Now you tell me why downloading IE-tab addons which are not supported by Micrsosoft (= may break anytime with an upgrade) is better than just download mozilla?
This may be major reasons for a/.'er, but I find it unlikely this is going to convice any "normal" user to switch from IE to Mozilla.
Everybody loves tabbed browsing and being able to open new tabs with the middle mouse button.
If Mozilla wants to gain market shares, they MUST make it look more like Windows. A fancy GUI is unfortunately the easiest way to get a "normal" user, not good security.
Microsoft has proven that beyond any reasonable doubt.
If that were true, Winamp would have never been successful. Neither ICQ, nor WMP (!) nor most games.
IE has had more than it's share of security problems, but who says Mozilla won't?
You'll get flamed because you deserve it.
You ASSUME that Mozilla will have a lot of security problems and say that it doesn't deserve a chance.
That's what I hate most about you MSFT-lovers:
You will go through lots of pain (risking changing EULAs by updating, downloading Crazybrowser (sic) extensions, working around bugs, installing virus scanners, accepting WPA, accepting Palladium, etc.) to run a Microsoft product but if some product doesn't have the golden "Microsoft" sticker on it, even the smallest inconvenience or even some FUD (like "who says Mozilla won't", you know... exactly this kind of FUD) will be enough to not even give it a try.
Sorry, but I just get the feeling that you have either a substancial investment in MSFT stock or are completely brainwashed by marketing.
XBox is hardware, not software. Which makes failing A LOT more expensive. No software-project will ever lose 1 billion per year like the XBox does.
XBox is a closed product. It has to make revenues within its lifetime, after the lifetime, people move on and you are just left with losses.
PS2 is already wiping the floor with XBox and PS3 will come out in a couple of years. That less than 10% marketshare that XBox has is not very promising.
XBox is crippled and will always be. Unlike PS2 which will indeed move into non-gaming areas, Microsoft will not be able to put standard-connectors (like USB, firewire etc.) in XBox because they would piss off computer OEMs. (And that would be a bad idea)
Yeah, that's a long ways out, but you're crazy if you think Microsoft isn't taking the long view on this.
Calling me crazy won't make any of your wild claims true.
Fact remains that XBox is a typical SHORT-TERM design. An Off-the-shelf design. (Low development costs, high production costs) If you want to know how a long-term design looks, look at PS2.
Wait a minute. What about XBox? What about MSN? What about WinCE?
Microsoft has a lot of branches that make losses and their stubbornness concerning XBox (it's so clear that it won't topple PS2, yet they keep pumping money in it without the remote chance of getting it back) will cost them fortunes.
Also, the community has ported Linux and the BSDs to tens (hundreds?) of hardware platforms, while Windows failed on everytime they tried something other than x86 (PPC, Mips, Alpha and IA64 in a few years, you will see it)
Microsoft is in a strong position because they control the OEMs. However they charge a bigger percentage every year, it's really just a matter of time until the Microsoft-tax becomes unbearable and OEMs start jumping ship - wait, Walmart already sells Windows-less PCs.
In addition to that, only 35% of their money come from product sales, the rest is gathered through financial tricks and tax deductions with gullible investment money being Microsoft's single most important source of money.
As soon as investors start asking questions (we just had Worldcom, remember? And Enron of course) this whole scheme might topple over and Microsoft will lose most of it's income and WILL START MAKING LOSSES. Also most employees will be pissed because THEIR income (which consists mostly of stock options) will only be a fraction of what it used to be. Microsoft is a house of cards and if XBox or Worldcom doesn't crush it, something else will. It's just a matter of time, it won't work much longer.
The community did write almost all drivers themselves, Microsoft has to hope the hardware-vendors support them (remember Win/Alpha?)
The community wrote loads of software, from IP-stack to KDE in short time, Microsoft needed much longer to create Windows and they still had to rely on OSS code for IE and their IP-stack.
Linux is backed by IBM, Sony, HP and pretty much any other IT-company on the planet with combined revenue of several 100 billions per year. Microsoft has only 20 billions per year, which is a lot, but still not much compared to giants like Sony and IBM alone, never mind about their combined strengh.
Now, who is Goliath and who is David?
Microsoft is afraid - and because of very good reasons.
Well, isn't "your current version the biggest crap on earth, upgrade" the secret of Microsoft marketing?
