At that point we started looking at what it would be like to discontinue the free BK. Linus strongly encouraged us to do this once he came to the conclusion that the costs of the free version to BitMover outweighed the benefits to BitMover.
Once again, Linus shows he more of a practical guy than a political ideologue. He recognized the cost to BitMover and suggested the rational solution for them. I think Linus' role in this is being underreported--he appears to have been on McVoy's side all through this.
My opinion has changed, actually. I understand McVoy's position a little more. He wasn't even opposed to someone writing a free alternative, as stated by Linus. It was someone reverse-engineering BitKeeper's protocol that he had a problem with.
He wasn't reverse engineering BitKeeper to "steal" McVoy's ideas, he was doing it so that he could gain access to the Linux kernel without using non-free tools.
And thereby create a free version of BitKeeper that uses BitKeeper's protocol and does everything BitKeeper does on BitKeeper's trees, without actually being BitKeeper.
Why not just write a free alternative if Tridge is so concerned about non-free tools?
Here is what Linus himself said, quoted from the article. I can't help but agree with it:
Larry is perfectly fine with somebody writing a free replacement. He's told me so, and I believe him, because I actually do believe that he has a strong moral back-bone.
What Larry is _not_ fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what _he_ did.
Larry has a very clear moral standpoint: "You can compete with me, but you can't do so by riding on my coat-tails. Solve the problems on your own, and compete _honestly_. Don't compete by looking at my solution."
And that is what the BK license boils down to. It says: "Get off my coat-tails, you free-loader". And I can't really argue against that.
This is a wholly uninformed guess, but -- I'd imagine that is a result of technological improvement in TV studio equipment, not a policy change.
Obviously, but the effect is to make me feel bombarded with loud ads and no breathing space. My first instinct is to change the channel and find something else until the annoying ads are over.
Yeah, and remember how music used to be cool and now it all sucks? Sorry -- you're just getting old.
I don't know, dozens of valid arguments could be made about the variety of good music that existed just a decade ago or twenty years before on the radio and in the retail store compared to today. By the way, I'm not that old.
But back on point, I was just offering my opinion that today's commercials suck more than they did before. They seemed less obnoxious, a little more informative, and quieter. Everything's gotten louder, in my opinion. I get the point of what you're saying, but I really do think commercials have genuinely sucked harder than they have sucked before.
Anyone remember when there were 2-3 seconds of black silence between commercials? I remember noticing it, as the years passed, decrease and decrease. Now, there is no gap at all. One commercial blasts away, ends, and the next one comes immediately blasting away.
At least let me take a breather between "commercial messages!" I genuinely think commercial watching was a more pleasant experience just ten years ago. There are a few gems ("It's so easy, even a caveman can do it"), but for the most part even the jokes are completely unfunny, and the car commercials are so phoney that I know nothing about the car other than it looks good on a wet mountain turn.
I didn't used to feel this way. There used to be a time I'd sit through commercials and didn't mind them. They've gotten steadily stupider and repetitive, even ripping each other off.
They're watching it because programming execs have made it the only thing to watch. They love that it's cheap to make. You can film it in a month and already have it ready to go. These things don't get mammoth ratings (with an exception or two like American Idol, which thankfully isn't saturated everywhere like Survivor was), but the ratings they do get is enough to justify the cheap cost to make them. And since it's so damn easy, why bother starting a new sitcom with actors and writers when you can just put an ad in the paper for college kids and stick them in a situation to film it?
Your sig is what I'm talking about. I tune out "Try risk-free for 14 days!" I tune out price tags.
If it didn't feel like a human-less advertisement, I'd pay more attention. Think of how you'd tell a friend about something. "There's this cheap whatchamacalit with really friendly people. You should check it out." I feel like they're talking TO me instead of AT me.
I'm no advertising genius, so I can't offer genius alternatives to your sig. But I guess if I was running a web hosting service, I'd just be upfront with something like: "I run a cheap web hosting service for $9.95. I even give your money back after half a month if you're unhappy. Please check it out."
I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer.
Well, I'll give you a little friendly advice. Whatever you do, please do NOT have your ad "pop up"! Pop-ups suck.
