Very well summarized. On the anecdotal level I also get the impression that everybody claiming that Linux is "not ready" for the desktop has not tried KDE which is in fact far ahead of both GNOME and Windows.
Yeah, I know that's an "evil" thing to say. The "good", political correct thing to say is that all are "equal" and it's just a matter of preference which to use.
But reality is not political correct. The plain truth is that a lot of applications are Windows-only so you have no other choice no matter how worm-ridden/unstable/buggy it is. And the plain truth is that KDE is years ahead of GNOME and I see not a single compelling reason to prefer it over KDE.
And to add: The file selector that Gnome will get is like the file selector KDE had 4 years ago. For about a year KDE already has a much better file selector: With preview and "forward"/"back".
Linux can also run KDE, thankfully we are not forced to run GNOME, so please don't make conclusions from the viability of GNOME to the viability of Linux on the desktop.
KDE had a file selector as good as that for about 4 years and has a much better file selector (with preview, yay) for about a year IIRC.
Many people are still running old *nix/Solaris boxes that will need to be updated sometime soon. It's these people microsoft might sway away from adopting linux.
Face it. Microsoft has already lost that market segment. If you run Unix there is absolutely no reason to replace it with Windows, it's just dumb. You have big switching costs and get no real advantage now that a x86-Unix exists.
The only thing Gates and Ballmer can hope for is that they can hold their userbase as long as it takes to sell their stock.
Linux is fundamentally different that Windows. Worms will have it a LOT harder on Linux:
Updates are freely available, therefore more readily applied
New versions are available more often, therefore the average age of a fresh Linux installation is much lower than the average age of a fresh Windows installation.
You can install Linux as often as you want. Therefore you are not forced to keep the old bugs. If there is any problem (HD dies, hacker attack, mobo burns out) just use the newest version, not the old for which you happen to have a license for. This also means that on average Linux-installations are much more up to date than Windows.
Linux programs feature version numbers. It's much easier to keep track of problems that way. Just check if program x is version y or above. On Windows you have to remember which patches you have used. With the number of patches that can become quite problematic.
Linux offers alternatives. If sendmail has a problem, use procmail. If Apache has a problem you can use Roxen. There is an alternative for almost everything on Linux.
Linux programs just doesn't have that many remote holes. While there are security problems and those should be of course be taken care of, few have appeared which could be used by a program for fully automatic reproduction. With Linux you are not 100% safe from hackers, true. But you don't have to worry that you machine is alredy infected 30 minutes after you hook it onto the Internet. The security difference is not even comparable. I'll get flamed for saying it, but a lot of Linux machines still have adequate security even when completely unpatched. (For example a webserver with no user accounts, the elevation of privileges exploits couldn't be used here) Also most boxes are not interesting enough for a hacker to invest hours into it. Yes of course this is only true for not-so-important machines. With Windows on the other hand, even the lousy Internet-terminal that runs nothing except a webbrowser gets infected by MS.Blaster and you have to invest time to patch that machine. The same machine under Linux could be left unpatched because the data on the machine is completely worthless and not interesting.
Even in those markets where Microsoft has only a minority, it's always Microsoft that has the insecure piece of crap. MS holds only 12% of the database business, but it was MS SQL server which was hit by mass-infection and not MySQL, DB2 or Oracle. MS holds only 20% (and shrinking) of the webserver business, but it was MS IIS which was hit by mass-infection and not Apache.
For those and other reasons, Worms will never be such a huge problem for Linux as they are now for Windows.
Yes, things won't become perfect, but an inprovement is still an improvement even when it doesn't lead to absolute perfection.
However, I don't remember IBM ever "altering the deal" like Microsoft did by including EULA-changes into service packs.
I don't remember IBM constantly proclaiming random "strategies" that usually turn out to be vapor shortly afterwards. Remember "Hailstorm"?
I also don't remember IBM randomly dropping features and support for features. Remember how they cut Netscape-plugin support with a service pack in IE? Remember that Alpha/WinNT users had only one week warning before the Alpha version of WinNT was discontinued? And the whole situation got a lot worse with product activation. Microsoft has the right to deny anybody activation codes because they didn't made any guarantees about them.
