If Linux was #1, it still wouldn't necessarily be a monopoly. Why? Because you'd still have a choice between the different distributions. If *BSD was better for what I wanted to do, I might switch to it. I try *BSD every now and then, to keep in touch. I was a big-time BSD supporter back in the 4.3BSD days. Right now, Linux works better for what I want, so I use it. Linux being an underdog has little to nothing to do with it.
I don't use Windows 9x at all at home, but I am subjected to it some at work. It doesn't crash every ten seconds, to be sure. It does however crash at least once or twice a week on average and does other strange and bizarre things now and then. NT boxes seem to be more reliable than that, they maybe seem to go a month or so on average between reboots. Both are oodles better than Windows 3.1 was, where I literally often had to reboot several times a day. However, in comparison, I am used to seeing Linux boxes run several months without rebooting, and I push my Linux boxes at home a lot harder than I do Windows anything at work because Linux is my primary OS at home, and Solaris is my primary OS at work. As a point, I never run games at work and pretty much only use a few business apps.
As for your point C. I was flaming Microsoft before it ever became fashionable to do so, and if Microsoft ever cleans up their act, I will happily stop. I used to flame IBM as bad or worse than Microsoft, but since they have gone a long way towards reinventing themselves as an ethical and forward thinking company, I've changed my tune.
So what features in StarOffice are missing that makes it 'not even in the same ballpark'? I work in an enterprise and I've yet to see anyone using features in MS-Office that aren't in StarOffice. Probably about the only credible argument I've seen against StarOffice is the problems related to proprietary file format issues with MS-Office. If anything my biggest complaint about StarOffice is that it is pretty much just as big and overbloated with whizbang features as MS-Office. For the home market either one is nothing less than gross overkill, but at least the price of StarOffice is a bit more palatable, albiet the price of MS-Office is often hidden by it being force-fed in a preload bundle.
The reason that NT is number one in terms of sales is because NT preloads are force fed to a lot of people and Linux numbers are generally under reported. NT is also advertised significantly more and until recently had a nearly unassailable position with the trade press. In my opinion, NT is worse, harder to learn, less reliable and has less resources than Linux. Only a fool would make a prediction that a given product will always be #1, especially when the #2 product is not only not that far behind, it has a growth rate that shows it will overtake the #1 product within the next year or so. The numbers in the article basically look like NT had a zero growth rate in market share. Your statement that there is more targeted and better talent developing NT than Linux just doesn't seem to jive with reality. Linux is currently breaking out of the niches it started out in to become widely accepted for a variety of general purpose uses. NT appears to be facing a point where it is slowing down.
Your milage is obviously different than mine when it comes to the value of online support. I don't as often post a question on a newsgroup when I run into a problem as I use a service like Deja to search USENET for an answer to someone else's questions. I am almost always successful at that with Linux, and far less often so with NT. I never said that there was no NT help available for free online, it is just a matter of degrees. Also, I have rarely ever needed help with Linux because of a crash, usually its just something that I'd like to figure out, but it is rarely a show stopping situation. It seems I have found myself in a lot more dire straights situations when dealing with Microsoft products.
What it comes down to is that most companies seem to think they need to pay for big service contracts for NT, and most of them are content to only pay for support on Linux on a per-incident basis. They don't do that for no reason. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks the same way.
Likewise, I have no plans to replace my NT server with an HP/UX one. They serve 2 completly different markets.
What can your NT server do that an HP/UX server configured with Apache (or Zeus, or Netscape Enterprise or whatever you happen to like), Samba (or one of the similar commercial file/print services for Windows clients), HP OpenMail (or sendmail+pop/imap or Lotus Notes or whatever other mail/groupware server you like) and your choice of RDBMS software (Sybase/Informix/Oracle) can't?
Do they really serve totally different markets? Or are you trying to artifically draw boundaries where they don't technically exist?
However, I've seen many estimates that Linux accounts for at least 1/3 of the Apache installations (some say the total is closer to 50% - and a few say that the percentage is even larger than that). Most people would agree that the number of Apache installations on non-UNIX/Linux OSes is small enough to be nearly insignificant. It is also true that Linux can run a number of other web servers than Apache, including Zeus, Roxen, AOLServer and Netscape Fastrack.
Your views are very shortsighted. There just isn't enough long term data to make the kind of analysis you are trying to do. While none of the (only two) public companies are currently profitable, that hardly means they are 'performing badly'. It is highly unusual for new startup companies to be immediately profitable. Both Red Hat and VA Linux Systems are not profitable right now due in large part to the fact that both of them are reinvesting huge amounts of their income and capital back into themselves through aquiring other companies and products and in expanding their advertising and staffing. That is all an investment in the future that won't show results for a while.
By your logic, when Microsoft was a tiny startup company back in the mid 70's, they weren't even worth looking at. You just can't look at things through such a tiny window and get the whole picture. You have to look at where the company is going in the future and how they are executing on that vision. If on that basis you don't think any of the Linux companies are viable in the long run, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion -- and maybe you might want to buy some long term short positions on their stocks. However, I imagine quite a lot of people felt the same way about Microsoft when they were a tiny startup.
Linux makes money for me. I save money by not buying Microsoft's products, and that allows me to undercut the prices that other people charge for doing software development work. A penny saved is a penny earned. While Linux itself may not directly make that much money, services, books, and consulting related to it is a quickly growing market. Haven't you noticed that we are transitioning from a manufacturing based economy to a service based one?
