Quite a bit of research was obviously done for this article - and not nearly enough. For ZD, this is a torrent of articles on Linux. They're actually starting to get a clue. Starting to. The mistakes in these articles are amusing. I won't even bother to give examples - I'm sure by the time this discussion comes to an end today, that will have been done more than adequately.
One thing I hope they'll do is develop and publish more benchmarks for Linux, like they did with that Samba vs. NT article a while back. This is actually something ZD might be useful for; then we can look at the charts and numbers and how they were obtained, and ignore their judgements, expositions, and Editor's Choices.
Only experts can test new applications, because there is nearly no real computer newbie who uses Linux. But a big corp can put money in these kind of tests. Therefore, if we want Linux to be stronger, and being a real alternative to M$, we need support from corps.
Your argument is valid but not sound. I think I read here that GNOME is going to be installed on pretty much every computer in Mexican elementary/secondary schools. You couldn't pay for a better usability lab than that.
Linux is new to the mainstream, and as such, it's understandable that they use what they perceive to be the most reliable product. As people catch on to the fact that Linux is Linux is Linux, I expect either the market share to become more evenly distributed or that $50 price tag on the Red Hat boxes to drop considerably.
Most of the advice in this article is sound enough, if you consider its intended audience. Windows is still their client platform of choice. But I do think that they committed a grievous sin of omission by failing to discuss scenarios in which Linux can replace Windows servers right now. With the proper network configuration and disaster planning, their customer service remarks are moot.
I just want to comment on two other things:
while PC server vendors are seriously considering a Linux strategy, fears of cannibalizing their own Unix strategies and concerns about the chaotic nature of the market will limit their sincerity to opportunistic sales
This is absolutely true. Nobody expects major resources from IBM, Sun, or SGI to go into Linux development; they are merely making a virtue out of a necessity, and that's what will dictate the extent of their commitment to Linux. If they don't provide Linux support for their hardware, someone else will. Any development they contribute will most likely be funded by a customer who requests it.
emulation a poor substitute for Microsoft compatibility.
This is one reason why Linux supporters need to keep pushing Java, or a substitute for it, as hard as they can; it does as much damage to the "Linux is not good enough for the desktop" problem as supporting GNOME and KDE does. In a post-scarcity world, which we are very much on the brink of, the difference between native opcodes and Java's bytecode will no longer be significant. And it will run on Linux and Win2000 equally well. So much for having to play catch-up with emulating Microsoft's latest API's. And so much for Microsoft incompatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a bit of research was obviously done for this article - and not nearly enough. For ZD, this is a torrent of articles on Linux. They're actually starting to get a clue. Starting to. The mistakes in these articles are amusing. I won't even bother to give examples - I'm sure by the time this discussion comes to an end today, that will have been done more than adequately.
One thing I hope they'll do is develop and publish more benchmarks for Linux, like they did with that Samba vs. NT article a while back. This is actually something ZD might be useful for; then we can look at the charts and numbers and how they were obtained, and ignore their judgements, expositions, and Editor's Choices.
I will take it to heart.
But someone misspelled "A Brave GNU World" in the title.
Only experts can test new applications, because there is nearly no real computer newbie who uses Linux. But a big corp can put money in these kind of tests. Therefore, if we want Linux to be stronger, and being a real alternative to M$, we need support from corps.
Your argument is valid but not sound. I think I read here that GNOME is going to be installed on pretty much every computer in Mexican elementary/secondary schools. You couldn't pay for a better usability lab than that.
Linux is new to the mainstream, and as such, it's understandable that they use what they perceive to be the most reliable product. As people catch on to the fact that Linux is Linux is Linux, I expect either the market share to become more evenly distributed or that $50 price tag on the Red Hat boxes to drop considerably.
Most of the advice in this article is sound enough, if you consider its intended audience. Windows is still their client platform of choice. But I do think that they committed a grievous sin of omission by failing to discuss scenarios in which Linux can replace Windows servers right now. With the proper network configuration and disaster planning, their customer service remarks are moot.
I just want to comment on two other things:
while PC server vendors are seriously considering a Linux strategy, fears of cannibalizing their own Unix strategies and concerns about the chaotic nature of the market will limit their sincerity to opportunistic sales
This is absolutely true. Nobody expects major resources from IBM, Sun, or SGI to go into Linux development; they are merely making a virtue out of a necessity, and that's what will dictate the extent of their commitment to Linux. If they don't provide Linux support for their hardware, someone else will. Any development they contribute will most likely be funded by a customer who requests it.
emulation a poor substitute for Microsoft compatibility.
This is one reason why Linux supporters need to keep pushing Java, or a substitute for it, as hard as they can; it does as much damage to the "Linux is not good enough for the desktop" problem as supporting GNOME and KDE does. In a post-scarcity world, which we are very much on the brink of, the difference between native opcodes and Java's bytecode will no longer be significant. And it will run on Linux and Win2000 equally well. So much for having to play catch-up with emulating Microsoft's latest API's. And so much for Microsoft incompatibility.