" with "Linux". I was asking for specific problems with Red Hat as a distribution, as compared to other distributions. While all of your points about development under Linux and X are true, they are true of all Linux distributions. I have done some programming under X, and at times there seem to be far too many options, but really, isn't that what Linux is all about? The fact that there are so many choices is a blessing, not a curse.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
that said no one would _ever_ need more than 640k of RAM?
processing and spreadsheets.
I don't think he's referring to open source apps; I think he means that Linux is OK for these simple apps, but that for real heavy-duty, mission-critical applications you really want to go with W2K. Hotmail, for example.
FUD alert. OMG, we have 5 different windowing systems (umm... I can think of way more off the top of my head...). That must be a problem, right? Giving users a CHOICE?!?
You know, I've never had windowmaker crash my machine. I've had it lock to where I had to telnet in from my other console and kill x, but never actually crash my machine. I imagine other people have had similar experiances with other windowmanagers- hence, not everyone using windowmaker.
I pity those who don't know any better- all those poor "tech specialists" in his audience, eating every bit of nonsence he spoonfed them...
scohop
j. scott olsson
Almost right on. Actualy, Bill's response did a good advertizing to the Linux. He is crediting it with being good at wordprocessing and spreadsheets. Quite often lack of certain specific wordprocessor from Redmont was the main point behind the notoric "lack of applications" claim. Now Bill himself mentions, that Linux will be good at it. All the other points are also valid. The Netscape crashes, Mozilla 5.0 is still not finished, other browsers are in dead end (who runs Arena, Amaya, Grail, Red Barron, etc...?
;-)
The conclusion might be however a little bit premature - who says, that the next browser for Linux has to be freeware?
Not tested? So what are doing Caldera, RedHat, SuSe...
Well, for the money they are getting for it, they try the basics and let the users test it
Wait a minute - multiple window managers and
multiple X-window wendors are and advantage! Yes, but it is also a disadvantage, and that is rather true whe we look at the variety GUI APIs (Motif, Xview, Gnome, KDE, Tcl/Tk, GTK, XForms...).
Unfortunately, it is also true, that number of customers are going to stay with windows. What a pity, that he did not enumerated also Windows deficiecies, but those are his problem.
So lets start working on those fixes for Linux.
For the beginning, can at least Gnome developers agree, what key shortcut will be used to quit any Gnome application?
Petrus
I'm fairly disgusted with the complete obliveration of the free market and public good that is rampant in modern capitalism. Whatever happened to John Locke's 'informed public' that is able to 'do the right thing?' As long as economic might makes right we shall forever be held in the gripes of mediocrity. The jaded view of the American public destroys any hope for an objective judgment body that would be allowed to represet any consumer 'truths'. Such that even if the 'truth is out there' we would not be willing to listen, for the most part. The recently posted WinNT over Linux/Apache web serving is an extreme case in point. Bleh.
Yes, this is a very common tactic. They did the same thing when the Mac came out, I believe: they downplayed GUI's while behind the scenes they were sweating to get their own out.
What can they do this time to get, for example, the stability of Linux? If they really want to improve their own software and mung Linux simultaneously, the solution is actually quite simple: just tell the current Windows developers that from now on, they are going to get paid to develop Linux. Then hire a couple thousand Linux hackers to completely rewrite Win.
If by fraudulent practices you mean lying to the public, this would be nothing compared to the add that said Microsoft Windows makes computing fast and reliable.
No most of us if we were in the bill's position would do the same. Can you imagine the nightmares he must have thinking he may lose his hold on computing. I personally would be unable to relinquish such power without a fight. So his actions are not evil, just desperate.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
This is where Gates is wrong. OSS isn't a market, it's a method of developing applications. If the developer feels that a product/(the developer) will benefit more from OSS'ng an app, that app will be OSS'd. If the developer doesn't, it won't. For apps that usually don't scrathc an itch of a programmer though, CSS can be very important, as the software wouldn't exist otherwise. Css can also help add new features faster to a product that otherwise would happen, because the OSS developer/s don't have as many uses for a product as a 10-100 times larger and more diverse population does; the software will also have more and deeper bugs, but that's a side-effect. Different paradigms for different people.
As a former newbie, the trick to learning linux is to ask someone who's part of the linux community, but is also your friend. Asking the people on irc, or iva an email list, is not necessarily the best way to do things.
Since I'm no longer a newbie (2 years from learning that there is an alternative besides the mac or my very old commodore to self-compiling linux kernels and glibc), I've mentioned linux to some of my friends. When I don't have time to help them install or get used to the system, I tell them to wait awhile until it gets more mainstream easy. The surest way to turn someone off of something is to drop the entire thing into their laps and then not help them or tell them how they'll benefit.
Yeah. I've been on #windows, or whatever it was, a few times, but very few were willing to help, though a few gave their best guesses.
OTOH, I also went to MS's news group server, and was actually able to help someone add an additional ``zone'' to iexplorer via the registry. Helping others is just like the philosophy behind OSS. Those you aid today might be able to aid you tomorrow.
By definition, people one IQ point above the mean are in the minority as well.
Genius comes in spurts. Even the most idiotic retarded person can make something wonderful/unique (there's a musician, can't remember his name though.), and some of the most brilliant people in the world drop out and onto the street.
aww man.. this isn't cool anymore.. This man is the root of all evil.. With him, everything in the world is broken down into something he owns, or something that is compitition and must be destroyed. Why can't he just sit down, relax, and enjoy the technology, for gods sake, he doesn't have to worry about where his next meal is coming from or anything.
>
Apart from which, how many different Microsoft windowing environments are there? Let me see now, Win 3.1, Win95, WinNT, Windows CE, Windows 2000 on the horizon, and if he's being picky we'll throw in the Internet Exploiter desktop theme.
:v)
The guy is a waste of space.
Vik
The computer community, us included, has given them the impression that if anything goes wrong on their computer, like strange stuff happening, then it is most likely their fault
Speak for yourself. I did technical support for a large OEM (there were over 4,000 tech support reps) for 3 years, and everyone I knew was fond of blaming Microsoft when Windows crashed. I regularly explained to callers that Windows and Windows software had bugs that would cause their computer to crash without warning on occasion and that was the way it was.
While I'll grant that by definition, people with IQs higher than three standard deviations above the mean are in the minority, I disagree with the idea that only those people would want to use Linux. Remember the atomic bomb? Pretty neat piece of physics, that. Scores of the best minds in the US were needed to set the first one off. Now think about modern atomic bombs (or nuclear missiles, if you prefer). These are designed to be set off by people who may or may not have graduated from high school (soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines). It's amazing how incredibly complex technology can be simplified so that a layman can use it.
Doubtless you consider yourself to be one of the smart people. May I suggest that if you really were, then, you would find it simple to conceive of a Linux distribution that my 80-year-old ditzy Granny could use. Your inability to conceive something that does not exist in the present or the past puts you in the company of those who forced Galileo to recant.
Granted that Windows has captured the "grandma technophobe" market, I would suggest that Linux just needs a pretty face. Have you ever looked into the Windows API? Can you imagine how painful Windows would be if it were implemented as a series of command line utilites, each of which executed one call into the API? Do you think that maybe a GUI could be put on top of that to hide most of the complexity from Grandma? Then why can't it be done with Linux? Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean that it can never happen.
If you could think of several dozen apps that complex, I'd be more likely to agree. But of the top of your head, you can think of only one complex open source app? This does not bode well :)
Not anymore, bub. Calling today's word processing applications "relatively simple" is like calling the Notre Dame Cathedral "relatively plain".
;-)
Maybe at one time, when there was no such thing as WYSIWYG(MOR), word processors were rather simple. However, the GUI changed all that. Now it's hard to draw the line between word processors and desktop publishing.
