Now tell me what's not easy to use in SuSE-Linux (= KDE/Linux with all Linux-stuff embedded into the KDE-control center. Everything desktop-related can be done 100% graphically and is reachable at a central place (the KDE control center)).
KDE/Linux is even a lot easier to use than Windows because all the settings are organized tree-like and are not just random tools thrown into a directory like in Windows.
and rock solid security that doesn't involve watch a mailing list and sitting in front of a console 20 out of 24 hours in a day.
Linux has a much better security track record than Windows. I haven't updated my webserver the last 6 months and I've not been infected NIMDA-style so far.
For infrastructure, it's top notch, for ease of use, it's a lumbering elephant. Just remember, some people don't care how or why it works, just that it works.
I use Moz with Pipelining enabled and have not encountered any problems.
I've heard from anonymous trolls a couple of times that there are some servers/sites on which pipelining doesn't work or will hang, but when I asked them to provide an example, they suddently all went silent.
So, I ask you too, "caferace": What sites are broken with HTTP 1.1 pipelining enabled that work fine with it disabled?
With "lots of sites that won't render", there shouldn't be a problem in providing an example, right?
Second, even if only 20 million convert to 7.0 or higher in the next 2 years it's an amazing number and more than enough to make webmasters go away from creating IE-only sites.
people using Win95? MS doesn't allow them IE-upgrades, so what choices do they have? According to Google 5% use Win95 right now, which may sound not much, but it adds up. Of course the real exodus will start as soon as MS bannes updates for Win98.
Addition to people's tastes & optinions: I know a lot of Windows-users who don't like Microsoft, actually I know more who don't like MS than who do like MS. Of course most of them use IE because they don't want to have hassles about "browser not supported", etc. But as soon as Mozilla reaches a point where it can't be ignored anymore (because of AOL switching) and websites have to support it, IE and Mozilla will look the same for those people and most of them will switch in a heartbeat.
If we make some quick guesses for the next 2 years: (yes, purely speculative)
AOL/Compuserve users: ~20%
People who hate popups/love tabbed browsing/modem users loving http1.1/pipelining: ~10%
People not liking Microsoft/People liking Mozilla-interface better - so much that they are willing to switch: ~20%
If we sort out multiple hits (people using http1.1 AND not liking Microsoft, etc.), we maybe get about 40% of people leaning over to Mozilla.
Of course people don't like switching, so maybe only 20 or 30% switch, still a huge number.
Add PS3 and Linux-desktop penetration coming in the next 4 or 5 years and you might get over 50% marketshare.
It's too late to affect de-facto standards. It's too late to have any chance of becoming the most popular browser.
What about:
30 million AOL customers?
PS3 will use Mozilla and if it is as successful as PS1 (100 Million) or PS2 (30 Million and selling over a million per month), there will be tens of millions new Mozilla-users in the net.
Yes, Linux is making inroads into the desktop, like it or not. South Korea's governement has recently decided to convert 1/4 of their desktops (several hundred thousand).
Being multiplatform is an advantage. For example people will prefer Mozilla over IE at work if they know it from their PS3 at home.
Mozilla has features people want. Modem users want to safe time with HTTP1.1 pipelining, almost all users don't want popups. If you look at browser stats you see that a lot of people are willing to download a new version of IE, why shouldn't they also download a version of Mozilla? Especially because Mozilla isn't entrenched into the OS, so upgrading to Mozilla is certainly not as risky as upgrading IE.
Also don't underestimate people's tastes and opinions. It's IMPOSSIBLE to do a product that everybody likes best, so even if Mozilla wouldn't have mroe functionality than IE, SOME people will like the interface/look/feel/whatever better. "With everything being equal", not all 100% will choose IE.
In the short term, Mozilla/Netscape7 will almost certainly destroy the de-facto IE-standard (even with only 10% marketshare, webmasters can't afford to ignore Mozilla), in the long term (5 to 10 years) I'd say it has good chances to overtake IE.
SuSE is redistributable. You can install it as often as you wish, you can give it to friends and you can put it on an FTP server or on Napster.
The only thing you are not allowed to do (and the only thing different in the YaST license compared to the GPL) is that you are not allowed to charge money for redistribution.
Someone else mentioned Redhat feeds into an 'illusion' that businesses want - 'shiny support', etc. It's no illusion. It may cost money, but damn it - if someone in a business needs support for something (driver doesn't work, upgrade broke, whatever) having a *real person* to call who's been trained on that particular distro is invaluable. Yes, it may cost $200. Yes, you 1337 geeks out there could hang around in IRC for a few hours waiting to get an answer. *Businesses* can't afford to do that.