Sorry to debunk your 'Linux is socialism' fantasy, but Linux is not at all incompatible with making money.
although several articles in magazines have given NT the upper hand in TCO.
Magazines are highly unreliable in such things, as they tend to be influenced by their advertisers' interests. Look at the number of pages of advertising in the magazines in question that are either directly paid for by Microsoft, partially paid for by Microsoft through co-op programs with hardware and 3rd party software vendors or indirectly related to Microsoft orriented hardware and software products from 3rd parties.
I've read a lot of articles like that, and often their rating methods and conclusions are highly suspect. There is often an assumption made that you need the same number of admin staff to admin an equal number of Linux and NT boxes. From my experience that is not true. Linux not only requires less maintenance because it is more reliable, but is more condusive to remote administration and automation of common sysadmin tasks through scripting. Often the assumption that NT doesn't require administrators at all, or that you can just get any idiot off the street and have them administrate your NT boxes for very little money. Frankly, this just doesn't pan out in practice. Regardless of platform, in order to run reliably in the long term, admins need to be at least halfway competent or you will have problems. There is also a misconception that there are a lot more people who are knowledeable about NT than Linux and they work cheaper than UNIX admins. I've found that to be pretty much false as well. There are a lot of people with superficial knowledge of Windows 9x, a fairly large number with superficial knowledge of NT, but it is actually easier to find people who are really capable Linux/UNIX admins than NT. The price for really qualified people is about the same.
One of the most serious errors many of the articles I've seen comparing TCO between Linux and NT is that they use TCO figures for commercial UNIXes (which generally include large vendor licensing and support fees, as well as expensive high end RISC hardware). Frankly it isn't comparing Apples to Apples, as Linux's costs are way lower in licensing and hardware than commercial UNIXes (much lower in licensing than NT and slightly lower in hardware than NT, too, since Linux is typically more lenient in hardware requirements), and for vendor support contracts the cost is fairly comparable on all of the major platforms. The difference is that there is excellent free support for Linux available which is harder to find for commercial OSes. Many companies get by without paying for any commercial Linux support at all. That is hard to do with NT and not something most companies would even contemplate with a commercial UNIX.
That is a misunderstanding of the concept of 'free' software. Software can be 'free' as in freedom of speech and 'free' as in free beer at the same time, or not. Linux is available for free, or you can choose to buy it. Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. all sell it in shrink wrap boxes. People buy that. They are paying for some support as part of that, sure, same goes when people buy a shrink wrap box of other software like NT or Novell. However, when people buy a shrinkwrapped copy of Linux, they are also paying for the convenience of getting a nice shrinkwrapped box with a CD and a manual instead of taking the time to download and burn a copy of the CD and print a copy of the manual themselves.
I believe the numbers they give only count machines pre-loaded with Linux and 'official' boxed copy sales from the major distributions like Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake. The sales numbers for Linux would be astronomically higher if you counted all of the 'free' copies distributed on books. If you go to a large bookstore like Borders or Barnes & Noble, even in a backwater town like I live in, you will probably find 50 to 60 different books on the shelves that include a CD containing one Linux distribution or another. The cumulative sales of those books probably outnumbers the box copies sold by 2:1. Of the 21 CD's you mention having, how many of them are 'official' boxed versions, and how many of those did you buy in 1999. I bet you are closer to 1 per machines, maybe less.
I bought about 3 or 4 boxed 'official' versions in 1999, but then again, I have at least a dozen Linux boxes.
I also have a CD burner, and I probably have made and distributed at least 20 Linux CD's to friends and coworkers who want to learn Linux in the past few months.
Oh my god. I certainly hope this was a troll. I also certainly hope that if not, english is the poster's second or third language not their primary one. I couldn't decide whether to laugh because someone was doing such an incredible job of channeling Forest Gump or feel sorry that someone could not only be so blindly clueless but also apparently unwilling to take the time to learn or do any research.
It may depend on channel, but if you order machines from most of the catalogs, most of the configurations from vendors like Compaq and IBM are available only with NT. You might have more leverage if you are a huge company that buys direct, but most small to mid sized companies buy either from a local dealer, through a catalog or even from the big retail chains like CompUSA. When you buy in those channels your choices are pretty limited.
Well, it's easy to predict that very few people who pay money for NT Server are doing so just to 'check it out' to satisfy curiosity. So it's safe to say that the sales figures for NT Server reflect it's install base.
Actually, that isn't quite right. There are a substantial number of people who pay money for preloaded NT Server on hardware they purchase to run Linux, Netware or one of the commercial UNIXes. Why? Not because they want to in many cases, although in some it is because NT fails to perform and they end up punting to another choice. Mostly it is because they have no choice. A lot of hardware vendors force feed preloaded NT with every server sale even if the customer is buying Netware, Linux or a commercial UNIX from them -- and many hardware vendors don't offer the option of even getting a non-Microsoft OS installed or shipped with the computer leaving the customer to make that aquisition on their own. Very few vendors offer machines with no OS installed at all (and most of the ones that do only do so on a limited number of models).
So, it's safe to say that Linux sales estimates should be scaled back by a factor of ten to come up with install base numbers.
According to your argument, that should be 'scaled up'. If you 'scale back' numbers it would be the opposite of what you are saying.