Why do they suck? Because it's forcing its message on me instead of me seeking it out. The only times I've ever interested in ads are when they are off to the side as a normal part of the site, often a text ad. "Here are some Thinkgeek shirts." I automatically tune out "FREE t-shirts! Click here!"
I tune out exclamation points, capital letters, and anything else that is actually done to get attention.
I like text ads. I will tolerate small banner ads, or benign ones that don't try to look like Windows dialogs and shake with a "YOU HAVE 1 NEW MESSAGE" message.
Without actually being able to see your ad specifically, it's harder to give you suggestions. But take it from a consumer you are targetting--don't make it look like an ad. Make it look like a bit of handy information. "Here's a good web development page" or whatever it is you're advertising. Don't do "WEB DEV--starting at $12.99 per month! Click here." I like to be told in a friendly way about stuff that is out there. I don't like it thrown at my head.
Phoney human drama that is cheap to produce. No screenwriters or plotlines needed. Just find various "personalities" that will grate on each other, stick them together, and film it. Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make. Compare to, say, Law & Order, where you actually have to hire actors, write stories, and go film at various locations.
Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).
Personally, I wonder if these things are just public fronts. It wouldn't surprise me, judging on how closely NASA and the government are intertwined these days (in fact, most people are unaware they were ever seperate), if they've already been conducting experiments we haven't even dreamed of. They know they can slip in a "new probe launched" in between news reports of the Jackson trial on the evening news and keep people thinking they're relevant and working on stuff, when meanwhile, they're working on the real stuff secretly.
Maybe we've already been to Mars, or at least orbited it. You never know these days. Wouldn't it be nice to tour a secret underground government lab and find out everything they've been working on that sci-fi writers are just now thinking of?
In related news, local heretic Kal-El was arrested once more for conducting scientific experiments to determine when, as he believes, the planet will explode.
"If we don't fix this now, I have to fire my son through space at the blue planet, and I don't want my son living in a world of Clippy and BSD-is-dying jokes."
K'breel of the Elder Council denied rumors the planet was going to explode. "When has an Elder Council ever denied rumors of inevitable disaster, only to have it come true?" he laughed.
And how do you know this exactly? The Weinstein brothers have already left Miramax because of frustration with parent company Disney and its decisions. Touchstone is somehow untouched by Disney's infamous micromanagement of all its properties?
You can't trust AICN at all. Harry Knowles gave positive reviews to Godzilla, Blue Crush, Blair Witch 2, Blade 3, Episode 1 (and yet later started repeating the "Lucas raped our childhoods" mantra to appease the Talkbacks) and several other godawful films.
And it just so happened that for all those films, he was given benefits by the studio, like set visits or prescreenings.
Here's a quote from the negative review by the Adams biographer:
[blockquote]You know, I really haven't enjoyed writing such an intensely negative review of this film, but unlike certain websites and certain publications (mentioning no names but I think we all know who I'm talking about) my critical views are not swayed by the generosity of film companies.[/blockquote]
It's pretty obvious he's referring to AICN, who is famous for taking what Harry once openly begged for on the site--"pwesents."
This argument was addressed countless times after the mini's release. You're comparing apples and oranges.
I can't tell my musician friend to go out and buy your Dell and expect to get a free music sequencer installed, along with the rest of the software. He won't even get a Firewire port to use his M-Audio Firewire 410 with. And he won't get OS X instead of Windows XP.
That's it, I've had enough of Slashdot for a few months.
And yet, the editors got exactly what they wanted from you:
1.) You clicked "Read More" and gave them an ad-view. 2.) You posted to the article, increasing the discussion size and therefore the general activity of the article, which lets them charge higher rates for advertisers.
Do you think these kinds of flamebait articles are posted because it's "Stuff That Matters?":)
Combine these with the South Korean Death Robots, and they just might decide to construct a base on the moon and defend it against mankind with automatic lasers. It's gonna be awesome.
Re:Mindshare and image bloodbath for BitKeeper
on
Linus Drops BitKeeper
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Well, most people hadn't heard of BitKeeper before Linus used it because McVoy said it was written mostly for Linus to manage the kernel with--decentralized source code management. McVoy kept pitching it and pitching it, and Linus gave in.
