So, despite whatever cool Sun engineering they have planned, it's going to end up looking exactly like the mid-range Opteron systems from IBM and HP.
Keep in mind that they're already offering more generic Opteron systems. The interesting part will be if Sun can leverage what they have to create a hybrid commodity box that offers something HP or IBM doesn't.
Sure - it's a big "if". And even if they do pull it off, it doesn't mean that it will sell. But it would be kind of interesting to see. And... in some ways... it harkens back to their roots.
So why don't AMD and Sun get closer? Could Sun raise the cash to buy AMD? Would anyone want a 4xOpteron built by Sun? Could AMD use any of Sun's IP in regards to SPARC?
Funny you should mention that. I was at a tech expo today talking to the Sun guys. In our conversation, the Sun rep mentioned a relationship with AMD aimed at sharing some of Sun's IP to create a new range of SMP AMD-based servers.
Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments.
...
"...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
The article also notes:
However, not everything is so rosy. Some of the modules are clearly suffering from the hacks upon hacks mentioned earlier. As someone who struggled immensely trying to get the MSInet control working not long after this code was released, it's a relief to see that the inet code is as bad as I thought.
Although it goes on to say that most of these hacks seem to be due to backwards-compatability. However, having said that, bad code is bad code. A hack is a hack. And it would seem that indeed, even the vaunted Microsoft produces its share of hacks.
It would seem this has less to do with Open Source vs. Proprietary software than simply being the nature of the beast.
After all, you can change your wallpaper in most OSs - this is just the natural progression. I'm sure it's a harder thing to do in Linux owing to the various differing methods for window construction, etc out there.
The first time I saw a skinned XP screenshot, I thought "wow - another example of Microsoft being more *nix-like." Linux certainly had this kind of functionality long before Microsoft picked it up.
Now - granted, there are caveats. Much of it depends on what environment your favorite app is based on... with GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt becoming more cooperative. But then... there are certainly apps within the Windows world that behave their own way too (ironically enough - GTK-based Windows apps included).
Try this fix. It uses a CSS and some javascript to fix IE's handling of PNG images.
It sucks that one has to play these shennanigans to fix such basic functionality. It also begs the question if javascript can fix IE's mishandling... what's the hold up from Microsoft themselves?
Just think how great it would be for a company like microsoft, if they worked with open source developers the way IBM does.
Microsoft may very well be destined to follow IBM's path. After all, much of Microsoft's most despised business tactics are simply refined IBM techniques.
IBM lost control of the IT market when hardware began to shift towards decentralized microcomputers (not that the heavier iron part of IT is entirely gone). It shifted further when IBM lost control of the platform they designed to grab this new market (one they had previously dismissed). IBM's final mistake was to trying to confront this comoditized hardware market and seize direct control of it.
Microsoft profited from the rise of commodity hardware (no wonder why Bill says hardware will be essentially free). They know how powerfull such a shift is. And they have recently seen such a shift begin. It is very clear to them as to what is at stake if the OS becomes a commodity. So they are confronting whatever forces they see as driving the move towards a commodity OS.
Yet they may end up losing that battle, just as IBM lost. As such they will become a major influence in IT, but no longer THE driver of the industry.
Re:$179? No problem.
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
By the way, I don't quite understand why people that will pay $200 plus on an iPod, big cash in the latest game toy / case mod / whoop-dee-doo / sushi bar excess, why $179 for an OS is a proble.
I'm not aware of too many businesses that purchase iPods for all their employees. Or outfit their serverfarm with iPods.
The point isn't a single $179 purchase. It is $179 times the number of systems (or processsors) invovled. It adds up - and quickly.
But wait a sec - it's not just $179. It is $179 plus the cost of overhead for managing licenses. Plus the cost of project management overhead for aquiring licenses if, for some reason, a target dev box didn't come with RH Enterprise Linux and you have to expand your licenses (which may or may not present an obsticle in your environment - it does in mine even though our IT budget is in the millions... its all red tape).
Not that this is an issue for everyone. I'm sure most enterprise-level environments can handle it (mine included if I plan for it properly). But this is certainly less trivial than comparing the license to an iPod implies.
It is obvious that the weakest link, and justification in all of this is vendors/developers not taking responsibility to fix these security holes.
