They basically have hit upon the concept that advertising can be used to make money off of anything popular, so they have set about finding or creating things people want.
One slight quibble. It's not just about popularity. Google is interested in aggregating information. What they're doing is figuring out forms of information people need / want and how to provide an interface to effectively access that information. Popularity is a welcomed byproduct. Although, on second thought, that might be discounting the difficulty in making a profit from being popular - not always an easy feat.
this is exactly why the author mention OSS community and Linux has some taboo to talk about.
guy, you need to defend your opinion with facts and reasonings, not questioning on author's credit or shut up the one who picked the author's opinion:)
I'm an advocate for paying attention to Linux critics... even when their clams are widely inaccurate. I've always maintained that these opinions are bound to be picked up and parroted in whatever environment we operate in. It's best to know their source, what the "argument" is, and how to counter that argument than sit there dazed by the audacity of the meme on first exposure.
Having said that... I'm becoming tired of Enderle. It's not that anything he says is taboo. It's simply a matter of seeing the same flawed reasoning used again and again... and again. Yes - we can argue against his various wild assertions with facts and reasoning. But after a while, I find myself wishing he himself would use facts and reason when he makes his claims.
Still... I suppose there are gullible people who will accept what he has to say. There are even those with a predisposition to accept his carefully tailored attacks. So with that in mind, its best to keep an eye on him. A raving lunatic may be amusing, but when you notice they're armed it all changes. And Enderle has an axe to grind.
The problem I'm seeing first hand is the number of intranet applications that are, in effect, IE6 applications. These applications break in various ways with IE7. Of course, most of what I've seen working well with any other modern browser works well with IE7. Microsoft and those who followed them are now finding themselves in a hole dug with their own two hands.
Re:I hate to even sound like SCO might be right
on
Groklaw No Front for IBM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just how is that the absolute gospel that she is real that Slashdot seems to think it is? King George swore up and down that Iraq had WMDs, did that make it so? If Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols announces "aliens are real, I've seen them" tomorrow, is SETI going to shut down on Saturday? If Bill Gates said he had met Pamela Jones, would the Slashdot community be so all-accepting?
Cheap shots at bashing Slashdot and Bush aside... fair point. Its not enough to completely dismiss the possibility that "PJ" isn't... someone or something other than what they've claimed to be. Having said that...
"Pamela Jones" could end this speculation quite easily. And until *she* does, each side looks just as silly as the other. In fact, in my opinion, if she does exist but continues to not step forward, then she is even more childish than SCO is.
What drivel. Let's assume PJ is really (more or less) who she appears to be. She needs to step forward and abandon her carefully protected privacy because... what... some corporate agent and you have demanded it? Bah.
You certainly should take into account the messenger when attributing credibility to statements of fact. Inferences, however, should stand on their own and the messenger should have no effect on how you view them.
I don't see why inferences shouldn't face the same scrutiny. Whether someone is putting forward a message that involves a "fact" or what they infer from any given facts, it is still a matter of how subjective their message is. The more subjective the message, the more importance there is to the context of that message.
That doesn't mean that any given message should be completely discounted because of the source. Even the most biased messenger might have something worth considering. But whether a person has an agenda to push will definitely affect what judgments they're likely to make.
Where this becomes really important is when one has to rely entirely on those judgment calls. It is less important when one has the same access to the same facts as (or perhaps even more information than) the messenger.
In the case of Groklaw, PJ is commenting on documents and proceedings that are matters of public record. In effect, she is making no assertion that she has any special first hand knowledge of the case, so you must decide the degree to which you believe that the court documents actually represent the statements of the parties to the case.
Furthermore, while she may be the most comprehensive information source on the SCO case, we have access to mainstream media coverage and SCO's own statements. We are not in danger of seeing only data cherry picked by PJ to put SCO in a bad light.
Therefore, I'd say PJ's identity is not relevant.
