I read the article, you comment is kinda pointless.
More pointless than the post I was replying to? I don't think so.
I never said Linux wasn't wealthy,
The poster I was replying to did (and I quote):
"Wow. Linus is fucked then. He has neither good looks, charm OR wealth."
I said Bill Gates is the richest man on earth
The author of the post I was replying to didn't say that. In fact, since Microsoft stock took its big tanking, I'm not even sure its absolutely true anymore. He is at least one of the most wealthy men on earth, but once you get more than a certain amount of money, does it really matter that much? Almost all of Bill Gates' fortunes are tied to Microsoft stock.
It is my understanding that the M$ software for Mac is developed by a fairly autonomous group. Whatever the situation, they have recently released some great 'very Mac' software in IE and Outlook Express, although they did wierdly reinvent some things for OE. Sadly, IE 5 for Mac is miles ahead of Netscape/Mozilla, and iCab isn't quite there yet.
Perhaps they should port the MacOS or MacOSX version of the apps to Linux instead of the Windows versions if they are going to do that. Perhaps by releasing what might be different programs with the same name, Microsoft is bluring the distinctions that they tried to set up when they claimed that IE and Windows were inseperable.
My point is that MS can make good software, if you judge software by the expectations of the majority of the users of the targeted platform.
Well, I think that it is more that Microsoft is very good at setting expectations of people to a very low level. They deliver very flashy software, which is different than what I'd call 'good'. They've also been very successful at defining the criteria by which things are judged so that flash and feature bloat are valued above things being stable and with features that are well thought out.
What does this mean for Linux if/when Office and IE are ported? How would Office for Linux have to be different than Office for Win and Office for Mac to truly be a Linux application worth using?
I'm not the right person to ask that. I have no interest in using Office or IE in any case until Microsoft can clean up their act. I think as far as their applications, they need to spend more time making what is there work right and sensibly rather than just cramming more stuff in.
From the outside, the coolest and most admirable thing about the Linux community is Open Source and everything implied by that. I don't think MS could release a real Linux app, if this is held to be fundamental to truly be considered as a Linux app.
I would tend to agree with most of that. Microsoft will probably never really be able to be compatible with the the Open Source/Free Software world. Then again, I used to think the same thing about IBM. If Microsoft wants to play outside of their world, they need to think about reinventing themselves like IBM has, and learn to be better about being a respectable and ethical company.
Actually, it is widely known that Microsoft licenses its Windows source code to MainSoft, it was a matter of public court documents when Microsoft was sued by Bristol, which markets a competitor to Mainsoft's MainWin toolkit called Wind/U. Bristol was unhappy that Microsoft was jacking their fees to license the Windows source, as they also had a license. Bristol won the case, but was unfortunately only awarded a piddling amount in damages.
This whole story is actually the dumbest hoax I ever read here.
While I always had my own doubts about Office being ported to Linux (IE I would find more believable), I've seen a lot dumber hoaxes. Mainsoft is clearly doing porting work on something, so it is bound to be a matter of speculation as to what.
I mean, doesn't anyone ask themselves is maybe M$ has enough qualified staff to port it's applications to other platform?
A few questions regarding that...
With the high tech worker shortage, does anyone in the high tech industry have enough qualified staff to do everything they want, even those with huge budgets like Microsoft?
Then, even assuming Microsoft has a large number of qualified staff for developing on their platforms, and the Mac, does that necessarily mean that they have enough people who are also qualified to do porting work to UNIX/Linux?
And finally, even assuming that Microsoft had plenty of staff that were qualified to do that sort of work, if it is something that isn't part of Microsoft's core business, might it not make more sense to outsource that kind of work and use those staff on stuff more targeted towards the core business?
Is really sharing the source (under NDA but still) of IE, Office, and Windows with some other company the best solution they could think of to get a port of their software to Linux?
Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think it is something that they would dismiss immediately. Also, they've used Mainsoft for that sort of stuff before. Mainsoft did the porting work for 'Microsoft Visual SourceSafe for Solaris'. Microsoft used Mainsoft's MainWin product to port IE to Solaris. Since MainSoft already has a Windows source license and has experience porting Windows apps to *nix, wouldn't it make sense to farm more work like that out to them?
Please people, think.
Maybe you should do a little more research before you speak...