However, nearly all the features in today's word processors are "nice" features rather than "necessary" features. Do we really need to underline all of our misspelled words and poorly written sentences as we're typing? Not really; I find it only slows me down, and I pretty much ignore the grammar checker because it's never right
To be honest, I don't even know all the features that are in a modern spreadsheet; the only one I use is "graph". The other features might as well not exist and I would be happy. Yet QPW.exe takes up 4.5 MB on my hard disk! It can't all be graphics, can it?
Unfortunately, Mr. Gates is half right: Word processors and spreadsheets are theoretically simple programs. However, the public concept is that the more features a program has, the better it is. Microsoft's software has the most features, so it must be the best.
How can you fight a public that thinks that way? "Sure, our product has half the features of Word, but they all work flawlessly and are the ones used by 95% of consumers!" Good thing I'm not going into marketing...
Anyway, I guess now we need office apps that are to Office what Linux is to Windows, except for the "hard for the average consumer to use' part. Should be a "simple" task, right?
Maybe that's the point Mr. Gates is trying to make. We've got an OS, admittedly a hard thing to create, but no applications, which should be easier! (I'm not counting commercial stuff, only Free Software/GNU apps competitive with Office.) Sounds like a challenge to me.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I wonder how many home consumers use Works instead of Office then, as would make sense. Of course, then Microsoft would make less money, so that's Not Reccomended.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Netcraft has updated statistics a couple of days ago. It's 56 %.
By saying "there was clearly a market for free software but this was mainly confined to
:) ).
relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets" it appears that
Beelzegates is taking people's attention off Linux as a server (of which it is excellent) and onto Linux as a workstation (of which it is relatively poor).
For example, some people might get the impression from that comment that Linux would be worth a go at doing word processing and spreadsheet applications... and... actually try it out. Once they do this, and go though all the mucking around getting it set up, and finding that... in reality... it isn't really as well polished as Windows, they're going to ignore the excellent potential of Linux as a server as well.
Ie... Bill is attempting to shift the focus of Linux to something it doesnt excel at. This is somewhat similar to the recent Mindcraft 'test'. (Now, if only Mindcraft had 'crippled' the linux box by taking most of its memory out of it
At any rate, its a brilliant FUD tactic on Microsoft's part. (About the only thing they do well, IMHO).
Apache.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Actually, with Office 2000 documents supposedly based on XML, we can finally start writing Open Source apps that read/write MSOffice files with a high degree of fidelity.
:-)
Sure... and you actually believe that micros~1 is gonna just base O2K on XML without a "little" bit of "embrace and extend" behind the scenes??
Wow! You're an optimist if I ever met one!
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
hat's why I have the LiteStep shell replacement on my Win95 (gag) machine at work. ;)
:-( ...)
Oh yeah! Between LiteStep for the GUI and CygWin for the CLI, I almost have my NT machine at work running with an acceptable UI!
(...Unfortunately, I still have to use Visual Basic
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
What are the five windowing systems? ;)
:P
KDE, Gnome, Afterstep, Enlightenment, WindowMaker, FVWM, FVWM95? Oh wait, that's MORE than five!!! But I think his point was we're all slack-jawed mouth breathers, and choices confuse us. He is so right. That's why I have the LiteStep shell replacement on my Win95 (gag) machine at work.
What exactly is a "university-type environment"?
One that supports the open exchange of ideas, I guess. Can't have that. Problems might get solved that way. Then how do we charge for support and fixes, if everything runs right?
Oh, and who is charging for their browser now?
Opera and, according to some, Microsoft. Though M$ doesn't do it directly. Because they're so complicated they have to be sold, apparently. My IE browser at home was so complicated I removed it, and now I have 98lite (used only for Quake2, thanks to nVidia). Much less complicated. Much faster, too.
I also find it interesting (as did AC) that now Linux, the mega-hit per day server, the firewall, the router, the mailserver, the Beowulf cluster monster, my desktop at home, blah blah blah is really only a very simple product, because it is free. I'll have to remember that tomorrow when something hangs on my machine here at work and takes all of Win95 with it. I, as a consumer, asked for that level of integration, of course. It's not instability, it's innovation.
FUUUUUDFUDFUDFUDFUDFUDFUD!!!
Good thing this is all such blatant bullshite only the pointiest of PHBs will buy it.
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
Actually, I think Billgatus was saying that the only good free programs are the simple ones like word processors and spreadsheets. And Linux, the Little Toy OS(tm).
What I want to know is, if word processors and spreadsheets are simple, why do some of them require 100+ MB and cost umpteen bajillion dollars?
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
"Who them? They don't worry us here at MS."
Another way of stating this is: Marginallize it until we do it.
It's part of the "never let 'em see you sweat" school of thought.
Many of the early RDBMSes didn't do record level locking. When pressed, they'd say users didn't really need the feature [marginallize it]. Then they'd implement it, and charge extra for it [until we do it].
I once had the please of listeneing to an Oracle sales/marketing type discuss the archetecture of their Release 1.0 Oracle Web Server.
"Release 1 is a single process architecture, because that's more performant [sic].
Release 2 will be a multiprocess architecture, because that's more performant [sic]."
Remember: Marginallize it until we do it.
My Heart Is A Flower
He plainly does get it. Comments like this are not to discourage the people who have already discovered Linux, nor the companies (hardware and software) who have started to see Linux as a viable market, but those 95% of the people who really don't know, really do think that his judgement is the best, and are going to do according to what they read in the WSJ, USA Today, and other various sources for thier computer news.
And, if you think this doesn't affect us, that is where we could all sadly be mistaken. It's the slow migration and discovery of Linux by those 95% that is getting the money to start backing Linux. That is what allows mainstream, polished distributions, major hardware vendor backing, and more and more applictions written for linux. If that flow of people toward linux, even as a secondary OS, then the support will fade away, becuase believe what we want people, but the software, hardware and distribution backing really comes from money, and money is from market.
Comments like this are not for those who have discovered Linux, but those who are just starting to hear about it. And the last thing we need for them to hear is Big Bill telling them it's going to be nothing more then the next Pet Rock or Rubiks Cube: nothing more then a passing fad.
The stock market didn't buy Bill's words. MSFT stocks dropped more than 5.5% yesterday. I haven't seen anything like that lately. In the same day AAPL climbed almost 3% and SYMC - almost 8%.
Of course they won't collapse overnight. Their death will be slow and painful. But the market players are altogether easily frightened so it will be fun to watch how things are going to develop.
Many people obviously don't get it. They like to feel superior: 'Look what BS comes from Bill Gates. I'm not as rich as he is but I'm far cleverer than he is.'
The word processors and spreadsheets available for Linux definitely can't compete yet with the ease of use and the richness in features not to mention the consistency of the GUI of M$ ones.
It's neither a coincidence, nor a stupidity that he draws the attention on the weakest spot of Linux. Next thing you'll see are people talking: 'Bill Gates may like their apps but I'm back to MS Office.'
oh but dont forget, gates once programmed a basic compiler, so he should be knowledgeble in every aspect of linux, beos, masos, os/2, and all the other windows alternatives he claims are inferior. this is about as technologically sound as al gore claiming to have invented the internet. hey gates, stop making yourself look like a dumbass...you embarass the rest of us.
Lemme elaborate on that a bit. The public, indoctrinated in government-run schools, is for the most part totally clueless. Even the script kiddie AC's who compete for "FIRST POST" are (educated guess) among the top ten percent of the brains in the free world (/eg). The rest of the world believes what the news media churn at them, from the FUD from Redmond to the delay, deny, discredit of a certain other Bill, which can of worms I do not wish to open....
That and even some of the Braniacs of the world still get their news from Tom, Dan, Peter, and Uncle Ted, and while they may have lots of letters after their names, the folks that rely only on this load of fertilizer for their news have no better handle on reality than the proletariat of Brave New World.
Letting he who has the best marketing machine rule the world is a Bad Idea. This is why the world gets kicked around by the likes of Bill Gates, McDonalds, and Time Warner. This is also why Linux is important as a social movement.... it lets the little guy get away from the cathedrals I mentioned and into the bazzar where they might learn something.... and maybe change the world.
