With so many distros offering so many different features and without a standard package installer... with every vendor maintaining their own kernel tree just to "out feature" another distro... how can you possibly say that linux will unify the unix market when the linux market itself isn't very well unified?
RPM is pretty much the standard now (also defined in the LSB), so while different distributions might have different methods of installing a RPM, there is a unified packaging format.
However the original statement was that that Linux only cuts into Unix marketshare, which is clearly proven wrong by these stats because there are 2 realistic possibilities:
Linux replaces Unix and Windows
Linux replaces only Windows while other Unices maintain marketshare
For both possibilities, the original statement is clearly wrong.
(Yes I do know that Apache runs on Windows, but I also know that it isn't done very often, sorry.)
First Linux does eat up Microsoft's marketshare, no matter how often MS sais otherwise. Just look at this for an idea, or even at this
Yes, that's right, Linux has already marginalized Windows in some markets. In Germany it's hard to find a webhoster even offering Windows (and when they do, they charge about twice the usual fees). Windows is doomed in central and eastern Europe, all the usual network effects (it's established! the people know it!) work against it there and there are no more advantages left.
Then what Linux does is what we all wanted, right? Unify Unix. What's the point of having similar but slightly incompatible systems from IBM, HP and Sun? Linux unifies Unix in a way that even if you don't run Linux, it will be compatible to Linux (compatibility layers for Solaris and AIX). Of course a unified Unix is also a lot stronger versus Windows than a balkanized one. "Unix is incompatible to itself" and "Unix needs overpriced hardware" were the 2 biggest pro-Windows sales arguments. No more.
I think it's ironic how short the memory of the public is.
Around 2000, Linux was already reported at over 30% and to rise even more.
How is it possible that it is expected to account for only 26% of shipments in 2008?
Easy: IDC changed their counting methods in the meantime, while the earlier numbers are about shipments, the current numbers are about revenue and only for server-hardware that actually ships with Linux.
That is correct:
debian, Gentoo and Fedora don't create revenue, so as far as IDC is concerned, they just don't exist
If you actually buy a computer without Linux and buy a boxed Linux distro afterwards (or if you use a disk image), your installation doesn't exist either, because it wasn't shipped with Linux.
If you buy a computer with Linux preloaded, but that computer isn't classified as "server" and you use it as a server - again it doesn't count because they only count computers are sold as servers.
And last but not least, if you aren't some fortune something buerocracy, all your Linux installations don't count either, because IDC doesn't care about you and will not ask you.
So to make a long story short, most Linux server installations do not exist for IDC.
Isn't it funny that Windows always looks good in heavily distorted studies (TCO "studies", market share studies, etc.) while they no longer look so good in not-so easily distorted studies (like Netcraft)?
Of course IDC is quite smart, they talk about "sales" and they know that people will think about shipments/units and not revenue.
While the older numbers had some touch with reality, the current numbers are just nonsense. In reality Linux already accounts for a lot more than IDC wants us to believe.
Yeah right. So instead of Konqueror being preloaded and popping up in half a second (still too long, but bearable) I have to load a standalone browser and wait for 5 seconds or longer.
Same goes for filemanagers of course.
Yes, if you don't run any serious applications alternatives might be "more efficient", but Konqueror running on KDE is by far the fastest browser on Linux.
I'm waiting for the comethuggers...
on
NASA's Deep Impact
·
· Score: 3, Funny
... to step up and tell us that we can't do that and we are destroying nature.
Microsoft's problem is that the better they make IE, the more developers will leave the Windows-platform and move to the web.
A web development means for MS:
Less customer lock-in (even when you code for IE only, Mozilla is likely going to work. And even if you use some IE-only hacks, it's a lot easier to replace those hacks than to completely rewrite a Win32-application)
Less revenue by forced upgrades. Even Windows 95 can run a webbrowser. So why buy a newer version of Windows? (That's the reason why MS is making IE7 Longhorn-only. However I think they are shooting themselves in the foot because most WinXP users will rather download Mozilla for free than upgrade to Longhorn.)
Less revenue by client operating systems. Not only Windows 95, but almost any OS can run a browser. Therefore web development is a big problem for MS.
Less revenue from development tools. If Microsoft loses a developer to the web, will he still need that MSDN-subscription?
So Microsoft faces a dilemma. And they are losing no matter what they do.
Another example is FireFox, many claimed it's flawless
Actually, no Firefox developer ever claimed such thing, no other serious OSS-person ever claimed that and even altough I find loads of crazy opinions on Slashdot and other forums, I haven't seen anybody claiming that on Slashdot or anywhere else.
Why assume that 1996/2000 is somehow "correct"? One can equally well explain such a discrepancy by positing that problems with paper/mechanical balloting in 1996/2000 caused "excess" votes for Democrats in those counties, a phenomenon that was corrected by the deployment of electronic balloting.
Wrong, because it affected only the electronic counties of 2004.
They performed the same study on Ohio and found no irregularities.
Let's make a new rule:
For an election to be official, the winner has to show that he did not cheat in at least one state. Oh yeah, "no irregularities" in a statistical analysis is all the proof we need.
Unless AOL makes Netscape/Firefox/Mozilla the default browser, it's merely just more of the same. (Almost) nobody will be interested because Mozilla/Firefox will be more up to date and will come with fewer ads. And they force their own users to IE, so who's left?