Mainsoft is not affiliated with Microsoft in any way
That depends on your definition of 'affiliated'. Mainsoft and Microsoft clearly have a fairly tight business relationship and I'm sure that includes quite a bit of contractual obligation (probably mostly obligations of Mainsoft towards Microsoft). I haven't, however seen anything that would say if Mainsoft or Microsoft had any financial stake in each other. Microsoft at least is a large, public company, so if they owned part of Mainsoft it would probably have to be a matter of public record. I don't know about the other way around, although I seriously doubt that a smaller company like Mainsoft could even own enough Microsoft common stock to be at all significant.
IE and Windows are integrated and can't function separately.
That is why there is a Mac version of IE... And a Solaris version... Well, if you look closely at the Solaris version, they include a large chunk of Windows with it as DLLs. This is, from what I've heard fairly typical of things ported with MainSoft's MainWin toolkit. However, I don't believe that Mainsoft has a porting kit for MacOS, so that still doesn't explain the Mac version of IE...
Would it likely help or harm the defendant's case on appeal if other software that served the same purpose as DeCSS was independantly developed and released?
Would you think that such an occurance would seriously undermine the utility of the court's award of 'injuctive relief' for the plaintiff? Would that be enough to call the judgement in this case into question?
It would also seem that if the alternative software was specifically intended as a Linux executable, that it would overcome one of the judge's problems with the defendant's case, that being the apparent contradiction with the stated desire to make a Linux DVD player and the fact that DeCSS was originally developed as a Windows executable. Would that difference help or hurt the defendants in this case if/when they appeal?
I was paying for a 256Kbps link, and was seeing roughly 30Kbps throughput.
I use 256Kbps ADSL from US Qwest in the same market, and I typically see 32KBps on the upstream side and between 32 and 60KBps on the downstream side. 32KBps is approximately 256Kbps. I haven't noticed problems with latency.
One possible difference is that while I use US Qwest for the wire part of the service, I use a different ISP for the Internet part.
I know of some other AT&T @Home subscribers in the area that aren't quite so happy either. One guy in particular was complaining that at certain times of the day he was getting bandwidth about like a 14.4 modem. He probably has some warez kiddies in his neighborhood or something.
Didn't bother me a bit to use Windows to help destroy itself.:)
While I take a certain glee in fdisking Windows off other people's machines for them, the issue for me is that I don't want Microsoft to get two things, money out of me, and more numbers to provide validation for their platform. I'd rather that Palm Computing had the number to prove that CE (or Pocket Windows or whatever) is a failure.
You could probably try to fight it if you read the EULA and conformed to all the legalese concerning NOT agreeing to the licence, but good luck to you.
It is not worth the effort. I will just wait until they come out with a Linux specific version and probably buy a Palm Pilot for now.
I will either wait or just buy a Palm Pilot for now. As I said before, its not an issue of money, it is an issue of ethics. I just won't do business with Microsoft, no matter how little the amount is.
Before you start bitching about getting ripped off
Who was complaining about getting ripped off? I don't have issue with companies making money. That isn't what my complaint is against Microsoft. My complaint is that they use unethical if not outright illegal practices to try to keep anyone else from making money.
And as I said, I really don't care that much if Compaq doesn't give me a refund for not taking Windows or charges me extra for pre-installing Linux instead, as long as they don't send any of my money to Microsoft.
In short, Compaq is willing to consider a Linux-specific iPaq model if their customers (read corporate purchasers, not ghetto slashbot bitchers) ask for it.
Corporate purchasers don't buy that many palmtops (at least not in the companies I've worked for -- and the place I worked prior to where I am now is a Fortune 100 company). Lots of people who work in the corporate world buy handhelds for themselves, but most companies won't spring for something like that, even though they buy many of those people laptops which are far more expensive.
At any rate, as I said before, if Compaq doesn't want to sell me an iPaq without Windows, I will either wait for the Yopy or just buy a Palm Pilot. How hard is it just to sell me the hardware without the software anyway?
(RTFA) Right now, there's no real applications.
Then they should be targeting people like me -- I'm a software developer...
It's just a dev platform where the kernel and X have stabilized. The Linux version is not yet a consumer product by any means.
I couldn't care less if its a 'consumer product' or not, I'm not, and I know I'm not, a typical consumer. Frankly I think that handhelds in general are still somewhat of a specialty market compared to the desktop or laptop market.