Yes. To a point. But if you go back over my post, you'll note that I present a couple other reasons.
We can speculate on drawbacks all we want, but until there is some incentive for the vendors/devlopers to take that responsibility, we are merely treading water.
Actually, I think after years of building up... Microsoft is now feeling the pressure. Part of this will undoubtedly be better product - to some extent (the full measure of this is open to debate and not something I want to go in to here). But keep your eyes open. You'll notice that Microsoft, as well as other Industry entities, are just as keen to silence their critics by eliminating them rather than ansering their criticisms. One way to do this is via legislation.
He wants you to know that there is a flaw in your "mission-critical and sensitive systems," he just doesn't want the explicit instructions about how to do it.
So what you're describing is not only believing that a vulnerability exists on face value of the claim, but that this vulnerability has also been mitigated based on the face value of a release from the vendor. This ignores several issues.
First, people do occasionally lie. I like to think that's a rareity. However, it's hard to claim something exists if one is forced to show proof. And likewise, it's hard to claim that said vulnerability is fixed if someone can demonstrate that it is not. Seeing is believing.
Secondly, people make mistakes. Anybody who follows vulnerability announcements has seen an occasional "vulnerability" that isn't. Or a vulnerability that is presented as a minor issue, only to be proven that it is much more dire.
Finally, admins make mistakes. Some platforms have a nasty tendancy of undoing patches and security configurations. And in the same light, it is nice to check that a work-around to mitigate some security issue is done properly or even really works.
Not to mention that their Doomsday Missile Appliance product does not comply with the GPL. All they did is take the current CVS snapshot of the GnOSHITS front-end, remove some of the GNOME dependancies, and modify the splash-screen.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I have no problem with VillianSupply selling GPL apps. But they should comply with the GPL. I should be able to request or download source for any GPL app their DoomMA product uses.
That... and considering how pissy George Lucus got over the whole "Star Wars Defense" thing, I'm pretty sure VillainSupply is going to be in trouble for using Jar-Jar Binks in their logo and advertising. Hell - the motto "DoomMA - Meesa want'sa monies or people'sa gonna die" isn't likely to appeal to their demographic market anyway.
"Most Slashdot readers are Linux users" - seriously?
Damn. You've found us out. I suppose we might as well all come clean.
The truth is - we're staunch Microsoft Windows fans. In fact, many of us work within various business units involved in Microsoft's marketing. We really don't dislike Microsoft. And we certainly don't use Linux.
Except for one guy. See - there is, in fact, one Linux user in the world. We created this environment just to screw with his mind. I'd tell you who he is (we all know)... but that would ruin the fun. Part of the game is to sign up, discover the "true believer", and then become part of the conspiracy.
Without giving it all away. But hey - its over now. Been fun while it lasted. My only regret is that there aren't really many other candidates to play with. I'm affraid we've been a little too efficient while "on the job." I suppose there's always those two BeOS guys.
I know this sounds pretty far-fetched. Heck - just think of the man-hours and funds we've had to float to pull this off. All I've got to say is two things:
1) Expense account.
2) What's the use of millions in liquid assets if one can't have a bit of fun with it?
Fortunately, few systems use anything other than the defaults under Windows. This means that unless you find yourself using a system owned by a power user, you'll get a consistant experience.
When I log in using my own account on most Linux installs, I get my own environment. That environment is going to load up with defaults in place. If I am familiar with the defaults for that environment on one system, I will very likely find the same defaults for that environment on the next system. Unless, of course, a power user has gone out of his way to tweak things so they'll be different by default.
Compare this to the Linux situation. There is no "default" as such. There are several defaults to choose from! That's choices before you've even started.
Yes and no. Yes, you are completely correct as you describe it. But you're missing a point.
Power Linux users will do things the way they want. And heck, they can even fundimentally change the underpinnings of their system to fit their tastes. But that's not who we're talking about. The class of user you're focusing on is the neophyte.
Neophyte users will find defaults conveniently available. They can plow along and find themselves in the same familiar environment on any system that has the same distribution installed. And that's the key - Distribution, not "Linux."
