NT is officially just a designation, it no longer stands for "New Technology" or anything else. Just like the CE in Windows CE no longer stands for "Consumer Electronics," and the K in KDE is just "K" now, no longer standing for "Kool."
In other words, saying "NT technology" isn't redundant.
Greyfox, how about the next time you submit something to Slashdot, you just send the link and spare us the discussion on something you obviously know nothing about. Please?
"Most of the time you'll have to write your windows code from scratch." Uhhhh, sure thing, buddy...
Sorry, but the reason that those once-huge products lost out isn't because Microsoft owns the desktop. It's because the Microsoft products were better.
Lotus 1-2-3: I actually preferred Quattro Pro anyway, but Excel just blew both of those away. Not even close.
WordPerfect: Had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of WYSIWYG, which is what customers wanted (WIWCW?). I thought Lotus Ami Pro (3.1?) was much better than either WordPerfect or Word, but it was Lotus's own fault that they waited so long to update their software that I eventually moved to Word 6 and never looked back.
Netscape: Even if you still thought it was better than IE 4, the consensus is that IE 5 blows it away. Why would a new user ever choose Netscape over IE 5?
dBase IV: Well, I actually never used it -- I was a Paradox guy -- so I can't really comment on it. Did it ever outgrow its DOS environment, though? I know Microsoft never had a quality database program for DOS, so is this another case of a company not adapting well to the GUI? (Really, I don't know.)
Java: If Java fails, the blame belongs squarely on Sun's shoulders, with their contradictory attempts at creating an "open standard" that only they can change along with the phoniness of their "open source" license. Personally, I'd like to see other companies use Microsoft's Java extensions (like Transvirtual is doing with Kaffe), and for Microsoft to support 1.2 and Swing.
So, in all those cases (except dBase IV which I don't know about, and Java, which doesn't really apply here, nor has it's market been captured by Microsoft), Microsoft won by producing better software. That's how the market is supposed to work, kids. Of course, it's important to have the marketing muscle to be able to tell customers why they should be using your product instead of the competition. But take away the marketing and IE 5 is still the best browser, Excel is still the best spreadsheet, and so on. We're not talking voodoo here.
That's also why AOL has remained on top even though MSN's been gunning for it for years, and even though Microsoft has owned the desktop for years: I haven't heard (at least I can't remember hearing) any arguments as to why I should want to choose MSN over AOL (I don't use either of them). I'm no AOL fan, but for the segment of the market that they target, they're doing a damn good job.
But if they slip up, you better believe that MSN will be there to take advantage of it -- and if they make the best product, more power to 'em.
Glad to see someone already posted what I was about to. Also, even though he greatly exaggerated his role, he did play an important part in helping the Bolsheviks take control of Russia. Stalin didn't pop into my mind before I voted, and I didn't think about him right away because he didn't make the top 20, but I'd probably put him above Hitler.
And Saddam? Sheeesh. You could cut all of Stalin's limbs off like that dude in the Monty Python flick, and he'd still kick Saddam's arse. Hell, who's 21? Freakin' Noriega?
Still trying to decide on the Fraud/Phony of the Century. Choosing between Bill/Hillary Clinton, Princess Di, Milli Vanilli, Patricia Ireland, Jar Jar Binks, |3\/1n M1+n1c|, Sanford Wallace, and whoever came up with the original Good Times email. Any other thoughts? I can't get any good ideas from the Time site since almost all the choices are "Bill Clinton."
First, for all the people getting their knickers in a knot about Saddam and Hitler being high on the list: The purpose is to pick, and I'm quoting from Time's own website, the "person who, for better or worse, most influenced the course of history over the past 100 years." (Emphasis mine.) It's just like when Time selected the Ayatollah as Man of the Year back in 1979 or 1980 -- it's not like the editors actually thought he was a good guy.
Second, I wouldn't be astounded at Linus ranking high or above Bill. If you haven't yet learned that Linux zealots love flooding polls like these, you haven't been paying much attention. Hell, if OS/2 had a figurehead (and no, I don't think Dave Tholen counts as one), I'm pretty sure that he'd be running away with this contest.