What I want to know is where I can buy an iPAQ H3600 without having to buy Windows?
It looks like an interesting little device, but I have no use for Windows, and I don't want any of my money going to Redmond. I really don't care as much if I save any money by getting Linux or no OS installed, I just don't want Microsoft to get any of my money. I might even be winning to pay more to get Linux pre-installed instead of Windows if I knew for sure Microsoft wasn't getting any royalties from my purchase.
Otherwise I am just going to go buy a Palm Pilot even though they aren't quite as nice hardware wise... I'd rather support Palm than Microsoft.
The combination of Linux and *BSD is a much tougher problem for Microsoft than either alone.
Yes, because even if they can manage to figure out a way to kill one (like to hire up or otherwise eliminate all of the core developers), the other will be there to pick up the peices and be ready to soldier on. Once again this proves that diversity and choice is a good thing.
It seems like there is a steadily increasing amount of support for Linux from the big guns, mostly quiet but persistent and relentless.
I would agree. Rather that slowly subsiding as the initial press explosion has started to wear off, the buzz over Linux in the industry appears to still be growing. When Linux first started to get attention from the media, many Microsoft fans opined that it would be just a temporary flash-in-the pan. That appears to be proving to not be the case. It looks like Linux and the *BSDs are going to be an increasing factor over the next few years.
Does anyone else think that Microsoft's.net is a farce?
I don't think its a farce. It is of course mostly smoke and mirrors at this point. It is also not the be-all-end-all that they would have people believe. It is also a very risky strategy for them because it will be difficult for them to control with an iron grasp and yet make it be able to deliver on its promises and become popular.
.Net is a risky strategy for Microsoft in some ways. Too many parts of it will be easy for other people to clone. If Microsoft wants.Net to be widely adopted as a standard they will have to be loose enough in their control that it may not be possible for them to prevent.Net from getting away from them. This will be especially hard for them since they've been so hard on Sun for trying to use too heavy a hand in controlling the future of Java.
I'm sure that they will try sneaky ways to proprietarize things, but they haven't had much luck so far in hijacking the core protocols and standards of the Internet, despite their efforts since 1995 towards that goal.
As for your complaints about 'web stuff' and Macs, I don't know quite what you are talking about as far as 'most interesting' stuff not running on a Mac. I don't know if you are talking browser or server side. I also don't know what you consider interesting...
but you can not say they got where they are today by playing fair.
I'd be one of the last people on earth to ever suggest that... I just don't think the same tactics that are effective against a strictly commercial competitor like Apple or Novel will fit with Linux or the *BSDs. There are too many 'Linuxes' and *BSDs. They can't buy them all. If they focus on one, another will spring up. They can't afford to go all out against Linux and *BSD because if they do, their commercial competitors will jump in there and start giving them troubles on that front. They can't compete with Linux or *BSD on price, because even they can't afford to give away product forever. In fact they've been raising prices lately, because they are commercial and have to show $ in revenue. They can rely on massive advertising as they have been, but they run the risk of validating Linux in many people's minds if they mention it too much as a competitor.
I just don't see how Microsoft is going to have success on their terms (in order for them to win, they have to control everything) given the current and future direction of the world.
O.K., if a significant number of Linux web servers are not running Apache, it means the total number of Linux web servers is even larger, and thus the total number of Linux boxes is higher...
That isn't a catch to the theory, it only reinforces it.
Your signature brings up an interesting point... I have seen a lot of Microsoft fans saying that once Microsoft gets clear of their troubles with the DOJ and the EU that they will start attacking Linux and the *BSDs with full force. However, Microsoft, despite their best efforts, has been unable to completely kill off the Mac or Netware, both of which many people have considered to be very vulnerable for years. They also can't seem to quite get rid of Sun or some of their software competitors like Lotus, Borland/Inprise, and Oracle. It seems likely that Microsoft knows better how to compete with commercial companies than with something like Linux or the *BSDs which are largely grassroots movements. How are they going to squash Linux or the *BSDs?? Now tell me how they are going to do that and not get themselves back into anti-trust trouble? How are they going to use such strong arm tactics without further lining up more people and companies against them?