And I generally agree. What's interesting in this particular case is that Groklaw (and PJ's work) is largely transparent. The same ammunition used to make a case against SCO is also available to anyone who would support SCO or criticize Groklaw / PJ. Contrast this against the fact that most of the authors supporting SCO cite information hidden away under NDAs and unprivileged access.
Re:Forbes again.
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hey, this is Forbes. They're a known SCO schill, always eager to publish puff pieces by their reporter whats-his-name (Dan's Lying? something like that) that are basically slightly revised SCO press-releases.
This isn't the first time Daniel Lyons has floated the "who is Pamela Jones" line. That particular article also shed tears over O'Gara being called down for her stalking. It is worth noting that both Lyons and O'Gara (for whatever reasons) tend to tow SCO's line in their articles. And both have been soundly criticized by PJ and Groklaw. Anyone new to this should note there's a bit of a nasty history going on here. As the parent pointed out, there's little wonder where this article comes from.
However, do a search for anyone of even minor fame or notoriety in the open source community and you usually will find at least a handful of photos of them. Things like "So-and-so giving a talk at the XYZ Developer Conference", or "Me and XYZ having lunch", or just a small photo of them that accompanies an article they've written.
Name a conference where PJ gave a talk. Or perhaps some other situation where she would be required to make her identity known to a sufficiently large enough group.
Someone who's sufficiently guarded about their privacy shouldn't have a hard enough time keeping themselves off the public radar. That doesn't make them entirely invisible. Keep in mind that O'Gara was on the trail of... well, someone... very possibly PJ. Some would claim that the "expose" that failed to deliver is proof that PJ doesn't really exist. I would suggest that it simply demonstrates that PJ would be justified to remain reclusive and hard-to-find. In that kind of atmosphere, I wouldn't expect someone emailing out headshots for articles and standing up in front of a crowd, announcing their identity.
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Too many people are hung up on the messenger as opposed to the message.
Often the message is subjective. Knowing who the messenger is provides some context to the message; even more so when you find deception involved.
Is it 85 years after death that his copyright expires and we can create our own free version of him?
I probably shouldn't mention this... but Disney is working on a direct-to-DVD presentation of Captain Copyright. The upshot is that you'll never get your chance.
Yeah, that argument would make sense except that MS has always had access to the source code for both Linux (all the distros) and Windows (all the versions). So exactly, what improved interoperability is gained here?
Keep in mind that in this scenario "interoperability" is Novell's goal. Not Microsoft's. Microsoft having the source code is a moot point.
But just for giggles - let's say that Microsoft really doesn't mind interoperability. But working on it isn't in their interest. Along comes Novell thinking "hey - its in our interest!" Novell doesn't mind doing the work. They just need to know what has to be done. This deal could have given them that information. Or at least, that's what they were after.
Again - it takes a small leap of faith to agree with the scenario. But it is very plausible. I've seen plenty of deals and contract negotiations start with the best of intentions and end up convoluted, unworkable messes with someone getting a short end due to various reasons (greed, incompetence, etc.).
Now we can see that Microsoft's deal with Novell was explicitly designed to create and solidify this impression amongst companies using Linux.
When a business deal is made, the involved parties don't always understand what each side is getting out of it. It's not outside the realm of reason to take Novell's claims at face value. So let's assume Novell went in to negotiations with the best intentions - a real agreement to better compatibility and functionality. Microsoft enters negotiations with an entirely different goal and shrewd negotiators that they are, come away with a fresh source of propaganda to feed their ongoing campaign. Novell walks away with... well... what did they get out of the deal again? Granted - incompetence doesn't really sit much higher than having bad intentions.
I really don't get the piracy thing. If you are going to listen to the music, then you should pay for it, whether that be from purchasing the CDs, or through a legitimate on-line music service. I also don't care to hear arguments against this, because those that argue the loudest are usually the ones with the most non-purchased music in their library. They are being just as self-serving as Mr. Jobs.