Most other distros (at least SuSE, TurboLinux and Caldera) offer exactly the same thing.
The real reason is that people wrongly *believe* that RedHat is the only one offering "shiny" support. - Just like you seem to do.
At least all XBox fanboys (yes, all two of them;-) constantly talked about Doom3 coming to the XBox just like the parent of my post did about other games.
Don't be so sure that Microsoft is going to lose on this one. It may be a bungled product off to a bad start in a static market, but those are exactly the conditions Windows started off on.
What complete and utter nonsense. May I ask you what YOU are on?
Windows was the upgrade from DOS, remember? It came from the same company and more importantly, it was COMPATIBLE with DOS. And being bundled with new computers also didn't hurt.
So if one had DOS programs and was was upgrading their computer, Windows was the logical upgrade path. (Yes, they screwed it up anyway. But this shows only the incompetence of Microsoft, not their geniality.)
XBox can't be the upgrade from PS(2), because it's not compatible.
I don't know why so many people here want us to give the XBox "another chance", do you own MSFT stock or something? What is your interest in desperatly denying the undeniable?
XBox had it's chance, they screwed it up, it is outsold by both PS2 and Gamecube by wide margins, it's dead. Why should Microsoft get a second chance while any other company doesn't?
The thing is that this is a proven profitable model. Look at Ultima online. It's pulling in a cool US$million every month with no signs of stopping.
OK, how many XBoxes are sold? 3 million, 4 million?
Let's assume that finally sometime there are 10 million sold. (optimistic)
Let's also assume (also optimisticly) that 10% of XBox owners actually subscribe to the 10$/month XBox service, that would be 1 million subscribers or about 5 times as many as Ultima online has.
Microsoft said they invest 2 billion in XBox live.
With 10 million per month, (120 million$ per year) they are profitable by 2017, if we also assume that they don't have any costs.
Keep in mind that my assumtions are pretty optimistic. There are how many PCs? 1 billion? 600 million? How many are primarily game systems? 200 million, maybe 300?
From those huge number, only 250000 are subscribed to Ultima Online. That's less than 1%. Maybe if you add Everquest and all other games this number might go up to 2 or 3%, but still nowhere near the 10% I used.
If I would hold Microsoft stock, I would sell them. Now.
So you assume (with a straight face) that students have a legally obtained over 300$ costing office suite at home, but shouldn't be bothered to download and install OpenOffice/StarOffice?
OpenOffice could be handed out for free at the start of the semester (and AFAIK StarOffice, too because even version 6 is free for education).
I't strange that some people would actually rather let students pay for MS Office.
I agree that hardcore-gamers only make up a smaller part of the market (small, but not neglectible. Quake 3 didn't sell as well as the Sims, but it still sold a lot).
However, everything the XBox does (x million polygons per second, hdtv, broadband) is a "hardcore-gamer" feature.
"Halo" is a "hardcore" game and by a wide margin the most (and probably only) successful game on XBox.
But I agree that hardcore gamers are a small audience, that's also a reason why the XBox doesn't sell.
But if you take that away, the XBox has lost their small audience, too.
This logic doesn't hold up, unless you are just blindly comparing specs
But this is exactly what the average PC-gamer does. In 6 months he'll say "What? A Celeron 700 with a nForce chipset and shared memory?", but a PS2 is still a PS2.
XBox isn't going to die just yet. Don't compare it to platforms that were dead from lack of public interest.
XBox *IS* dead because lack of public (and developer's) interest.
PS2 sells over twice as many units in the US, about 10 times as many units in Europe and over 60 times (!) as many units in Japan.
And all this only few months after release, where the sales are usually the highest.
Time is working against the XBox:
At release, the XBox looked attractive to PC-gamers (XBox' primary audience), it looks a bit outdated today and in half a year it will be hopelessly outdated compared to any PC-gaming system. Even after 2 years, the PS2 doesn't look outdated.
Sony just reduced their costs by producing everything one one chip. Microsoft will not be able to get a GeForcentium.