It may look like they screwed over the author of the Linus kernel, but what happened was that the BitKeeper free license prohibits working on alternatives to BitKeeper. Fair enough--but an OSDL employee was trying to reverse-engineer it, paid by OSDL. BitMover had them stopped, but they found out the employee was still trying to reverse-engineer the protocol after it had been settled. Hence the ban on selling licenses to OSDL.
"Gee boss, BitKeeper is nice and all but if they screwed over the guy who writes Linux , how do you think they'll treat us after they have our money?"
The kernel developers were using the free version and hadn't paid any money. However, several of the developers ended up buying licenses anyway, as have many others outside kernel development, and I've not heard any complaints from them. There's a difference between abusing paying customers and stopping a free version that was being reverse-engineered even after multiple attempts to stop it and a license that restricts it. Of course, the "non-free" nature of the license and software was the source of the controversy to begin with.
However, McVoy did say BitMover would offer licenses for free to Andrew and Linus if they left OSDL. But I guess they decided to keep their jobs and get out of the middle of this community battle.
I think the issue is that a lot of us started using free software because it was free as in beer, free as in speech, and it was the better software. Not just because it was free as in speech. I just have better things to do with my time than worry about the political statement I'm making with the software I'm using. I'm more concerned with getting my job done quicker and better. If there is software out there that does the better job, RMS wants to restrict you from being able to use that software in his idea of a "free" world. That's not really freedom...
Certain people criticized because they view Linux as the golden child of the free software movement, and to have it "tainted" by commercial development software just wasn't politically correct enough for them. Like you, I never understood the big deal--McVoy made a kick-ass commercial product and gave it to the kernel developers for free. No harm done. But what happened? The community bitched and bitched at BitMover, tried reverse-engineering it several times, and made it not worth BitMover's while to provide a free version anymore.
I read a comment from someone that brought up a great point. If BitKeeper had been 100% commercial and Linus decided to buy a license to use it, there wouldn't have been as many complaints. But because it was commercial yet also free to the kernel developers, people complained, tried to reverse-engineer, and so on.
It should be noted that McVoy offered to comp the licenses for Andrew and Linus if they left OSDL. I guess Linus decided it wasn't worth it to be caught in the middle of this anymore. The struggle between the so-called RMS-wing of OSS and the practical Linus-wing of OSS is eventually going to have to resolve these differences. Linux's development pace doubled with the use of BitKeeper, and here's hoping it's not affected by a tool switch.
Subversion uses a centralized model. In TFA, Linus talks about his disdain for such a system, and given the distributed way kernel development is done, Subversion would be quite a headache. That's not to say Subversion isn't great for some projects, but certainly not for the kernel.
It really is too bad, though, that with the complaints about BitKeeper before, nobody seems to have written a 100% free equivalent in that time, and there doesn't appear to be a worthy alternative for Linus now that he's dropped BK. Maybe one will pop up, or someone will hack in the needed features into an existing project like Subversion. Here's hoping.
The class itself sounds like a double-edged sword. People who don't have the knowledge to hack are taught everything they need to know to get started. For everyone else who would otherwise get hacked, the technology is over their heads to begin with. I don't think most high school kids want to sit and hear about firewalls and ports--the ones who would care about such a thing already know about security.
The intentions of this course are good, but I question the effectiveness. But I could be wrong; maybe it will help.
Developers are already producting easy-to-use RSS clients. Firefox already supports it, Safari for Tiger is going to support it, and there are plenty of great newsreaders out there. However, this is still good news because the idea of news aggregation will be put more in the spotlight.
People local to the areas where these newspapers are published at may end up checking out these custom newsreaders, and I can picture a lot of people using the New York Times reader, but mostly I see this just leading to greater adoption of what's already out there. Just about every browser is or already has RSS support. If IE7 doesn't have RSS, it will be another major feature the alternatives support that IE doesn't.
I just don't see readers flocking to the idea of running multiple newsreaders for each paper they want to read. The article mentions some that will read competitors' papers, but I foresee them trying to find ways to stick ads all over the place (probably in the newsreader itself). Like I said, it will just drive adoption of the open, freeware stuff that's ad-free and already here.
Reading the replies so far, I can't help but wonder, why do people try so hard to spin any survey results that look bad for Linux? You don't see this in Windows articles or other topics regarding other competing operating systems. But when an article is posted that reveals that the Linux movement isn't 100% full-steam-ahead in all ways, everyone starts splitting hairs. "It said IT executives, not sysadmins!" Well, who do you think the sysadmins are working for?