IBM has shown their "dark side", yes. But they have always been predictable and reliable to a certain extent. If you have a Microsoft product, it can be altered/discontinued/made illegal ANYTIME without warning
If the issue is that proprietary closed-source code was placed by an unscrupulous developer into an open-source product, then the openness of open source won't help you.
It's this developer's problem, and only this developer's problem.
The worst case that can happen to the community is that they are forced to replaced the infringing code.
There is absolutely nothing that can possibly jeopardize Linux, zero. There is a very low chance of SCO winning the lawsuit, but would be IBM's problem and not Linux'.
Are there going to be some dumb CTOs who fall for the hype? Probably.
Doesn't really matter, actually.
A CTO willing to swallow everything as obviously biased as this is already running Windows.
Seriously: What does Microsoft have to win here? All they do is pour gas into the whole Windows vs. Linux debate which can't help them (because the question is always are the switching costs worth it. Once you made the jump Windows is out forever.).
First, IBM didn't lie in court and didn't fake evidence.
Then, IBM stands for reliability and predictability, which is exactly what the industry wants today, after years of constant worm-attacks. Microsoft on the other hand stands for unreliability, unsecurity and arrogance.
IBM's position is quite easy: Just ask the manager how much money they lost last year on Worms/viruses and sell them the Worm-resistant Linux. (Yes I say resistant, all morons please note that resistant does not equal proof)
Microsoft became big offering products that were cheap and "good enough".
Microsoft told the managers for YEARS how much money they can save in hardware costs by dumping Unix and going for Intel. Now all of the sudden Microsoft changes it's mind and proclaims that initial costs (like hardware and licensing costs) are irrelevant and starts to put forth dubious TCO-studies?
This campaign will backfire, it will just encourage managers to get more information about that Linux-thing that gives the previously thought invincible Microsoft so much grief.
Anybody with only half a brain knows that bugs that can be used by humans (evil hackers that have already stolen a user password) are bad, but bugs that can be used by automated programs, too (worms) are a lot worse.
Holes like elevation of privileges (like this one) cannot be used by worms since they work only when you already have access to the system. So while these bugs are bad enough, they are still not nearly as bad as the Win-RPC, or the bugs that allowed Nimda, CodeRed etc. to exist.
I stopped reading after the "There are no apps" and "Copy and paste does not work" lies.
It's blatant lies like those that make people mod you as troll and that's exactly what you are.
Valid critizism is one thing, outright lying is another.
Of course you didn't show any evidence for your other lie that Linux would surpass Windows in 1998. It takes a long time to turn the desktop around because it is saturated, established and has a lot of application dependency.
What is missing is marketing and of course more apps. With pioneers as Munich, Thailand, China, Korea and many others, the applications will come. One niche at a time. As soon as the overall userbase is large enough, mainstream apps, especially games will appear. It will take quite some time (probably longer than most people including me first expected) but in the end Linux will emerge as the new standard. My guess is around 2010.
I predict that Microsoft will produce a "Windows Classic" package in 2004 that combines a cheap Windows OS and Office, for $49.95, or less.
When they do that, they would lose probably more than half of their revenue and Bill Gates' and Ballmer's stock would become a lot less worth than it is now.
I predict Microsoft will continue to do selective discounts, or to put it in another way: To offer great rebates to possible defectors while ripping off their loyal userbase.
To the person who modded me as Troll: Next time, reply with your disagreement instead of censoring my opinion just because you don't agree with it. I'll rationally debate with you, believe it or not!
Yeah, sure. Debating with you is like talking to an undercover Microsoft sales representative and for all I know you might as well be. Wouldn't be the first time Microsoft is paying people to pollute web forums with shameless pro-MS propaganda.
I remember in 1998 when Linux was supposed to "surpass Windows on the desktop."
Oh, please provide some evidence for your wild claims.
I've been hearing it every year since, as well as Linux being "desktop-ready."
It certainly is desktop-ready. *IF* the applications are there, Linux takes over. Just look at the 3d-modelling world which has gone over to Linux almost completely. If the applications are not there, Windows stays in place, obviously. That's why all the gamers are running Windows and will do so for a while.
