it would be pretty trivial for them to put out an "IBM Desktop Linux."
IBM finally closed the support window on OS/2 last year, for an OS that came out in 1996. IBM has such a blue-chip reputation because they'll never let a product drop, making it very expensive to extract themselves from anything.
By shunting the base OS off to RedHat and SUSE, IBM can avoid providing "IBM-Style" support while still making the consulting dollars on the high-value parts of the implementation.
Woah, calm down pal. FWIW, I thought your post was right on target. Maybe I should have repeated my other post where I articulated that desktop investments like Ubuntu are pretty much doomed to failure and that while the Linux desktop is not "dead", it's not going to be a growth market anytime soon.
And to be perfectly honest, if Linux as a platform and as a technology did nothing else but provide a threat that large companies could use in their negotiations with Microsoft,
I don't see this as being a very serious threat. Linux distros that "pay their way" like RedHat can't economically sell a solution cheaper than Microsoft now, and it's unlikely they will in the future. The only way that "Linux is cheaper" is if you go with free community-supported distributions, which don't have the support lifecycle, probably can't support a large userbase of freeloaders, and IMO are already falling way behind RedHat etc.
And then if you get into the home desktop area, the support costs for Linux just don't make any sense at all compared to Windows.
There's really only one OS that's economically competitive with Windows, and that's because it requires a very high-margin hardware dongle.
From your link: "The current model for Java is close to an open source model, Gosling said." So, he's not saying it is.
And the way that the "Open Source Community" uses the term "open source" is really beyond the plain meaning and historical usage of the term; and only makes sense if you've had your ideological briefing. Java is open source in the sense that the source code is open and accessible. It just doesn't meet the "Open Source Definition".
Besides, the Linux desktop revolution is pretty much over anyway, isn't it?
How about Ubuntu, "Linux for Humans", with their $10 Million or whatever in venture apital. Also Linspire. I wouldn't call the Linux desktop dead until people stop sinking money into it.
(I also should say that I don't really "get" Ubuntu -- it doesn't really seem any easier/better/different than Fedora or any other traditional Linux Distro. I think maybe the people claiming massive user friendlyness are all coming from Debian or something.)
There's no money on the desktop. Despite all the talk here of how onerous the "MS Tax" is, the size of their market allows them to undercut their competitors.
RedHat (and SuSE) are both focusing on enterprise deployments in traditional Unix shops, which is smart because they can charge a lot of money and still come out as the cheap option. The companies that focus on desktop Linux end up burning through their capital and becoming one sacraficial lamb after another. (Yes this will happen to Ubuntu eventually as well.)
In many discussions it seems that this is getting turned into a "conservatives vs. liberals" discussion or similar. I do not really see why.
Why? Because the whole issue only exists because of a division in US Republican Party internal politics. And since the Republicans control the US Congress and White House, they have a certain amount of influance over ICANN and were pushing this issue one way or the other.
The more you post on the Internet, the less people will want to use Linux. Your Angry Young Boy act is purely reactionary and unconvincing for emotionally normal adults. You are the stereotype.
Now, on to content, I never used the word "zealot" in my post. As with a previous discussion, you tend to imagine things and put words in peoples mouths, which is understandable because you're obviously not very bright. Furthermore, you completely misunderstood the fact that I was providing constructive criticism to those competing against Microsoft which is just the opposite of "defending the honor".
So, you basically manufactured an entire argument and attempted to stick it on me. Very active imagination, but a complete failure as a counter-argument.
Oh, this attitude that Linux will save use from Microsoft goes back long before Slashdot. For fun, check out c.o.l.a. from 1994 and just like Slashdot today. However, I will agree that the smart people in the Linux world (ie RedHat) are focused on "Enterprise Unix" and wisely avoid the desktop market.
That is, until your "benevolant [sic] monopoly" comment,
I'm not saying that I believe that, just that is how they are percieved in most of IT.
Is your story possible? Sure. But I think you are OVERSTATING your case here. The likelyhood of being seriously squeezed by Microsoft because you rolled out the wrong image is actually fairly low IMO.
I should point out that I went through a Microsoft "audit" once that consisted of looking at reports from the SMS server. Of course that company was actually doing something to track and *pay for* software licenses. No nitpicking over keys or certificates. But that was several years ago.