A lot of these places have systems they have been using for a decade or more. It's going to take a while for them to "see the light" so to speak and just convert everything over to Linux when whatever works for them...still works for them. Seriously, why should they switch if they are happy with what they've got?
I suspect most of the disinterest in Linux stems from the fact they already have systems in place that work for them. However, small businesses would be more interested in Linux because of price, and large businesses because of price and platform. Mid-size businesses don't have the resources to switch everything over, but have enough to have already chosen a system previously that still works fine.
I imagine if you did this same survey with other operating systems like, say, Windows Longhorn, you'd find that mid-sized businesses are pretty much disinterested in it too--why switch from what they've got? In other words, not necessarily anything to do with Linux specifically. Any switch of systems is going to require a support cost, not just Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, Linus shows he more of a practical guy than a political ideologue. He recognized the cost to BitMover and suggested the rational solution for them. I think Linus' role in this is being underreported--he appears to have been on McVoy's side all through this.
And thereby create a free version of BitKeeper that uses BitKeeper's protocol and does everything BitKeeper does on BitKeeper's trees, without actually being BitKeeper.
Why not just write a free alternative if Tridge is so concerned about non-free tools?
Here is what Linus himself said, quoted from the article. I can't help but agree with it:
The glorious potential of space porn!
Obviously, but the effect is to make me feel bombarded with loud ads and no breathing space. My first instinct is to change the channel and find something else until the annoying ads are over.
I don't know, dozens of valid arguments could be made about the variety of good music that existed just a decade ago or twenty years before on the radio and in the retail store compared to today. By the way, I'm not that old.
But back on point, I was just offering my opinion that today's commercials suck more than they did before. They seemed less obnoxious, a little more informative, and quieter. Everything's gotten louder, in my opinion. I get the point of what you're saying, but I really do think commercials have genuinely sucked harder than they have sucked before.
Anyone remember when there were 2-3 seconds of black silence between commercials? I remember noticing it, as the years passed, decrease and decrease. Now, there is no gap at all. One commercial blasts away, ends, and the next one comes immediately blasting away.
At least let me take a breather between "commercial messages!" I genuinely think commercial watching was a more pleasant experience just ten years ago. There are a few gems ("It's so easy, even a caveman can do it"), but for the most part even the jokes are completely unfunny, and the car commercials are so phoney that I know nothing about the car other than it looks good on a wet mountain turn.
I didn't used to feel this way. There used to be a time I'd sit through commercials and didn't mind them. They've gotten steadily stupider and repetitive, even ripping each other off.
They're watching it because programming execs have made it the only thing to watch. They love that it's cheap to make. You can film it in a month and already have it ready to go. These things don't get mammoth ratings (with an exception or two like American Idol, which thankfully isn't saturated everywhere like Survivor was), but the ratings they do get is enough to justify the cheap cost to make them. And since it's so damn easy, why bother starting a new sitcom with actors and writers when you can just put an ad in the paper for college kids and stick them in a situation to film it?
Your sig is what I'm talking about. I tune out "Try risk-free for 14 days!" I tune out price tags.
If it didn't feel like a human-less advertisement, I'd pay more attention. Think of how you'd tell a friend about something. "There's this cheap whatchamacalit with really friendly people. You should check it out." I feel like they're talking TO me instead of AT me.
I'm no advertising genius, so I can't offer genius alternatives to your sig. But I guess if I was running a web hosting service, I'd just be upfront with something like: "I run a cheap web hosting service for $9.95. I even give your money back after half a month if you're unhappy. Please check it out."
Well, I'll give you a little friendly advice. Whatever you do, please do NOT have your ad "pop up"! Pop-ups suck.
Why do they suck? Because it's forcing its message on me instead of me seeking it out. The only times I've ever interested in ads are when they are off to the side as a normal part of the site, often a text ad. "Here are some Thinkgeek shirts." I automatically tune out "FREE t-shirts! Click here!"
I tune out exclamation points, capital letters, and anything else that is actually done to get attention.
I like text ads. I will tolerate small banner ads, or benign ones that don't try to look like Windows dialogs and shake with a "YOU HAVE 1 NEW MESSAGE" message.