This has nothing to do with Linux on the technical side. Linux certainly is desktop ready and has been so for quite some time, no matter what Trolls like Overly Critical Guy claim. (Actually the Windows-GUI is quite primitive and horrible to work with once you are used to Unix-style copy/paste, 3-mouse button GUI-support and multiple desktops)
It all depends on the applications. As some cities migrate to Linux and governmental apps get ported to Linux, the migration gets easier, faster and cheaper for other cities and the migration accelerates.
Linux will take one market segment after another, it will take years, not just one year and governments and coroporations will be long running Linux before home users and gamers, just like WinNT was used long before in business than at home, but in the end Linux will take over the desktop just like it took over embedded systems and is taking over servers.
I remember people like Overly Critical Guy:
1993: Linux will never be useful for anything
1995: Linux will never be useful for anything except webservers
1997: Linux will never be useful for anything except webservers and fileservers
1999: Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers and clusters
2001: Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers, clusters and embedded systems
2003: Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers, clusters, embedded systems, 3d-modelling and mainframes
Overly Critical Guy, you look like the catholic church fighting science. You condemn Linux but have to take a little bit every year. Of course you never admit that you were wrong. Of course you never have any evidence (like for that ridiculous "Linux overtaking Windows in 1998" claim). And of course you don't realize that every year your beloved Microsoft loses one little bit of grip.
My prediction for 2005:
Overly Critical guy:
Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers, clusters, embedded systems, 3d-modelling, mainframes, government desktops and cellphones.
If an out-of-the-box Windows installation could run Linux programs it would be the death for the Win32-API. Microsoft would be pretty dumb if they do that.
Microsoft does everything to make their stuff as incompatible as possible, all of the sudden they won't start to change that.
People could have forked their own OS/hardware if it was such a problem.
"people" didn't produce CPUs, big corporations did. So no, the community didn't have a chance in keeping up with commercial Unices.
Forcing something to always be open is not always a good idea when capitalism still exists.
Please explain me why we have a public police force, public streets (with cleaning and maintaindance) and so many other evil public stuff, but "capitalism still exists". Capitalism is the best solution for most goods, true.
But it's not the one-size-fits-all solution. Imagine if we had no public police and mafia-style "private" security instead.
And for operating systems, open source just works better than closed source, at least as soon as the Internet allowed real mass-collaboration.
Having control over the source gives you a competitive edge which gets crushed by being forced public.
1) You have absolute control of the source in your installation/product.
2) Where is that competitive advantage? Why is Linux wiping the floor with BSD? Why do Asian embedded systems makers standardize on Linux and not BSD? I already explained, but you chose not to quote it: Because the GPL guarantees that nobody steals the work of the consortium. And that's very important for business collaboration and the main reason why there are absolutely no business-driven initiatives based on BSD but hundreds based on Linux. You are clearly lying to yourself here. There is no competitive advantage of the BSD-model. None. Zero. Nothing.
Sure it would be nice to all share and get along but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Finally you got it right. You are 100% on target with that sentence. And this is the very reason why the GPL is needed. To force people to share and get along.
So until we turn into a living utopia you have to make due. I try to improve the world by giving away SW libraries. That's my bit.
You are contradicting yourself.
First you say that we have to take into account that we are not living in an utopia, but then you say that you act as if you live in an utopia.
It's either yes or no. If you think we live in an utopia, then the BSD-model works. If you don't think so, you shoud consider protecting your work.
Last I was told the consumers drive the market not the businesses.
That might be true in some dream-world, but certainly not in the real world and even more so in the IT-world which is mostly about compatibility (you have no other choice than to buy A because B only works with A. No matter how buggy and shoddy A is compared to C, you will buy A and only A because you just have no choice).
Nobody buys product because they alienate customers, they change or die.
And Unix almost died.
And without the GPL, Unix arguably would have no future at all. Without the millions of Linux-users and thousands of Linux-developers, it's pretty doubtful that source-code compatible Unices could survive in the long-term.
Were you forced to use their copy of BSD on the machines? Were you forced to buy the machines in the first place?