FWIW, I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for, although I'm struggling to find someone to top Hitler, the Holocaust being only one of a number of reasons for choosing him.
I would imagine that ZDnet doesn't mind letting an outsider "FUD-bust" one of their own columnists when said outsider does such an absolutely pathetic job of it. The poor guy was in way over his head -- ZDnet probably loved using his rebuttal because it makes them look unbiased by accepting criticism while still allowing their own guy to win by a knockout.
After all, kids know best, right? No matter how young they are. So if any child, especially a geek child, since we're all aware that they know more than adults, decided to let That Guy In The Park sodomize him, well that's fantastic! We shouldn't just celebrate their union, but as fellow geeks, we should actually go out of our way to set them up on dates as much as possible. Let's just keep this a secret from li'l Jimmy's parents, though -- I'm sure they're well meaning, but they don't know what's really good for him like we anarchist geeks do.
Hey Katz, got any kids? I'm having a killer Y2K-eve bash, so wouldya mind emailing me their phone numbers so that I can invite them to partake in the festivities with me? I'll supply the drinks myself!
So basically, you're talking about disregarding about 14 percent of the web surfers.
Then again, since Windows users make up more than 90 percent of the web viewing audience, who cares about that paltry less-than-10-percent who aren't using Windows? Why bother keeping things readable for those people when there are such a relative few?
Seriously. If you care to notice, these font-readability complaints are almost exclusively from Netscape users, usually using a *nix version. Stick a fork in Netscape already, okay? Your web browsing will be much less stressful. The page's default fonts look just find under IE5 and Win2K/NT4.
Now, I admit that I haven't tried Internet Explorer on Solaris since the somewhat shaky version 4 debut (I pretty much only use my SPARC box as a server anymore), but given the ass-kicking that Netscape's taken on the Windows and Mac platforms, surely version IE5's gotta be better than what Netscape's shovelling out, right?
As for the new RedHat site, I can't say that I'm all that fond of it -- from those flags, which seem a little silly to me, to that unattractive yellow background for the buzz section. My biggest complaint, though, is that there's just way too much red. I really (really!) felt like I was looking at a Chairman Mao advocacy website or something. Then there is the Yahoo-ish table of links -- a stale, sterile look I've never really liked.
Of course, it's just a website, and I'm sure that someone out there liked the look or they wouldn't have done it that way. So for all of you screaming that this is the end of the world and that RedHat's evil incarnate for their changes, get a little perspective on life already.
Thanks for letting us all in on your ignorance, though. Of course, if you haven't been applying the necessary fixes for the past couple of years, I could root your little Linux box at will.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com, who knows that most Slashdotters will believe it anyway
Seriously, why do you "deserve a fast lightweight reliable browser to use on linux"? What have you done to deserve it? As we can see from Mozilla, coding a good browser to work with today's standards is damn hard work. So why do you "shudder" at the thought of paying for something like that? Because you're cheap? Because you think it's your birthright to have complex code available at no cost and no effort on your part?
You do have a valid point as far as the Windows versions go, but it doesn't explain why Microsoft has blown away Netscape when it comes to making a web browser for the Mac. Nor does it explain why Netscape on Linux is so poor (not so much better or worse than Netscape on other platforms, but poor nonetheless), since they do have complete access to Linux's internals. I can't comment on IE5 for HP-UX or Solaris, since I haven't tried it since the original beta for Solaris. Anyone?
So...what will Slashdot be running on in, say, a year from now? Now that you're backed by some money, will you step up to the web platforms preferred by the big boys (i.e., Apache or Netscape on Solaris or IIS on NT)? I can't wait to witness the thread in which _that_ decision is announced!;-) Mmmmmmms...
Many congratulations on your new wealth and thanks for showing once again that the American dream is alive and well.
Care to name some legitimate industry people who said that NT would completely wipe out UNIX within 7 years? I didn't think so.
Or maybe when you said "kill UNIX," you were just exaggerating and meant "do some serious damage to UNIX." Well, buddy, wake up and take a look around you. It has.