Without actually being able to see your ad specifically, it's harder to give you suggestions. But take it from a consumer you are targetting--don't make it look like an ad. Make it look like a bit of handy information. "Here's a good web development page" or whatever it is you're advertising. Don't do "WEB DEV--starting at $12.99 per month! Click here." I like to be told in a friendly way about stuff that is out there. I don't like it thrown at my head.
Phoney human drama that is cheap to produce. No screenwriters or plotlines needed. Just find various "personalities" that will grate on each other, stick them together, and film it. Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make. Compare to, say, Law & Order, where you actually have to hire actors, write stories, and go film at various locations.
Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).
Personally, I wonder if these things are just public fronts. It wouldn't surprise me, judging on how closely NASA and the government are intertwined these days (in fact, most people are unaware they were ever seperate), if they've already been conducting experiments we haven't even dreamed of. They know they can slip in a "new probe launched" in between news reports of the Jackson trial on the evening news and keep people thinking they're relevant and working on stuff, when meanwhile, they're working on the real stuff secretly.
Maybe we've already been to Mars, or at least orbited it. You never know these days. Wouldn't it be nice to tour a secret underground government lab and find out everything they've been working on that sci-fi writers are just now thinking of?
In related news, local heretic Kal-El was arrested once more for conducting scientific experiments to determine when, as he believes, the planet will explode.
"If we don't fix this now, I have to fire my son through space at the blue planet, and I don't want my son living in a world of Clippy and BSD-is-dying jokes."
K'breel of the Elder Council denied rumors the planet was going to explode. "When has an Elder Council ever denied rumors of inevitable disaster, only to have it come true?" he laughed.
And how do you know this exactly? The Weinstein brothers have already left Miramax because of frustration with parent company Disney and its decisions. Touchstone is somehow untouched by Disney's infamous micromanagement of all its properties?
You can't trust AICN at all. Harry Knowles gave positive reviews to Godzilla, Blue Crush, Blair Witch 2, Blade 3, Episode 1 (and yet later started repeating the "Lucas raped our childhoods" mantra to appease the Talkbacks) and several other godawful films.
And it just so happened that for all those films, he was given benefits by the studio, like set visits or prescreenings.
Here's a quote from the negative review by the Adams biographer:
[blockquote]You know, I really haven't enjoyed writing such an intensely negative review of this film, but unlike certain websites and certain publications (mentioning no names but I think we all know who I'm talking about) my critical views are not swayed by the generosity of film companies.[/blockquote]
It's pretty obvious he's referring to AICN, who is famous for taking what Harry once openly begged for on the site--"pwesents."
Except that the Mac mini isn't a 64-bit G5.
This argument was addressed countless times after the mini's release. You're comparing apples and oranges.
I can't tell my musician friend to go out and buy your Dell and expect to get a free music sequencer installed, along with the rest of the software. He won't even get a Firewire port to use his M-Audio Firewire 410 with. And he won't get OS X instead of Windows XP.
And yet, the editors got exactly what they wanted from you:
1.) You clicked "Read More" and gave them an ad-view.
2.) You posted to the article, increasing the discussion size and therefore the general activity of the article, which lets them charge higher rates for advertisers.
Do you think these kinds of flamebait articles are posted because it's "Stuff That Matters?"
Combine these with the South Korean Death Robots, and they just might decide to construct a base on the moon and defend it against mankind with automatic lasers. It's gonna be awesome.
It may look like they screwed over the author of the Linus kernel, but what happened was that the BitKeeper free license prohibits working on alternatives to BitKeeper. Fair enough--but an OSDL employee was trying to reverse-engineer it, paid by OSDL. BitMover had them stopped, but they found out the employee was still trying to reverse-engineer the protocol after it had been settled. Hence the ban on selling licenses to OSDL.
The kernel developers were using the free version and hadn't paid any money. However, several of the developers ended up buying licenses anyway, as have many others outside kernel development, and I've not heard any complaints from them. There's a difference between abusing paying customers and stopping a free version that was being reverse-engineered even after multiple attempts to stop it and a license that restricts it. Of course, the "non-free" nature of the license and software was the source of the controversy to begin with.
However, McVoy did say BitMover would offer licenses for free to Andrew and Linus if they left OSDL. But I guess they decided to keep their jobs and get out of the middle of this community battle.