"--- which is why we're going to take over the world." -- Linus, 4/14/1999
Do we _need_ the vendors?
- architecture"-days?
Do they _need_ us?
Symbiosis is what we need.
Think about general tendencies in hardware design and development.
Does it head towards more and more proprietary hardware as in the old "every-company-it's-own-mainframe-and-unix-system
I don't think so.
If We, the OpenSource society, makes our software better and succeed in making changes to the world, we will see the vendors turn to us eventually.
As said before: it's all about market shares.
We live and prosper without marketshares.
Can the same be said about commercial mainstream hardware vendors?
The answer is no.
So stop being offended of what Bill Gates say.
If I'm wrong, we'll still have the best software, but without the mainstream coverage.
If I'm right, the guys that don't learn the lesson will not just be sorry for themselves and their companies; they'll be without a job.
Best regards,
Steen Suder
Best regards,
Steen Suder
-- for email: send to
He says "People really want an operating system that has been tested with all the different applications out there. So that they will work better" Sorry Bill, but my Windows machine crashes a hell of a lot more than my FreeBSD server (uptime: 187 days). And anything that Windoze can run, FreeBSD (and I'm sure Linux) can run.
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
No kidding. And then he goes on to say that browsers (ie Internet Explorer and Netscape) have been 'free' for a long time... WRONG! That's not what Open Source is about. Free is fine, but give us the source code as well. Thanks, Netscape, but I don't see MS giving out the source to IE5.0.
Has Gates been living under a rock for the past six months? Or was that his PR guy?
der dee der.
Linux is no threat to Microsoft.
You have the software market wrapped up.
Don't worry about it.
Relax.
Take a nice long vacation.
Don't bother thinking about Linux again.
I have to get back to work now....
-- Remove the BOING from my email address if you don't want it to bounce.
Dillon:
Pardon me, but the US Armed forces do require high school as a baseline qualification. In addition, officers are required to have college and even graduate degrees. Your post does all servicepeople and veterans a great disservice.
Write about what you know...
He also was sticking to the 286 when everyone else was moving to the 386..see, this guy has always tried to keep power away from us.
The kids are learning computers, yes, but by and large they are learning point-and-click computing. The definition of computer literate has changed over the years from knowing how to program to knowing how to point-and-click. I'm afraid that a lot of these kids won't really be anymore computer literate (in the original sense) than adults learning right now.
This really doesn't help, though. The fact that people asking newbie questions in public forums often get flamed is a problem. I'm not sure the problem is that these people don't like newbies, but rather that any community which is fighting an uphill battle against a firmly entrenched entity is going to be in a defensive mode, giving people almost religious ferver about their beliefs. Unfortunately, when this hostility is aimed at a newbie, it can cause them to think the whole community is inherently hostile.
Sometimes it seems that stories that are likely to generate a lively flame-throwing contest have priority on /. over stories that are arguably more informative but would not generate contraversy. Not to say that informative articles aren't posted - there are many - but it seems they still have to have some minimum level of contraversy potential in order to get posted.
I don't disagree with what you said - of course computers are going to get easier to use for the average user as the technology improves, as it should be. What I was disputing was the previous poster's claim that today's kids will grow up being able to program based on the high level of exposure to computers that kids are getting these days. Your comments actually reinforce my point - most of them won't.
>> Just a few things for the linux zealots who laugh openly at Ms drones. Yes, if that comment sparked a reaction from you, you ARE a zealot.
:)
.. Unreal .. which leaks memory faster than windows 2.0 on a bad hair day.
/really/ conservative settings available. seeing how that's an old monitor that's probably what it needed instead of 'average'.
..
/etc/hosts file properly during install or after fixes that, or just use smail instead if your IP is dynamic.
/.ish enough.
:).
:) hehe.
;). as far as the autodetect stuff goes, leave that stuff alone. run xf86config instead to setup X. As far as reasons to use linux, it's up to you to decide on that. it sounds like you already have a decent windows/mac setup. maybe do like I did, dual-boot w/ linux till you become proficient and realize if it's for you or not. I learned on slackware 3.3. I suggest you try slack too. when you start out /usr/doc and "man" is your friend!!
;)
I'm a zealot, and a proud one
Concerning your argument that what we have today is owed in part to MS I don't agree with. IBM would still have gotten their OS from somewhere else, probably something better than DOS, and would have still pounded Apple into the ground, keeping PC prices down. Our Microsoft of today would just be a bigger, badder IBM.
>> Now will someone _please_ explain to me just WHY I should use Linux/Debian/Slackware?
It's all personal preference. Use what works best for you, whether it's windows or linux or something else. The one who should convince you is yourself.
>> I have my hand built, many times upgraded system at home and it runs 98.
I have 3 boxes, all hand-built by me as well. a celeron linux workstation, a 486 linux server, and a p200 win box. Got a celeron winbox and a p133 winbox in the house too but those aren't mine.
>> I play games on it
I play games on the p200 and the playstation
>> I use the web, I fiddle with dtp and do a little lpc coding for some muds.
I use the web w/ linux but cant code myself outta a paper bag
>> My system crashes every now and then, usually to me running something silly on it. Say like
my windows box crashes, my linux ones dont. the celeron did when I compiled stuff till i took it overclocking from 450mhz down to 337.
>> Its fast, does what I want, when I want, the way I want it. If I want to wp, Ill use notepad or wordpad, or Ill fire up AMIAB and run TeX on Workbench.
my systems are fast too... but I can only say the linux boxes do what I want when i want. windows isn't the most reliable stuff on earth ya know. at least when something screws up in linux you know it's cause of a misconfiguration rather than unexplained phenomenon. For word processing I'll use Write in windows or vim in linux.
>> I installed Redhat (2.01?)
probably 5.x
>> First up, disk druid totalled my primary drive, despite being pointed very clearly at a secondary drive.
I haven't heard of any issues with that. Personally, I use fdisk to setup partitions.
>> The Xconfig couldnt recognise my video card or monitor (tnt and Lg 1725s).
I use xf86config and enter the stuff in myself
>> The warning about damaging monitors prompted me to plug an old compaq v35 I had lying around. I went for 'average' settings as recommended by the docs. Well, that monitor doesnt work anymore, glad it wasnt my real one. Managed to do some more digging (under 98 online) and turn up settings that should work for my card.
i always find out what the settings are for my hardware before inputting anything unless there are some
>>Tried again, xconfig still cant see my card but at least should set a mode my monitor will run.
I don't use any auto-detect stuff, works about as well as plug and pray.
>> Reboot with a lilo disk. Hmmm it stalls on sendmail, um I didnt check that to be installed
i think redhat's profiles might include that by default. it stalls because the machine doesn't have an authorative domain name i believe. setting up the
>> wha? how do I cancel that, ctrlc nope. Reboot, reinstall.
it gives up after a few minutes if you wait
>> Run startx after logging in, sorry the video mode is unavailable, you dont have enough memory. Hmm 8bit 640x480 on a 16mb card, balls to that.
You have a TNT 16MB. same here. you need the latest version of xfree86 for it to work right. i don't think rh 5.x ships w/ the latest version. Stampede does.
>> Oh look, it wont see my dvd drive
dvd isn't supported yet since the manufacturers dont want to release specs
>> or my a3d card
the a3d is the aureal 3d audio right? if you want support in linux tell aureal to give you the specs
>> or that brand of nic.
unless it's pnp all you probly need is a binary module or to recompile the kernel w/ support for it
>> Linux needs PnP
linux needs hardware specs from vendors. to use pnp 2.x kernels support it, or you can use isapnptools, i use it pnptools for my awe32 and awe64 cards in linux
>> Ms/Intel/Vendors moved people away from having to fight over irq and dma settings a year or 3 back
I prefer to "fight" with irq's and dma's and set things how I want. AFAIK NT doesn't do pnp either.
>> . Maybe the Linux community LIKES messing with those, I dont, its a waste of effort.
I like to, and it's as easy as setting up anything else in my opionon.
>> It also needs driver/vendor support,
that's the vendors fault, not linux volunteers'.