IDC reporting Linux numbers that look positive doesn't mean they aren't biased towards Windows. It might mean that they are either trying to look impartial. It might mean that the numbers are strong enough that they couldn't figure out a way to fudge things enough to make things look favorable for Microsoft. IDC definitely has more of a monetary interest in being biased towards Microsoft. Look at the advertising dollars they receive from Microsoft or from companies advertising products for Microsoft's platform versus anything else. Given that, it would be hard for IDC not to be biased towards Microsoft.
And as for Microsoft being the most heavily pirated, that means little, since Microsoft and companies like IDC only care about paid copies.
And their Linux numbers are only what the commercial distros are selling (Red Hat, SuSE, McMillan/Mandrake, Turbo, Caldera, Corel, etc). It doesn't count downloads, it doesn't count the number of legal CDR copies people make amongst themselves, and it doesn't count the bizillions of free Linux CDs bundled on the back of books and magazines.
But you don't know me. I'm not interested in changing that, either.
I'm not that interested in changing that either. What you don't say in order to interest me is any reason why I should care. I never said Linux was for everyone. Being for anyone is different than being for everyone. There is no product that is for everyone, and no product should try to be. Products that try to be everything to everyone inevitably end up being self-limited to being mediocre at best.
At any rate, as far as I can tell, the number of backsliders like yourself is far outweighed by the number of people going the other direction.
I've noticed for quite some time now that Linux advocates always try to dis W2K any time they can.
Most of that I think comes from being fed up with Microsoft. I spend less than 10% of my time (less and less lately) dealing with Microsoft products, and that causes 90% of the frustration I have. There are very few OSes that I've used that I haven't grown to like more with use. The only two things I can think of that have gone the other way have been VMS and MS-DOS/Windows/NT.
At any rate Microsoft and their apologists (paid and otherwise) also try to 'dis' anything that isn't Microsoft any time they can. That is just the way it goes. Ask yourself this -- if Microsoft was so great, why do they get so much negative reaction these days? If Linux had no merits, why would so many people be lining up behind it even though they often have no financial interest in doing so?
It's gonna eat their lunch in the end.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. While I won't venture to say that Linux will ever rule the entire world the way that Microsoft has, that isn't a bad thing. In fact, what I really want isn't necessarily a world without Microsoft, it is a world in which NO single company or technology rules everything. Something, someday, may manage to unseat Linux from its place on my machines, but it sure won't be Windows 2000, and its highly unlikely that it will be any of its successors. Maybe one of the *BSDs, maybe something totally new.
In the end, Microsoft will implode due to its own gravitational force or break up from within or gradually succumb to outside pressure from various competitors. It is inevitable that every empire will fall.
Hopefully Linux will be one of the things that brings Microsoft down a notch or three, but hopefully it won't be the only thing.
That is a different argument. Its not that the applications you mention are really better, which compells people to use Windows. It is that people are being forced to use Windows whether they like it or not due to proprietary file format lock-in.
Frankly, I haven't been sent a.doc or.xls file in recent memory that Word Perfect or Star Office wouldn't open just fine.
I am not swayed by bells and whistles, so perhaps my viewpoint is narrow. I'd prefer to consider it focused.
O.K., let's take these one at a time.
MS Office. Not compelling. I prefer WordPerfect or StarOffice in many ways, and either is good enough that MS Office is not really compelling at all. If it weren't for proprietary file format lock-in, MS Office wouldn't have nearly such a lockhold on the market.
AutoCAD. Its of a very limited market, and its gone downhill since R12 (which I worked with extensively). If it weren't for Microsoft's hard-core pressure on Intergraph not to market MicroStation for Linux, I'd say that it would certainly be a better choice for CAD these days. All in all, AutoCAD is hardly what I'd consider a relavent reason for most desktop users to consider Windows more compelling than Linux.
Internet Explorer? Eh? No thanks. Even when I am subjected to using Windows I prefer Navigator. I can't see anything about IE that is compelling, its just a browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now the only real compiler on Linux is GNU C
Actually that isn't true. There are already a couple of (albiet lesser known) commercial compilers for Linux:
KAI C++ -- Commercial C++ compiler for Linux.
Portland Group -- Commercial C, C++ and Fortran compilers for Linux.
I read the article, you comment is kinda pointless.
More pointless than the post I was replying to? I don't think so.