SCO? Oh, the humanity! SGI? Well, maybe they can make some money on those new NT boxes they're selling. HP-UX and AIX? Ha, HP and IBM are now embracing NT harder than they've ever embraced their own flavors of UNIX. MacOS X Server? Stillborn. Hell, why stop at just UNIX? Novell? Nice mini-comeback lately, but oh, how the mighty have fallen. Banyan? We hardly knew ye. OS/2? Sorry, looks like half an OS just won't cut it for anything but ATMs these days. BSD? Sorry, NT, but I'll have to give Linux the credit for beating down those guys -- they shouldn't worry, though; I imagine BSD'll be what a lot of the current Linux users will flock to when they finally get sick of the hype.
Oh well, at least Sun and Linux should stay strong, but I don't think the other UNIX vendors will soon forget the bitch-slapping that NT has given them.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com Happy Win2K/RH Linux 6.0/BeOS R3 (I know, I know)/Solaris 2.6 user:)
We? Do you work for Corel? If not, you're perfectly welcome to form your own Linux Advisory Council with board members of your own choosing. (I'd really recommend not having a jackass like Stallman on it, though.) Then you can have your own conferences and release your own press statements instead of imposing your warped political correctness on this particular group. Corel is a publicly traded company (i.e., their raison d'etre is to make money, just like Red Hat and soon VA Research), so it comes as no surprise that they'd like to focus a group that they formed on the business side of things. As a fan of capitalism, I think this sounds much more appealing than Yet Another open source mutual wankfest.
As long as the buzzword in this area remains "Linux" and not "Red Hat," it would be much easier for them -- costwise and PR-wise -- to not buy out Red Hat, but just to release their very own Microsoft-branded Linux distribution. No need to spend the money to buy out Red Hat the company when you can just download Red Hat the Linux distribution and stamp your own name on it. And, it saves them PR and DoJ annoyances like "There goes Microsoft buying another company again."
Give the customer a little value-add by producing their own wm, along with IE and their Media Player for Linux (tell me that having IE wouldn't be sweet -- anyone else catch the president of Cygnus Solutions on ZDTV admitting that Mozilla has "really been a flop"?), maybe ensuring that it only works on their distribution (perhaps not, though -- there are advantages to both approaches for them), and sell it for 29-39 bucks with maybe free downloads available. After that, get ready for a little embrace-and-extend action, possibly in the SMB and object model areas. "Where do you want to go today? Hey, you want a little PDA? CE. You want a typical desktop? Win9x or an iMac running Microsoft software. You want a Windows-based server or workstation? NT. You a Unix fan? Microsoft Linux."
If that happens, you can quickly expect IBM Linux -- I'd be surprised if IBM doesn't come out with their own distribution eventually no matter what Microsoft does. Sure the Open Source ideologues will always have the Debians of the world, but you can bet that most businesses, when given a choice between Red Hat, Microsoft, and IBM Linux, are going to choose between those latter two almost every time.
It's a rough game out there -- hope Red Hat didn't leave its cup and mouthpiece at home.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Yeah, right. Welcome to the world of Open Source.
on
Red Hat Announces IPO
·
· Score: 1
[nt] - Sorry if you're reading this, but there wasn't enough room in the Subject line for that.
"...virtually ALL of the commercial players getting involved with Linux...are focusing on the server side?"
Virtual: seeming to be, but not actually being. See Virtual Reality.
See "Virtually," the word the original poster actually used, and which conveys precisely what he meant:
almost entirely : NEARLY
for all practical purposes (virtually unknown)
And it's true that Linux may well more power than the average user needs on his desktop.
Whether it has any more power or not is irrelevant. The problem is that, for the most part, Linux lacks the apps that most people want to use, the substitutes for those missing apps lack sufficient quality for most people, and at the current time, its "desktop experience" is, to put it bluntly, a patchwork of garbage. When most people can already do everything that they want, and already know how to do it on Windows or a Mac, Linux for them is a severe downgrade. Why would a desktop user switch? The joys of Netscape on Linux?
Basically, when I see someone choosing to use X under Linux as their desktop OS (i.e., not people who have only one computer and the desktop computer == the server) at this point in time, I can't help but think:
They use only Open Source software on ideological principle, or
The pricier alternatives are out of their range, or
They're console guys just using X to keep a bunch of *terms on their screen at once, or
They're programmers, actively working to improve the Linux desktop experience, or
Have very limited desktop needs, e.g., need only a few programs, or
They're dumb and/or stubborn, usually both.