The reason for this is that 95% of the businesses which are Microsoft shops have a sales, marketing and middle management that is MS Exchange addicted
I've worked in a few places that operated just like this, except with Lotus Notes.
Probably the worst thing about working in a "Microsoft-Addicted" business is the attitude that Excel+Email is the universal tool for solving everything. Because Microsoft pushes tools and not solutions, people thend to be very ad-hoc about process related stuff.
That page is exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently the most important thing tney have to report is events regading DR-DOS that happened in 1990, sixteen years ago. For an IT Manager trying to make a decision about the future, they simply DO NOT CARE.
Oh, I've been there too, so I know it happens. Although in my experience management caves because they know their license management is a mess and they really have no idea what's out there.
OK -- let's look at this from a common sense perspective. Microsoft comes in and all your holograms are in order and you're a good customer. I find it highly unlikley they will bust you because you lack sales reciepts or can't "PROVE" that they aren't fake.
After working in IT for more than 10 years, I can say that most shops are out of compliance simply because they don't really care. Usually there's a token effort made by purchasing a volume license, but after that it's carte blanche because "We have a site licence". More often than not, the desktop techs will install anything they want without any accounting whatsoever.
Part of the problem for the alternate systems is to actually convince people that the MS monopoly is bad for them.
No, that attitude is the problem itself. Trying to sell a product on the basis of "It's not Microsoft" doesn't work in the real world because Microsoft is not percieved to be any worse of a problem than the Electric Company/other benevolant monopoly.
The Linux world focuses far too much on the negatives about MS and Windows and far too little on whatever positives they have. It's not hard to read between the lines and realize that even the stalwart Linux advocates don't believe in the product on it's own merits.
^ Oracle -- this happened to me as well. Took more than a year before their Indian reps stopped calling me.
A few years back, Sybase sent us a big box full of software unrequested. After that they hounded us for months and even sent some sales consultants over in person. I later heard that they were involved in an accounting fraud where they were booking revenue based on product demos.
> We need someone with "x" years experience, sorry;
StarOffice is older than dirt. It has "x" years experience, plus some.
> it's unfortunate the example set by Microsoft is what sets the stage and expectation for anyone else. OSS is not Microsoft. And, I hope OSS and ODF is given the time
Second, please stop conflating ODF and "OSS". This whole issue has become so much more problematic because it keeps getting hijacked by the OpenOffice advocates. OpenOffice has these problems with or without ODF.
And finally, why shouldn't OpenOffice be held to the same 'expectations' as Microsoft Office? Isn't OpenOffice trying to be a direct replacement? It's not anyone's responsiblity to accomodate an inferior software product -- espeically if they're disabled and can't even use that inferior product to begin with. Once again, it's a fundemental failure to realize that Microsoft is on top because they give users what they want rather than pleading with people to overlook their faults.
You're not much of a libertarian. I thought the issue was the high price of fuel. Consumers will use less gasoline once they decide the prices are too high.
The problem is "once they decide", it's not economically rational to immediately change their behavior -- A consumer faced with $3.00/gal gas can't cheaply drop his SUV lease, nor can he reasonably move closer to work. I think it's clear that people will start to use less fuel, but reasonably will take several years until the market rationalizes itself.
Binary kernel modules are forbidden by a strict interpretation of the GPL;
There is no such thing as a "strict interpretation" of the GPL, it's not a biblical text. There is only the accepted legal intreptation of copyright laws. When copyright lawyers state that Nvidia is totally within their rights to release a binary driver, you can't make GPL angels dance on the head of a pin and change things.
If Linus and the rest of the kernel developers decide at some point to provide an ABI that proprietary companies can use to build their drivers, all the while clinging to their dated business methodologies and obsession with "IP", then great, that's their choice.
Here's what you guys are overlooking. There is a stable kernel ABI. It's called "RedHat Enterprise". Look at high-end storage drivers and the like and they only come in binary and only "certified" for certain distributions. If you want stability, you pay RedHat and the hardware vendor pays RedHat.
So, this isn't all about Free Software lovey-dovey. Much of the mainline kernel's instability is directly motivated by the fact that "stability" where the revenue comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
it would be pretty trivial for them to put out an "IBM Desktop Linux."
IBM finally closed the support window on OS/2 last year, for an OS that came out in 1996. IBM has such a blue-chip reputation because they'll never let a product drop, making it very expensive to extract themselves from anything.