>> cmon how hard is it to support a tnt?
xfree86 already supports it.
>> If I could play my games on Linux I might have a greater incentive.
linux and unix is first and foremost for servers and high-performance work. Games are an afterthough. The number of games supported in linux is very small. Besides, you could always dual-boot.
>> Oh and since when did free == good ?
Every body likes free speech, free beer, free lunches... 'specially when what you get is top-notch
>> IF Linux is as _easy_ to install, setup and use as Win98
installing linux onto a blank disk is as easy if not moreso than doing it w/ windows. it's the same exact process. well, except that linux's installer formats the disks for you. I've installed both, about a zillion times. to install and have linux going w/ a new kernel and xf86 config and network connectivity takes me less time than installing windows and fooling w/ all those cdroms for my hardware and setting up its network.
>> then Ill take a look at it again. Til then, Linux will remain marginalised in the home and common user market.
Personally I like it like that. It's like an exclusive club of PC enthusiasts and unix people.
>> MS Win does what I want
then use it instead
>> , Linux might, I mean, jeez, do I really need/want to recompile kernels all the damn time?
you don't have to. i only do it to test out new features. My hardware would work fine w/ the the first kernel I ever booted -- 2.0.30.
>> Ask a common user what a kernel is and theyll go wha?
Linux really isn't for common people. It's for users who know their way in and out of a computer and who want to be in charge instead of the OS.
>> Unix/Linux is horribly arcane, powerful yes, but arcane and downright baffling. Maybe Im just not
I grew up on DOS at age 14 -- at age 19 linux took me less than 2 months to get the basics down. It's more complicated until you understand it, then you just see unix/linux as beautifully ingenious. Once you understand it, its arcane ways become almost religious rites
>> Before you flame away, Im NOT a microsoft drone, I just look after a 300 pc network (nt/95) and would be happy for my life to be easier.
flaming is pointless. i've got better things to do. like trying to be a good zealot and getting users to switch to linux
>> Thing is the apps we _need_, as in system critical, are Win based. ZAK and LckDN make my life somewhat easier, but on average Id say we suffer around 5 crashes across the whole system a day. 2 of which are on macs. Id say thats pretty good and says something about how well things are set up *ironic wink*
you're kinda screwed then until you find apps to replace those or they get ported. 5 out of 300 isn't bad usually but if the work is mission-critical it is.
>> if anyone would care to help me get Linux up and running, or give me valid reasons why I should even bother, Id be happy to hear from you.
Well I told ya how to get your vidcard working... get the newest xfree86 or get a Stampede linux cd, maybe even Debian or slackware. I'm stampede-biased though
if you want to talk more or need more help or something email me or find me on dalnet in #stampede between 5pm and 11pm EST, my nick is "cojones". Same goes for all the other people out there that would like some linux help etc... I charge to support windows, but my linux help is always free
"Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against Microsoft Windows" --Patrick Reilly
Ever noticed how fast hotmail suddenly became right after MS managed to shift it to NT? I bet thousands really believe that NT is really that much faster than Solaris or whatever they used to run Hotmail on.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Once again, installing Windows is no picnic. Give someone a pre-configured linux box, and they will like it just fine.
>What are the five windowing systems?
Macos, X, Windows, BeOs, Wince(?)
>Oh, and who is charging for their browser now?
Opera
Lowmag.net
Get real Bill...
Sun Tzu must have been running Linux...
- Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. (Sun Tzu, The art of war)
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
However involved or entrenched the DOJ becomes in the workings and operation of the Microsoft conglomerate, their product will never become "Open Sourced" in the way we understand open source. It will never actually hit the public or private consumer. The only way anyone will ever see that code is in corporate enterprise environments, giant contracts, and vendor markets. It will be opened to them in a VERY controlled environment for internal debugging purposes. There is simply too much code and too much at stake for anyone other than them to have stake in the development of an operating system. It wouldn't provide any value add to the general public and the task of mulling through millions of lines of code would take years. I don't see this happening any time soon.
They could have hit us a lot harder if they had been smarter about it. Linux does have weaknesses but they aren't attacking them. That mindcraft BS was so clearly fixed, it would have been much more realistic if NT won by just a little bit in most categories and had a big lead in only a few, they made it look like NT bests linux by a lot at everything and everybody knows better than that.
The best way to lie is to tell subtle ones, nobody will believe you if you say you slept with Demi Moore... but you could easily get punched in the mouth by saying you slept with your coworker's wife becuase the guy thinks it's a little more plausible.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
Microsoft is scared shitless. They're just trying to play it down, and it looks like they are basically trying to imply that there is no one to blame if the software breaks. And we all know that IS Managers love to have someone to blame if something breaks.
Linux is slowly but surely making it's way into our company, replacing NT machines and Macs. However, upper IS people argue against it because of the "lack of support", and it's free so it must not be as good. What I can't understand is why they would want to have an OS that requires so much support in the first place (NT), as opposed to one that you can set up and let do its thing for months or even years at a time. Not only are they paying an assload of money for software and client licenses, but they are paying even more to have people in here supporting it because they decided to deploy mission critical projects on it and it CAN'T go down.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
From the guy that said 640k of ram would be enough, I wouldn't trusth his predictions.
He knows the server market is lost. Linux is eating him alive. He's now talking to end users. It's really all part of a strategy, he's no longer talking about the server side because he sees its not working, so now he tells people its a low-level desktop OS, without talking about the server side. It's just all a part of their FUD machine.
Maybe it is something akin to the MicroSoft minute, as so nicely described a while back at User Friendly (you know, those nifty time-measurments on copying, installing and such, that always seem, and often are, really far out there somewhere ..
Maybe we'll all be using internet time, as standarized by MicroS~1 one day, and we'll all be happier as humans for doing it too. (Thanks Bill, you are our hero!)
After all, see you in 10 Internet minutes should leave you with an ample time window to get halfway across town on a rush-hour morning.
the pressures of running the worlds largest and most visible software company are starting to take its toll. he's acting a bit paranoid and delusional. i give him another 5 years before he cracks.
The producers of QNX had (has?) a demo disk for this micro-kernel OS that included the OS, their GUI, all the required networking stuff and a browser that wasn't totally bad on one floppy.
But with XML, CSS, DOM and Java being required nowadays (or in the near future at least), browsers will probably just get bigger...
My favorite line was the one in which he states "Customers want an OS tested against all applications." There are only a couple of things which I can conclude from that statement:
1) Only Microsoft writes applications. Software from other vendors must not count as applications.
2) Bill Gates is an idiot.
3) Bill Gates thinks we're all idiots.
Your choice.
Buzzing the information Superhighway at Warp speed
Even if the allegation that Linux was only good for "simple applications" like word processing and spreadsheets was true, that is all that 99% of the computer users out there use. All they need is a word processor and a browser.
In addition the last time I looked MS Word was far from a "simple application" with all kinds of bloatware additions I don't really need.
"False modesty is the refuge of the incompetent." - The Stainless Steel Rat
I agree that they are a more than a little concerned. It sure seems that they have turned the FUD machine up a little over the past couple months.
My only fear is that all of this Linux publicity is happening too soon. I would hate to see linux the Linux community feel like we *have* to do things to *compete* with MS. We should just keep going our own way and doing things because they are the right thing to do, not because of something that MS is doing.
Amateur bands have been around for years and years... i'm just surprised that Swatch is the first company to try to exploit it.
i wear a Swatch. i like their watches. but between this and Internet Time, fuck them.
-krog, KB1DDN
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Hmm. According to this, Mr. Bill thinks the browser is more complicated than a useable word processor or spreadsheet... methinks not.
And I guess he considers a few very successful open source projects as simple apps -- like Apache, which has been kicking his butt all over the internet, and Sendmail...
Well, exactly. My mother-in-law also called me one night because she could not find the "any" key and so could not resume her word processing session!
.pdf that is over 1 meg and happens to reside on an ftp server rather than in front page.
