Maybe my own experience is also unusual, but now that I think on it, I haven't worked at a company that did not have at least one entire department on macs since graduating from the food services industry.
The only browser/OS market share statistics I trust are the ones based on my own first-hand experience. All the others tend to ignore important relevant criteria, produce wildly differing results, and are often colored by ideological and/or financially-motivated bias.
Based on first-hand empirical evidence, it's perfectly clear that Mac users make up about 40% of desktop computer users, and about 60% of laptop users, and that approximately 75% use Firefox as their primary browser. Among Mac users, Safari and Firefox use is approximately 50-50%
Of course, this was the same method I used to predict last year's Democratic landslide...
Well, I see your point, but consider that the magic behind AJAX is in an IE-only non-standard object, XMLHttpRequest. I wonder if Google would have used it if Mozilla engineers had not already implemented a compatible object for their browser. I also imagine they had to think hard about implementing something that does not work in Safari or Opera... I know I would. These new JavaScript extensions in Mozilla are just tiny little minor things. If there were going to be a groundswell of these "marquee" people building sites that don't work in IE, it would have happened years ago when they learned they could use CSS2 and cool lookin' semi-transparent PNG's. Believe me - there is no end to how much easier, cooler and less expensive it would be to develop web pages if the clock hadn't stopped in 2001 with IE6.
These little JavaScript things don't matter much. What you should really be wondering about is whether people will start using stuff like XForms and SVG to create places where IE can't go.
You'd really have to be completely stupid to use JavaScript in a web page that only works in one browser, even if that browser has a 90% market share. You'd have to even more stupid to use JavaScript in a web page that only works in a browser with less than 10% market share.
I really don't think these "extensions" are intended to be used in web pages. I'm also pretty dubious of your (unintended?) implication that the folks at Mozilla are doing things to lure developers to create web sites that will only work with Mozilla the way Microsoft did back when it was leveraging its OS monopoly to kill the browser market.
Would it help you see the difference if I pointed out that Mozilla also uses some non-standard "extensions" to CSS which it uses internally for styling the GUI?
Which you'd also have to be totally stupid to use in a web page?
This may seem obvious, but if you're worried about not having the most up-to-date security in your 50000 employees' browsers, maybe IE is not the right browser for you, regardless of which version of Windows you're standardized on.
You make it sound like there are two competing standards, IE's and everyone else's. Frankly, I'd rather build my site to standards established to level the playing field for competition and fuel innovation, rather than one established by a single commercial entity that will only innovate when there are competitors to squish.
Microsoft will let you keep using the same old version of IE until they feel compelled by market pressure to update it. When they do, they will add features, bells, whistles, gewgaws, buttons, lights and "security", to try to lure you to use it rather than the competition's. But one thing they will never do while they have over a 50% market share is to make IE comply to the same standards everyone else uses.
Microsoft is an aggressive company, which is why they're so successful. As a consumer, you should realize that your needs don't always match up with theirs, and in those cases, you are not the one they're looking out for. Want a standard XHTML/CSS that renders the same on all browsers? As a consumer, you're very fortunate to have such a clear choice.
Actually, I bet if you give Darl and his lawyers enough time, they'll probably convince themselves that because the U.S. military uses Linux, then by extension SCO clearly deserves a share of Iraq's future oil profits.
Well, no. It is a business where a monopoly can be easily acquired, but not quite the "natural monopoly" the grandparent described. In truth, there's already a solution in place for dealing with things like the Microsoft monopoly that does not include resorting to drastic measures like utility-style regulation: anti-trust laws. All that is required is for our government (and others) to enforce them.
Maybe EV1 should invest in a good Administrative Assistant:
"Actually, Mr. Marsh, it's spelled 'p-l-a-g-i-a-r-i-s-m.'"
"Perhaps, Mr. Marsh, we should wait and see whether SCO survives their suit with IBM."
"No, Mr. Marsh, I don't think this email is from a real exiled Nigerian Prince."
That was the first thing I thought of too... whether they're going to do anything about their crappy web browser.
IANAMSE, but I don't really expect any meaningful improvements. When they say, "no new IE 'til Longhorn," what they mean is that their code base is ancient and crufty, and that while tying it to the OS was a brilliant marketing/legal manuever, it didn't make it any easier to fix/maintain and improve it. What they mean is that it's crossed that line where it's more trouble to fix it than to just scrap it all and start from scratch.