By shunting the base OS off to RedHat and SUSE, IBM can avoid providing "IBM-Style" support while still making the consulting dollars on the high-value parts of the implementation.
Woah, calm down pal. FWIW, I thought your post was right on target. Maybe I should have repeated my other post where I articulated that desktop investments like Ubuntu are pretty much doomed to failure and that while the Linux desktop is not "dead", it's not going to be a growth market anytime soon.
And to be perfectly honest, if Linux as a platform and as a technology did nothing else but provide a threat that large companies could use in their negotiations with Microsoft,
I don't see this as being a very serious threat. Linux distros that "pay their way" like RedHat can't economically sell a solution cheaper than Microsoft now, and it's unlikely they will in the future. The only way that "Linux is cheaper" is if you go with free community-supported distributions, which don't have the support lifecycle, probably can't support a large userbase of freeloaders, and IMO are already falling way behind RedHat etc.
And then if you get into the home desktop area, the support costs for Linux just don't make any sense at all compared to Windows.
There's really only one OS that's economically competitive with Windows, and that's because it requires a very high-margin hardware dongle.
That's not open source.
From your link: "The current model for Java is close to an open source model, Gosling said." So, he's not saying it is.
And the way that the "Open Source Community" uses the term "open source" is really beyond the plain meaning and historical usage of the term; and only makes sense if you've had your ideological briefing. Java is open source in the sense that the source code is open and accessible. It just doesn't meet the "Open Source Definition".
Besides, the Linux desktop revolution is pretty much over anyway, isn't it?
How about Ubuntu, "Linux for Humans", with their $10 Million or whatever in venture apital. Also Linspire. I wouldn't call the Linux desktop dead until people stop sinking money into it.
(I also should say that I don't really "get" Ubuntu -- it doesn't really seem any easier/better/different than Fedora or any other traditional Linux Distro. I think maybe the people claiming massive user friendlyness are all coming from Debian or something.)
There's no money on the desktop. Despite all the talk here of how onerous the "MS Tax" is, the size of their market allows them to undercut their competitors.
RedHat (and SuSE) are both focusing on enterprise deployments in traditional Unix shops, which is smart because they can charge a lot of money and still come out as the cheap option. The companies that focus on desktop Linux end up burning through their capital and becoming one sacraficial lamb after another. (Yes this will happen to Ubuntu eventually as well.)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that you are the t-shirt and stickers guy here.
Since you're not smart enough to figure it out, here's a hint. What I'm practicing is not corporatism, it's contrarinism, aka trolling. HAND
In many discussions it seems that this is getting turned into a "conservatives vs. liberals" discussion or similar. I do not really see why.
Why? Because the whole issue only exists because of a division in US Republican Party internal politics. And since the Republicans control the US Congress and White House, they have a certain amount of influance over ICANN and were pushing this issue one way or the other.
Thanks, but I think I'll maintain my anal sovereignty.
I just have to say that I'm cracking up. But, whether it's a convicing argument or not is another question.
People like you are a prime example, killjoe.
The more you post on the Internet, the less people will want to use Linux. Your Angry Young Boy act is purely reactionary and unconvincing for emotionally normal adults. You are the stereotype.
Now, on to content, I never used the word "zealot" in my post. As with a previous discussion, you tend to imagine things and put words in peoples mouths, which is understandable because you're obviously not very bright. Furthermore, you completely misunderstood the fact that I was providing constructive criticism to those competing against Microsoft which is just the opposite of "defending the honor".
So, you basically manufactured an entire argument and attempted to stick it on me. Very active imagination, but a complete failure as a counter-argument.
If by "Linux World" you mean...
Oh, this attitude that Linux will save use from Microsoft goes back long before Slashdot. For fun, check out c.o.l.a. from 1994 and just like Slashdot today. However, I will agree that the smart people in the Linux world (ie RedHat) are focused on "Enterprise Unix" and wisely avoid the desktop market.
That is, until your "benevolant [sic] monopoly" comment,
I'm not saying that I believe that, just that is how they are percieved in most of IT.
Is your story possible? Sure. But I think you are OVERSTATING your case here. The likelyhood of being seriously squeezed by Microsoft because you rolled out the wrong image is actually fairly low IMO.
I should point out that I went through a Microsoft "audit" once that consisted of looking at reports from the SMS server. Of course that company was actually doing something to track and *pay for* software licenses. No nitpicking over keys or certificates. But that was several years ago.