Gee the browser has really become complex! Too bad it locks up on me at work when I try to cut/paste and it just goes bonkers when I try to open a
Thank GOD I can go home at nite and use a REAL browser (nav) that isn't so complex it has to be integrated with the OS and then crash the whole thing when it bugs out because it is so complex!
*sigh*
Didn't I remember Netscape charging for Navigator until some other software "company" started giving out their browser for free?
:p Yuk!)
Oh, wait, I forgot. The browser is now so complicated that it is indistinguishable [sp?] from the operating system and therefore we have to pay for it as part of the OS? Sheesh! (man I love that little 'go' button on IE5
512K was a lot on AmigaDOS, until Amigas came out with 1meg as standard.
--
Can't think of any more off the top of my head. Only one of the above isn't still in an alpha state, so they can't really count for Bill's statement. Those are "windowing systems", right? Window managers by themselves aren't "window systems" since they run on X which actually provides the window services. Besides, there are dozens of window managers, not five. Perhaps he meant there are five major implementations of the X Window system? (eg Metro X etc.) I doubt it since they are (a) standardized, eliminating compatibility problems and (b) in competition, meaning they have to be *good*. Unlike Win32, for which there is no incentive to make it better.
I don't agree with your opinion -- it sounds as though you are repeating a variation of the old litany "Linux is for hackers, nerds, and [smart people], it couldn't and shouldn't be used by anybody else."
A lot of smart people (like the people I work with at my day job, doing VB programming) use Windows, but that's not to say they're not "smart people". Many of these developer-type people (sadly exposed only to proprietary systems like Windows) have just not heard of Linux. I would bet that if they did, a sizeable percentage of them would like it. (Like I did when I discovered Linux last summer.)
As for consumer-space, stuff like the new Caldera distribution can only help.
It will only take time, dedication, and an open mind on our part to give Linux it's fair shot at the OS market, server or otherwise.
Let's not be "tech snobs".
I don't understand it, myself, and the only explanation I've managed to find is "people are stupid".
Your comment seems like a cop-out to me.
If everybody who used Linux had a similar attitude to that which you expressed above, the OS and the community around it would never have gotten as far as it has.
Ideally, in the future, we won't need to be as proactive in pointing out the benefits of Linux -- they will be obvious.
We all know that Linux has a long way to go before it catches Windows in terms of useability for the average user like Mom or Grandma. Once it does however, and we can point out that people can use it free of charge, that it doesn't crash nearly as often, runs faster on older computers, etc., etc., I believe it's use among the general public will explode.
I guess it comes down to a personal point-of-view, but I think people know a good thing when they see it. If that theory holds true, then Linux will have "won" when people use it for that reason alone.
another interpretation here is that gates is simply stating what the whole POINT of linux is - the os is a commodity, "innovation" (i.e. what you can charge for) has moved up a layer, to things like app servers, xml integration tools, knowledge mgmt, etc.
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Wait, I thought they were Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows CE, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000. Talk about confusing!
Windows, obviously, is the platform to be "confined to relatively simple applications", since anything else will make it crash ;)
But, as always, if your lies are sufficiently twisted, enough people will believe them...
An illegal tactic to kill competition by giving a product away for free until the competition goes out of business, and then charging enough for the product to make up for lost time. So if a product like a browser is so expensive to make that it can't be given away for free, why the hell is MS doing it?
HELLO..., Mr. DOJ person? Did you get all this?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
When I first started programming, I wouldn't do something unless I either got paid for it or learned something from it.
Funny -- now I code for a living during the day and do free stuff in my extra time. I find that, after 8+ hrs. of PHBs and meetings, I actually enjoy working on something that has MY specs and MY deadline.
Maybe I'm just too geeked out.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Well, there are people who buy Opera...
Thing is, Navigator was a commercial product until IE was given away for free. Hard to comepte with free (hmm... Linux is free!). Granted, most eveyone just downloaded Netscape and never bought a license anyways.
I find the comments somewhat weird, since 'simple' apps like desktop productivity software is exactly the place where Linux is a bit lacking these days. Also consider that most of your customers are using MS format documents, which require pretty much require MS Office to open correctly.
I guess the big question is "what is enough information to extracg?"
If you just want to be able to get at the raw text of the document (which is usually all I want) then the Office 2000 XML formats provide a way, if a somewhat bulky and gross way, to get at it.
If you want to get at the style information, or complicated stuff associated with a spreadsheet, you're reduced to trying to parse all the gunk out. XML may package it pretty, but the contents are still pretty bad.
Absolutely. I believe that there is an exception in the case of the draft (you don't have to graduate to be a conscript, do you?). However, AFAIK, it takes an officer to arm or launch nuclear ordinance (egad, I hope so!). The fact still remains that you can train a fifteen-year-old to launch a nuke (and maybe even have it hit its target). Atomic theory is complex, but engineers have reduced the entire operation to where it could be just push-button. I assume (pray!) that it takes more than a push-button to launch such a weapon, but the complexity has nothing to do with the technology; it is simply a matter of molly-guarding the biggest of the Big Red Switches.
--The basis of all love is respect
Egad. Now you're scaring me. I think that we're in a race. If MS makes its own distro while embracing and extending, they might be able to use the Sheep Factor to frag the Linux market like they've been doing with Java. The sickest part will be that it could be completely legal. If Linux can get to a critical mass of market respect before MS tries something like this, we stand good odds of leaving MS-Linux marginalized, rather than MS-Linux leaving real Linux marginalized. One of our defenses against this may be the MS religious abstinence from releasing source. Guys, any other ways to fight this possible weak spot?
--The basis of all love is respect
What's got to be driving him nuts is that he is no longer in charge of the world's largest software development shop. Of course, the largest such shop isn't a company at all... Linux: Made by the biggest software development team in the known universe.
--The basis of all love is respect
For the dancing paperclip, of course. And the flight simulator easter egg.
I make the Flight Simulator easter egg as taking up ~ 64k. But that's just me.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
64k was a pessimistic estimation; I've seen similar things done in under 4k.
But then I don't work for Microsoft, so producing small, fast applications that are stable and work well is a higher priority than you're probably used to.
Oooh... feeling bitchy today, are we?
There's always trade-off's in any coding. Sometimes you code for size. Sometimes for speed. Sometimes, to minimize both as much as possible (within limits).
And sometimes you code for fun.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Where I come from, 64K is a pretty huge chunk of code to waste on something that doesn't add any functionality.
Just thought I'd add a PS.
Namely, where I come from, I agree with you. Mind you, I programmed assembly language for 15 years too.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
And I'm not a "disinformation specialist" either...
Funny how your research has nothing of the other stuff I've done... like writing articles for a number of international magazines on subjects such as the Communications Decency act (my article was used in Congress against it, and in the Labour Govt's planning process on their Internet policies), or the one I wrote about the raw deal that DeathNet was getting.
I like to think of myself as a voice of reason; not a zealot, not an advocate... unfortunately zealots like Joe Barr (who was banned for abusive conduct from the MSNBC Tech BBS) and spent some time being most discourteous to me on the Assessing Microsoft list (which is actually the Appraising Microsoft list -- which shows how well Joe researches his material).
How about this post from the AM-Info list? From Joe...
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0277
Anyone wanna critique this? Joe couldn't come up with a response when I asked him why it was a lie.
Or how about this one:
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0266
Or this one...
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0266
Or this one:
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0278
So, which part of Joe's missive are you going to believe? (And, by the way, if you'd like to send me a copy of it, I'd love to read it - but I'm not going to subscribe to Joe's forum just so that I can read what he thinks of me -- life's too short).
When he hung out on the MSNBC Tech BBS, anyone who didn't agree with him was a Microsoft shill.
Sure, I work for Microsoft, but I'm no PR flunky working in Marketing. I'm a developer. I program user interface controls for a variety of the products you'll find in the next version of Visual Studio. I don't do anything else -- I COULDN'T do anything else without losing my visa.
I ain't worth being deported for 10 years.