As for Linux CDs that come with books, given the sales numbers they are talking, I believe they are not being counted. The number that they quote for 1999 Linux sales appears to only be the retail shrinkwrap box 'official' sales from major distributions like Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake. They don't look like they would contain any of the 'free' CD's on books or magazines or the copies included on cheap CD's like CheapBytes, the InfoMagic CD-ROM sets, etc.
If you could figure out a way to count all the copies of Linux shipped through these sources, the number would probably be staggeringly large, but that isn't what this article was talking about at all.
One might also wonder how many of these "servers" are sitting idle on some students desktop.
Probably a lot less than the number of machines counted as NT sales due to preloads that were blasted to install Linux, BSD, Netware or one of the commercial UNIXes. Most of the server grade hardware, and an even larger number of high end desktop and/or deskside boxes that are sold are bundled with Microsoft OSes even when people purchase them to run some other OS. Microsoft counts a lot of sales that aren't the same as installs. Linux sales versus installs are a different matter entirely.
If you want to encrypt files your two best bets are probably GPG (GNU Privacy Guard) or PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). If you want an encrypted filesystem, check out BestCrypt. For some references, you might go over to Freshmeat and key a few queries like 'gpg', 'pgp' and 'encryption' into the search box.
but, say one of the employees was using *nix/*bsd machine where obtaining files without password access can be nearimpossible
Uh, don't be so sure about that. Unless the files are encrypted or on an encrypted file system, if a person can get physical access to the machine it isn't at all difficult to get files off of it. There are lots of ways to do this regardless of the operating system in question. Given physical access to the machine I can retrieve files off of any variety of Windows (including NT and W2K), Macs, or any variety of UNIX (including Linux).
If you want to keep your files safe, you need to use encryption. Strong encryption. And you need to protect your passwords and take other security precautions.
I've used JFS on AIX, and I have to say that it is probably one of the best parts of AIX. You can drop the power on an AIX box when it is right in the middle of running code that is reading and writing the drive and when it is powered back on, it will complete its journal rollbacks (which is what it does instead of fscks) in just a few seconds versus potentially a couple of minutes for fsck on a large volume. Another nice thing is that you can dynamically change the sizes of partitions in a more flexible manner than what we are used to with file systems like ext2.
I'd say it should certainly be an option. It will be interesting to see how it compares in a Linux implementation as compared to SGI's XFS from Irix, and also with ext3. There is also at least one other independant journaling file system being developed for Linux, but I can't remember what it is called off the top of my head. I think the next generation of Linux file systems beyond those will really be impressive if it can combine the best attributes of those.
Damn. I just blew Diet Mountain Dew all over my monitor. That is funnier than hell. If this crazy law goes into effect, that might be about the only thing about it that won't totally suck.
#1. What the hell do you want MS to do then (in regards to releasign a player)?
Well, to be totally honest, I don't really care as much as you think I do. Personally I'd prefer that they release the specs for their format and let the Linux community (and anyone else who may care) develop their own player. I'd say that them releasing source code for their player if they do one would be a good thing, but in general not the way they do things. As I've said before, I'd prefer that Real or QuickTime become the de-facto standard than Microsoft's format. I'd really prefer a truly open standard.
You act like them releasing it is the worst thing in the world.
That isn't quite true. I merely stated that I would suspect that Microsoft has more sinister reasons for doing a port than what a lot of people might think. I'm also trying to goad Apple and Real towards taking the Linux market seriously before Microsoft can gain a toehold in media players here.
What ever happened to the complaint that WMP was Windows and Macintosh only?
I don't recall ever making that complaint. It would be a good thing if everything that was supported on Windows and the Mac was supported under Linux, IF we could be assured that such support wasn't just a temporary thing. The availability of 3rd party players or source code would insure that. As I've said, that seems unlikely.
What about the complaint that WMP was evil because you could only get it on Windows or Macs?
I don't believe I ever made that complaint either. However, unless there was a long term commitment to support WMP on all platforms, that wouldn't cease to be true in the long run.
Now MS is expanding it and your bitching at them? I don't know about you, but this is the best news I've heard all week.
You've certainly got the right to your opinion, but I've heard a lot of other things this week that I would rate above that.
WMP may be a MS product, but a hell of a lot of the sites I visit use it,
Your surfing habits must be different than mine, since I've noticed at least 10x as many sites using Real formats, and probably 3x as many sites using QuickTime. I'd much rather have a good Real G2 player and a QuickTime player than Microsoft's player.
and it's a pain in the ass not to be able to play it in Linux. I'm over-joyed they're bringing it to Linux. Now if only I could get IE on here......
Erk. Whatever. I personally don't use IE when I am subjected to using Windows. I've seen the Solaris version of IE. I wasn't impressed. I would never choose IE on Linux.
#2. If Linux grows like its' "supposed" to, how can MS regain the market again?
Through honest means, they probably couldn't. However, as history has shown, Microsoft is not above resorting to unethical and/or illegal tactics to win at any cost. It is really hard to say how Linux is "supposed" to grow. I've seen all sorts of estimates, and I don't think anyone can tell the future. While I am fairly optimistic about Linux's future, I don't like counting chickens before the eggs have hatched.
I mean, with WMP and maybe Quicktime coming to Linux, there is even less reason to run Windows. And by the time MS gets a monopoly of streaming audio (assuming it ever gets it), I'd hope that linux users would at least make up 25% of the desktop market.
