Without taking the luxury of going through 500 comments before me, I'm pretty sure/confident that someone has probably already said anything I could say, but I'll say it anyway.
I couldn't care less whether or not linux is competitive, the only thing I care about is whether or not it's viable for personal use. secure/stable/hardware support. In order for Linux to be competitive it would have to gain market share with countless legions of people I couldn't care less about. More succinctly, NONE of the qualities in linux which attracted/drew me towards it, have anything to do with it's profitability, market share, or adoption rate. You could perhaps argue that linux needed to attain a certain -mass- to attract the resources necessary to gain the qualities that I DO care about, but let's just say the necessary mass to do that is far less then it would require to "compete" with microsoft.
Wow - 20 seconds on slashdot and I've already had my first no sense of humor comment. You'll forgive me if I don't use widespread adoption rates as my relative yardstick of a system's quality. Mom and Pop's grocery store may never be Wal-Mart size, but I can't say that bothers me, nor do I intend to stop shopping there, should they refuse to expand. People want to spend cycles debating linux's legitmacy as an OS based on market share? OK - have a good time with that, really. I'll be over here going on with my life.
Wow, I must be totally having an out of body experience, RIGHT NOW, because if I'm not mistaken. I'm actually using a linux desktop. Wait a minute, that can't be true. They're dead...I must be invisible! (runs out into the street....I CAN DO ANYTHING!!!)
Slashdot Mirror
Without taking the luxury of going through 500 comments before me, I'm pretty sure/confident that someone has probably already said anything I could say, but I'll say it anyway. I couldn't care less whether or not linux is competitive, the only thing I care about is whether or not it's viable for personal use. secure/stable/hardware support. In order for Linux to be competitive it would have to gain market share with countless legions of people I couldn't care less about. More succinctly, NONE of the qualities in linux which attracted/drew me towards it, have anything to do with it's profitability, market share, or adoption rate. You could perhaps argue that linux needed to attain a certain -mass- to attract the resources necessary to gain the qualities that I DO care about, but let's just say the necessary mass to do that is far less then it would require to "compete" with microsoft.
Wow - 20 seconds on slashdot and I've already had my first no sense of humor comment. You'll forgive me if I don't use widespread adoption rates as my relative yardstick of a system's quality. Mom and Pop's grocery store may never be Wal-Mart size, but I can't say that bothers me, nor do I intend to stop shopping there, should they refuse to expand. People want to spend cycles debating linux's legitmacy as an OS based on market share? OK - have a good time with that, really. I'll be over here going on with my life.
Wow, I must be totally having an out of body experience, RIGHT NOW, because if I'm not mistaken. I'm actually using a linux desktop. Wait a minute, that can't be true. They're dead...I must be invisible! (runs out into the street....I CAN DO ANYTHING!!!)