The reason for this is that 95% of the businesses which are Microsoft shops have a sales, marketing and middle management that is MS Exchange addicted
I've worked in a few places that operated just like this, except with Lotus Notes.
Probably the worst thing about working in a "Microsoft-Addicted" business is the attitude that Excel+Email is the universal tool for solving everything. Because Microsoft pushes tools and not solutions, people thend to be very ad-hoc about process related stuff.
That page is exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently the most important thing tney have to report is events regading DR-DOS that happened in 1990, sixteen years ago. For an IT Manager trying to make a decision about the future, they simply DO NOT CARE.
Oh, I've been there too, so I know it happens. Although in my experience management caves because they know their license management is a mess and they really have no idea what's out there.
OK -- let's look at this from a common sense perspective. Microsoft comes in and all your holograms are in order and you're a good customer. I find it highly unlikley they will bust you because you lack sales reciepts or can't "PROVE" that they aren't fake.
After working in IT for more than 10 years, I can say that most shops are out of compliance simply because they don't really care. Usually there's a token effort made by purchasing a volume license, but after that it's carte blanche because "We have a site licence". More often than not, the desktop techs will install anything they want without any accounting whatsoever.
Part of the problem for the alternate systems is to actually convince people that the MS monopoly is bad for them.
No, that attitude is the problem itself. Trying to sell a product on the basis of "It's not Microsoft" doesn't work in the real world because Microsoft is not percieved to be any worse of a problem than the Electric Company/other benevolant monopoly.
The Linux world focuses far too much on the negatives about MS and Windows and far too little on whatever positives they have. It's not hard to read between the lines and realize that even the stalwart Linux advocates don't believe in the product on it's own merits.
^ Oracle -- this happened to me as well. Took more than a year before their Indian reps stopped calling me.
A few years back, Sybase sent us a big box full of software unrequested. After that they hounded us for months and even sent some sales consultants over in person. I later heard that they were involved in an accounting fraud where they were booking revenue based on product demos.
> We need someone with "x" years experience, sorry;
StarOffice is older than dirt. It has "x" years experience, plus some.
> it's unfortunate the example set by Microsoft is what sets the stage and expectation for anyone else. OSS is not Microsoft. And, I hope OSS and ODF is given the time
Second, please stop conflating ODF and "OSS". This whole issue has become so much more problematic because it keeps getting hijacked by the OpenOffice advocates. OpenOffice has these problems with or without ODF.
And finally, why shouldn't OpenOffice be held to the same 'expectations' as Microsoft Office? Isn't OpenOffice trying to be a direct replacement? It's not anyone's responsiblity to accomodate an inferior software product -- espeically if they're disabled and can't even use that inferior product to begin with. Once again, it's a fundemental failure to realize that Microsoft is on top because they give users what they want rather than pleading with people to overlook their faults.
You're not much of a libertarian. I thought the issue was the high price of fuel. Consumers will use less gasoline once they decide the prices are too high.
The problem is "once they decide", it's not economically rational to immediately change their behavior -- A consumer faced with $3.00/gal gas can't cheaply drop his SUV lease, nor can he reasonably move closer to work. I think it's clear that people will start to use less fuel, but reasonably will take several years until the market rationalizes itself.
Binary kernel modules are forbidden by a strict interpretation of the GPL;
There is no such thing as a "strict interpretation" of the GPL, it's not a biblical text. There is only the accepted legal intreptation of copyright laws. When copyright lawyers state that Nvidia is totally within their rights to release a binary driver, you can't make GPL angels dance on the head of a pin and change things.
If Linus and the rest of the kernel developers decide at some point to provide an ABI that proprietary companies can use to build their drivers, all the while clinging to their dated business methodologies and obsession with "IP", then great, that's their choice.
Here's what you guys are overlooking. There is a stable kernel ABI. It's called "RedHat Enterprise". Look at high-end storage drivers and the like and they only come in binary and only "certified" for certain distributions. If you want stability, you pay RedHat and the hardware vendor pays RedHat.
So, this isn't all about Free Software lovey-dovey. Much of the mainline kernel's instability is directly motivated by the fact that "stability" where the revenue comes from.
Well it does suck to be you because you're talking to someone who thinks you're retarded.
The rays are blue! Why wouldn't you want one?
What I would do is to ask tepples *again* to stop asking me stupid hypothetical questions.