I'm just amazed how many "upgrade to XP, upgrade to XP, never mind the costs upgrade, trying anything else wouldn't be fair" - comments I see when somebody states that he is running Win9x.
Yet, I agree that the next Windows webservers will have a hard time. Not really because of the track record, more because they don't offer any additional value for their price tag.
Re:The only thing needed to destroy windows....
on
Take a Mac User to Lunch
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Is to offer Mac OS X on the PC platform.
How can that be insightful?
If you have MacOSX on x86, what do you have?
An OS that can't run MacOS9/PPC apps.
An OS that can't run MacOSX/PPC apps.
An OS that can't run X11 apps (unless you install an extra X-server)
An OS that can't run Win32 apps
I just don't get it, is there really nobody who grasps that MacOSX/x86 would be as useless as Windows on anything other than x86?
(BTW, Windows/IA64 will fail as badly as Windows/Alpha. If you run Windows you are either a) a PHB which will not try any new platform like IA64 in the first place or b) somebody who needs Win32 apps. (Notice the "32" in Win32) I don't think anybody will pay more to run their apps slower.)
OSX is the proof that all those people screaming that Linux on Joe Average's desktop is impossible are wrong.
Actually OSX is the proof that *anything* Apple does will be called user-friendly while *anything* the OSS community does will be called unfriendly and "only for geeks".
Nevertheless, it's nice to see another OS switch to Unix.
Just use intelligent defaults, all the nifty options won't hurt the below-average moron that everyone seems to be targetting because the below-average moron just uses the defaults and will never know that there is something else out there.
While still not perfect, KDE is doing a pretty good job at choosing defaults.
A non-computer savy person is likely to pick up KDE faster, actually, because it uses single-click instead of double click (ever seen a REAL newbie about that?)
The BSA is in the business of doing business. Part of doing business is establishing reasonable guidelines and not eradicating your customer's customers.
Of course.
But part of doing BSA's business is deterrence, too. So inflicting huge fines (AFAIK those go into the 100,000 $s range) is needed to get the rest in line.
It's a mixture of both. Of course they will try to offer some special long term contracts as a way out, but those contracts will also be expensive and will limit your choices severely.
Oh, and another thing: The BSA is not free and unpaid. They are paid by the software industry and the software industry is paid by the customers. In the end, the customers always pay.
I think with all that overhead (lawyers, BSA, marketing, shareholders, packaging software into little boxes, sales chain, etc.) I don't think commercial software is the answer to all software needs. Commercial software has a place in certain niches (especially games but also highly specialized software like medical software or engineering software) but the operating system and all "common" programs will sooner or later become a commodity. Sooner or later Microsoft will fail to sell the same repackaged stuff over and over for a higher and higher price (in % of system costs). It's just a matter of time. And with Walmart already jumping ship, it won't take much longer than a couple of years until Microsoft will lose their desktop domination.
No, I think they will rather take Apache and rename it into IIS6 or IIS7 or something and sell it for big bucks to pointy haired bosses.
Seriously, I think that's a possibility. The only reason I can think of why anybody should run IIS is because it's from Microsoft (you know, all that marketing buzz with better integration etc.), so an Apache version rebranded as IIS can do the same thing for Microsoft.
So Joe Average will only use Linux when it comes preinstalled.
Walmart has started to sell computers preinstalled with Linux this year and they are cheaper than the Windows-counterparts.
And for grandma, it's a lot easier to just power-up their Linux-PC and click on the OpenOffice icon than to install edonkey and download a warez-version of MS Office (No, paying 400$ just to type a couple of letter is NOT an option).
If you look at what Walmart is doing (first sell OS-less PCs, then sell Lindows-preinstalled, then also Mandrake - they are offering more and more non-Windows options) those machines seem to do quite well in the marketplace.
Windows needs domination, would anybody run Windows if it didn't had all drivers, all apps and would come preinstalled wether you like it or not?
As soon as Linux gets off the ground (and Walmart has laid the foundation for that) and gains significant enough marketshare so it can't be ignored by corps anymore (something like 15%), there is no reason to run Windows anymore and Microsoft will become the next Novell.
So you say that it's prohibitive for Mom to change a CD once (CD3 is not used unless you want the source), but Mom obviously has no problem installing Windows from one CD, installing MS Office from another CD and installing every other goddamn app from a seperate CD?
I think logic left this thread 3 posts ago.
Face it: There is no technical reason that hinders Linux desktop adoption. The reason is that people will use whatever is preinstalled.