The situation most likely to work, I believe, is to treat linux as a "component" in an operating system, much like hardware manufacturers cobble together chipsets to produce consumer products. A group/company can produce an operating system which runs on the Linux kernel and market it as a desktop OS with UNIX underpinnings, much like Apple do with Mac OS X. There would, ideally, only be one canonical form of this and most desktop users probably wouldn't know or care about the fact that the Linux kernel is lying beneath.
Wait a minute. Mac OSX? Surely you mean "BSD users". No?
What you describe exists today. It is called the distribution. Go ahead. Pick one. Let's say SuSE.
The SuSE desktop has its defaults. A SuSE user who doesn't do any tweaking will find a standard, familiar interface on any other SuSE system they log in to.
Otherwise, what you're describing is Yet Another GUI environment and no real indication why it would be any different from Enlightenment, or GNOME, or KDE, or Fluxbox... etc.
If a user sits down at a high school linux system and learns how to start his or her favourite word processor, then sits down at another system elsewhere with a different Window manager and desktop environment... what now?
All the standard display managers (or at least, KDM and GDM) allow one to select what environment / window manager is desired at login. It will even prompt you to make this the default option for the user if it changes from the last choice. It shouldn't be hard to get back to familiar waters. Granted - there is an assumption that the familiar WM is installed. However, since we're talking about default installations, the more popular WMs tend to get installed in most standard installs.
Sure, they'll learn not too quickly, but this is certainly offputting in the same way that people tend to get flustered whenever they use my Windows box... the desktop is disabled, and I was surprised at how many people only know how to launch applications from the desktop. Also, my Start Menu is categorised rather than everything being under "ArrogantLongCompanyNameSoft Ltd, Inc (R)". The categorisations are pretty simple: "Internet", "Office", "Graphics", "Sound and Music"... yet this minor difference throws people off. It's not what they know.
The interesting thing here is that you've described how people get confused within a "standard" environment like Windows. Think about that a sec. A well-known environment that is often held up for its standardized interface yet it still confuses certain classes of users.
I have seen this happen myself. And it is one of the reasons I scoff at comparisons of Linux to Windows. It doesn't matter what the interface is. If it can change in any way... it will cause confusion. Yet configurability, the ability to change, is a key part of desktop computing.
Linux will probably never be used on any desktop other than specific corporate desktops, because people can be trained by their company to use them there, while this isn't true of other situations and the training will not be easily transferrable due to the ability to completely change the environment.
The flip side to this is the ability to re-create the familiar environment.
What is more likely is that one day one of the Linux distros that aren't called Linux (such as LindowsOS) will get their "standard look and feel" right and eliminate the choices, and that particular distro will take hold, and most "normal" people won't realise it's that Linux thing under the hood any more than they realise their router or set top box uses the Linux kernel.
You are esentially describing what already exists.
The problem is that the "linux user" is a misnomer. Or, more accurately, it is only applicable to the occasional power user. The Linux neophyte is a distro-user; a RedHat user, a Mandrake user, a SuSE user, etc. These folks are just getting their feet wet in a new environment. They are much more likely to latch on to the default environment. So whatever their distro provides by default is what they know. It is an unfair expectation for anybody who is just barely familiar with how RedHat does things to blindly apply that knowledge to a Debian system. Yet that is the expectation we foster when talking about Linux as a generic environment.
If it was Microsoft doing this, we'd have seen a long judgemental rant with a biased link at the end. Good to see some things never change on Slashdot
If this were about Microsoft, we'd have Microsoft Martyrs describing why this is acceptable, pointing out that a profit must be made, and decrying anti-Microsoft opinions and criticism. Oh. And judious use of the term "slashbot".
As it is... this is a story that has nothing to do with Microsoft... but the Microsoft Martyrs still get a chance to cry about the injustices layed at the feet of their corporate hero.
Case in point: I didn't see Apple (or anyone else) complaining that Dell was lying in ads where they implied that the night call center workers were actually in the US.
...or that the helpdesk group were actually Dell employees.
Is it just me, or did Dell change those ads? I could have sworn that origionally, the ad just had these disembodied voices calling out from a darkened cubicle farm. Then a modified version began airing. Same cubicle farm, however now there's these silhouettes that stand up waving their arms about in the background.
Well, no... it wasn't. As I noted, it was a clone. Your link calles it a "ripoff". The implication is that code was stolen; I haven't read anything that supports this. I would find it unlikely since it looks like Digital Research was having a hard time producing a version of CP/M for the 8086 (and thus the reason for QDOS). One side note - I did see one source that casually claim CP/M-86 had more in common with QDOS than CP/M.