This isn't a pro-"piracy" discussion. Maybe you're confused over what DRM is?
Personally, I wish we could do away with DRM, because it is quite difficult to play the songs I legally purchased off of iTMS on my Linux computer. I think that is a load of crap, and that it severely cuts into my fair-use rights, which nobody seems to care about.
Ahh. No... apparently you do understand at least something of DRM.
And once you hit "that size", even things like CALs are nearly irrelevant. I mean seriously, if you have 20,000 employees, how do you even count the numbers of users and computers? At that size, you will be adding/deleting several users/day.
If you're big government site is anything like mine... they handle the issue by over-purchasing CALs. I had to tackle the CAL issues a while back - no small feat once you start digging in to the details. After poking around, we ended up talking with the group in charge of the main Microsoft infrastructure for the Center. In the end, I was assured that CALs were not an issue. They had worked out deals with Microsoft that covered not only enough CALs for the desktops and servers they're in charge of but also all the servers and random desktops individual Orgs purchased. And then additional CALs for growth. My Org ended up buying more CALs just to be sure. Somewhere in there, I'm pretty sure we've spent more money than we should have. But we won't be facing any audits any time soon. I doubt anybody really wants to start balancing the books on this - Microsoft included.
Microsoft wouldn't have done this laptop giveaway if they didn't think it would work- that is, result in at least slightly better reviews than they would have gotten otherwise.
I agree. It's obvious that reviewers with different hardware are likely to come back with different opinions based on their own experiences. Those running Vista on sub-optimal hardware are going to have less-positive experiences. They will wonder why other reviewers have glowing reviews. Unfounded claims of shilling and payola will follow.
Microsoft is simply trying to clear this up. By providing expensive, top-of-the-line hardware they are able to clear up the confusion and provide foundation to the claims of shilling and payola.
With all of that said, the fact that one solution comes from a company with a "do no evil" motto (see the original post), while the other comes from a large, some might say evil, software company, is not a factor I would ever consider when weighing technical superiority. But as several have pointed out in this thread, that simply reflects my own "ideology" which attempts to eliminate emotionally driven reasons from my technical determinations.
Fair enough. I suspect we have different philosophies concerning technology. I'm inclined to believe better technologists are impassioned by technology. Although I would readily agree that being so involves its own pitfalls.
I would like to make a side note on "evil". The word has many connotations and meanings. So when someone says any given company (or piece of code) is evil, it's not necessarily using the same moral scale as we would with life-and-death forms evil found out in the world. That seems to lose a lot of people who don't understand the distinction. It is, after all, ludicrous to compare a piece of code with something like genocide.
The moral code I find many techies seem to measure these things by involves functionality. When something limits functionality, it's bad. When something intentionally limits functionality it is evil (access controls and other measures aside). Our industry is full of examples (and a few very visible ones at that) who's entire business model is based on restricting functionality and are therefore often referred to as being "evil".
This all comes back around to our original subject. A company who will "do no evil", follow open documented standards, and/or release source code with an Open license is much less likely to stand in the way of any given functionality I might be interested in. And therefore supporting that company is a long-term advantage over a temporary short-term performance jump for a tool from a company who, down the line, will cause me headaches because I want / need to do something they don't want me to do or haven't thought about me doing.
Your own belief system and/or moral code may differ.
You see, I believe you should always choose the best tool for the job, if at all possible. And I don't think you should cloud that selection process with ideology.
Ideology does not preclude picking the best tool for the job. Nor does having some particluar ideology imply that one is not, in fact, tech savvy. But thanks for sharing your own view.
If that is the case, feel free to use inferior tools that rationalize your own "world view", but don't be too surprised when you find yourself losing out to those who are *not* blinded by ideology.
The IT industry is littered with examples of technically inferior tech winning out. And for every example, you will find either a large or small group willing to argue that said technology was not, in fact, superior. Some of that is due to odd crackpots and gonzo behavior. But a larger part of it is because given the complexity of the technology, our environments, and differing needs it is hard to objectively deturmine how superior or inferior any given choice is.