Seems like Walmart is currently the only computer seller that is not wetting their pants before Bill Gates, so go Walmart. Other OEMs will follow and the Microsoft desktop domination will be over in 5 years.
What's the point of having more than one PC-maker?
Obviously people are not confused with Dell/HP/IBM/hundredsofothers so why should they be confused by several desktops or distributions?
That's not Linux' problem on the desktop. The problem is that people will use whatever comes preinstalled. If they would preinstall DOS, they would use it, never mind IRQ-confilcts.
Slashdot Mirror
In the world I live in, everybody is doing audio piracy and almost everybody video piracy. The average Joe does it and loves it.
Exactly, my next PDA will have to combine cell phone functionality, otherwise I will stay at my Psion.
Now you tell me why downloading IE-tab addons which are not supported by Micrsosoft (= may break anytime with an upgrade) is better than just download mozilla?
Everybody loves tabbed browsing and being able to open new tabs with the middle mouse button.
If Mozilla wants to gain market shares, they MUST make it look more like Windows. A fancy GUI is unfortunately the easiest way to get a "normal" user, not good security. Microsoft has proven that beyond any reasonable doubt.
If that were true, Winamp would have never been successful. Neither ICQ, nor WMP (!) nor most games.
Or unless you like tabbed browsing and tab-group bookmarks (whoever thought that up, thanks a lot).
IE has had more than it's share of security problems, but who says Mozilla won't?
You'll get flamed because you deserve it.
You ASSUME that Mozilla will have a lot of security problems and say that it doesn't deserve a chance.
That's what I hate most about you MSFT-lovers:
You will go through lots of pain (risking changing EULAs by updating, downloading Crazybrowser (sic) extensions, working around bugs, installing virus scanners, accepting WPA, accepting Palladium, etc.) to run a Microsoft product but if some product doesn't have the golden "Microsoft" sticker on it, even the smallest inconvenience or even some FUD (like "who says Mozilla won't", you know... exactly this kind of FUD) will be enough to not even give it a try.
Sorry, but I just get the feeling that you have either a substancial investment in MSFT stock or are completely brainwashed by marketing.
If you don't deserve to be flamed, nobody does.
Microsoft, the domination (aka monopoly) will.
And lawyers and courts will have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, that's a long ways out, but you're crazy if you think Microsoft isn't taking the long view on this.
Calling me crazy won't make any of your wild claims true.
Fact remains that XBox is a typical SHORT-TERM design. An Off-the-shelf design. (Low development costs, high production costs) If you want to know how a long-term design looks, look at PS2.
Do you have MSFT-stock or what makes you wish they were no house of cards?
Microsoft has a lot of branches that make losses and their stubbornness concerning XBox (it's so clear that it won't topple PS2, yet they keep pumping money in it without the remote chance of getting it back) will cost them fortunes.
Also, the community has ported Linux and the BSDs to tens (hundreds?) of hardware platforms, while Windows failed on everytime they tried something other than x86 (PPC, Mips, Alpha and IA64 in a few years, you will see it)
Microsoft is in a strong position because they control the OEMs. However they charge a bigger percentage every year, it's really just a matter of time until the Microsoft-tax becomes unbearable and OEMs start jumping ship - wait, Walmart already sells Windows-less PCs.
In addition to that, only 35% of their money come from product sales, the rest is gathered through financial tricks and tax deductions with gullible investment money being Microsoft's single most important source of money.
As soon as investors start asking questions (we just had Worldcom, remember? And Enron of course) this whole scheme might topple over and Microsoft will lose most of it's income and WILL START MAKING LOSSES. Also most employees will be pissed because THEIR income (which consists mostly of stock options) will only be a fraction of what it used to be. Microsoft is a house of cards and if XBox or Worldcom doesn't crush it, something else will. It's just a matter of time, it won't work much longer.
See Bill Parish' page for more details.
The community wrote loads of software, from IP-stack to KDE in short time, Microsoft needed much longer to create Windows and they still had to rely on OSS code for IE and their IP-stack.
Linux is backed by IBM, Sony, HP and pretty much any other IT-company on the planet with combined revenue of several 100 billions per year. Microsoft has only 20 billions per year, which is a lot, but still not much compared to giants like Sony and IBM alone, never mind about their combined strengh.
Now, who is Goliath and who is David?