Linux has a long way to go to get to 25% of the desktop market. It still hasn't achieved that sort of penetration in the server market. Microsoft could easily marginalize Real and QuickTime quicker than Linux can gain that kind of market share on the desktop. If they aren't brought into check, they could probably buy Real, and so far Apple doesn't seem to be doing what it takes to make QuickTime a truly multiplatform solution.
That'd be suicide to drop support then.
I don't see it that way. What is the downside for Microsoft? Lost revenue? Linux users aren't making Microsoft any money. Their player probably would have to be free (as in beer) in order to succeed, so no revenue there. Bad publicity? Doesn't seem to bother them that much, especially when it comes to Linux users.
And how can it crush all the other formats anyway?
All they have to do is find a way to convince the content suppliers to support their format instead of Real and QuickTime. They only need to get to about 60% of the market, then the market will decide that all the momentum is shifting that direction and Real and QuickTime would probably go downhill quickly for all but a few loyalists. That sort of thing has happened too many times.
Windows is still the dominating OS by a huge margin, and if everyone wanted to, they could have already totally switched to WMP.
Microsoft hasn't started moving aggresively against Real and QuickTime yet. But what you are saying as far as them controlling the platform does give them tremendous advantages in taking over other bits of infrastructure. Make no mistake that if Microsoft decides they want to take over the media player market, that Linux players will only be one small part in a large, orchestrated effort.
But they haven't, and I don't see how bringing it to Linux will change that.
By itself, it probably won't. But if Microsoft ports their player and Apple doesn't port QuickTime, and Real keeps dragging their feet on G2 players for Linux, it could give Microsoft the window of opportunity to use that as a club to beat the other formats over the head with.
Some of the conspiracy theory's you guys come up with amaze me.
What is so amazing about looking at what they have done with other proprietary file formats in the past and guessing as to what they might do in the future? If you've read the Halloween documents, this is the sort of strategy they've been talking about in taking over the Internet.
Can you not just believe that MS sees that to expand it's format, it's going to have to support other OS's?
No, I've seen Microsoft use and withdraw support of products on other platforms to their advantage to believe that.
Netscape and Real saw that, and they don't get bitched at like MS.
Neither of those companies has a vested interest in seeing a particular platform dominate the whole computer world. Microsoft is not very secretive that their vision is dominance of the whole world.
Don't you want a big OS orgy, where you can get just about everything for just about every OS?
Yes, but I don't think Microsoft shares that vision. Actually, I am sure that they don't. I'm sure their vision is the exact opposite. As I said, I expect that they will only supply things for other platforms as long as it serves some purpose for them. Once it no longer suits them they will let that product die on the vine.
A thought like that sure sounds good to me.
As I said before, only if there is a long term commitment to the products being and staying viable.
Maybe Linux users don't use it because (Gasp!) it's commercial?
Not only that but it is fairly expensive. CDE costs more than the boxed commercial version of Red Hat, and the cheapest Motif development distribution costs almost twice what the boxed version of RedHat does.
Commercial software can make some penetration in the Linux world, but if it wants to compete, it needs to be better than the free alternatives and priced reasonably relative to what it is. Currently none of the CDE or Motif packages do that, so the only Linux users who buy them are people who absolutely need them (either as a checklist item or for compatibility with commercial *nixes).
why hasn't some Linux developer written a driver for them?
If you can convince the WinModem chip makers to release programming information and specs, then I am sure a Linux developer or three will be glad to do a driver.
If they are going to be the dominant force in streaming media, they need to support all platforms.
Temporarily. Once they crush all of the other streaming media formats, then they can drop support for all other platforms than their own and maybe the Mac, if there is something they need to coerce Apple to do. Once that is done, they can make some small "upgrades" that break backwards compatibility, and convince everyone only to support their new format. Then every other platform is locked out of streaming media.
It is for this reason that I'd prefer to support RealPlayer, and like to see Apple release a QuickTime for Linux and other platforms. Real doesn't really have a reason to cut other platforms off, and Apple probably will never make the Mac a dominant enough platform that they could afford not to support other platforms.
It proves nothing of the sort. What I meant by that is that something is better than nothing. At any rate, Windows users get a 'free ride' don't they?
If all you wanted was a client for linux, you would be satisfied with closed source
Frankly, I don't really use streaming video that much. I really want it to be available for Linux as more of a checklist item, and for other people. Just because I think that having something is better than nothing doesn't mean I am completely 'satisfied'. At any rate, RealPlayer is already available for Linux. I think Microsoft even did a port of their media player for Linux at one point. Personally I'd rather see QuickTime become the de-facto industry standard than Microsoft's format. I can't say I have that much of a preference between QuickTime and RealPlayer, but both is better than only one.
maybe apple wants quicktime to be closed source!
Maybe they do, but why does that mean that people can't petition them to change their mind?
it's quite possible that they want to keep the secrets of quicktime to themselves,because they don't want assholes to steal it and make money off of it.
Frankly, if people really want to find the 'secrets' of QuickTime, what they have to do is look up Apple's patents and/or reverse engineer Apple's code. How is an open source player going to be stolen and made money on anyway? Apple's code will still be protected by patents and their algorithms will still be protected by patents (which of course is another topic altogether). There are lots of ways for them to protect QuickTime and still do an open sourced version. Your argument just doesn't make much sense.