However, I would be the first to admit that I spend way too much time online. But when it comes down to yearly reviews, that's my problem and mine alone.
There's a good reason I have a disclaimer on all my posts; to remind you all that I may be biased because I work for Microsoft. That alone should be where it ends; no name calling, no "get out of here, this is a forum for Linux-heads", no instant suspicion -- I've already told you to take my posts with a pinch of salt. You know where I'm coming from. And in doing so, I expect you to take what I write on its merits. If I'm wrong about something, tell me - don't attack me. And if I agree with you, then I'll change my mind on the issue and back down from my position.
But please, please, please, don't use rabid ranting and raving idiots like Joe Barr as an example of "evidence" which can be used in some way against me, because he's a bitter old fool who shoots first (calling people whores amongst other things), and asks questions later.
Please though, send me a copy of the article. I may end up seeing about filing a slander suit against him if he's going a bit too far with his ranting.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
And I'm not a "disinformation specialist" either...
Funny how your research has nothing of the other stuff I've done... like writing articles for a number of international magazines on subjects such as the Communications Decency act (my article was used in Congress against it, and in the Labour Govt's planning process on their Internet policies), or the one I wrote about the raw deal that DeathNet was getting.
I like to think of myself as a voice of reason; not a zealot, not an advocate... unfortunately zealots like Joe Barr (who was banned for abusive conduct from the MSNBC Tech BBS) and spent some time being most discourteous to me on the Assessing Microsoft list (which is actually the Appraising Microsoft list -- which shows how well Joe researches his material).
How about this post from the AM-Info list? From Joe...
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0277
Anyone wanna critique this? Joe couldn't come up with a response when I asked him why it was a lie.
Or how about this one:
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0266
Or this one...
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0266
Or this one:
http://lists.essential.org/1999/am-info/msg0278
So, which part of Joe's missive are you going to believe? (And, by the way, if you'd like to send me a copy of it, I'd love to read it - but I'm not going to subscribe to Joe's forum just so that I can read what he thinks of me -- life's too short).
When he hung out on the MSNBC Tech BBS, anyone who didn't agree with him was a Microsoft shill.
Sure, I work for Microsoft, but I'm no PR flunky working in Marketing. I'm a developer. I program user interface controls for a variety of the products you'll find in the next version of Visual Studio. I don't do anything else -- I COULDN'T do anything else without losing my visa.
I ain't worth being deported for 10 years.
However, I would be the first to admit that I spend way too much time online. But when it comes down to yearly reviews, that's my problem and mine alone.
There's a good reason I have a disclaimer on all my posts; to remind you all that I may be biased because I work for Microsoft. That alone should be where it ends; no name calling, no "get out of here, this is a forum for Linux-heads", no instant suspicion -- I've already told you to take my posts with a pinch of salt. You know where I'm coming from. And in doing so, I expect you to take what I write on its merits. If I'm wrong about something, tell me - don't attack me. And if I agree with you, then I'll change my mind on the issue and back down from my position.
But please, please, please, don't use rabid ranting and raving idiots like Joe Barr as an example of "evidence" which can be used in some way against me, because he's a bitter old fool who shoots first (calling people whores amongst other things), and asks questions later.
Please though, send me a copy of the article. I may end up seeing about filing a slander suit against him if he's going a bit too far with his ranting.
And if you want to see the "real" me, then check out the MSNBC Tech BBS and join in the conversation. Ask some of the people there who I am, and how they feel about the advice I give. Heck, ask some of the guys on the MacCentral forum too.
http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-scitech/index.as
http://www.maccentral.com/forum/?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
People are so well trained by Microsoft that when programs crash they feel it is their own fault that they did something that the program didn't like.. They just don't realise that the program is as buggy as hell. (I'm forced to use office at college, and every time i've crashed it, which must be in the hundreds by now,I was the one who was blamed)
Koffice is looking okay.
It's got a few big bugs in and crashes a bit to frequently atm but it's still alpha software.
I've heard some rumours that he was insitutionalized at the age of 7..
He was also arrested multiple times due to bad driving between 1970 and 1977
Two web pages have details
http://home.att.net/~johncline/gates.htm and
http://www.mugshots.org/misc/bill-gates.html
Nope the navy's battle ship which was running NT crashed, so that can't be running so well...
Yeah we've already got both Solitare and Minesweeper. And a dozen other card games.
Yeah, and if they are just simple programs, why are they going to charge $800 dollars for the the full version of Office2000 premium? Apparantly, simple doesn't equal cheap.
Writing complicated software takes time and energy if you go about it in the wrong way. Companies usually do.
Free software can build upon an ever increasing codebase and do incremental development in a highly decoupled modularized way.
Closed company produced software often goes the opposite way with monolithic masses of code. That requires a lot more time and energy, and for each time it has to be written from scratch, which is a waste of that time and energy.
Of course there are a lot of programmers drawn into the industry because of the money. They often are not that good at their job, compared to the altruists who often hold a deep interest in both learning and working on code.
And, of course, there is no conflict between free software and making money. Nobody is going to develop a financial system for a large corporation for free. They might make it Free, but they'll charge a lot from the corporation. Mass consumer software like word processors, operating systems, etc will probably fall by the wayside because so many have an interest in them working, but vertical market applications will remain a profitable buisness wether Free or not.
Nothing Gates can say or do can stop this.
/do/ to stop us. He can get laws passed that restrict our ability to create and/or distribute free software. As mentioned in an article in the current issue of Business week, "The High-Tech Lobby is Learning Fast." Their stated agenda includes such things as electronic signature verification, protection from Y2K lawsuits, and relaxations of curbs on high-tech exports. But, with Gates (among others) "giving big" to lawmakers, there's no reason he couldn't get a little rider about free software slipped into some spending bill.
Perhaps there's nothing he can say to stop us, but there is something he can
I can see it now: "For the good of The People, we've decided to restrict the distribution of free software. You never know what could be in that stuff - viruses, bugs, and all sorts of garbage that could ruin an unsuspecting person's computer. And with free software, no one is accountable. It's best that we nip this in the bud now."
Or, more likely, "We've added a law which will hold so-called open source developers accountable for their programs' behavior. If their programs do not perform as expected, users will now be able to bring the developers to court. After all, commercial companies are accountable for their software products. These open source people should be, too."
Okay, I'm being paranoid. But it could happen.
-Joe
What is the disadvantage of having 5 different window managers? None. If I get tired of one, I can switch to the other. This is the real strength of Linux--The customisability. In Win, I'm stuck with one crappy window manager.
Second, if browsers are so complex and that they were free in the past, why isn't MS charging for IE?
Seems like everytime MS says something, it gets "foot in mouth disease."
His comments about windowing systems lockstep with ... ... the cruel reminder that I have no working paperclips, since I had to bend them all at some point in time to reset my Tecra when Windows locked it up) because it has mercifully had all the sharp edges and pointy bits removed. Well, as the userbase evolves (which is inevitable ... watch a first-grader sitting at a Mac) the cork-on-the-fork OS will become a niche filler. Implying that all users want prefab OS's is like saying that (major apologies to Bob Heinlein) grown men all want skim milk because the baby can't handle steak.
... what was the question?
Macro$loth's blurring of reality. Ever notice how
Win-pods always ask about GUIs when you talk to them about operating systems. *knock* *knock*
there's a difference between an operating system and an operating environment. So, Billy-Boy thinks the Windows is the shining path because
nobody has to choose what environment they like. Well, I can't argue that most win-pods will cling to the familiar (maybe even progressing to that little paperclip
Feh!
Wait
Answer me this....
Does the population of computer users who truly excel in the field prefer Linux or Windows?
How quickly is that population growing?