O'course, there might also be a little spite involved:)... I'd rather make one web page built on standards that will look the same in IE as Opera, the Gecko's and the KHTML's, but as devout monopolists, I don't think MS is as enthusiastic about that prospect as I am. I think they're just as happy with me either dumbing down my CSS/J(ava)Script/HTML for IE or being lured into using their IE-only nonsense.
Considering IE is here to stay (as you could never hope convert the masses out there who think Opera is just the thing with fat ladies singing and that Mozilla is some stupid Japanese monster) I think people's time would be better spent raising awareness of IE's flaws and encouraging Microsoft to fix them rather than encouraging people to change browser.
"People" do weird things sometimes - a large number of people went to the theater and paid perfectly good money to see 'Gigli' for example. I think it's incredibly weird that people still use IE even without the security problems, given that there are a number of faster, better-featured browsers available free for downloading. But "people" tend to move in flocks. All it would take would be a large enough catalyst, and I think there would be a mass migration.
Is this it? No. People are stupid - they won't switch because they should switch. People won't switch until they come to a roadblock: they want to do something and they find they can't. Even if every IE user were to see this KB entry, 99.9% would ignore it, and they'd blame "hackers" if they got hit by the vulnerability, not MS or IE.
If people get exposed to and get used to better browsers, though (corporate IT gets tired of trying to teach users not to click on things, for example), they'll get used to tabbed browsing, native popup-blocking, their BenJen browser theme, etc., then find they can't do the same at home with IE... they'll switch.
If IE were almost as good as Opera or Firebird, you'd be right about it being nigh invulnerable. It just isn't, though.
++ Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level)."
+It takes less unix admins than windows admins. I have worked on both sides of the fence and in my experience it takes less unix admins. They may cost more per admin but it takes less to do the same job.
It's been my experience that admins cost about the same for Unix/Linux or Windows. Now, it's easier to find "admins" with a cert and no experience willing to work for less as a Windows admin. But the good ones are just as expensive, and no more numerous than good Unix admins. As a Linux admin, I have an enormous amount of respect for these people, frankly: it's as you pointed out: their jobs are a hell of a lot harder than mine.
That's why these "studies" seem so transparently bogus to me. They're obviously using the lowest salary you can find for an admin rather than the salary for the quality of Windows admin you need to actually keep your Windows boxes running as smoothly as Linux... or for the overtime you'll have to pay them for the 2-3 major Windows security crises you'll face this year.
You're right, this is a non-issue. My office is now Mac-desktop/ Linux-server and there's nobody around here who wants to go back. But, we still have one WinXP machine for testing and such. Like you said, they make lots of software for Mac, but even if they didn't you could still think of any number of reasons for them to want to look at the new G5's.
Yeah, much as I hate to side with MS on something, I really don't blame them for wanting to fire a guy for putting pictures of their loading dock in his blog, no matter how much of a non-issue it actually is. You can find plenty of examples of Microsoft acting the evil, monopolist, anti-privacy, anti-competitive, corporate evil-doers we all know and love, but I'm just not convinced that this is one of them.
I'm sorry, but Linux has never, is not, and will never be a mainstream operating system.
Actually, in the server room, it is very much mainstream, and gaining ground. It sounds like what you're thinking of is the consumer/desktop OS
market, where MS does so well. You might be right that Linux will never be competitive in that market, but that would be an awful shame... if Linux were to become a major desktop operating system, it would be the best thing that ever happened to MS.
...but it's just a hacked up UNIX-like OS built by a bunch of volunteers...
You mean as opposed to Windows, which is hacked-up DOS? Actually, the open source development model has, I think, proven itself as a perfectly viable way of producing high-quality software. (We wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't).
Most people do NOT care about the free-software ideology, they just want to turn on their computer, read their e-mail, browse the web, and look at porn/pictures of their grandkids (not necessarily the same people). Why screw around with Linux when Windows comes for free on their computer?
For most people, a new computer is a big expense. The same people you're talking about, the ones who just want to browse and get their email, they would - all of them - be using Macs if they were less expensive than PC's. Apple's OS is easier to use than MS', and (these days) more stable and secure. And yet, these people buy PC's with Windows. Why? Because, like you said, they don't know what OS stands for and they don't care... they'll just buy the cheaper one, even if it's put out by a monopolist company, and even if it has the worst kind of DRM, and even if it has security holes you can drive your hummer through. I think people will buy cheaper PC's with Linux (given that you can just turn it on and browse, get your porn, whatever), and never miss Windows, even if they never imagined that there might be some kind of computer-nerd ideology attached to it.