Given Y!'s recent re-design, I an unsurprised. I used to have Y! as my home page, now it's Google news.
IMHO, Yahoo has made the fatal mistake of over-emphasizing form over function and is now suffering the result.
Recent? Haven't they always done this? This sounds like a comment from 1998. At that time there was much lamenting over the increased clutter of Yahoo compared to the starkness of newcomer Google.
Actual cases and not the 'OMG they might sue us' screeching please.
Would that be a quote from those who listen to Ballmer when he makes nebulous comments about "IP" in Linux. I mean sure - it's not like Microsoft has actually sued anyone. But you should look in to indemnification. Not for any particular reason, of course.
A little more time / work would uncover far more (my cursory search has many, many more alone). I'm surprised you've never seen this comment. It's not as common as some of the normal Slashdot fare - but it's hardly uncommon.
It's the tipping point, where a combination of M$ user frustration and standards adoption undo the power of non free software. Firefox is a good example of how that power is broken.
But again - what's the proof that this is going on? Suddenly everyone uses Linux? Every other machine runs Linux? You start seeing Linux every so often and aren't surprised? I would argue that the change isn't going to be sudden and pronounced. The change has been happening for years. And if there ever is a time when a "tipping point" can be determined, we're not going to know until well after the fact. Therefore, the ongoing jibes based on this phrase are meaningless.
I try over and over and over and over to install linux and actually be productive with it. And I can't.
I've used a Linux desktop long enough that I find it difficult to be productive using Windows. Seriously. I've gone out of my way to get a Linux desktop working well in a Windows world at work (easier since less and less is all-Microsoft solutions these days). Now I'm much more happy. And its better than trying to force Windows to behave like Linux.
I suspect you're a long-time Windows power-user. You expect Linux to be Windows. It isn't.
In the interests of continuity, could someone please retitle this story as, "Could 2007 be the year of Linux on the desktop?".
Every year, there's a slew of folks here that like to bandy around the "year of the Linux desktop" line. It always has the air of some sort of criticism. There's some implication that it was supposed to be already, has yet to happen, and never will.
What gets me is... what exactly is the phrase supposed to mean? Are we all supposed to wake up one morning and find Linux running on our desktops; a gift from some Open Source Santa or the result of midnight toiling by Linux elves? And who exactly has set the goal that this will happen in any given year?
This is all appears to be some fantasy strawman constructed for the amusement of Linux critics. Sure - Linux isn't for everyone. But for me, the "year of the Linux Desktop" was somewhere between 1998 when I first started using it as a desktop to 2000 when I realized I just wasn't using my Windows partition and deleted it. Since then I see Linux desktops showing up more often. I'm not alone.
Granted - Linux isn't an immediate threat to Window's traditional stronghold. Just ask Apple and IBM what its like to compete against Microsoft's marketing and network effect. But that hardly means that Linux isn't viable - just as OS X is also a decent choice depending on your needs despite its comparable market share.
So is "Linux on the desktop" going to happen? It already has. But it's not the Big Bang theory that this "question" makes it out to be.
In order to plug this leak in our defense control of the missiles is handed directly to the WOPR supercomputer which already has the most trusted advisory role in case of an attack. And it's WOPR that Broderick hacks. And it's WOPR that doesn't realize the "game" is real, its missile control outputs having been directed to the control of real missiles. And the humans, having been removed from the decision loop, aren't in a position to stop it.
Since we're correcting plot points...
Lightman (Broderick) reads about some new games being released by a company. He sets up his modem to hunt the company's system down so that he can break in and get the games early via brute-force rote dialing of local phone numbers (wardialing). He origionally believes he has found the game company and is toying with simple games. He had no intention to target a military system.