Nothing wrong at all with those first five groups. The last group probably deserves their fate.
If Linux wins in the backroom, we make the rules.
This is absolutely, positively, unmistakably, without-a-doubt WRONG. If any company ever owns the entire client and server computing enchilada, it's going to come from first owning the desktop. That's why Microsoft could jump down into the brand new (for them) PDA market with CE and grab over 30% of it within a couple of years. And it's why Microsoft having 30% is still seen as a disappointment by some people -- because they know how powerful owning the desktop is. It's why Microsoft could jump up into the server market and put such a hurting on most Unix vendors. The desktop will always be the key to whoever aspires to world domination.
At least, more money than they're spending/losing? I haven't seen any financial numbers for this company, so if you're just assuming that they're in the black, I'd say that's a pretty big assumption. Even the CIO of Burlington Coat Factory, who's planning to buy over 1000 Linux boxes from Dell (if they haven't done so already), says, "I suppose Red Hat's business model makes sense to somebody, but it makes no sense to us."
FWIW, AbiSource's president (who I would hope knows his way around Linux) wrote an article on the joys of installing Red Hat Linux 6.0, which is worth a read for the goofballs out there who think that everyone should throw away their Macs or Windows software and start installing Linux.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com Slashdot Realist
Is a little imagination really so difficult?
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 2
I mean, c'mon, I realize that innovation isn't exactly a commodity within the free software community, but we've already seen this particular Intel slogan ripped off once for the promotion of Linux. It's bad enough that Hall even came up with this braindead idea, but it's worse to see so many people actually pleased with it. Please rethink this whole idea and either drop it or come up with something else -- it's embarrassingly pathetic.
Admit it folks, if the tables were turned and Linux was beating NT in these benchmarks, we wouldn't be hearing all these excuses about the relevance of the benchmark.
Not that this is a new thing, since it happens every single time that someone shows that Linux might not be the best solution for everything under the sun. Whether it's lack of certain quality applications available on other OSes, or poor performance by Linux on a certain benchmark, we can always be assured of hearing the shriek of, "But nobody needs to do that anyway!"
Uh-huh.
And no, Linux doesn't actually suck at this current benchmark, but it definitely doesn't measure up to NT or Solaris in it.
Slashdot Mirror
NT is officially just a designation, it no longer stands for "New Technology" or anything else. Just like the CE in Windows CE no longer stands for "Consumer Electronics," and the K in KDE is just "K" now, no longer standing for "Kool."
In other words, saying "NT technology" isn't redundant.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Greyfox, how about the next time you submit something to Slashdot, you just send the link and spare us the discussion on something you obviously know nothing about. Please?
"Most of the time you'll have to write your windows code from scratch." Uhhhh, sure thing, buddy...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Sorry, but the reason that those once-huge products lost out isn't because Microsoft owns the desktop. It's because the Microsoft products were better.
So, in all those cases (except dBase IV which I don't know about, and Java, which doesn't really apply here, nor has it's market been captured by Microsoft), Microsoft won by producing better software. That's how the market is supposed to work, kids. Of course, it's important to have the marketing muscle to be able to tell customers why they should be using your product instead of the competition. But take away the marketing and IE 5 is still the best browser, Excel is still the best spreadsheet, and so on. We're not talking voodoo here.
That's also why AOL has remained on top even though MSN's been gunning for it for years, and even though Microsoft has owned the desktop for years: I haven't heard (at least I can't remember hearing) any arguments as to why I should want to choose MSN over AOL (I don't use either of them). I'm no AOL fan, but for the segment of the market that they target, they're doing a damn good job.
But if they slip up, you better believe that MSN will be there to take advantage of it -- and if they make the best product, more power to 'em.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Glad to see someone already posted what I was about to. Also, even though he greatly exaggerated his role, he did play an important part in helping the Bolsheviks take control of Russia. Stalin didn't pop into my mind before I voted, and I didn't think about him right away because he didn't make the top 20, but I'd probably put him above Hitler.