...but you get a +1 for working in the word "masturbation" and the phrase "nondeterministic finite automata" into the same post. Congratulations, nicely done.:)
Like most everybody else, I have some serious doubts about the idea that XP can last until 2006 as a viable competitor in the desktop market... Linux is a serious alternative to Windows on the desktop, and frankly, OS X is way ahead if you got the cash.
But the thing that jumps out at me with this news is the idea that there will be no new Internet Explorer until Longhorn's integrated browser. There will be plenty of XP die-hards still using it in 2006, I'm sure. But IE is old, buggy, and is facing vastly superior competition right now. There's no way IE can survive that long unless there's some sinister aspect to this plan I'm just not seeing.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe my own experience is also unusual, but now that I think on it, I haven't worked at a company that did not have at least one entire department on macs since graduating from the food services industry.
The servers had to be able to withstand the Slashdotting that would ensue once the article about the servers was posted to Slashdot.
Duh. :)
The only browser/OS market share statistics I trust are the ones based on my own first-hand experience. All the others tend to ignore important relevant criteria, produce wildly differing results, and are often colored by ideological and/or financially-motivated bias.
Based on first-hand empirical evidence, it's perfectly clear that Mac users make up about 40% of desktop computer users, and about 60% of laptop users, and that approximately 75% use Firefox as their primary browser. Among Mac users, Safari and Firefox use is approximately 50-50%
Of course, this was the same method I used to predict last year's Democratic landslide...
Well, I see your point, but consider that the magic behind AJAX is in an IE-only non-standard object, XMLHttpRequest. I wonder if Google would have used it if Mozilla engineers had not already implemented a compatible object for their browser. I also imagine they had to think hard about implementing something that does not work in Safari or Opera... I know I would. These new JavaScript extensions in Mozilla are just tiny little minor things. If there were going to be a groundswell of these "marquee" people building sites that don't work in IE, it would have happened years ago when they learned they could use CSS2 and cool lookin' semi-transparent PNG's. Believe me - there is no end to how much easier, cooler and less expensive it would be to develop web pages if the clock hadn't stopped in 2001 with IE6.
These little JavaScript things don't matter much. What you should really be wondering about is whether people will start using stuff like XForms and SVG to create places where IE can't go.
Do you really not see the difference?
You'd really have to be completely stupid to use JavaScript in a web page that only works in one browser, even if that browser has a 90% market share. You'd have to even more stupid to use JavaScript in a web page that only works in a browser with less than 10% market share.
I really don't think these "extensions" are intended to be used in web pages. I'm also pretty dubious of your (unintended?) implication that the folks at Mozilla are doing things to lure developers to create web sites that will only work with Mozilla the way Microsoft did back when it was leveraging its OS monopoly to kill the browser market.
Would it help you see the difference if I pointed out that Mozilla also uses some non-standard "extensions" to CSS which it uses internally for styling the GUI?
Which you'd also have to be totally stupid to use in a web page?
This may seem obvious, but if you're worried about not having the most up-to-date security in your 50000 employees' browsers, maybe IE is not the right browser for you, regardless of which version of Windows you're standardized on.
You make it sound like there are two competing standards, IE's and everyone else's. Frankly, I'd rather build my site to standards established to level the playing field for competition and fuel innovation, rather than one established by a single commercial entity that will only innovate when there are competitors to squish.
Microsoft will let you keep using the same old version of IE until they feel compelled by market pressure to update it. When they do, they will add features, bells, whistles, gewgaws, buttons, lights and "security", to try to lure you to use it rather than the competition's. But one thing they will never do while they have over a 50% market share is to make IE comply to the same standards everyone else uses.
Microsoft is an aggressive company, which is why they're so successful. As a consumer, you should realize that your needs don't always match up with theirs, and in those cases, you are not the one they're looking out for. Want a standard XHTML/CSS that renders the same on all browsers? As a consumer, you're very fortunate to have such a clear choice.
Actually, I bet if you give Darl and his lawyers enough time, they'll probably convince themselves that because the U.S. military uses Linux, then by extension SCO clearly deserves a share of Iraq's future oil profits.
Hm. I wonder if Unisys has a P.O. made out for Fritz Hollings yet.
"...you can almost think of hardware as being free -- I'm not saying it will be absolutely free --...."
No, no guys -- he's not talking about PC hardware, he means XBox.
Software seems to be a natural monopoly business.