(I should be a reporter)
True they can't get to Linux but they COULD get to the people that make linux werk, althought IMHO Linux is like a hydra cut off one head and two more grow in its place...
come to time of it not only is there nothing M$ can do to stop linux or free software, but free software seem to be part of something bigger. what i dont know...
nmarshall
#include STD_DISCLAMER.H
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
Was it just me or did anbody else notice the lack of logic in any of his statments. He never gave any reasons for his conclusions, it sounded as if he were pulling things stratight out of his arse. He may have expanded upon his reasoning in the actuall speach but fortunately the media prints only tib bits of what people say. Which for the most part is bad but in this case it worked very well to make Billy Boy sound like he has no logic or data to backup his claim. Unfortunately quite a few people in this world accept things at face value insteading of looking for the underlying reasoning
root@localbrain root>ps ax |grep thoughtd
We all remember when he also said that no one could ever use more then 640K. And then there was that interview when he said that he didn't think that the net would "catch on"
You know what it sounds like to me - FUD, pure and simple.
He does the same thing every time - I remember a quote from the same BG when in the eighties he was asked about the concept of a GUI (Apple etc) vs DOS, his words were along the lines of "there will never be a place in a serious office for a Graphical User Interface!" - then wham-bam out comes MS Windows. I wonder what hypocrisy he will pull on the world next? "Winux"???
And they say history never repeats...
Central Testing Point huh? We all know how buggy windows is and how long it takes to get fixes. If Microsoft's testing works so good, how do you explain all those bugs? What will ultimately make Linux superior is the fact that the testing environment is far larger than anything that can be commercially developed. Linux has thousands of developers who are using, fixing and updating the OS on a everyday basis. And Linux is not actually free! You are paying the developer in something that is much more important and valuable than $$.
Anyway what does Bill Gates know about software and QC? He had to buy DOS. He is a darn good CEO. He shouldn't don the image of Tech guru. Let someone at MS Research do that.
How bout designing hardware and testing hardware for Linux?
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
It's even worse than that. MS Word clipart (which no one I know has ever used in their lives) takes up 81 MB by itself.
Gates said, for example, that there were five different windowing systems that run on Linux.
In other words, Linux users have a choice on how they want their GUI to look. God forbid we have choices.
``People really do want something that's been tested against all the different applications, so that they know exactly what is out there,'' he said.
Does that sentence not make any sense?
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
Funny, I have a friend who is doing a web browser all by himself as a senior project... and it promises to be better than IE. I am trying to convince him to GPL it.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Sorry Bill, but I just spent nearly three days straight recovering two filesystems on my dad's NT machine. Why were they (almost) lost? Because we did 'fdisk /mbr' from MS-DOS (to remove LILO, ironically enough) and NT couldn't cope because it's stupid signature got removed (my theory). After that, you can forgive me if I find it hard to believe that Microsoft tests anything at all thoroughly.
You think I'm going to run something that fragile on my own machine? You think I'm even going to say anything positive about it to anyone else? What do you think my dad (who's a Unix guy anyway) thinks of NT now? You take your company back to the drawing board, and come back with something that works as advertised, then maybe we won't all laugh at you when you claim that the alternatives aren't good for anything.
**WE** know how buggy windows is, but most people who use windows don't know it's a bug that caused whatever glitch. The computer community, us included, has given them the impression that if anything goes wrong on their computer, like strange stuff happening, then it is most likely their fault.
I think Gates said "_simple_ word processing and spreadsheets". The clear implication there is that open source efforts can't build quality complicated software quickly. It's our job to prove him wrong.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
1) They make crappy software.
2) They market to the lowest common denominator.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Microsoft by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think it's entirely fair to make blanket statements like these. We use a lot of Microsoft stuff at the place I work and some of it we find to be pretty good. Microsoft Exchange Server in particular we've found to be a very effective platform for email and collaboration, and we've found NT workstation to be nice on the desktop (once you lock it down so users can't kill it).
I'm not sure what you mean by "market to the lowest common denominator". For example, in Office (not my favourite piece of software ;) a novice user is well catered for, but the advanced stuff (e.g. VBA) is in there as well.
Cheers,
A.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Why are you hassling a language that's 3 years old? Perl lacked a lot of its current features (e.g. OO) 3 years ago too.
If you haven't used VB in 3 years how can you assert that it's nothing but "code templates and cute little icons"?
Why would you try to program a video game in VB? Would you try to program a CGI-ODBC database app in Lisp?
I'm no fan of Microsoft but it seems to me that comments like this just don't add anything of value to the debate.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
...Sendmail/Qmail are free so Exchange is simple...
...MS Barney for Linux is free...
...Squid; proxy...
Just a small nitpick: sendmail and its ilk and MS Exchange aren't really equivalent products. I don't think there are any workgroup products available for Linux, although Lotus has made noises recently about making a Linux Notes R5 _client_ available.
What? They ported this? *grin*
It gets better; MS Proxy blows so hard we had to dump it. We use squid on Linux 2.2 now and have never looked back.
Cheers,
A.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
I'm sorry to hear that. We use three Exchange servers across two continents to host about 50 people, and it's worked very well for us. But I guess everyone's mileage can vary.
:) Perl _would_ be nicer, wouldn't it?
I agree Exchange can be tough to configure and to tune. Not knowing much about sendmail I'd probably find that app tough to configure too. I guess it boils down to what you know.
. . . the advanced stuff (e.g. VBA) is in there as well.
Uhhh, you forgot the smiley.
Touche
Cheers
A.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
This is exactly what the Gov's lawsuit against Microsoft is all about. And it is an excellent example of how M$ intends to weild its monoploy power once Netscape is completely out of the race.
That said, I think if M$ takes this route, they will be immediately challenged by a new free browser. Who, I don't know. I mean, that's the exact tactic they took to destroy Netscape, so what's to stop someone else from trying the same thing. M$ will then be forced make its browser free once more.
Unless you don't think that any browser is free. Those morons purchasing copies of Windows, or boxes with Win already on them are subsidizing the free browsers everyone else is using.
Of course. The PIII is now out so lets release a big new OS so the new PIII 500 performs exactly the same as last years PII 300. Its amazing that to do such processor light tasks (email surfing IRC ICQ...) consumers seem to think they need a PIII with Windows2000.
Remove the spam reference to email
`People really do want something that's been tested against all the different applications, so that they know exactly what is out there,''-BG
No they don't the average user has no idea what testing has been done or how. If the people want to know whats "out there" (more like in there), they would use Open Source. Download the source and read it yourself then you really know whats "out there".
Remove the spam reference to email
Bill would blame this on LILO. He'd say of course we didnt test it with LILO, why would you need anything but Windows NT.
That whole statement was smoke and mirrors. its been said that Linux wasn't good for the average desktop user. Now Bill is saying all it is good at is the simple average user stuff. Make up your Mind....
Remove the spam reference to email
This may very well be true, but there is some very nice hardware available that Linux doesn't support right now, such as DVD players, the Sound Blaster Live, or 3D support in virtually any video card. If Linux had support for the Riva TNT, and all other nice hardware, how many more users would consider changing? I put myself in this catergory (as I own a TNT, an SB Live, and a DVD decoder)... if the support for my hardware (some very nice hardware) were in Linux, I wouldn't be typing this from Windows NT.
I don't believe this, what a subtle bend on the truth, Note that he mentions that linux has "five windowing systems" (which of course, it has many more than) But fails to mention that there are no issues regarding compatibility of *any* applications between these X based apps which are capable of running in his "five" window managers...
and yet he mentions nothing of his own pathetically fragmented win16/32/95/98/nt/directx/nodirectx/blahblahblah product line, assuming of course everyone will simply assume that windows is compatible with itself. Because it's called windows.
Eugh, I need to use the bathroom, I'm going to be sick, this man is a mockery of intelligence, or a pathological liar.
Hmmm,
Nobody seems to understand.
Non-MS operating systems always survive, and will always survive no matter how huge the Microsoft juggernaut gets.
Why? Because if you want the new innovations first, if you want to be up to date with all the new concepts and trends in IT, you don't use MS!
MS have always survived by copying! Look at Win95/98! It uses concepts of Mac, the Acorn Archimedes etc. etc.
If you want to be on the cutting edge, use that which MS will copy, rather than MS itself!