And Saddam? Sheeesh. You could cut all of Stalin's limbs off like that dude in the Monty Python flick, and he'd still kick Saddam's arse. Hell, who's 21? Freakin' Noriega?
Still trying to decide on the Fraud/Phony of the Century. Choosing between Bill/Hillary Clinton, Princess Di, Milli Vanilli, Patricia Ireland, Jar Jar Binks, |3\/1n M1+n1c|, Sanford Wallace, and whoever came up with the original Good Times email. Any other thoughts? I can't get any good ideas from the Time site since almost all the choices are "Bill Clinton."
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
First, for all the people getting their knickers in a knot about Saddam and Hitler being high on the list: The purpose is to pick, and I'm quoting from Time's own website, the "person who, for better or worse, most influenced the course of history over the past 100 years." (Emphasis mine.) It's just like when Time selected the Ayatollah as Man of the Year back in 1979 or 1980 -- it's not like the editors actually thought he was a good guy.
Second, I wouldn't be astounded at Linus ranking high or above Bill. If you haven't yet learned that Linux zealots love flooding polls like these, you haven't been paying much attention. Hell, if OS/2 had a figurehead (and no, I don't think Dave Tholen counts as one), I'm pretty sure that he'd be running away with this contest.
FWIW, I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for, although I'm struggling to find someone to top Hitler, the Holocaust being only one of a number of reasons for choosing him.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I would imagine that ZDnet doesn't mind letting an outsider "FUD-bust" one of their own columnists when said outsider does such an absolutely pathetic job of it. The poor guy was in way over his head -- ZDnet probably loved using his rebuttal because it makes them look unbiased by accepting criticism while still allowing their own guy to win by a knockout.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
After all, kids know best, right? No matter how young they are. So if any child, especially a geek child, since we're all aware that they know more than adults, decided to let That Guy In The Park sodomize him, well that's fantastic! We shouldn't just celebrate their union, but as fellow geeks, we should actually go out of our way to set them up on dates as much as possible. Let's just keep this a secret from li'l Jimmy's parents, though -- I'm sure they're well meaning, but they don't know what's really good for him like we anarchist geeks do.
Hey Katz, got any kids? I'm having a killer Y2K-eve bash, so wouldya mind emailing me their phone numbers so that I can invite them to partake in the festivities with me? I'll supply the drinks myself!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
[Sorry, had a mouse spasm with that last post and hit Submit instead of Preview. Whoa!]
1280x1024: ~2%
1024x768: ~24%
800x600: ~55%
640x480: ~14%
Others: ~3%
Source: StatMarket for July 25, 1999
So basically, you're talking about disregarding about 14 percent of the web surfers.
Then again, since Windows users make up more than 90 percent of the web viewing audience, who cares about that paltry less-than-10-percent who aren't using Windows? Why bother keeping things readable for those people when there are such a relative few?
Hmmmmmmmm? :-)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
1280x1024 ~2%
1024x768 ~24%
800x600 ~55%
640x480 ~14%
Others ~3%
Source: StatMarket for July 25, 1999 So basically, you're talking about disregarding about 14 percent of the web surfers.
Seriously. If you care to notice, these font-readability complaints are almost exclusively from Netscape users, usually using a *nix version. Stick a fork in Netscape already, okay? Your web browsing will be much less stressful. The page's default fonts look just find under IE5 and Win2K/NT4.
Now, I admit that I haven't tried Internet Explorer on Solaris since the somewhat shaky version 4 debut (I pretty much only use my SPARC box as a server anymore), but given the ass-kicking that Netscape's taken on the Windows and Mac platforms, surely version IE5's gotta be better than what Netscape's shovelling out, right?
As for the new RedHat site, I can't say that I'm all that fond of it -- from those flags, which seem a little silly to me, to that unattractive yellow background for the buzz section. My biggest complaint, though, is that there's just way too much red. I really (really!) felt like I was looking at a Chairman Mao advocacy website or something. Then there is the Yahoo-ish table of links -- a stale, sterile look I've never really liked.