I never said Linux wasn't wealthy,
The poster I was replying to did (and I quote):
"Wow. Linus is fucked then. He has neither good looks, charm OR wealth."
I said Bill Gates is the richest man on earth
The author of the post I was replying to didn't say that. In fact, since Microsoft stock took its big tanking, I'm not even sure its absolutely true anymore. He is at least one of the most wealthy men on earth, but once you get more than a certain amount of money, does it really matter that much? Almost all of Bill Gates' fortunes are tied to Microsoft stock.
It is my understanding that the M$ software for Mac is developed by a fairly autonomous group. Whatever the situation, they have recently released some great 'very Mac' software in IE and Outlook Express, although they did wierdly reinvent some things for OE. Sadly, IE 5 for Mac is miles ahead of Netscape/Mozilla, and iCab isn't quite there yet.
Perhaps they should port the MacOS or MacOSX version of the apps to Linux instead of the Windows versions if they are going to do that. Perhaps by releasing what might be different programs with the same name, Microsoft is bluring the distinctions that they tried to set up when they claimed that IE and Windows were inseperable.
My point is that MS can make good software, if you judge software by the expectations of the majority of the users of the targeted platform.
Well, I think that it is more that Microsoft is very good at setting expectations of people to a very low level. They deliver very flashy software, which is different than what I'd call 'good'. They've also been very successful at defining the criteria by which things are judged so that flash and feature bloat are valued above things being stable and with features that are well thought out.
What does this mean for Linux if/when Office and IE are ported? How would Office for Linux have to be different than Office for Win and Office for Mac to truly be a Linux application worth using?
I'm not the right person to ask that. I have no interest in using Office or IE in any case until Microsoft can clean up their act. I think as far as their applications, they need to spend more time making what is there work right and sensibly rather than just cramming more stuff in.
From the outside, the coolest and most admirable thing about the Linux community is Open Source and everything implied by that. I don't think MS could release a real Linux app, if this is held to be fundamental to truly be considered as a Linux app.
I would tend to agree with most of that. Microsoft will probably never really be able to be compatible with the the Open Source/Free Software world. Then again, I used to think the same thing about IBM. If Microsoft wants to play outside of their world, they need to think about reinventing themselves like IBM has, and learn to be better about being a respectable and ethical company.
Actually, it is widely known that Microsoft licenses its Windows source code to MainSoft, it was a matter of public court documents when Microsoft was sued by Bristol, which markets a competitor to Mainsoft's MainWin toolkit called Wind/U. Bristol was unhappy that Microsoft was jacking their fees to license the Windows source, as they also had a license. Bristol won the case, but was unfortunately only awarded a piddling amount in damages.
This whole story is actually the dumbest hoax I ever read here.
While I always had my own doubts about Office being ported to Linux (IE I would find more believable), I've seen a lot dumber hoaxes. Mainsoft is clearly doing porting work on something, so it is bound to be a matter of speculation as to what.
I mean, doesn't anyone ask themselves is maybe M$ has enough qualified staff to port it's applications to other platform?
A few questions regarding that...
With the high tech worker shortage, does anyone in the high tech industry have enough qualified staff to do everything they want, even those with huge budgets like Microsoft?
Then, even assuming Microsoft has a large number of qualified staff for developing on their platforms, and the Mac, does that necessarily mean that they have enough people who are also qualified to do porting work to UNIX/Linux?
And finally, even assuming that Microsoft had plenty of staff that were qualified to do that sort of work, if it is something that isn't part of Microsoft's core business, might it not make more sense to outsource that kind of work and use those staff on stuff more targeted towards the core business?
Is really sharing the source (under NDA but still) of IE, Office, and Windows with some other company the best solution they could think of to get a port of their software to Linux?
Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think it is something that they would dismiss immediately. Also, they've used Mainsoft for that sort of stuff before. Mainsoft did the porting work for 'Microsoft Visual SourceSafe for Solaris'. Microsoft used Mainsoft's MainWin product to port IE to Solaris. Since MainSoft already has a Windows source license and has experience porting Windows apps to *nix, wouldn't it make sense to farm more work like that out to them?
Please people, think.
Maybe you should do a little more research before you speak...