Digital Research certainly took offense to QDOS. Or, more accurately, MS-DOS and IBM's use of it. This was kept out of court with IBM agreeing to make CP/M-86 an option for their IBM PC platform. But that option came at a premium cost that relatively few paid.
IBM needed an OS, and if MS wasn't there, CP/M was. So on that front we'd just have different person reaping the rewards there. Of course, Kildall was a business moron and blew his chance at that time.
Maybe, maybe not. This is one bit of computing history that has me stumped. MS-DOS exists because CP/M wasn't an option for IBM. Or at least wasn't an option at the time IBM needed it to be.
MS-DOS was, essentially, QDOS. QDOS existed because Digital Research was slow to produce a version of CP/M for the newer 8086 line of processors. Seattle Computer had a new line of hardware based on the 8086 and eventually created their own CP/M clone to fill the void lefted by Digital Research - QDOS. Microsoft licensed QDOS.
Oddly enough, IBM had approuched Digital Research about CP/M. However, they were not greeted with much enthusiasm (some niggling over a non-disclosure agreement). It seems that Digital did not have a version of CP/M ready. The question I have is - why not?
Apple would have risen much more strongly, as well as console/PC makers like Atari and Commodore. We'd probably see computers with more advanced graphics systems, but with less memory and less hard disk space as most media would be self-contained cartridges.
I disagree here. Yes - Atari and Commodore did have an early preference for cartridges. However, that mode was quickly overcome by a growing industry of software producers selling software on cassette tape and floppy disk. In short, cartridges were being out-moded. Floppy disks were catching on. And that was happening on every microcomputer platform.
We wouldn't have the powerful CPUs that we have now, we'd probably be a couple generations behind as the hardware demands of the software would be much lower.
I'm curious as to what you base this on. If IBM hadn't lost control of its platform, I could this this happening. But once the IBM PC became a commodity platform, competition began driving performance as hardware producers grabbed whatever edge they could - and as fast as Intel (and then later AMD and Cyrix) could provide one (and thank AMD for pushing this cycle even faster).
Now - the question would be... would Compaq been successful in starting the commodity / clone market if Microsoft hadn't been there to license MS-DOS?
Hard disks would be small, memory would be low, and video screens would be optimized to view on both TV and computer monitors. Digital TVs that could display computer video output at high resolutions would be the standard as the console/PCs would have merged the computer into a central position in the home entertainment cabinet.
I'm not so sure about the whole monitor bit. Sure - the ability to use a TV tube as a monitor was a consumer-friendly practice. A practice started by Apple. However, dedicated computer monitors weren't too uncommon even with consumer systems from Commodore and Atari. I don't see things going any differently.
Many companies would only just now be moving their businesses to computerized systems. Until now, computers would have been viewed as toys. Without Microsoft, the concept of a computer for business would be unthinkable except for large institutions, so many smaller accounting firms, warehouses, and mom'n'pop stores would still be doing their paperwork by hand.
First, you're giving credit to Microsoft for the IBM PC platform. IBM drove sales of the PC - by name alone.
Secondly, IBM itself was playing catch-up. They ignored the microcomputer market. That is, until the first killer app. That application was Visicalc - the dawn of the spreadsheet. Microcomputers stopped being simply hobbiest curiosities and became a tool for business. It might be
Win95 OSR2 put a web browser into the hands of the masses with every computer they bought. It drove the demand for content.
Win95 OSR2 was late in the game. By then, Internet adoption had already began its infamous surge. Major media outlets already had a web presence. AOL had embraced the Internet (to an extent)and began the process of being quasi-ISP and indistinguishable from the "real Internet" to neophyte users.
Win95 OSR2 was a part of Microsoft's amazing recovery from a potentially fatal dismissal of the Internet in general. They were tapping in to a movement. People would be getting web content from Netscape or AOL if not IE.
Of course, we're ignoring the real driver for Internet adoption: email.
Hmmm... You don't think that maybe the skyrocketing computer ownership had something to do with that World Wide Web thing that was exploding right around the same time?