Of course, it's just a website, and I'm sure that someone out there liked the look or they wouldn't have done it that way. So for all of you screaming that this is the end of the world and that RedHat's evil incarnate for their changes, get a little perspective on life already.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Thanks for letting us all in on your ignorance, though. Of course, if you haven't been applying the necessary fixes for the past couple of years, I could root your little Linux box at will.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com,
who knows that most Slashdotters will believe it anyway
http://www.classicgaming.com/pac-ma n/split00.gif
No, I don't know why a blank space appears in the text of that link, but it shouldn't be there. It still works if you just click on it, though.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It's hard to imagine Linux as a user-friendly OS if Linus Torvalds's own family (other than his wife) won't even use it.
That pretty much says it all...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
You don't retrieve information, you retrieve "rich content"! *thwap* Bad marketer, bad!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Seriously, why do you "deserve a fast lightweight reliable browser to use on linux"? What have you done to deserve it? As we can see from Mozilla, coding a good browser to work with today's standards is damn hard work. So why do you "shudder" at the thought of paying for something like that? Because you're cheap? Because you think it's your birthright to have complex code available at no cost and no effort on your part?
Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme...
Please be sure to post a list of other software that you deserve to have so that we can quickly code it and give it to you.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com, who deserves a hummer, but is not gonna tell his girlfriend that, no way no how.
You do have a valid point as far as the Windows versions go, but it doesn't explain why Microsoft has blown away Netscape when it comes to making a web browser for the Mac. Nor does it explain why Netscape on Linux is so poor (not so much better or worse than Netscape on other platforms, but poor nonetheless), since they do have complete access to Linux's internals. I can't comment on IE5 for HP-UX or Solaris, since I haven't tried it since the original beta for Solaris. Anyone?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
So...what will Slashdot be running on in, say, a year from now? Now that you're backed by some money, will you step up to the web platforms preferred by the big boys (i.e., Apache or Netscape on Solaris or IIS on NT)? I can't wait to witness the thread in which _that_ decision is announced! ;-) Mmmmmmms...
Many congratulations on your new wealth and thanks for showing once again that the American dream is alive and well.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Or maybe when you said "kill UNIX," you were just exaggerating and meant "do some serious damage to UNIX." Well, buddy, wake up and take a look around you. It has.
SCO? Oh, the humanity! SGI? Well, maybe they can make some money on those new NT boxes they're selling. HP-UX and AIX? Ha, HP and IBM are now embracing NT harder than they've ever embraced their own flavors of UNIX. MacOS X Server? Stillborn. Hell, why stop at just UNIX? Novell? Nice mini-comeback lately, but oh, how the mighty have fallen. Banyan? We hardly knew ye. OS/2? Sorry, looks like half an OS just won't cut it for anything but ATMs these days. BSD? Sorry, NT, but I'll have to give Linux the credit for beating down those guys -- they shouldn't worry, though; I imagine BSD'll be what a lot of the current Linux users will flock to when they finally get sick of the hype.
Oh well, at least Sun and Linux should stay strong, but I don't think the other UNIX vendors will soon forget the bitch-slapping that NT has given them.
Cheers, :)
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Happy Win2K/RH Linux 6.0/BeOS R3 (I know, I know)/Solaris 2.6 user
We? Do you work for Corel? If not, you're perfectly welcome to form your own Linux Advisory Council with board members of your own choosing. (I'd really recommend not having a jackass like Stallman on it, though.) Then you can have your own conferences and release your own press statements instead of imposing your warped political correctness on this particular group. Corel is a publicly traded company (i.e., their raison d'etre is to make money, just like Red Hat and soon VA Research), so it comes as no surprise that they'd like to focus a group that they formed on the business side of things. As a fan of capitalism, I think this sounds much more appealing than Yet Another open source mutual wankfest.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
As long as the buzzword in this area remains "Linux" and not "Red Hat," it would be much easier for them -- costwise and PR-wise -- to not buy out Red Hat, but just to release their very own Microsoft-branded Linux distribution. No need to spend the money to buy out Red Hat the company when you can just download Red Hat the Linux distribution and stamp your own name on it. And, it saves them PR and DoJ annoyances like "There goes Microsoft buying another company again."