Because all the new hardware wouldn't run any non-proprietary BSD (in the 80's), yes, exactly, you were forced to go the proprietary route because sitting on outdated hardware was no option.
The GPL is a safeguard to never let that happen again.
You say "STOLEN by a company." I say "I've helped someone do their job, earn a living and support their family".
In the case of Unix, companies took the original BSD-code and modified it in a way so that it would run on and only on their expensive hardware. The contributors to BSD were left in the cold with an aging and outdated codebase, so yes, those companies took away the usefulness of the code for contributors which is far more close to stealing than software-piracy will ever be.
Not that I don't respect most GNU software. I just fine the GPL itself is kinda contradictory. You want software to be free for the masses and you want to ensure that the cycle continues. Smetimes the cycle is not meant to continue [e.g. private development].
The GPL was not invented in a vacuum. In the beginning, a lot of people had the same naive opinion about freedom as you.
Then came the Unix-companies and nearly destroyed Unix by creating closed-source incompatible derivates that ran only on expensive hardware.
The GPL was created to make sure that that can't happen again.
Also, most private conglomerates prefer GPL-software over other free software. (For example Japanese embedded systems vendors created numerous Linux initiatives and no BSD-based ones whatsoever.) Ever wonder why? Because the GPL is a cozy "no sue"-"no problems" license. With most other licenses there is always the constant danger that one member of the group hijacks the work and uses it in their product in an incompatible way and jeopardizing the whole work.
What if your parents could purchase a a computer for $199 that was virtually virus and exploit-free (to the point they would have to worry about it) and let them check e-mail, surf the web, and type letters?
That's the Walmart Linux PC and it exists already.
The rise of viruses, exploits, and intrusive advertising has created a new market for these hermetically sealed appliances.
Windows does only one thing better than Linux: Run the huge Win32 software library. If you don't want/need that huge library, you no longer need Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't we just get along and just use KDE which already has all the features Gnome still only dreams about?
And yes, you can also configure your shortcuts.
Yeah, I know that's an "evil" thing to say. The "good", political correct thing to say is that all are "equal" and it's just a matter of preference which to use.
But reality is not political correct. The plain truth is that a lot of applications are Windows-only so you have no other choice no matter how worm-ridden/unstable/buggy it is. And the plain truth is that KDE is years ahead of GNOME and I see not a single compelling reason to prefer it over KDE.
And to add: The file selector that Gnome will get is like the file selector KDE had 4 years ago. For about a year KDE already has a much better file selector: With preview and "forward"/"back".
KDE had a file selector as good as that for about 4 years and has a much better file selector (with preview, yay) for about a year IIRC.
Face it. Microsoft has already lost that market segment. If you run Unix there is absolutely no reason to replace it with Windows, it's just dumb. You have big switching costs and get no real advantage now that a x86-Unix exists.
The only thing Gates and Ballmer can hope for is that they can hold their userbase as long as it takes to sell their stock.
For those and other reasons, Worms will never be such a huge problem for Linux as they are now for Windows.
Yes, things won't become perfect, but an inprovement is still an improvement even when it doesn't lead to absolute perfection.
Sure they have, as you already pointed out.
However, I don't remember IBM ever "altering the deal" like Microsoft did by including EULA-changes into service packs.
I don't remember IBM constantly proclaiming random "strategies" that usually turn out to be vapor shortly afterwards. Remember "Hailstorm"?
I also don't remember IBM randomly dropping features and support for features. Remember how they cut Netscape-plugin support with a service pack in IE? Remember that Alpha/WinNT users had only one week warning before the Alpha version of WinNT was discontinued? And the whole situation got a lot worse with product activation. Microsoft has the right to deny anybody activation codes because they didn't made any guarantees about them.
IBM has shown their "dark side", yes. But they have always been predictable and reliable to a certain extent. If you have a Microsoft product, it can be altered/discontinued/made illegal ANYTIME without warning
It's this developer's problem, and only this developer's problem.
The worst case that can happen to the community is that they are forced to replaced the infringing code.
There is absolutely nothing that can possibly jeopardize Linux, zero. There is a very low chance of SCO winning the lawsuit, but would be IBM's problem and not Linux'.