WOPR does not have direct control of the defense missile system. Manned launch facilities are automated after the noted tests. And WOPR does indeed play out a scenario (arbitrarily created by Lightman) on NORAD's displays. But NORAD's personnel maintain full control of whether the missiles will be launched and, eventually, grit their teeth as NORAD's systems show impacts accross the US. Everyone is releaved that the armagedon portrayed by WOPR was an illusion. And that point, WOPR then begins to try and brute-force the launch codes needed to play out the scenario it has been given. WOPR gives up this task when it is demonstrated that the game it is playing can not be won. If WOPR did have actual control of real missiles, it wouldn't have needed to include displays for humans or, failing that, brute-force launch codes.
Slashdot Mirror
Or Steve is trying his own hand at inducing a Reality Distortion Field.
One slight quibble. It's not just about popularity. Google is interested in aggregating information. What they're doing is figuring out forms of information people need / want and how to provide an interface to effectively access that information. Popularity is a welcomed byproduct. Although, on second thought, that might be discounting the difficulty in making a profit from being popular - not always an easy feat.
He truly has a dizzying intellect.
I'm an advocate for paying attention to Linux critics... even when their clams are widely inaccurate. I've always maintained that these opinions are bound to be picked up and parroted in whatever environment we operate in. It's best to know their source, what the "argument" is, and how to counter that argument than sit there dazed by the audacity of the meme on first exposure.
Having said that... I'm becoming tired of Enderle. It's not that anything he says is taboo. It's simply a matter of seeing the same flawed reasoning used again and again... and again. Yes - we can argue against his various wild assertions with facts and reasoning. But after a while, I find myself wishing he himself would use facts and reason when he makes his claims.
Still... I suppose there are gullible people who will accept what he has to say. There are even those with a predisposition to accept his carefully tailored attacks. So with that in mind, its best to keep an eye on him. A raving lunatic may be amusing, but when you notice they're armed it all changes. And Enderle has an axe to grind.
The problem I'm seeing first hand is the number of intranet applications that are, in effect, IE6 applications. These applications break in various ways with IE7. Of course, most of what I've seen working well with any other modern browser works well with IE7. Microsoft and those who followed them are now finding themselves in a hole dug with their own two hands.
Cheap shots at bashing Slashdot and Bush aside... fair point. Its not enough to completely dismiss the possibility that "PJ" isn't... someone or something other than what they've claimed to be. Having said that...
What drivel. Let's assume PJ is really (more or less) who she appears to be. She needs to step forward and abandon her carefully protected privacy because... what... some corporate agent and you have demanded it? Bah.
I don't see why inferences shouldn't face the same scrutiny. Whether someone is putting forward a message that involves a "fact" or what they infer from any given facts, it is still a matter of how subjective their message is. The more subjective the message, the more importance there is to the context of that message.
That doesn't mean that any given message should be completely discounted because of the source. Even the most biased messenger might have something worth considering. But whether a person has an agenda to push will definitely affect what judgments they're likely to make.
Where this becomes really important is when one has to rely entirely on those judgment calls. It is less important when one has the same access to the same facts as (or perhaps even more information than) the messenger.
And I generally agree. What's interesting in this particular case is that Groklaw (and PJ's work) is largely transparent. The same ammunition used to make a case against SCO is also available to anyone who would support SCO or criticize Groklaw / PJ. Contrast this against the fact that most of the authors supporting SCO cite information hidden away under NDAs and unprivileged access.
This isn't the first time Daniel Lyons has floated the "who is Pamela Jones" line. That particular article also shed tears over O'Gara being called down for her stalking. It is worth noting that both Lyons and O'Gara (for whatever reasons) tend to tow SCO's line in their articles. And both have been soundly criticized by PJ and Groklaw. Anyone new to this should note there's a bit of a nasty history going on here. As the parent pointed out, there's little wonder where this article comes from.
Name a conference where PJ gave a talk. Or perhaps some other situation where she would be required to make her identity known to a sufficiently large enough group.