Give the customer a little value-add by producing their own wm, along with IE and their Media Player for Linux (tell me that having IE wouldn't be sweet -- anyone else catch the president of Cygnus Solutions on ZDTV admitting that Mozilla has "really been a flop"?), maybe ensuring that it only works on their distribution (perhaps not, though -- there are advantages to both approaches for them), and sell it for 29-39 bucks with maybe free downloads available. After that, get ready for a little embrace-and-extend action, possibly in the SMB and object model areas. "Where do you want to go today? Hey, you want a little PDA? CE. You want a typical desktop? Win9x or an iMac running Microsoft software. You want a Windows-based server or workstation? NT. You a Unix fan? Microsoft Linux."
If that happens, you can quickly expect IBM Linux -- I'd be surprised if IBM doesn't come out with their own distribution eventually no matter what Microsoft does. Sure the Open Source ideologues will always have the Debians of the world, but you can bet that most businesses, when given a choice between Red Hat, Microsoft, and IBM Linux, are going to choose between those latter two almost every time.
It's a rough game out there -- hope Red Hat didn't leave its cup and mouthpiece at home.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
[nt] - Sorry if you're reading this, but there wasn't enough room in the Subject line for that.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
- almost entirely : NEARLY
- for all practical purposes (virtually unknown)
Whether it has any more power or not is irrelevant. The problem is that, for the most part, Linux lacks the apps that most people want to use, the substitutes for those missing apps lack sufficient quality for most people, and at the current time, its "desktop experience" is, to put it bluntly, a patchwork of garbage. When most people can already do everything that they want, and already know how to do it on Windows or a Mac, Linux for them is a severe downgrade. Why would a desktop user switch? The joys of Netscape on Linux?Basically, when I see someone choosing to use X under Linux as their desktop OS (i.e., not people who have only one computer and the desktop computer == the server) at this point in time, I can't help but think:
- They use only Open Source software on ideological principle, or
- The pricier alternatives are out of their range, or
- They're console guys just using X to keep a bunch of *terms on their screen at once, or
- They're programmers, actively working to improve the Linux desktop experience, or
- Have very limited desktop needs, e.g., need only a few programs, or
- They're dumb and/or stubborn, usually both.
Nothing wrong at all with those first five groups. The last group probably deserves their fate. This is absolutely, positively, unmistakably, without-a-doubt WRONG. If any company ever owns the entire client and server computing enchilada, it's going to come from first owning the desktop. That's why Microsoft could jump down into the brand new (for them) PDA market with CE and grab over 30% of it within a couple of years. And it's why Microsoft having 30% is still seen as a disappointment by some people -- because they know how powerful owning the desktop is. It's why Microsoft could jump up into the server market and put such a hurting on most Unix vendors. The desktop will always be the key to whoever aspires to world domination.Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
At least, more money than they're spending/losing? I haven't seen any financial numbers for this company, so if you're just assuming that they're in the black, I'd say that's a pretty big assumption. Even the CIO of Burlington Coat Factory, who's planning to buy over 1000 Linux boxes from Dell (if they haven't done so already), says, "I suppose Red Hat's business model makes sense to somebody, but it makes no sense to us."
FWIW, AbiSource's president (who I would hope knows his way around Linux) wrote an article on the joys of installing Red Hat Linux 6.0, which is worth a read for the goofballs out there who think that everyone should throw away their Macs or Windows software and start installing Linux.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Slashdot Realist
I mean, c'mon, I realize that innovation isn't exactly a commodity within the free software community, but we've already seen this particular Intel slogan ripped off once for the promotion of Linux. It's bad enough that Hall even came up with this braindead idea, but it's worse to see so many people actually pleased with it. Please rethink this whole idea and either drop it or come up with something else -- it's embarrassingly pathetic.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Admit it folks, if the tables were turned and Linux was beating NT in these benchmarks, we wouldn't be hearing all these excuses about the relevance of the benchmark.
Not that this is a new thing, since it happens every single time that someone shows that Linux might not be the best solution for everything under the sun. Whether it's lack of certain quality applications available on other OSes, or poor performance by Linux on a certain benchmark, we can always be assured of hearing the shriek of, "But nobody needs to do that anyway!"
Uh-huh.
And no, Linux doesn't actually suck at this current benchmark, but it definitely doesn't measure up to NT or Solaris in it.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Slashdot Realist