Doesn't really matter, actually.
A CTO willing to swallow everything as obviously biased as this is already running Windows.
Seriously: What does Microsoft have to win here? All they do is pour gas into the whole Windows vs. Linux debate which can't help them (because the question is always are the switching costs worth it. Once you made the jump Windows is out forever.).
But a lot more believable.
First, IBM didn't lie in court and didn't fake evidence.
Then, IBM stands for reliability and predictability, which is exactly what the industry wants today, after years of constant worm-attacks. Microsoft on the other hand stands for unreliability, unsecurity and arrogance.
IBM's position is quite easy: Just ask the manager how much money they lost last year on Worms/viruses and sell them the Worm-resistant Linux. (Yes I say resistant, all morons please note that resistant does not equal proof)
Microsoft became big offering products that were cheap and "good enough".
Microsoft told the managers for YEARS how much money they can save in hardware costs by dumping Unix and going for Intel. Now all of the sudden Microsoft changes it's mind and proclaims that initial costs (like hardware and licensing costs) are irrelevant and starts to put forth dubious TCO-studies?
This campaign will backfire, it will just encourage managers to get more information about that Linux-thing that gives the previously thought invincible Microsoft so much grief.
Holes like elevation of privileges (like this one) cannot be used by worms since they work only when you already have access to the system. So while these bugs are bad enough, they are still not nearly as bad as the Win-RPC, or the bugs that allowed Nimda, CodeRed etc. to exist.
It's blatant lies like those that make people mod you as troll and that's exactly what you are.
Valid critizism is one thing, outright lying is another.
Of course you didn't show any evidence for your other lie that Linux would surpass Windows in 1998. It takes a long time to turn the desktop around because it is saturated, established and has a lot of application dependency.
What is missing is marketing and of course more apps. With pioneers as Munich, Thailand, China, Korea and many others, the applications will come. One niche at a time. As soon as the overall userbase is large enough, mainstream apps, especially games will appear. It will take quite some time (probably longer than most people including me first expected) but in the end Linux will emerge as the new standard. My guess is around 2010.
When they do that, they would lose probably more than half of their revenue and Bill Gates' and Ballmer's stock would become a lot less worth than it is now.
I predict Microsoft will continue to do selective discounts, or to put it in another way: To offer great rebates to possible defectors while ripping off their loyal userbase.
Yeah, sure. Debating with you is like talking to an undercover Microsoft sales representative and for all I know you might as well be. Wouldn't be the first time Microsoft is paying people to pollute web forums with shameless pro-MS propaganda.
Oh, please provide some evidence for your wild claims.
I've been hearing it every year since, as well as Linux being "desktop-ready."
It certainly is desktop-ready. *IF* the applications are there, Linux takes over. Just look at the 3d-modelling world which has gone over to Linux almost completely. If the applications are not there, Windows stays in place, obviously. That's why all the gamers are running Windows and will do so for a while.
This has nothing to do with Linux on the technical side. Linux certainly is desktop ready and has been so for quite some time, no matter what Trolls like Overly Critical Guy claim. (Actually the Windows-GUI is quite primitive and horrible to work with once you are used to Unix-style copy/paste, 3-mouse button GUI-support and multiple desktops)
It all depends on the applications. As some cities migrate to Linux and governmental apps get ported to Linux, the migration gets easier, faster and cheaper for other cities and the migration accelerates.
Linux will take one market segment after another, it will take years, not just one year and governments and coroporations will be long running Linux before home users and gamers, just like WinNT was used long before in business than at home, but in the end Linux will take over the desktop just like it took over embedded systems and is taking over servers.
I remember people like Overly Critical Guy:
1993: Linux will never be useful for anything
1995: Linux will never be useful for anything except webservers
1997: Linux will never be useful for anything except webservers and fileservers
1999: Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers and clusters
2001: Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers, clusters and embedded systems
2003: Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers, clusters, embedded systems, 3d-modelling and mainframes
Overly Critical Guy, you look like the catholic church fighting science. You condemn Linux but have to take a little bit every year. Of course you never admit that you were wrong. Of course you never have any evidence (like for that ridiculous "Linux overtaking Windows in 1998" claim). And of course you don't realize that every year your beloved Microsoft loses one little bit of grip.