Microsoft is afraid - and because of very good reasons.
I'm just amazed how many "upgrade to XP, upgrade to XP, never mind the costs upgrade, trying anything else wouldn't be fair" - comments I see when somebody states that he is running Win9x.
Yet, I agree that the next Windows webservers will have a hard time. Not really because of the track record, more because they don't offer any additional value for their price tag.
How can that be insightful?
If you have MacOSX on x86, what do you have?
I just don't get it, is there really nobody who grasps that MacOSX/x86 would be as useless as Windows on anything other than x86?
(BTW, Windows/IA64 will fail as badly as Windows/Alpha. If you run Windows you are either a) a PHB which will not try any new platform like IA64 in the first place or b) somebody who needs Win32 apps. (Notice the "32" in Win32) I don't think anybody will pay more to run their apps slower.)
Actually OSX is the proof that *anything* Apple does will be called user-friendly while *anything* the OSS community does will be called unfriendly and "only for geeks".
Nevertheless, it's nice to see another OS switch to Unix.
Just use intelligent defaults, all the nifty options won't hurt the below-average moron that everyone seems to be targetting because the below-average moron just uses the defaults and will never know that there is something else out there.
While still not perfect, KDE is doing a pretty good job at choosing defaults.
A non-computer savy person is likely to pick up KDE faster, actually, because it uses single-click instead of double click (ever seen a REAL newbie about that?)
Of course.
But part of doing BSA's business is deterrence, too. So inflicting huge fines (AFAIK those go into the 100,000 $s range) is needed to get the rest in line.
It's a mixture of both. Of course they will try to offer some special long term contracts as a way out, but those contracts will also be expensive and will limit your choices severely.
Oh, and another thing: The BSA is not free and unpaid. They are paid by the software industry and the software industry is paid by the customers. In the end, the customers always pay.
I think with all that overhead (lawyers, BSA, marketing, shareholders, packaging software into little boxes, sales chain, etc.) I don't think commercial software is the answer to all software needs. Commercial software has a place in certain niches (especially games but also highly specialized software like medical software or engineering software) but the operating system and all "common" programs will sooner or later become a commodity. Sooner or later Microsoft will fail to sell the same repackaged stuff over and over for a higher and higher price (in % of system costs). It's just a matter of time. And with Walmart already jumping ship, it won't take much longer than a couple of years until Microsoft will lose their desktop domination.
What about the risk of getting busted? Some part-time employee installing pirated software can cause the company to pay huge fines or even go under.
Again, when do studies start to calculate these risks in?
Seriously, I think that's a possibility. The only reason I can think of why anybody should run IIS is because it's from Microsoft (you know, all that marketing buzz with better integration etc.), so an Apache version rebranded as IIS can do the same thing for Microsoft.
So Joe Average will only use Linux when it comes preinstalled.
Walmart has started to sell computers preinstalled with Linux this year and they are cheaper than the Windows-counterparts.
And for grandma, it's a lot easier to just power-up their Linux-PC and click on the OpenOffice icon than to install edonkey and download a warez-version of MS Office (No, paying 400$ just to type a couple of letter is NOT an option).
If you look at what Walmart is doing (first sell OS-less PCs, then sell Lindows-preinstalled, then also Mandrake - they are offering more and more non-Windows options) those machines seem to do quite well in the marketplace.
Windows needs domination, would anybody run Windows if it didn't had all drivers, all apps and would come preinstalled wether you like it or not?
As soon as Linux gets off the ground (and Walmart has laid the foundation for that) and gains significant enough marketshare so it can't be ignored by corps anymore (something like 15%), there is no reason to run Windows anymore and Microsoft will become the next Novell.
I think logic left this thread 3 posts ago.
Face it: There is no technical reason that hinders Linux desktop adoption. The reason is that people will use whatever is preinstalled.
Seems like Walmart is currently the only computer seller that is not wetting their pants before Bill Gates, so go Walmart. Other OEMs will follow and the Microsoft desktop domination will be over in 5 years.
Bob consumer does not like choice, that's why all those different and confusing PC-makers are dead and we are all running Macintoshes, right?
Obviously people are not confused with Dell/HP/IBM/hundredsofothers so why should they be confused by several desktops or distributions?
That's not Linux' problem on the desktop. The problem is that people will use whatever comes preinstalled. If they would preinstall DOS, they would use it, never mind IRQ-confilcts.
go, Walmart!