Someone who's sufficiently guarded about their privacy shouldn't have a hard enough time keeping themselves off the public radar. That doesn't make them entirely invisible. Keep in mind that O'Gara was on the trail of... well, someone... very possibly PJ. Some would claim that the "expose" that failed to deliver is proof that PJ doesn't really exist. I would suggest that it simply demonstrates that PJ would be justified to remain reclusive and hard-to-find. In that kind of atmosphere, I wouldn't expect someone emailing out headshots for articles and standing up in front of a crowd, announcing their identity.
Often the message is subjective. Knowing who the messenger is provides some context to the message; even more so when you find deception involved.
I probably shouldn't mention this... but Disney is working on a direct-to-DVD presentation of Captain Copyright. The upshot is that you'll never get your chance.
Keep in mind that in this scenario "interoperability" is Novell's goal. Not Microsoft's. Microsoft having the source code is a moot point.
But just for giggles - let's say that Microsoft really doesn't mind interoperability. But working on it isn't in their interest. Along comes Novell thinking "hey - its in our interest!" Novell doesn't mind doing the work. They just need to know what has to be done. This deal could have given them that information. Or at least, that's what they were after.
Again - it takes a small leap of faith to agree with the scenario. But it is very plausible. I've seen plenty of deals and contract negotiations start with the best of intentions and end up convoluted, unworkable messes with someone getting a short end due to various reasons (greed, incompetence, etc.).
When a business deal is made, the involved parties don't always understand what each side is getting out of it. It's not outside the realm of reason to take Novell's claims at face value. So let's assume Novell went in to negotiations with the best intentions - a real agreement to better compatibility and functionality. Microsoft enters negotiations with an entirely different goal and shrewd negotiators that they are, come away with a fresh source of propaganda to feed their ongoing campaign. Novell walks away with... well... what did they get out of the deal again? Granted - incompetence doesn't really sit much higher than having bad intentions.
This isn't a pro-"piracy" discussion. Maybe you're confused over what DRM is?
Ahh. No... apparently you do understand at least something of DRM.
I agree. It's obvious that reviewers with different hardware are likely to come back with different opinions based on their own experiences. Those running Vista on sub-optimal hardware are going to have less-positive experiences. They will wonder why other reviewers have glowing reviews. Unfounded claims of shilling and payola will follow.
Microsoft is simply trying to clear this up. By providing expensive, top-of-the-line hardware they are able to clear up the confusion and provide foundation to the claims of shilling and payola.
Actually, you did say "In actuality, *real* tech savvy people are interested in only one thing - the best search engine." That certainly seems to imply anyone considering these other issues aren't tech savvy. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
Fair enough. I suspect we have different philosophies concerning technology. I'm inclined to believe better technologists are impassioned by technology. Although I would readily agree that being so involves its own pitfalls.
I would like to make a side note on "evil". The word has many connotations and meanings. So when someone says any given company (or piece of code) is evil, it's not necessarily using the same moral scale as we would with life-and-death forms evil found out in the world. That seems to lose a lot of people who don't understand the distinction. It is, after all, ludicrous to compare a piece of code with something like genocide.
The moral code I find many techies seem to measure these things by involves functionality. When something limits functionality, it's bad. When something intentionally limits functionality it is evil (access controls and other measures aside). Our industry is full of examples (and a few very visible ones at that) who's entire business model is based on restricting functionality and are therefore often referred to as being "evil".
This all comes back around to our original subject. A company who will "do no evil", follow open documented standards, and/or release source code with an Open license is much less likely to stand in the way of any given functionality I might be interested in. And therefore supporting that company is a long-term advantage over a temporary short-term performance jump for a tool from a company who, down the line, will cause me headaches because I want / need to do something they don't want me to do or haven't thought about me doing.
Your own belief system and/or moral code may differ.
Ideology does not preclude picking the best tool for the job. Nor does having some particluar ideology imply that one is not, in fact, tech savvy. But thanks for sharing your own view.