Excellent point. But I think you've mentioned the lesser motivation involving the Internet. The main driver for desktop sales and Internet adoption was email.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that they're already offering more generic Opteron systems. The interesting part will be if Sun can leverage what they have to create a hybrid commodity box that offers something HP or IBM doesn't.
Sure - it's a big "if". And even if they do pull it off, it doesn't mean that it will sell. But it would be kind of interesting to see. And... in some ways... it harkens back to their roots.
Funny you should mention that. I was at a tech expo today talking to the Sun guys. In our conversation, the Sun rep mentioned a relationship with AMD aimed at sharing some of Sun's IP to create a new range of SMP AMD-based servers.
The article also notes:
Although it goes on to say that most of these hacks seem to be due to backwards-compatability. However, having said that, bad code is bad code. A hack is a hack. And it would seem that indeed, even the vaunted Microsoft produces its share of hacks.
It would seem this has less to do with Open Source vs. Proprietary software than simply being the nature of the beast.
The first time I saw a skinned XP screenshot, I thought "wow - another example of Microsoft being more *nix-like." Linux certainly had this kind of functionality long before Microsoft picked it up.
Now - granted, there are caveats. Much of it depends on what environment your favorite app is based on... with GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt becoming more cooperative. But then... there are certainly apps within the Windows world that behave their own way too (ironically enough - GTK-based Windows apps included).
Try this fix. It uses a CSS and some javascript to fix IE's handling of PNG images.
It sucks that one has to play these shennanigans to fix such basic functionality. It also begs the question if javascript can fix IE's mishandling... what's the hold up from Microsoft themselves?
Microsoft may very well be destined to follow IBM's path. After all, much of Microsoft's most despised business tactics are simply refined IBM techniques.
IBM lost control of the IT market when hardware began to shift towards decentralized microcomputers (not that the heavier iron part of IT is entirely gone). It shifted further when IBM lost control of the platform they designed to grab this new market (one they had previously dismissed). IBM's final mistake was to trying to confront this comoditized hardware market and seize direct control of it.
Microsoft profited from the rise of commodity hardware (no wonder why Bill says hardware will be essentially free). They know how powerfull such a shift is. And they have recently seen such a shift begin. It is very clear to them as to what is at stake if the OS becomes a commodity. So they are confronting whatever forces they see as driving the move towards a commodity OS.
Yet they may end up losing that battle, just as IBM lost. As such they will become a major influence in IT, but no longer THE driver of the industry.
I'm not aware of too many businesses that purchase iPods for all their employees. Or outfit their serverfarm with iPods.
The point isn't a single $179 purchase. It is $179 times the number of systems (or processsors) invovled. It adds up - and quickly.
But wait a sec - it's not just $179. It is $179 plus the cost of overhead for managing licenses. Plus the cost of project management overhead for aquiring licenses if, for some reason, a target dev box didn't come with RH Enterprise Linux and you have to expand your licenses (which may or may not present an obsticle in your environment - it does in mine even though our IT budget is in the millions... its all red tape).
Not that this is an issue for everyone. I'm sure most enterprise-level environments can handle it (mine included if I plan for it properly). But this is certainly less trivial than comparing the license to an iPod implies.
Yes. To a point. But if you go back over my post, you'll note that I present a couple other reasons.
Actually, I think after years of building up... Microsoft is now feeling the pressure. Part of this will undoubtedly be better product - to some extent (the full measure of this is open to debate and not something I want to go in to here). But keep your eyes open. You'll notice that Microsoft, as well as other Industry entities, are just as keen to silence their critics by eliminating them rather than ansering their criticisms. One way to do this is via legislation.
So what you're describing is not only believing that a vulnerability exists on face value of the claim, but that this vulnerability has also been mitigated based on the face value of a release from the vendor. This ignores several issues.
First, people do occasionally lie. I like to think that's a rareity. However, it's hard to claim something exists if one is forced to show proof. And likewise, it's hard to claim that said vulnerability is fixed if someone can demonstrate that it is not. Seeing is believing.
Secondly, people make mistakes. Anybody who follows vulnerability announcements has seen an occasional "vulnerability" that isn't. Or a vulnerability that is presented as a minor issue, only to be proven that it is much more dire.