My prediction for 2005:
Overly Critical guy:
Linux will never be useful for anything except for webservers, printservers, fileservers, clusters, embedded systems, 3d-modelling, mainframes, government desktops and cellphones.
Microsoft does everything to make their stuff as incompatible as possible, all of the sudden they won't start to change that.
It's an uphill battle at the moment, but as soon as OO gets critical mass it will become the standard and MSO will be dwindling fast.
I think you spelled "No friendly desktop Linux runs as root, just Lindows" wrong.
"people" didn't produce CPUs, big corporations did. So no, the community didn't have a chance in keeping up with commercial Unices.
Forcing something to always be open is not always a good idea when capitalism still exists.
Please explain me why we have a public police force, public streets (with cleaning and maintaindance) and so many other evil public stuff, but "capitalism still exists". Capitalism is the best solution for most goods, true.
But it's not the one-size-fits-all solution. Imagine if we had no public police and mafia-style "private" security instead.
And for operating systems, open source just works better than closed source, at least as soon as the Internet allowed real mass-collaboration.
Having control over the source gives you a competitive edge which gets crushed by being forced public.
1) You have absolute control of the source in your installation/product.
2) Where is that competitive advantage? Why is Linux wiping the floor with BSD? Why do Asian embedded systems makers standardize on Linux and not BSD? I already explained, but you chose not to quote it: Because the GPL guarantees that nobody steals the work of the consortium. And that's very important for business collaboration and the main reason why there are absolutely no business-driven initiatives based on BSD but hundreds based on Linux. You are clearly lying to yourself here. There is no competitive advantage of the BSD-model. None. Zero. Nothing.
Sure it would be nice to all share and get along but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Finally you got it right. You are 100% on target with that sentence. And this is the very reason why the GPL is needed. To force people to share and get along.
So until we turn into a living utopia you have to make due. I try to improve the world by giving away SW libraries. That's my bit.
You are contradicting yourself.
First you say that we have to take into account that we are not living in an utopia, but then you say that you act as if you live in an utopia.
It's either yes or no. If you think we live in an utopia, then the BSD-model works. If you don't think so, you shoud consider protecting your work.
That might be true in some dream-world, but certainly not in the real world and even more so in the IT-world which is mostly about compatibility (you have no other choice than to buy A because B only works with A. No matter how buggy and shoddy A is compared to C, you will buy A and only A because you just have no choice).
Nobody buys product because they alienate customers, they change or die.
And Unix almost died.
And without the GPL, Unix arguably would have no future at all. Without the millions of Linux-users and thousands of Linux-developers, it's pretty doubtful that source-code compatible Unices could survive in the long-term.
Because all the new hardware wouldn't run any non-proprietary BSD (in the 80's), yes, exactly, you were forced to go the proprietary route because sitting on outdated hardware was no option.
The GPL is a safeguard to never let that happen again.
In the case of Unix, companies took the original BSD-code and modified it in a way so that it would run on and only on their expensive hardware. The contributors to BSD were left in the cold with an aging and outdated codebase, so yes, those companies took away the usefulness of the code for contributors which is far more close to stealing than software-piracy will ever be.
The GPL was not invented in a vacuum. In the beginning, a lot of people had the same naive opinion about freedom as you.
Then came the Unix-companies and nearly destroyed Unix by creating closed-source incompatible derivates that ran only on expensive hardware.
The GPL was created to make sure that that can't happen again.
Also, most private conglomerates prefer GPL-software over other free software. (For example Japanese embedded systems vendors created numerous Linux initiatives and no BSD-based ones whatsoever.) Ever wonder why? Because the GPL is a cozy "no sue"-"no problems" license. With most other licenses there is always the constant danger that one member of the group hijacks the work and uses it in their product in an incompatible way and jeopardizing the whole work.
That's the Walmart Linux PC and it exists already.
The rise of viruses, exploits, and intrusive advertising has created a new market for these hermetically sealed appliances.
Windows does only one thing better than Linux: Run the huge Win32 software library. If you don't want/need that huge library, you no longer need Windows.