Slashdot Mirror
If Linux was #1, it still wouldn't necessarily be a monopoly. Why? Because you'd still have a choice between the different distributions. If *BSD was better for what I wanted to do, I might switch to it. I try *BSD every now and then, to keep in touch. I was a big-time BSD supporter back in the 4.3BSD days. Right now, Linux works better for what I want, so I use it. Linux being an underdog has little to nothing to do with it.
I don't use Windows 9x at all at home, but I am subjected to it some at work. It doesn't crash every ten seconds, to be sure. It does however crash at least once or twice a week on average and does other strange and bizarre things now and then. NT boxes seem to be more reliable than that, they maybe seem to go a month or so on average between reboots. Both are oodles better than Windows 3.1 was, where I literally often had to reboot several times a day. However, in comparison, I am used to seeing Linux boxes run several months without rebooting, and I push my Linux boxes at home a lot harder than I do Windows anything at work because Linux is my primary OS at home, and Solaris is my primary OS at work. As a point, I never run games at work and pretty much only use a few business apps.
As for your point C. I was flaming Microsoft before it ever became fashionable to do so, and if Microsoft ever cleans up their act, I will happily stop. I used to flame IBM as bad or worse than Microsoft, but since they have gone a long way towards reinventing themselves as an ethical and forward thinking company, I've changed my tune.
So what features in StarOffice are missing that makes it 'not even in the same ballpark'? I work in an enterprise and I've yet to see anyone using features in MS-Office that aren't in StarOffice. Probably about the only credible argument I've seen against StarOffice is the problems related to proprietary file format issues with MS-Office. If anything my biggest complaint about StarOffice is that it is pretty much just as big and overbloated with whizbang features as MS-Office. For the home market either one is nothing less than gross overkill, but at least the price of StarOffice is a bit more palatable, albiet the price of MS-Office is often hidden by it being force-fed in a preload bundle.
The reason that NT is number one in terms of sales is because NT preloads are force fed to a lot of people and Linux numbers are generally under reported. NT is also advertised significantly more and until recently had a nearly unassailable position with the trade press. In my opinion, NT is worse, harder to learn, less reliable and has less resources than Linux. Only a fool would make a prediction that a given product will always be #1, especially when the #2 product is not only not that far behind, it has a growth rate that shows it will overtake the #1 product within the next year or so. The numbers in the article basically look like NT had a zero growth rate in market share. Your statement that there is more targeted and better talent developing NT than Linux just doesn't seem to jive with reality. Linux is currently breaking out of the niches it started out in to become widely accepted for a variety of general purpose uses. NT appears to be facing a point where it is slowing down.
Your milage is obviously different than mine when it comes to the value of online support. I don't as often post a question on a newsgroup when I run into a problem as I use a service like Deja to search USENET for an answer to someone else's questions. I am almost always successful at that with Linux, and far less often so with NT. I never said that there was no NT help available for free online, it is just a matter of degrees. Also, I have rarely ever needed help with Linux because of a crash, usually its just something that I'd like to figure out, but it is rarely a show stopping situation. It seems I have found myself in a lot more dire straights situations when dealing with Microsoft products.
What it comes down to is that most companies seem to think they need to pay for big service contracts for NT, and most of them are content to only pay for support on Linux on a per-incident basis. They don't do that for no reason. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks the same way.
Likewise, I have no plans to replace my NT server with an HP/UX one. They serve 2 completly different markets.
What can your NT server do that an HP/UX server configured with Apache (or Zeus, or Netscape Enterprise or whatever you happen to like), Samba (or one of the similar commercial file/print services for Windows clients), HP OpenMail (or sendmail+pop/imap or Lotus Notes or whatever other mail/groupware server you like) and your choice of RDBMS software (Sybase/Informix/Oracle) can't?
Do they really serve totally different markets? Or are you trying to artifically draw boundaries where they don't technically exist?
However, I've seen many estimates that Linux accounts for at least 1/3 of the Apache installations (some say the total is closer to 50% - and a few say that the percentage is even larger than that). Most people would agree that the number of Apache installations on non-UNIX/Linux OSes is small enough to be nearly insignificant. It is also true that Linux can run a number of other web servers than Apache, including Zeus, Roxen, AOLServer and Netscape Fastrack.
Your views are very shortsighted. There just isn't enough long term data to make the kind of analysis you are trying to do. While none of the (only two) public companies are currently profitable, that hardly means they are 'performing badly'. It is highly unusual for new startup companies to be immediately profitable. Both Red Hat and VA Linux Systems are not profitable right now due in large part to the fact that both of them are reinvesting huge amounts of their income and capital back into themselves through aquiring other companies and products and in expanding their advertising and staffing. That is all an investment in the future that won't show results for a while.
By your logic, when Microsoft was a tiny startup company back in the mid 70's, they weren't even worth looking at. You just can't look at things through such a tiny window and get the whole picture. You have to look at where the company is going in the future and how they are executing on that vision. If on that basis you don't think any of the Linux companies are viable in the long run, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion -- and maybe you might want to buy some long term short positions on their stocks. However, I imagine quite a lot of people felt the same way about Microsoft when they were a tiny startup.
Linux makes money for me. I save money by not buying Microsoft's products, and that allows me to undercut the prices that other people charge for doing software development work. A penny saved is a penny earned. While Linux itself may not directly make that much money, services, books, and consulting related to it is a quickly growing market. Haven't you noticed that we are transitioning from a manufacturing based economy to a service based one?