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
You have to admire the fact that hes not embarressed by shaming himself so publicly. Mr. Gates doesn't need to wake up, hes already done that, and can clearly see the threat that Linux poses.The fact that he is putting Linux down to "Simple Wordprocessing" is only showing his weakness on this issue. I think its quite obvious that when people are saying "Nah, i cant afford to have this Server BSOD on me - So Im gonna run Linux on it" scares our Mr. Gates, and hes hoping his influence in the IT world will help fob Linux off - He knows its only time till Linux shames his products - And him. Shame on you Gates, your a POOR loser. You dont have to insult something just because your money cant buy it.
Let him talk. It's funny however he is saying Linux is for word processing and spreadsheet!
Funny, because I don't know anyone who used Linux for StarOffice for example.
Usually Linux users chose Linux to do work on it, and then ache for a word processor.
The only reason many Linux users keep windows is because of Office or some games!
Thanks Bill for the laugh! I just hope you will be here when Microsoft start dying, that is when Windows 2000 is launched!
Kill Microsoft? No! Just hire their GUI guys!
Yeah, Win 2000. This is not surprising considering the high hardware requirements for Win 2000 and that a lot of NT 4.0 apps will not run on the current beta. This means that IT shops are going to be facing both hardware and software upgrades to run Win 2000. On the other hand they could keep their current hardware and just do a NOS & software change and move to Linux. This is something that Microsoft defiantly does not want as the necessity of upgrading their os/software on a regular basis generates a large part of their revenue stream. They have got to convince corporate management that Linux is NOT a viable alternative to Win 2000 or lose a lot of future revenue
Problem with Mr. Gates' comments is the fact that his main products, Windows 95/98 and Microsoft Office, are the exact areas where he says Linux will be confined too. Don't think you can't walk through a company or office building and at least 60% to 80% of the computers running WIndows 98 are used for reports, articles, and the like, with maybe the odd game of Solitair and Minesweeper. If this _IS_ to be the Linux market, as he claims, then Linux has a pretty nice future in the corpworld.
At most companies, the pointy haired Ones who control the money think that AOL invented the Internet, and that Bill Gates invented the World Wide Web...
Even if they're smart enough to know the truth, they have invested a lot of money in hardware, software, and support (read: people), and Bill Gates is the quintessential "Music Man", the Professor Harold Hill who can sell a company 76 shiny trombones and lead a big brass band down mainstreet to the enthusiastic cheers of everyone.
Yeah, this is just FUD, but it's FUD that carries a lot of mileage since it's from the man most non-slashdot readers think of as "visionary" and "computer savvy."
Whether or not you agree with Gates doesn't really matter.
What will matter is the continual grass roots movement to present alternatives to Microsoft at every possible opportunity to your boss, to your company and at home. Most of you probably already do that, but it won't be until my Mom knows what Linux is and how it's different from Microsoft that we can start trumpeting about how Gates is "irrelevant" and "doesn't matter."
>Gates said there was clearly a market for free
>software but this was mainly confined to
>relatively simple applications such as word
>processing and spreadsheets
So, the fact that the internet runs on free software means nothing?
Sendmail, Perl, BIND, Apache, Linux/BSD
- Scott
(waiting for Microsoft to claim there was no internet until Bill Gates and Al Gore invented it)
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Too right.
Linux's goal should be to create the world's best O/S and not to attempt to destroy Micro$oft.
If you are the best then you will win.
Many was the time, as I struggled through the process of really learning to use Linux as my primary operating system, that I felt like handing #linux a large chunk of my mind. Why is it that a politely worded, if somewhat naive question seems to garner scorn and derision from so much of our community?
Why are we so quick to ridicule the uninitiated for the unpardonable sin of daring to try and enter our sanctums? After all, was it so darned easy for _us_ to learn?
The fact is this: Linux has important advantages over Microsoft in all areas _except_ PUBLIC RELATIONS. Just as the Linux development community is collectively responsible for the code, the Linux user community is collectively responsible for the public perception of this OS, and we have not been doing our job. As Linux users we have a responsibility to be more polite, more civilized, better spoken, and, most of all, more helpful than the unwashed baboon hordes of Microsoft. If we lose the battle for public perception, we lose. Period.
There seems to be an attitude prevalent in the community that there is nothing which can be done about M$'s FUD. FUD only works because it contains a grain of truth. Those the media mistakenly calls "hackers" are a noisy, unruly, rude, loutish bunch. Linux is more difficult for a new user to learn how to deal with than MS Windows. But those facts are _our_ fault. The annoying kids populating IRC are our fault. We haven't done anything about it. Where are responsible channel operators who are willing to kick someone for being rude? After all, we're talking about #linux, not #teenchat, and the free speech of adolescent boys is _not_ a big concern of mine. Linux is harder for a newbie to pick up on because we haven't made a concerted efford to make it otherwise. Where is the network of volunteers contributing their time to help people who've just gotten the word?
That's really all I have to say. We can criticize Gates for this all we want, but all he's really doing is being clever and hitting us where we're weakest--PR. As with everything about an open OS, it is up to us to change that.
-- The Sage does nothing, and nothing is left undone. --Lao Tzu
So samba on linux being faster and more reliable
then NT is a simple task. I guess Sortin mail for
the postal service is a "simple" task also. Or
maybe NASA uses Linux because it handles "simple
tasks.
At least, the site has been slashdotted by now, so nobody can read those fake news.
Although I'd like to, just to have a good laugh.
CU, Ventilator
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
It's a shame BG does not live here up north...
I would have ask my government to trial the guy for slandering through an official complaint.
Did I miss something, here?
"The Microsoft chairman noted, for example, that early Internet browsers had been distributed for free, but said that modern browsers
were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of
environment,'' he said."
I got Netscape 4.5 and IE 5.0 for free. Since when has _anyone_ charged for a browser???
The poor boy is obviously delusional. Somebody give him a smart pill, please!
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Up until the hour before m$ decided to run with the net they fought it fiercly(?). I'd expect lots of this crap for a while then out of the blue one day we will have M$/Linux.
May your soul reach heaven before the devil realizes you are dead
LyX is actually quite good. I use it all the time and it produces nicer output than Word for 'Doze when run through a LaTeX formatter. :)
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The key aspect of this story is that Bill is standing up in front of some leading industry IT people and telling them that Linux sucks. Why does he need to do this? On the one hand Microsoft would have you believe that Windows utterly dominates the OS market as it currently stands. On the other hand they've recently started turning the marketing heat on a OS developed in a 'university type' environment by a bunch of beardies. Why would a multi billion dollar corporation need to do this? They're running scared is why. I think they've put the figures through their spreadsheets and come up with some answers that scare the hell out of them, so now they're rallying the troops for battle. Over the next few months I personally expect to see more of the same, and if that doesn't work then Microsoft will do the thing that's always worked in the past - they'll copy what makes Linux what it is, open source, and make it their new standard. This will gradually dilute the open source movement and start some flames which Microsoft will gently fan, and before you know it those industry people will be talking about Microsoft instead of Linux again. The only way to stop this kind of thing is to avoid the standard temptations offered by Microsoft, the main one being money. Everyone knows that Microsoft's installed user base is huge and their development tools are in the main excellent, and those are just the things that will drag all those potential Linux coders over to the dark side. I think we're seeing the first border skirmishes, but the real war is just about to start...
You know what. He's wrong, I would pay for good running software, Like staroffice, and vmware, KDE, etc.etc.. We are not here for "Free" or "Freebies" software, We want good stable software, and I'm gonna spend the money one way or another, On MS products, Or a better company that cares about there software, One way or another the end user is going to buy software, Who's software will it be? Programmers need to get paid, To make good software. And thats the awsome part of it, The os is free, ($49.95 for a buncho cd's and big books) which i still think is better than the $89.00 winblows upgrade. (Sheesh) Hell I paid less for a MUCH better running os, When my office workers had windows installed, We had so many problems, Now that we all run redhat, We have about a 85.43% drop in problems related to software. Awsome huh?
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!