I tried these steps but unale to uninstall...any other go..?
Somebody tell me how long you take when uninstall SP2 by disable L1 and L2 cache because I take very very long time (more than 15 hour) for uninstall SP2. My computer is PIII 800 Mhz RAM 256.
I've tried all these methods, also went to micrsosoft webpage but nothing seems to work..
Whew, welcome to Windows!
You can install the individual fixes included in the SP.
Nope, you can't. An example is MSIE SP2, which is integrated into WinXP SP2 and cannot be optained by any other method.
First of all, such bugs are comparatively rare becaues there are just much more "normal" packages than libraries and libraries aren't so feature-loaded so they attract fewer bugs.
Second, no matter what, you can always revert back to the earlier version(s).
With all the service packs you have to do an "all or nothing" approach, which causes lots of wasted time and money because you have to test, test, test before deploying a SP.
On Linux, when there is a problem with package X version y, I can just upgrade to version y+1.
I also don't need to set up a test machine because I can go back to version y if version y+1 doesn't work for some reason. (ha, try to go back a service pack. You can't, it's reinstall-time)
Actually a friend of mine has been able to screw up an Excel file so badly that Excel would crash while trying to open it. Yes, Excel screwed the file up.
The only way to retrieve the information was to open it in OpenOffice and save it back to.xls.
Slashdot Mirror
RPM is pretty much the standard now (also defined in the LSB), so while different distributions might have different methods of installing a RPM, there is a unified packaging format.
However the original statement was that that Linux only cuts into Unix marketshare, which is clearly proven wrong by these stats because there are 2 realistic possibilities:
For both possibilities, the original statement is clearly wrong.
(Yes I do know that Apache runs on Windows, but I also know that it isn't done very often, sorry.)
Around 2000, Linux was already reported at over 30% and to rise even more.
How is it possible that it is expected to account for only 26% of shipments in 2008?
Easy: IDC changed their counting methods in the meantime, while the earlier numbers are about shipments, the current numbers are about revenue and only for server-hardware that actually ships with Linux.
That is correct:
So to make a long story short, most Linux server installations do not exist for IDC.
Isn't it funny that Windows always looks good in heavily distorted studies (TCO "studies", market share studies, etc.) while they no longer look so good in not-so easily distorted studies (like Netcraft)?
Of course IDC is quite smart, they talk about "sales" and they know that people will think about shipments/units and not revenue.
While the older numbers had some touch with reality, the current numbers are just nonsense. In reality Linux already accounts for a lot more than IDC wants us to believe.
I don't really care wether it's a "hack", it solves the problem and that's the only thing that counts.
Yeah right. So instead of Konqueror being preloaded and popping up in half a second (still too long, but bearable) I have to load a standalone browser and wait for 5 seconds or longer.
Same goes for filemanagers of course.
Yes, if you don't run any serious applications alternatives might be "more efficient", but Konqueror running on KDE is by far the fastest browser on Linux.
A web development means for MS:
So Microsoft faces a dilemma. And they are losing no matter what they do.
Probably his FUD-secretary told him to say "over 282" (because 283 is one more than 282) and he switched 2 digits.
Actually, no Firefox developer ever claimed such thing, no other serious OSS-person ever claimed that and even altough I find loads of crazy opinions on Slashdot and other forums, I haven't seen anybody claiming that on Slashdot or anywhere else.
Wrong, because it affected only the electronic counties of 2004.
Let's make a new rule:
For an election to be official, the winner has to show that he did not cheat in at least one state. Oh yeah, "no irregularities" in a statistical analysis is all the proof we need.
Take a piece of paper and a paper envelope. Write your password onto the piece of paper and put it into the envelope.
This provides the exact same security as a smartcard.
I tried these steps but unale to uninstall...any other go..?
Somebody tell me how long you take when uninstall SP2 by disable L1 and L2 cache because I take very very long time (more than 15 hour) for uninstall SP2. My computer is PIII 800 Mhz RAM 256.
I've tried all these methods, also went to micrsosoft webpage but nothing seems to work..
Whew, welcome to Windows!
You can install the individual fixes included in the SP.
Nope, you can't. An example is MSIE SP2, which is integrated into WinXP SP2 and cannot be optained by any other method.
Second, no matter what, you can always revert back to the earlier version(s).
Windows apologists are really dumb, they are mentally not able to distinguish between "better" and "perfect".
Linux isn't perfect, but a lot more secure than Windows just like a 00's Volvo is a lot more safe than a 50's chevy.
Britney Spears married 10 times today? What an outrage!
With all the service packs you have to do an "all or nothing" approach, which causes lots of wasted time and money because you have to test, test, test before deploying a SP.
On Linux, when there is a problem with package X version y, I can just upgrade to version y+1.
I also don't need to set up a test machine because I can go back to version y if version y+1 doesn't work for some reason. (ha, try to go back a service pack. You can't, it's reinstall-time)
I think IE-only sites will be a thing of the past in a couple of years.
You do realize that there is very well competition without IE?
The only way to retrieve the information was to open it in OpenOffice and save it back to .xls.
Worked like a charm.
So you are going to jump on command after all, aren't you?
Good boy!
Large, true. But not large enough to gain domination.
This can be quite good for Firefox, because all those Win98 users have to use it if they want an uptodate browser.