When XBox is outsold several times by an 2-year old PS2, what will happen against a brand-new PS3? Everybody knows that sooner or later the PS3 will come, and just like 2-year old PC-tech can't keep up with the PS2, in 2 years PC-tech won't be able to keep up with the PS3, especially if you don't ignore costs. So even if MS releases a XBox2, it won't be able to keep up with the PS3 (and would be a bad move anyway, because XBox1 owners would be pissed. You don't want to replace your console every 2 years). The only pro-XBox argument is that (because of newer manufacturing techniques) it performs quite good and has a couple of features the PS2 lacks. If you take that away, what's left?
The gap widens (see above). With every month that passes, it is becoming harder and harder to convince devopers to develop for the XBox and not the PS2.
I think MS will open their online stuff, then see that nobody is interested, quietly shut down production, sell the rest of their stock at Christmas and then just say "sorry".
One should think that XBox would be the first choice for PC-Console ports, right?
At least that's what Microsoft want us to believe.
With the bestselling PC-games being ported to PS2, XBox will die a quick death like Hailstorm, Windows/Alpha and PenWindows (read: Microsoft will pretend to push it and then tell all customers to f**ck off without warning)
I think MS will lose a lot of their fanboys with XBox...
How many millions of units does MS have to sell until you see this isn't true?
Let's see. Dreamcast sold more units in the first months of the launch than XBox did.
A 2-year old design (PS2) sells at least 3 times as many units as XBox in every market (about 50 times in Japan btw.). A 7-year old design (PS1) outsells XBox in Japan. And I don't even compare the PS2 launch with the XBox launch.
How many firms have to release statistics like "highest attach rate of all consoles" (==more revenue per customer)?
All "per-console" and "per-customer" statistics are pretty meaningless if you don't have many customers.
It's amazing how religion can make one believe what they want to believe regardless of fact.
Does the "all Microsoft products are a success" - cult count as religion?
FYI, MS products that failed:
- Windows/Mips
- Windows/PowerPC
- Windows/Alpha
- "Homer" Project
- Modular Windows
- "Otto" Project (SW for cars; 1992)
- MMOSA (Set-Top-boxes Operating System
- WebTV
- Blackbird/Internet Studio (1995)
- proprietary MSN
- COOl (C++ Object Orientated Language)
- PenWindows
- Set-top-boxen
- Microsoft Bob
- Ultimate TV
- XBox
- Hailstorm (2001 - 2002)
Actually Microsoft's failure rate is quite high. The only really profitable products are Windows/x86 and MS Office.
Hmm, I doubt very much that a port from PS2 to PC would be cheaper than a port from the XBox to the PC.
You still don't understand. (/me rolls eyes) I never said it was cheaper. But the added costs are irrelevant because they are small compared to the total cost.
As long as they can justify the cost of targetting the XBox (probably by saying "what IF it's the Next Big Thing?") then there will still be mindshare for the XBox, and that's all that Microsoft cares about right now.
Sony knows XBox won't be the next big thing, MS knows that it won't be the next big thing (they just corrected their expecations from 6 million down to 4 million by June), Konami knows it too, I know it, most people here know it, you seem to be the only one who would give XBox "another chance" and "another chance" and "another chance"....
And in the highly unlikely case of XBox becoming even remotely successful, they can put out a XBox version, later. There is no need to make the first release on XBox, actually it would be quite stupid to let all the new-game hype puff away on a dying platform. What you don't seem to understand is that gaming comapnies have to make a profit. If a platform isn't viable, you don't support it. If it becomes viable in some distant time in the future, you support it in the distant future BUT NOT NOW. Finally understood?
Game companies are not in business because they gave dead platforms more chances than they deserved. They have to look at their bottom line.
Remember Doom3? Remember the talks about it becoming XBox "exclusive" or at least be released months before the PC version?
Now Doom3 was announced and there will not be a XBox version at all.
I think you just made my point for me. All I was saying is that the major game development houses will be able to convince themselves that it's worth targeting the XBox, because the porting costs to the PC are minimal, and any game shop that can afford to develop for the XBox will be targeting the PC already. If a XBox title fails miserably, they can just port it and slap a sticker on their ad campaign that says LamerzX: Now available for the PC!
Didn't you read my comment?
Porting costs are IRRELEVANT.
XBox isn't any more interesting for developers because it's a PC in a black box. Porting from the PS2 would be equally feasible.
PS2 has an installed base of 30 million, XBox of less than 4 million.
PS2 is outselling XBox RIGHT NOW by a huge margin, so the gap is actually growing each month.
So putting it on PS2 and later porting it to PC makes more business sense, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Now tell me what's not easy to use in SuSE-Linux (= KDE/Linux with all Linux-stuff embedded into the KDE-control center. Everything desktop-related can be done 100% graphically and is reachable at a central place (the KDE control center)).