Mainsoft is not affiliated with Microsoft in any way
That depends on your definition of 'affiliated'. Mainsoft and Microsoft clearly have a fairly tight business relationship and I'm sure that includes quite a bit of contractual obligation (probably mostly obligations of Mainsoft towards Microsoft). I haven't, however seen anything that would say if Mainsoft or Microsoft had any financial stake in each other. Microsoft at least is a large, public company, so if they owned part of Mainsoft it would probably have to be a matter of public record. I don't know about the other way around, although I seriously doubt that a smaller company like Mainsoft could even own enough Microsoft common stock to be at all significant.
IE and Windows are integrated and can't function separately.
That is why there is a Mac version of IE... And a Solaris version... Well, if you look closely at the Solaris version, they include a large chunk of Windows with it as DLLs. This is, from what I've heard fairly typical of things ported with MainSoft's MainWin toolkit. However, I don't believe that Mainsoft has a porting kit for MacOS, so that still doesn't explain the Mac version of IE...
Read the article. Linus is a millionaire. While perhaps not 'silly rich' like Bill Gates, he isn't exactly not wealthy.
Would it likely help or harm the defendant's case on appeal if other software that served the same purpose as DeCSS was independantly developed and released?
Would you think that such an occurance would seriously undermine the utility of the court's award of 'injuctive relief' for the plaintiff? Would that be enough to call the judgement in this case into question?
It would also seem that if the alternative software was specifically intended as a Linux executable, that it would overcome one of the judge's problems with the defendant's case, that being the apparent contradiction with the stated desire to make a Linux DVD player and the fact that DeCSS was originally developed as a Windows executable. Would that difference help or hurt the defendants in this case if/when they appeal?
I was paying for a 256Kbps link, and was seeing roughly 30Kbps throughput.
I use 256Kbps ADSL from US Qwest in the same market, and I typically see 32KBps on the upstream side and between 32 and 60KBps on the downstream side. 32KBps is approximately 256Kbps. I haven't noticed problems with latency.
One possible difference is that while I use US Qwest for the wire part of the service, I use a different ISP for the Internet part.
I know of some other AT&T @Home subscribers in the area that aren't quite so happy either. One guy in particular was complaining that at certain times of the day he was getting bandwidth about like a 14.4 modem. He probably has some warez kiddies in his neighborhood or something.
Easy for you to say that when you don't have to back it up with anything.
Your cowardice says more than anything else.
Didn't bother me a bit to use Windows to help destroy itself. :)
While I take a certain glee in fdisking Windows off other people's machines for them, the issue for me is that I don't want Microsoft to get two things, money out of me, and more numbers to provide validation for their platform. I'd rather that Palm Computing had the number to prove that CE (or Pocket Windows or whatever) is a failure.
You could probably try to fight it if you read the EULA and conformed to all the legalese concerning NOT agreeing to the licence, but good luck to you.
It is not worth the effort. I will just wait until they come out with a Linux specific version and probably buy a Palm Pilot for now.
Go ahead and buy an iPAQ
I will either wait or just buy a Palm Pilot for now. As I said before, its not an issue of money, it is an issue of ethics. I just won't do business with Microsoft, no matter how little the amount is.
Before you start bitching about getting ripped off
Who was complaining about getting ripped off? I don't have issue with companies making money. That isn't what my complaint is against Microsoft. My complaint is that they use unethical if not outright illegal practices to try to keep anyone else from making money.
And as I said, I really don't care that much if Compaq doesn't give me a refund for not taking Windows or charges me extra for pre-installing Linux instead, as long as they don't send any of my money to Microsoft.
In short, Compaq is willing to consider a Linux-specific iPaq model if their customers (read corporate purchasers, not ghetto slashbot bitchers) ask for it.
Corporate purchasers don't buy that many palmtops (at least not in the companies I've worked for -- and the place I worked prior to where I am now is a Fortune 100 company). Lots of people who work in the corporate world buy handhelds for themselves, but most companies won't spring for something like that, even though they buy many of those people laptops which are far more expensive.
At any rate, as I said before, if Compaq doesn't want to sell me an iPaq without Windows, I will either wait for the Yopy or just buy a Palm Pilot. How hard is it just to sell me the hardware without the software anyway?
(RTFA) Right now, there's no real applications.
Then they should be targeting people like me -- I'm a software developer...
It's just a dev platform where the kernel and X have stabilized. The Linux version is not yet a consumer product by any means.