Finally, admins make mistakes. Some platforms have a nasty tendancy of undoing patches and security configurations. And in the same light, it is nice to check that a work-around to mitigate some security issue is done properly or even really works.
dA|\/||\/|It J4n37 y0U'r3 4 slU7z0r!!!!!!!!!
Not to mention that their Doomsday Missile Appliance product does not comply with the GPL. All they did is take the current CVS snapshot of the GnOSHITS front-end, remove some of the GNOME dependancies, and modify the splash-screen.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I have no problem with VillianSupply selling GPL apps. But they should comply with the GPL. I should be able to request or download source for any GPL app their DoomMA product uses.
That... and considering how pissy George Lucus got over the whole "Star Wars Defense" thing, I'm pretty sure VillainSupply is going to be in trouble for using Jar-Jar Binks in their logo and advertising. Hell - the motto "DoomMA - Meesa want'sa monies or people'sa gonna die" isn't likely to appeal to their demographic market anyway.
Shut up and pay attention to what's happening on the screen, Ender.
You realize it's ownly a matter of time before this (along with "SCO Stock" print) are available via ThinkGeek.
Damn. You've found us out. I suppose we might as well all come clean.
The truth is - we're staunch Microsoft Windows fans. In fact, many of us work within various business units involved in Microsoft's marketing. We really don't dislike Microsoft. And we certainly don't use Linux.
Except for one guy. See - there is, in fact, one Linux user in the world. We created this environment just to screw with his mind. I'd tell you who he is (we all know)... but that would ruin the fun. Part of the game is to sign up, discover the "true believer", and then become part of the conspiracy.
Without giving it all away. But hey - its over now. Been fun while it lasted. My only regret is that there aren't really many other candidates to play with. I'm affraid we've been a little too efficient while "on the job." I suppose there's always those two BeOS guys.
I know this sounds pretty far-fetched. Heck - just think of the man-hours and funds we've had to float to pull this off. All I've got to say is two things:
1) Expense account.
2) What's the use of millions in liquid assets if one can't have a bit of fun with it?
When I log in using my own account on most Linux installs, I get my own environment. That environment is going to load up with defaults in place. If I am familiar with the defaults for that environment on one system, I will very likely find the same defaults for that environment on the next system. Unless, of course, a power user has gone out of his way to tweak things so they'll be different by default.
Yes and no. Yes, you are completely correct as you describe it. But you're missing a point.
Power Linux users will do things the way they want. And heck, they can even fundimentally change the underpinnings of their system to fit their tastes. But that's not who we're talking about. The class of user you're focusing on is the neophyte.
Neophyte users will find defaults conveniently available. They can plow along and find themselves in the same familiar environment on any system that has the same distribution installed. And that's the key - Distribution, not "Linux."
Wait a minute. Mac OSX? Surely you mean "BSD users". No?
What you describe exists today. It is called the distribution. Go ahead. Pick one. Let's say SuSE.
The SuSE desktop has its defaults. A SuSE user who doesn't do any tweaking will find a standard, familiar interface on any other SuSE system they log in to.
Otherwise, what you're describing is Yet Another GUI environment and no real indication why it would be any different from Enlightenment, or GNOME, or KDE, or Fluxbox... etc.
All the standard display managers (or at least, KDM and GDM) allow one to select what environment / window manager is desired at login. It will even prompt you to make this the default option for the user if it changes from the last choice. It shouldn't be hard to get back to familiar waters. Granted - there is an assumption that the familiar WM is installed. However, since we're talking about default installations, the more popular WMs tend to get installed in most standard installs.
The interesting thing here is that you've described how people get confused within a "standard" environment like Windows. Think about that a sec. A well-known environment that is often held up for its standardized interface yet it still confuses certain classes of users.
I have seen this happen myself. And it is one of the reasons I scoff at comparisons of Linux to Windows. It doesn't matter what the interface is. If it can change in any way... it will cause confusion. Yet configurability, the ability to change, is a key part of desktop computing.
The flip side to this is the ability to re-create the familiar environment.
You are esentially describing what already exists.
The problem is that the "linux user" is a misnomer. Or, more accurately, it is only applicable to the occasional power user. The Linux neophyte is a distro-user; a RedHat user, a Mandrake user, a SuSE user, etc. These folks are just getting their feet wet in a new environment. They are much more likely to latch on to the default environment. So whatever their distro provides by default is what they know. It is an unfair expectation for anybody who is just barely familiar with how RedHat does things to blindly apply that knowledge to a Debian system. Yet that is the expectation we foster when talking about Linux as a generic environment.