I think the issue is that a lot of us started using free software because it was free as in beer, free as in speech, and it was the better software. Not just because it was free as in speech. I just have better things to do with my time than worry about the political statement I'm making with the software I'm using. I'm more concerned with getting my job done quicker and better. If there is software out there that does the better job, RMS wants to restrict you from being able to use that software in his idea of a "free" world. That's not really freedom...
Certain people criticized because they view Linux as the golden child of the free software movement, and to have it "tainted" by commercial development software just wasn't politically correct enough for them. Like you, I never understood the big deal--McVoy made a kick-ass commercial product and gave it to the kernel developers for free. No harm done. But what happened? The community bitched and bitched at BitMover, tried reverse-engineering it several times, and made it not worth BitMover's while to provide a free version anymore.
I read a comment from someone that brought up a great point. If BitKeeper had been 100% commercial and Linus decided to buy a license to use it, there wouldn't have been as many complaints. But because it was commercial yet also free to the kernel developers, people complained, tried to reverse-engineer, and so on.
It should be noted that McVoy offered to comp the licenses for Andrew and Linus if they left OSDL. I guess Linus decided it wasn't worth it to be caught in the middle of this anymore. The struggle between the so-called RMS-wing of OSS and the practical Linus-wing of OSS is eventually going to have to resolve these differences. Linux's development pace doubled with the use of BitKeeper, and here's hoping it's not affected by a tool switch.
Subversion uses a centralized model. In TFA, Linus talks about his disdain for such a system, and given the distributed way kernel development is done, Subversion would be quite a headache. That's not to say Subversion isn't great for some projects, but certainly not for the kernel.
It really is too bad, though, that with the complaints about BitKeeper before, nobody seems to have written a 100% free equivalent in that time, and there doesn't appear to be a worthy alternative for Linus now that he's dropped BK. Maybe one will pop up, or someone will hack in the needed features into an existing project like Subversion. Here's hoping.
The class itself sounds like a double-edged sword. People who don't have the knowledge to hack are taught everything they need to know to get started. For everyone else who would otherwise get hacked, the technology is over their heads to begin with. I don't think most high school kids want to sit and hear about firewalls and ports--the ones who would care about such a thing already know about security.
The intentions of this course are good, but I question the effectiveness. But I could be wrong; maybe it will help.
Developers are already producting easy-to-use RSS clients. Firefox already supports it, Safari for Tiger is going to support it, and there are plenty of great newsreaders out there. However, this is still good news because the idea of news aggregation will be put more in the spotlight.
People local to the areas where these newspapers are published at may end up checking out these custom newsreaders, and I can picture a lot of people using the New York Times reader, but mostly I see this just leading to greater adoption of what's already out there. Just about every browser is or already has RSS support. If IE7 doesn't have RSS, it will be another major feature the alternatives support that IE doesn't.
I just don't see readers flocking to the idea of running multiple newsreaders for each paper they want to read. The article mentions some that will read competitors' papers, but I foresee them trying to find ways to stick ads all over the place (probably in the newsreader itself). Like I said, it will just drive adoption of the open, freeware stuff that's ad-free and already here.
Reading the replies so far, I can't help but wonder, why do people try so hard to spin any survey results that look bad for Linux? You don't see this in Windows articles or other topics regarding other competing operating systems. But when an article is posted that reveals that the Linux movement isn't 100% full-steam-ahead in all ways, everyone starts splitting hairs. "It said IT executives, not sysadmins!" Well, who do you think the sysadmins are working for?
A lot of these places have systems they have been using for a decade or more. It's going to take a while for them to "see the light" so to speak and just convert everything over to Linux when whatever works for them...still works for them. Seriously, why should they switch if they are happy with what they've got?
I suspect most of the disinterest in Linux stems from the fact they already have systems in place that work for them. However, small businesses would be more interested in Linux because of price, and large businesses because of price and platform. Mid-size businesses don't have the resources to switch everything over, but have enough to have already chosen a system previously that still works fine.
I imagine if you did this same survey with other operating systems like, say, Windows Longhorn, you'd find that mid-sized businesses are pretty much disinterested in it too--why switch from what they've got? In other words, not necessarily anything to do with Linux specifically. Any switch of systems is going to require a support cost, not just Linux.