I couldn't care less if its a 'consumer product' or not, I'm not, and I know I'm not, a typical consumer. Frankly I think that handhelds in general are still somewhat of a specialty market compared to the desktop or laptop market.
What I want to know is where I can buy an iPAQ H3600 without having to buy Windows?
It looks like an interesting little device, but I have no use for Windows, and I don't want any of my money going to Redmond. I really don't care as much if I save any money by getting Linux or no OS installed, I just don't want Microsoft to get any of my money. I might even be winning to pay more to get Linux pre-installed instead of Windows if I knew for sure Microsoft wasn't getting any royalties from my purchase.
Otherwise I am just going to go buy a Palm Pilot even though they aren't quite as nice hardware wise... I'd rather support Palm than Microsoft.
The combination of Linux and *BSD is a much tougher problem for Microsoft than either alone.
.net is a farce?
Yes, because even if they can manage to figure out a way to kill one (like to hire up or otherwise eliminate all of the core developers), the other will be there to pick up the peices and be ready to soldier on. Once again this proves that diversity and choice is a good thing.
It seems like there is a steadily increasing amount of support for Linux from the big guns, mostly quiet but persistent and relentless.
I would agree. Rather that slowly subsiding as the initial press explosion has started to wear off, the buzz over Linux in the industry appears to still be growing. When Linux first started to get attention from the media, many Microsoft fans opined that it would be just a temporary flash-in-the pan. That appears to be proving to not be the case. It looks like Linux and the *BSDs are going to be an increasing factor over the next few years.
Does anyone else think that Microsoft's
I don't think its a farce. It is of course mostly smoke and mirrors at this point. It is also not the be-all-end-all that they would have people believe. It is also a very risky strategy for them because it will be difficult for them to control with an iron grasp and yet make it be able to deliver on its promises and become popular.
.Net is a risky strategy for Microsoft in some ways. Too many parts of it will be easy for other people to clone. If Microsoft wants .Net to be widely adopted as a standard they will have to be loose enough in their control that it may not be possible for them to prevent .Net from getting away from them. This will be especially hard for them since they've been so hard on Sun for trying to use too heavy a hand in controlling the future of Java.
I'm sure that they will try sneaky ways to proprietarize things, but they haven't had much luck so far in hijacking the core protocols and standards of the Internet, despite their efforts since 1995 towards that goal.
As for your complaints about 'web stuff' and Macs, I don't know quite what you are talking about as far as 'most interesting' stuff not running on a Mac. I don't know if you are talking browser or server side. I also don't know what you consider interesting...
but you can not say they got where they are today by playing fair.
I'd be one of the last people on earth to ever suggest that... I just don't think the same tactics that are effective against a strictly commercial competitor like Apple or Novel will fit with Linux or the *BSDs. There are too many 'Linuxes' and *BSDs. They can't buy them all. If they focus on one, another will spring up. They can't afford to go all out against Linux and *BSD because if they do, their commercial competitors will jump in there and start giving them troubles on that front. They can't compete with Linux or *BSD on price, because even they can't afford to give away product forever. In fact they've been raising prices lately, because they are commercial and have to show $ in revenue. They can rely on massive advertising as they have been, but they run the risk of validating Linux in many people's minds if they mention it too much as a competitor.
I just don't see how Microsoft is going to have success on their terms (in order for them to win, they have to control everything) given the current and future direction of the world.
I don't see MS getting anywhere near "getting rid" of these companies.
I can't see that either, but that is exactly what the Microsoft partisans would like to have you believe they are going to do.
I think that Linux and the *BSDs are if anything a tougher problem for Microsoft than commercial companies.
O.K., if a significant number of Linux web servers are not running Apache, it means the total number of Linux web servers is even larger, and thus the total number of Linux boxes is higher...
That isn't a catch to the theory, it only reinforces it.
Your signature brings up an interesting point... I have seen a lot of Microsoft fans saying that once Microsoft gets clear of their troubles with the DOJ and the EU that they will start attacking Linux and the *BSDs with full force. However, Microsoft, despite their best efforts, has been unable to completely kill off the Mac or Netware, both of which many people have considered to be very vulnerable for years. They also can't seem to quite get rid of Sun or some of their software competitors like Lotus, Borland/Inprise, and Oracle. It seems likely that Microsoft knows better how to compete with commercial companies than with something like Linux or the *BSDs which are largely grassroots movements. How are they going to squash Linux or the *BSDs?? Now tell me how they are going to do that and not get themselves back into anti-trust trouble? How are they going to use such strong arm tactics without further lining up more people and companies against them?