KDE/Linux is even a lot easier to use than Windows because all the settings are organized tree-like and are not just random tools thrown into a directory like in Windows.
and rock solid security that doesn't involve watch a mailing list and sitting in front of a console 20 out of 24 hours in a day.
Linux has a much better security track record than Windows. I haven't updated my webserver the last 6 months and I've not been infected NIMDA-style so far.
For infrastructure, it's top notch, for ease of use, it's a lumbering elephant. Just remember, some people don't care how or why it works, just that it works.
Oh, no, I've just fed a troll...
However in the big picture, this is still pretty irrelevant because this bug will get fixed sooner or later this year, I'm sure about that.
I've heard from anonymous trolls a couple of times that there are some servers/sites on which pipelining doesn't work or will hang, but when I asked them to provide an example, they suddently all went silent.
So, I ask you too, "caferace": What sites are broken with HTTP 1.1 pipelining enabled that work fine with it disabled?
With "lots of sites that won't render", there shouldn't be a problem in providing an example, right?
What do you want to tell me with this sentence?
a) You did not read my post.
b) You did not understand my post.
c) You own MSFT stock.
You want to know why? Read my post.
Second, even if only 20 million convert to 7.0 or higher in the next 2 years it's an amazing number and more than enough to make webmasters go away from creating IE-only sites.
If we make some quick guesses for the next 2 years: (yes, purely speculative)
AOL/Compuserve users: ~20%
People who hate popups/love tabbed browsing/modem users loving http1.1/pipelining: ~10%
People not liking Microsoft/People liking Mozilla-interface better - so much that they are willing to switch: ~20%
If we sort out multiple hits (people using http1.1 AND not liking Microsoft, etc.), we maybe get about 40% of people leaning over to Mozilla.
Of course people don't like switching, so maybe only 20 or 30% switch, still a huge number.
Add PS3 and Linux-desktop penetration coming in the next 4 or 5 years and you might get over 50% marketshare.
What about:
In the short term, Mozilla/Netscape7 will almost certainly destroy the de-facto IE-standard (even with only 10% marketshare, webmasters can't afford to ignore Mozilla), in the long term (5 to 10 years) I'd say it has good chances to overtake IE.
The only thing you are not allowed to do (and the only thing different in the YaST license compared to the GPL) is that you are not allowed to charge money for redistribution.
Most other distros (at least SuSE, TurboLinux and Caldera) offer exactly the same thing.
The real reason is that people wrongly *believe* that RedHat is the only one offering "shiny" support. - Just like you seem to do.
Funny, because SuSE has certification programs, books, courses and everything else.
Upgrading to KDE3 is probably less risky than upgrading the distro ;-)
At least all XBox fanboys (yes, all two of them ;-) constantly talked about Doom3 coming to the XBox just like the parent of my post did about other games.
What complete and utter nonsense. May I ask you what YOU are on?
Windows was the upgrade from DOS, remember? It came from the same company and more importantly, it was COMPATIBLE with DOS. And being bundled with new computers also didn't hurt.
So if one had DOS programs and was was upgrading their computer, Windows was the logical upgrade path. (Yes, they screwed it up anyway. But this shows only the incompetence of Microsoft, not their geniality.)
XBox can't be the upgrade from PS(2), because it's not compatible.
I don't know why so many people here want us to give the XBox "another chance", do you own MSFT stock or something? What is your interest in desperatly denying the undeniable?
XBox had it's chance, they screwed it up, it is outsold by both PS2 and Gamecube by wide margins, it's dead. Why should Microsoft get a second chance while any other company doesn't?
GTA3 just got cancelled for the XBox, so was Doom3.
People don't care about games that "are coming" if they get cancelled as when the real platform decision is made.
Developers are jumping ship, I would be surprised if more than half of the "supposed be released on XBox" games are actually making it to the shelves.
OK, how many XBoxes are sold? 3 million, 4 million?
Let's assume that finally sometime there are 10 million sold. (optimistic)
Let's also assume (also optimisticly) that 10% of XBox owners actually subscribe to the 10$/month XBox service, that would be 1 million subscribers or about 5 times as many as Ultima online has.
Microsoft said they invest 2 billion in XBox live.
With 10 million per month, (120 million$ per year) they are profitable by 2017, if we also assume that they don't have any costs.
Keep in mind that my assumtions are pretty optimistic. There are how many PCs? 1 billion? 600 million? How many are primarily game systems? 200 million, maybe 300?
