"He doesn't look at the smaller, but smarter group of people that use Linux."
What operating system somebody uses is not related to their intelligence. Why can't people just grow up and accept the fact that not everybody uses the same operating system that they use?
Each operating system has its own strengths and weaknesses. it is up to the user to figure out which OS is best for them based on these strengths and weaknesses.
I don't see why people seem to have so much trouble grasping this. Perhaps I need to explain in depth "what the fuck this means."
If you actually *read* the summary, let alone the article, and weren't just clicking on random links, you would know that Bill Hilf, the director of Microsoft's open source lab, is now the general manager of Windows server marketing. Do you see where the joke is now?
The bottom line: Do not take this post literally. I don't *seriously* believe that Windows Server co-exists with open source software better than any other version of Windows. I can't believe I even had to write this comment in the first place.
Familiarity is worth the money. They don't NEED Linux. "Good enough" is the enemy of "the best".
So you're saying that people who are familiar with Windows and have not heard of Linux should not use it?? i disagree. If Windows's market share decreases, it will make the Internet a better place, because open protocols would finally dominate, and we wouldn't have to resort to hacking in support for proprietary protocols into third-party applications (e.g. MSNP, Doc, etc.) Not to mention the decrease in spam.
I just don't think that including a distro CD and hoping for the best will work.
Including Linux may, in fact, be more expensive, because support staff will need to be trained in usage and maintenance of whatever distro they choose, unless the distro maker carries the burden of support.
He was saying that Windows *itself* didn't support tar files. You need to install a third-party tool. Pretty much all Linux distrobutions include the tar(1) program.
How is it possible to provide for both consumers who demand Windows and also ensure a fair and open marketplace for competing platforms?
That's the $64 billion question, isn't it? Here's how it can be done.
All hardware manufacturers should ship personal computers with no pre-installed operating system. They should include within the packaging of the computer a media copy of the then current Microsoft Windows recovery CD. They should also include
a copy of one of the main Linux distributions which are freely-redistributable at no charge.
Upon unpacking the computer, the consumer must then make a choice of either:
a. loading Windows from the Windows recovery media, then using the brochure included with the recovery media to contact Microsoft and through some form of financial transaction, acquire a licence to use Windows, or
b. load the Linux operating system from the CD/DVD included, and use it as their computer operating system.
The problem is, I'm sure most consumers would fork over the Windows licensing fee meerly because it is familiar to them. Most consumers do not know what linux is, and thus will not install it.
Microsoft software can co-exist just fine with other open source software! Quit spreading fud!
Of course, Windows Server, in particular the upcoming Windows Server 2008, co-exists better with open source software better than any Windows version to date!
The general public will never get annoyed. I'm sure the average American would sacrifice their firstborn child to hear Justin Timberlake's new hit, or buy a CD with Paris hilton on the cover. Who cares if some guy in the UK got sued for playing the radio in public? Walmart's out of Paris Hilton albums!
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'll probably be modded down for this, but...
"He doesn't look at the smaller, but smarter group of people that use Linux."
What operating system somebody uses is not related to their intelligence. Why can't people just grow up and accept the fact that not everybody uses the same operating system that they use?
Each operating system has its own strengths and weaknesses. it is up to the user to figure out which OS is best for them based on these strengths and weaknesses.
I don't see why people seem to have so much trouble grasping this. Perhaps I need to explain in depth "what the fuck this means."
If you actually *read* the summary, let alone the article, and weren't just clicking on random links, you would know that Bill Hilf, the director of Microsoft's open source lab, is now the general manager of Windows server marketing. Do you see where the joke is now?
The bottom line: Do not take this post literally. I don't *seriously* believe that Windows Server co-exists with open source software better than any other version of Windows. I can't believe I even had to write this comment in the first place.
So you're saying that people who are familiar with Windows and have not heard of Linux should not use it?? i disagree. If Windows's market share decreases, it will make the Internet a better place, because open protocols would finally dominate, and we wouldn't have to resort to hacking in support for proprietary protocols into third-party applications (e.g. MSNP, Doc, etc.) Not to mention the decrease in spam.
I just don't think that including a distro CD and hoping for the best will work.
Including Linux may, in fact, be more expensive, because support staff will need to be trained in usage and maintenance of whatever distro they choose, unless the distro maker carries the burden of support.
Just my $.02.
He was saying that Windows *itself* didn't support tar files. You need to install a third-party tool. Pretty much all Linux distrobutions include the tar(1) program.
From TFA:
The problem is, I'm sure most consumers would fork over the Windows licensing fee meerly because it is familiar to them. Most consumers do not know what linux is, and thus will not install it.
I sure hope you aren't a webmaster for any humour-related sites.
Microsoft software can co-exist just fine with other open source software! Quit spreading fud!
Of course, Windows Server, in particular the upcoming Windows Server 2008, co-exists better with open source software better than any Windows version to date!
The general public will never get annoyed. I'm sure the average American would sacrifice their firstborn child to hear Justin Timberlake's new hit, or buy a CD with Paris hilton on the cover. Who cares if some guy in the UK got sued for playing the radio in public? Walmart's out of Paris Hilton albums!
If America lost $-141,305.3, then technically they would gain $141,305.3.