The IT industry is littered with examples of technically inferior tech winning out. And for every example, you will find either a large or small group willing to argue that said technology was not, in fact, superior. Some of that is due to odd crackpots and gonzo behavior. But a larger part of it is because given the complexity of the technology, our environments, and differing needs it is hard to objectively deturmine how superior or inferior any given choice is.
Recent? Haven't they always done this? This sounds like a comment from 1998. At that time there was much lamenting over the increased clutter of Yahoo compared to the starkness of newcomer Google.
Returned the favor.
Would that be a quote from those who listen to Ballmer when he makes nebulous comments about "IP" in Linux. I mean sure - it's not like Microsoft has actually sued anyone. But you should look in to indemnification. Not for any particular reason, of course.
Cursory search - no consideration for content:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114092&
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155912&cid=13
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15
A little more time / work would uncover far more (my cursory search has many, many more alone). I'm surprised you've never seen this comment. It's not as common as some of the normal Slashdot fare - but it's hardly uncommon.
But again - what's the proof that this is going on? Suddenly everyone uses Linux? Every other machine runs Linux? You start seeing Linux every so often and aren't surprised? I would argue that the change isn't going to be sudden and pronounced. The change has been happening for years. And if there ever is a time when a "tipping point" can be determined, we're not going to know until well after the fact. Therefore, the ongoing jibes based on this phrase are meaningless.
I've used a Linux desktop long enough that I find it difficult to be productive using Windows. Seriously. I've gone out of my way to get a Linux desktop working well in a Windows world at work (easier since less and less is all-Microsoft solutions these days). Now I'm much more happy. And its better than trying to force Windows to behave like Linux.
I suspect you're a long-time Windows power-user. You expect Linux to be Windows. It isn't.
Every year, there's a slew of folks here that like to bandy around the "year of the Linux desktop" line. It always has the air of some sort of criticism. There's some implication that it was supposed to be already, has yet to happen, and never will.
What gets me is... what exactly is the phrase supposed to mean? Are we all supposed to wake up one morning and find Linux running on our desktops; a gift from some Open Source Santa or the result of midnight toiling by Linux elves? And who exactly has set the goal that this will happen in any given year?
This is all appears to be some fantasy strawman constructed for the amusement of Linux critics. Sure - Linux isn't for everyone. But for me, the "year of the Linux Desktop" was somewhere between 1998 when I first started using it as a desktop to 2000 when I realized I just wasn't using my Windows partition and deleted it. Since then I see Linux desktops showing up more often. I'm not alone.
Granted - Linux isn't an immediate threat to Window's traditional stronghold. Just ask Apple and IBM what its like to compete against Microsoft's marketing and network effect. But that hardly means that Linux isn't viable - just as OS X is also a decent choice depending on your needs despite its comparable market share.
So is "Linux on the desktop" going to happen? It already has. But it's not the Big Bang theory that this "question" makes it out to be.
Since we're correcting plot points...
Lightman (Broderick) reads about some new games being released by a company. He sets up his modem to hunt the company's system down so that he can break in and get the games early via brute-force rote dialing of local phone numbers (wardialing). He origionally believes he has found the game company and is toying with simple games. He had no intention to target a military system.
WOPR does not have direct control of the defense missile system. Manned launch facilities are automated after the noted tests. And WOPR does indeed play out a scenario (arbitrarily created by Lightman) on NORAD's displays. But NORAD's personnel maintain full control of whether the missiles will be launched and, eventually, grit their teeth as NORAD's systems show impacts accross the US. Everyone is releaved that the armagedon portrayed by WOPR was an illusion. And that point, WOPR then begins to try and brute-force the launch codes needed to play out the scenario it has been given. WOPR gives up this task when it is demonstrated that the game it is playing can not be won. If WOPR did have actual control of real missiles, it wouldn't have needed to include displays for humans or, failing that, brute-force launch codes.