From those huge number, only 250000 are subscribed to Ultima Online. That's less than 1%. Maybe if you add Everquest and all other games this number might go up to 2 or 3%, but still nowhere near the 10% I used.
If I would hold Microsoft stock, I would sell them. Now.
OpenOffice could be handed out for free at the start of the semester (and AFAIK StarOffice, too because even version 6 is free for education).
I't strange that some people would actually rather let students pay for MS Office.
However, everything the XBox does (x million polygons per second, hdtv, broadband) is a "hardcore-gamer" feature.
"Halo" is a "hardcore" game and by a wide margin the most (and probably only) successful game on XBox.
But I agree that hardcore gamers are a small audience, that's also a reason why the XBox doesn't sell.
But if you take that away, the XBox has lost their small audience, too.
But this is exactly what the average PC-gamer does. In 6 months he'll say "What? A Celeron 700 with a nForce chipset and shared memory?", but a PS2 is still a PS2.
XBox *IS* dead because lack of public (and developer's) interest.
PS2 sells over twice as many units in the US, about 10 times as many units in Europe and over 60 times (!) as many units in Japan.
And all this only few months after release, where the sales are usually the highest.
Time is working against the XBox:
I think MS will open their online stuff, then see that nobody is interested, quietly shut down production, sell the rest of their stock at Christmas and then just say "sorry".
The PS2 has 2 standard USB ports, so you just buy a mouse for 10$ (or less) or just grab the one that is hanging on your PC...
At least that's what Microsoft want us to believe.
With the bestselling PC-games being ported to PS2, XBox will die a quick death like Hailstorm, Windows/Alpha and PenWindows (read: Microsoft will pretend to push it and then tell all customers to f**ck off without warning)
I think MS will lose a lot of their fanboys with XBox...
Got a link less than 2 months old about Doom3 being released on XBox?
Thanks for confirming you ran out of arguments
How many millions of units does MS have to sell until you see this isn't true?
Let's see. Dreamcast sold more units in the first months of the launch than XBox did.
A 2-year old design (PS2) sells at least 3 times as many units as XBox in every market (about 50 times in Japan btw.). A 7-year old design (PS1) outsells XBox in Japan. And I don't even compare the PS2 launch with the XBox launch.
How many firms have to release statistics like "highest attach rate of all consoles" (==more revenue per customer)?
All "per-console" and "per-customer" statistics are pretty meaningless if you don't have many customers.
It's amazing how religion can make one believe what they want to believe regardless of fact.
Does the "all Microsoft products are a success" - cult count as religion?
FYI, MS products that failed:
Actually Microsoft's failure rate is quite high. The only really profitable products are Windows/x86 and MS Office.
You still don't understand. (/me rolls eyes) I never said it was cheaper. But the added costs are irrelevant because they are small compared to the total cost.
As long as they can justify the cost of targetting the XBox (probably by saying "what IF it's the Next Big Thing?") then there will still be mindshare for the XBox, and that's all that Microsoft cares about right now.
Sony knows XBox won't be the next big thing, MS knows that it won't be the next big thing (they just corrected their expecations from 6 million down to 4 million by June), Konami knows it too, I know it, most people here know it, you seem to be the only one who would give XBox "another chance" and "another chance" and "another chance" ....
And in the highly unlikely case of XBox becoming even remotely successful, they can put out a XBox version, later. There is no need to make the first release on XBox, actually it would be quite stupid to let all the new-game hype puff away on a dying platform. What you don't seem to understand is that gaming comapnies have to make a profit. If a platform isn't viable, you don't support it. If it becomes viable in some distant time in the future, you support it in the distant future BUT NOT NOW. Finally understood?
Game companies are not in business because they gave dead platforms more chances than they deserved. They have to look at their bottom line.
Remember Doom3? Remember the talks about it becoming XBox "exclusive" or at least be released months before the PC version?
Now Doom3 was announced and there will not be a XBox version at all.
Developers are already jumping ship.
XBox is dead, get over it.
Didn't you read my comment?
Porting costs are IRRELEVANT.
XBox isn't any more interesting for developers because it's a PC in a black box. Porting from the PS2 would be equally feasible.
PS2 has an installed base of 30 million, XBox of less than 4 million.
PS2 is outselling XBox RIGHT NOW by a huge margin, so the gap is actually growing each month.
So putting it on PS2 and later porting it to PC makes more business sense, don't you think?