IDC reporting Linux numbers that look positive doesn't mean they aren't biased towards Windows. It might mean that they are either trying to look impartial. It might mean that the numbers are strong enough that they couldn't figure out a way to fudge things enough to make things look favorable for Microsoft. IDC definitely has more of a monetary interest in being biased towards Microsoft. Look at the advertising dollars they receive from Microsoft or from companies advertising products for Microsoft's platform versus anything else. Given that, it would be hard for IDC not to be biased towards Microsoft.
And as for Microsoft being the most heavily pirated, that means little, since Microsoft and companies like IDC only care about paid copies.
And their Linux numbers are only what the commercial distros are selling (Red Hat, SuSE, McMillan/Mandrake, Turbo, Caldera, Corel, etc). It doesn't count downloads, it doesn't count the number of legal CDR copies people make amongst themselves, and it doesn't count the bizillions of free Linux CDs bundled on the back of books and magazines.
But you don't know me. I'm not interested in changing that, either.
I'm not that interested in changing that either. What you don't say in order to interest me is any reason why I should care. I never said Linux was for everyone. Being for anyone is different than being for everyone. There is no product that is for everyone, and no product should try to be. Products that try to be everything to everyone inevitably end up being self-limited to being mediocre at best.
At any rate, as far as I can tell, the number of backsliders like yourself is far outweighed by the number of people going the other direction.
I've noticed for quite some time now that Linux advocates always try to dis W2K any time they can.
Most of that I think comes from being fed up with Microsoft. I spend less than 10% of my time (less and less lately) dealing with Microsoft products, and that causes 90% of the frustration I have. There are very few OSes that I've used that I haven't grown to like more with use. The only two things I can think of that have gone the other way have been VMS and MS-DOS/Windows/NT.
At any rate Microsoft and their apologists (paid and otherwise) also try to 'dis' anything that isn't Microsoft any time they can. That is just the way it goes. Ask yourself this -- if Microsoft was so great, why do they get so much negative reaction these days? If Linux had no merits, why would so many people be lining up behind it even though they often have no financial interest in doing so?
It's gonna eat their lunch in the end.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. While I won't venture to say that Linux will ever rule the entire world the way that Microsoft has, that isn't a bad thing. In fact, what I really want isn't necessarily a world without Microsoft, it is a world in which NO single company or technology rules everything. Something, someday, may manage to unseat Linux from its place on my machines, but it sure won't be Windows 2000, and its highly unlikely that it will be any of its successors. Maybe one of the *BSDs, maybe something totally new.
In the end, Microsoft will implode due to its own gravitational force or break up from within or gradually succumb to outside pressure from various competitors. It is inevitable that every empire will fall.
Hopefully Linux will be one of the things that brings Microsoft down a notch or three, but hopefully it won't be the only thing.
That is a different argument. Its not that the applications you mention are really better, which compells people to use Windows. It is that people are being forced to use Windows whether they like it or not due to proprietary file format lock-in.
.doc or .xls file in recent memory that Word Perfect or Star Office wouldn't open just fine.
Frankly, I haven't been sent a
You have a very narrow viewpoint.
I am not swayed by bells and whistles, so perhaps my viewpoint is narrow. I'd prefer to consider it focused.
O.K., let's take these one at a time.
MS Office. Not compelling. I prefer WordPerfect or StarOffice in many ways, and either is good enough that MS Office is not really compelling at all. If it weren't for proprietary file format lock-in, MS Office wouldn't have nearly such a lockhold on the market.
AutoCAD. Its of a very limited market, and its gone downhill since R12 (which I worked with extensively). If it weren't for Microsoft's hard-core pressure on Intergraph not to market MicroStation for Linux, I'd say that it would certainly be a better choice for CAD these days. All in all, AutoCAD is hardly what I'd consider a relavent reason for most desktop users to consider Windows more compelling than Linux.
Internet Explorer? Eh? No thanks. Even when I am subjected to using Windows I prefer Navigator. I can't see anything about IE that is compelling, its just a browser.