Sorry to debunk your 'Linux is socialism' fantasy, but Linux is not at all incompatible with making money.
although several articles in magazines have given NT the upper hand in TCO.
Magazines are highly unreliable in such things, as they tend to be influenced by their advertisers' interests. Look at the number of pages of advertising in the magazines in question that are either directly paid for by Microsoft, partially paid for by Microsoft through co-op programs with hardware and 3rd party software vendors or indirectly related to Microsoft orriented hardware and software products from 3rd parties.
I've read a lot of articles like that, and often their rating methods and conclusions are highly suspect. There is often an assumption made that you need the same number of admin staff to admin an equal number of Linux and NT boxes. From my experience that is not true. Linux not only requires less maintenance because it is more reliable, but is more condusive to remote administration and automation of common sysadmin tasks through scripting. Often the assumption that NT doesn't require administrators at all, or that you can just get any idiot off the street and have them administrate your NT boxes for very little money. Frankly, this just doesn't pan out in practice. Regardless of platform, in order to run reliably in the long term, admins need to be at least halfway competent or you will have problems. There is also a misconception that there are a lot more people who are knowledeable about NT than Linux and they work cheaper than UNIX admins. I've found that to be pretty much false as well. There are a lot of people with superficial knowledge of Windows 9x, a fairly large number with superficial knowledge of NT, but it is actually easier to find people who are really capable Linux/UNIX admins than NT. The price for really qualified people is about the same.
One of the most serious errors many of the articles I've seen comparing TCO between Linux and NT is that they use TCO figures for commercial UNIXes (which generally include large vendor licensing and support fees, as well as expensive high end RISC hardware). Frankly it isn't comparing Apples to Apples, as Linux's costs are way lower in licensing and hardware than commercial UNIXes (much lower in licensing than NT and slightly lower in hardware than NT, too, since Linux is typically more lenient in hardware requirements), and for vendor support contracts the cost is fairly comparable on all of the major platforms. The difference is that there is excellent free support for Linux available which is harder to find for commercial OSes. Many companies get by without paying for any commercial Linux support at all. That is hard to do with NT and not something most companies would even contemplate with a commercial UNIX.
So... Unix/Linux now has 40%, passing NT at 38%.
Interesting point. I wonder whether the *BSD's are included in 'UNIX' or in 'other', as they are not officially UNIX branded just like Linux.
That is a misunderstanding of the concept of 'free' software. Software can be 'free' as in freedom of speech and 'free' as in free beer at the same time, or not. Linux is available for free, or you can choose to buy it. Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. all sell it in shrink wrap boxes. People buy that. They are paying for some support as part of that, sure, same goes when people buy a shrink wrap box of other software like NT or Novell. However, when people buy a shrinkwrapped copy of Linux, they are also paying for the convenience of getting a nice shrinkwrapped box with a CD and a manual instead of taking the time to download and burn a copy of the CD and print a copy of the manual themselves.
I believe the numbers they give only count machines pre-loaded with Linux and 'official' boxed copy sales from the major distributions like Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake. The sales numbers for Linux would be astronomically higher if you counted all of the 'free' copies distributed on books. If you go to a large bookstore like Borders or Barnes & Noble, even in a backwater town like I live in, you will probably find 50 to 60 different books on the shelves that include a CD containing one Linux distribution or another. The cumulative sales of those books probably outnumbers the box copies sold by 2:1. Of the 21 CD's you mention having, how many of them are 'official' boxed versions, and how many of those did you buy in 1999. I bet you are closer to 1 per machines, maybe less.
I bought about 3 or 4 boxed 'official' versions in 1999, but then again, I have at least a dozen Linux boxes.
I also have a CD burner, and I probably have made and distributed at least 20 Linux CD's to friends and coworkers who want to learn Linux in the past few months.
Oh my god. I certainly hope this was a troll. I also certainly hope that if not, english is the poster's second or third language not their primary one. I couldn't decide whether to laugh because someone was doing such an incredible job of channeling Forest Gump or feel sorry that someone could not only be so blindly clueless but also apparently unwilling to take the time to learn or do any research.
It may depend on channel, but if you order machines from most of the catalogs, most of the configurations from vendors like Compaq and IBM are available only with NT. You might have more leverage if you are a huge company that buys direct, but most small to mid sized companies buy either from a local dealer, through a catalog or even from the big retail chains like CompUSA. When you buy in those channels your choices are pretty limited.
Well, it's easy to predict that very few people who pay money for NT Server are doing so just to 'check it out' to satisfy curiosity. So it's safe to say that the sales figures for NT Server reflect it's install base.
Actually, that isn't quite right. There are a substantial number of people who pay money for preloaded NT Server on hardware they purchase to run Linux, Netware or one of the commercial UNIXes. Why? Not because they want to in many cases, although in some it is because NT fails to perform and they end up punting to another choice. Mostly it is because they have no choice. A lot of hardware vendors force feed preloaded NT with every server sale even if the customer is buying Netware, Linux or a commercial UNIX from them -- and many hardware vendors don't offer the option of even getting a non-Microsoft OS installed or shipped with the computer leaving the customer to make that aquisition on their own. Very few vendors offer machines with no OS installed at all (and most of the ones that do only do so on a limited number of models).
So, it's safe to say that Linux sales estimates should be scaled back by a factor of ten to come up with install base numbers.
According to your argument, that should be 'scaled up'. If you 'scale back' numbers it would be the opposite of what you are saying.