If this were about Microsoft, we'd have Microsoft Martyrs describing why this is acceptable, pointing out that a profit must be made, and decrying anti-Microsoft opinions and criticism. Oh. And judious use of the term "slashbot".
As it is... this is a story that has nothing to do with Microsoft... but the Microsoft Martyrs still get a chance to cry about the injustices layed at the feet of their corporate hero.
Let's not bring religion in to this.
Is it just me, or did Dell change those ads? I could have sworn that origionally, the ad just had these disembodied voices calling out from a darkened cubicle farm. Then a modified version began airing. Same cubicle farm, however now there's these silhouettes that stand up waving their arms about in the background.
Odd.
Well, no... it wasn't. As I noted, it was a clone. Your link calles it a "ripoff". The implication is that code was stolen; I haven't read anything that supports this. I would find it unlikely since it looks like Digital Research was having a hard time producing a version of CP/M for the 8086 (and thus the reason for QDOS). One side note - I did see one source that casually claim CP/M-86 had more in common with QDOS than CP/M.
Digital Research certainly took offense to QDOS. Or, more accurately, MS-DOS and IBM's use of it. This was kept out of court with IBM agreeing to make CP/M-86 an option for their IBM PC platform. But that option came at a premium cost that relatively few paid.
Maybe, maybe not. This is one bit of computing history that has me stumped. MS-DOS exists because CP/M wasn't an option for IBM. Or at least wasn't an option at the time IBM needed it to be.
MS-DOS was, essentially, QDOS. QDOS existed because Digital Research was slow to produce a version of CP/M for the newer 8086 line of processors. Seattle Computer had a new line of hardware based on the 8086 and eventually created their own CP/M clone to fill the void lefted by Digital Research - QDOS. Microsoft licensed QDOS.
Oddly enough, IBM had approuched Digital Research about CP/M. However, they were not greeted with much enthusiasm (some niggling over a non-disclosure agreement). It seems that Digital did not have a version of CP/M ready. The question I have is - why not?
I disagree here. Yes - Atari and Commodore did have an early preference for cartridges. However, that mode was quickly overcome by a growing industry of software producers selling software on cassette tape and floppy disk. In short, cartridges were being out-moded. Floppy disks were catching on. And that was happening on every microcomputer platform.
I'm curious as to what you base this on. If IBM hadn't lost control of its platform, I could this this happening. But once the IBM PC became a commodity platform, competition began driving performance as hardware producers grabbed whatever edge they could - and as fast as Intel (and then later AMD and Cyrix) could provide one (and thank AMD for pushing this cycle even faster).
Now - the question would be... would Compaq been successful in starting the commodity / clone market if Microsoft hadn't been there to license MS-DOS?
I'm not so sure about the whole monitor bit. Sure - the ability to use a TV tube as a monitor was a consumer-friendly practice. A practice started by Apple. However, dedicated computer monitors weren't too uncommon even with consumer systems from Commodore and Atari. I don't see things going any differently.
First, you're giving credit to Microsoft for the IBM PC platform. IBM drove sales of the PC - by name alone.
Secondly, IBM itself was playing catch-up. They ignored the microcomputer market. That is, until the first killer app. That application was Visicalc - the dawn of the spreadsheet. Microcomputers stopped being simply hobbiest curiosities and became a tool for business. It might be
Win95 OSR2 was late in the game. By then, Internet adoption had already began its infamous surge. Major media outlets already had a web presence. AOL had embraced the Internet (to an extent)and began the process of being quasi-ISP and indistinguishable from the "real Internet" to neophyte users.
Win95 OSR2 was a part of Microsoft's amazing recovery from a potentially fatal dismissal of the Internet in general. They were tapping in to a movement. People would be getting web content from Netscape or AOL if not IE.
Of course, we're ignoring the real driver for Internet adoption: email.
Yet, they did fund Go. Although that funding went from the origional $10 mil to $2 mil after urging from Bill Gates himself.
Excellent point. But I think you've mentioned the lesser motivation involving the Internet. The main driver for desktop sales and Internet adoption was email.