As for Linux CDs that come with books, given the sales numbers they are talking, I believe they are not being counted. The number that they quote for 1999 Linux sales appears to only be the retail shrinkwrap box 'official' sales from major distributions like Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake. They don't look like they would contain any of the 'free' CD's on books or magazines or the copies included on cheap CD's like CheapBytes, the InfoMagic CD-ROM sets, etc.
If you could figure out a way to count all the copies of Linux shipped through these sources, the number would probably be staggeringly large, but that isn't what this article was talking about at all.
One might also wonder how many of these "servers" are sitting idle on some students desktop.
Probably a lot less than the number of machines counted as NT sales due to preloads that were blasted to install Linux, BSD, Netware or one of the commercial UNIXes. Most of the server grade hardware, and an even larger number of high end desktop and/or deskside boxes that are sold are bundled with Microsoft OSes even when people purchase them to run some other OS. Microsoft counts a lot of sales that aren't the same as installs. Linux sales versus installs are a different matter entirely.
If you want to encrypt files your two best bets are probably GPG (GNU Privacy Guard) or PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). If you want an encrypted filesystem, check out BestCrypt. For some references, you might go over to Freshmeat and key a few queries like 'gpg', 'pgp' and 'encryption' into the search box.
but, say one of the employees was using *nix/*bsd machine where obtaining files without password access can be nearimpossible
Uh, don't be so sure about that. Unless the files are encrypted or on an encrypted file system, if a person can get physical access to the machine it isn't at all difficult to get files off of it. There are lots of ways to do this regardless of the operating system in question. Given physical access to the machine I can retrieve files off of any variety of Windows (including NT and W2K), Macs, or any variety of UNIX (including Linux).
If you want to keep your files safe, you need to use encryption. Strong encryption. And you need to protect your passwords and take other security precautions.
I've used JFS on AIX, and I have to say that it is probably one of the best parts of AIX. You can drop the power on an AIX box when it is right in the middle of running code that is reading and writing the drive and when it is powered back on, it will complete its journal rollbacks (which is what it does instead of fscks) in just a few seconds versus potentially a couple of minutes for fsck on a large volume. Another nice thing is that you can dynamically change the sizes of partitions in a more flexible manner than what we are used to with file systems like ext2.
I'd say it should certainly be an option. It will be interesting to see how it compares in a Linux implementation as compared to SGI's XFS from Irix, and also with ext3. There is also at least one other independant journaling file system being developed for Linux, but I can't remember what it is called off the top of my head. I think the next generation of Linux file systems beyond those will really be impressive if it can combine the best attributes of those.
Damn. I just blew Diet Mountain Dew all over my monitor. That is funnier than hell. If this crazy law goes into effect, that might be about the only thing about it that won't totally suck.
2 points.
So who is keeping score?
#1. What the hell do you want MS to do then (in regards to releasign a player)?
Well, to be totally honest, I don't really care as much as you think I do. Personally I'd prefer that they release the specs for their format and let the Linux community (and anyone else who may care) develop their own player. I'd say that them releasing source code for their player if they do one would be a good thing, but in general not the way they do things. As I've said before, I'd prefer that Real or QuickTime become the de-facto standard than Microsoft's format. I'd really prefer a truly open standard.
You act like them releasing it is the worst thing in the world.
That isn't quite true. I merely stated that I would suspect that Microsoft has more sinister reasons for doing a port than what a lot of people might think. I'm also trying to goad Apple and Real towards taking the Linux market seriously before Microsoft can gain a toehold in media players here.
What ever happened to the complaint that WMP was Windows and Macintosh only?
I don't recall ever making that complaint. It would be a good thing if everything that was supported on Windows and the Mac was supported under Linux, IF we could be assured that such support wasn't just a temporary thing. The availability of 3rd party players or source code would insure that. As I've said, that seems unlikely.
What about the complaint that WMP was evil because you could only get it on Windows or Macs?
I don't believe I ever made that complaint either. However, unless there was a long term commitment to support WMP on all platforms, that wouldn't cease to be true in the long run.
Now MS is expanding it and your bitching at them? I don't know about you, but this is the best news I've heard all week.
You've certainly got the right to your opinion, but I've heard a lot of other things this week that I would rate above that.
WMP may be a MS product, but a hell of a lot of the sites I visit use it,
Your surfing habits must be different than mine, since I've noticed at least 10x as many sites using Real formats, and probably 3x as many sites using QuickTime. I'd much rather have a good Real G2 player and a QuickTime player than Microsoft's player.
and it's a pain in the ass not to be able to play it in Linux. I'm over-joyed they're bringing it to Linux. Now if only I could get IE on here......
Erk. Whatever. I personally don't use IE when I am subjected to using Windows. I've seen the Solaris version of IE. I wasn't impressed. I would never choose IE on Linux.
#2. If Linux grows like its' "supposed" to, how can MS regain the market again?
Through honest means, they probably couldn't. However, as history has shown, Microsoft is not above resorting to unethical and/or illegal tactics to win at any cost. It is really hard to say how Linux is "supposed" to grow. I've seen all sorts of estimates, and I don't think anyone can tell the future. While I am fairly optimistic about Linux's future, I don't like counting chickens before the eggs have hatched.
I mean, with WMP and maybe Quicktime coming to Linux, there is even less reason to run Windows. And by the time MS gets a monopoly of streaming audio (assuming it ever gets it), I'd hope that linux users would at least make up 25% of the desktop market.
Linux has a long way to go to get to 25% of the desktop market. It still hasn't achieved that sort of penetration in the server market. Microsoft could easily marginalize Real and QuickTime quicker than Linux can gain that kind of market share on the desktop. If they aren't brought into check, they could probably buy Real, and so far Apple doesn't seem to be doing what it takes to make QuickTime a truly multiplatform solution.
That'd be suicide to drop support then.
I don't see it that way. What is the downside for Microsoft? Lost revenue? Linux users aren't making Microsoft any money. Their player probably would have to be free (as in beer) in order to succeed, so no revenue there. Bad publicity? Doesn't seem to bother them that much, especially when it comes to Linux users.
And how can it crush all the other formats anyway?
All they have to do is find a way to convince the content suppliers to support their format instead of Real and QuickTime. They only need to get to about 60% of the market, then the market will decide that all the momentum is shifting that direction and Real and QuickTime would probably go downhill quickly for all but a few loyalists. That sort of thing has happened too many times.
Windows is still the dominating OS by a huge margin, and if everyone wanted to, they could have already totally switched to WMP.
Microsoft hasn't started moving aggresively against Real and QuickTime yet. But what you are saying as far as them controlling the platform does give them tremendous advantages in taking over other bits of infrastructure. Make no mistake that if Microsoft decides they want to take over the media player market, that Linux players will only be one small part in a large, orchestrated effort.
But they haven't, and I don't see how bringing it to Linux will change that.
By itself, it probably won't. But if Microsoft ports their player and Apple doesn't port QuickTime, and Real keeps dragging their feet on G2 players for Linux, it could give Microsoft the window of opportunity to use that as a club to beat the other formats over the head with.
Some of the conspiracy theory's you guys come up with amaze me.
What is so amazing about looking at what they have done with other proprietary file formats in the past and guessing as to what they might do in the future? If you've read the Halloween documents, this is the sort of strategy they've been talking about in taking over the Internet.
Can you not just believe that MS sees that to expand it's format, it's going to have to support other OS's?
No, I've seen Microsoft use and withdraw support of products on other platforms to their advantage to believe that.
Netscape and Real saw that, and they don't get bitched at like MS.
Neither of those companies has a vested interest in seeing a particular platform dominate the whole computer world. Microsoft is not very secretive that their vision is dominance of the whole world.
Don't you want a big OS orgy, where you can get just about everything for just about every OS?
Yes, but I don't think Microsoft shares that vision. Actually, I am sure that they don't. I'm sure their vision is the exact opposite. As I said, I expect that they will only supply things for other platforms as long as it serves some purpose for them. Once it no longer suits them they will let that product die on the vine.
A thought like that sure sounds good to me.
As I said before, only if there is a long term commitment to the products being and staying viable.
Maybe Linux users don't use it because (Gasp!) it's commercial?
Not only that but it is fairly expensive. CDE costs more than the boxed commercial version of Red Hat, and the cheapest Motif development distribution costs almost twice what the boxed version of RedHat does.
Commercial software can make some penetration in the Linux world, but if it wants to compete, it needs to be better than the free alternatives and priced reasonably relative to what it is. Currently none of the CDE or Motif packages do that, so the only Linux users who buy them are people who absolutely need them (either as a checklist item or for compatibility with commercial *nixes).
why hasn't some Linux developer written a driver for them?
If you can convince the WinModem chip makers to release programming information and specs, then I am sure a Linux developer or three will be glad to do a driver.
If they are going to be the dominant force in streaming media, they need to support all platforms.
Temporarily. Once they crush all of the other streaming media formats, then they can drop support for all other platforms than their own and maybe the Mac, if there is something they need to coerce Apple to do. Once that is done, they can make some small "upgrades" that break backwards compatibility, and convince everyone only to support their new format. Then every other platform is locked out of streaming media.
It is for this reason that I'd prefer to support RealPlayer, and like to see Apple release a QuickTime for Linux and other platforms. Real doesn't really have a reason to cut other platforms off, and Apple probably will never make the Mac a dominant enough platform that they could afford not to support other platforms.
this proves that all you want is a "free ride"...
It proves nothing of the sort. What I meant by that is that something is better than nothing. At any rate, Windows users get a 'free ride' don't they?
If all you wanted was a client for linux, you would be satisfied with closed source
Frankly, I don't really use streaming video that much. I really want it to be available for Linux as more of a checklist item, and for other people. Just because I think that having something is better than nothing doesn't mean I am completely 'satisfied'.
At any rate, RealPlayer is already available for Linux. I think Microsoft even did a port of their media player for Linux at one point. Personally I'd rather see QuickTime become the de-facto industry standard than Microsoft's format. I can't say I have that much of a preference between QuickTime and RealPlayer, but both is better than only one.
maybe apple wants quicktime to be closed source!
Maybe they do, but why does that mean that people can't petition them to change their mind?
it's quite possible that they want to keep the secrets of quicktime to themselves,because they don't want assholes to steal it and make money off of it.
Frankly, if people really want to find the 'secrets' of QuickTime, what they have to do is look up Apple's patents and/or reverse engineer Apple's code. How is an open source player going to be stolen and made money on anyway? Apple's code will still be protected by patents and their algorithms will still be protected by patents (which of course is another topic altogether). There are lots of ways for them to protect QuickTime and still do an open sourced version. Your argument just doesn't make much sense.