Well, no. It is a business where a monopoly can be easily acquired, but not quite the "natural monopoly" the grandparent described. In truth, there's already a solution in place for dealing with things like the Microsoft monopoly that does not include resorting to drastic measures like utility-style regulation: anti-trust laws. All that is required is for our government (and others) to enforce them.
Maybe EV1 should invest in a good Administrative Assistant:
"Actually, Mr. Marsh, it's spelled 'p-l-a-g-i-a-r-i-s-m.'"
"Perhaps, Mr. Marsh, we should wait and see whether SCO survives their suit with IBM."
"No, Mr. Marsh, I don't think this email is from a real exiled Nigerian Prince."
What they did is called CYA.
CowardlY Acquiescence?
Capitulate to Yammering Assholes?
How about "Fuddite?"
That was the first thing I thought of too... whether they're going to do anything about their crappy web browser.
IANAMSE, but I don't really expect any meaningful improvements. When they say, "no new IE 'til Longhorn," what they mean is that their code base is ancient and crufty, and that while tying it to the OS was a brilliant marketing/legal manuever, it didn't make it any easier to fix/maintain and improve it. What they mean is that it's crossed that line where it's more trouble to fix it than to just scrap it all and start from scratch.
O'course, there might also be a little spite involved :)... I'd rather make one web page built on standards that will look the same in IE as Opera, the Gecko's and the KHTML's, but as devout monopolists, I don't think MS is as enthusiastic about that prospect as I am. I think they're just as happy with me either dumbing down my CSS/J(ava)Script/HTML for IE or being lured into using their IE-only nonsense.
Violent geeks? Ridiculous. I'm going to stop wasting my time on this discussion and go check out the new Slashdot poll.
Considering IE is here to stay (as you could never hope convert the masses out there who think Opera is just the thing with fat ladies singing and that Mozilla is some stupid Japanese monster) I think people's time would be better spent raising awareness of IE's flaws and encouraging Microsoft to fix them rather than encouraging people to change browser.
"People" do weird things sometimes - a large number of people went to the theater and paid perfectly good money to see 'Gigli' for example. I think it's incredibly weird that people still use IE even without the security problems, given that there are a number of faster, better-featured browsers available free for downloading. But "people" tend to move in flocks. All it would take would be a large enough catalyst, and I think there would be a mass migration.
Is this it? No. People are stupid - they won't switch because they should switch. People won't switch until they come to a roadblock: they want to do something and they find they can't. Even if every IE user were to see this KB entry, 99.9% would ignore it, and they'd blame "hackers" if they got hit by the vulnerability, not MS or IE.
If people get exposed to and get used to better browsers, though (corporate IT gets tired of trying to teach users not to click on things, for example), they'll get used to tabbed browsing, native popup-blocking, their BenJen browser theme, etc., then find they can't do the same at home with IE... they'll switch.
If IE were almost as good as Opera or Firebird, you'd be right about it being nigh invulnerable. It just isn't, though.
++ Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level)."
+It takes less unix admins than windows admins. I have worked on both sides of the fence and in my experience it takes less unix admins. They may cost more per admin but it takes less to do the same job.
It's been my experience that admins cost about the same for Unix/Linux or Windows. Now, it's easier to find "admins" with a cert and no experience willing to work for less as a Windows admin. But the good ones are just as expensive, and no more numerous than good Unix admins. As a Linux admin, I have an enormous amount of respect for these people, frankly: it's as you pointed out: their jobs are a hell of a lot harder than mine.
That's why these "studies" seem so transparently bogus to me. They're obviously using the lowest salary you can find for an admin rather than the salary for the quality of Windows admin you need to actually keep your Windows boxes running as smoothly as Linux... or for the overtime you'll have to pay them for the 2-3 major Windows security crises you'll face this year.
LOL! Damn, I never have mod points when I need 'em... :)
Because my sports car performs better with it's "re-invented" wheels than it would with wooden horse-and-buggy cartwheels?
Because choice means competition, which means better browsers?
Oh, wait. You probably already knew all that and were just trolling. Never mind.
Wall-Mart?
You're right, this is a non-issue. My office is now Mac-desktop/ Linux-server and there's nobody around here who wants to go back. But, we still have one WinXP machine for testing and such. Like you said, they make lots of software for Mac, but even if they didn't you could still think of any number of reasons for them to want to look at the new G5's.
Yeah, much as I hate to side with MS on something, I really don't blame them for wanting to fire a guy for putting pictures of their loading dock in his blog, no matter how much of a non-issue it actually is. You can find plenty of examples of Microsoft acting the evil, monopolist, anti-privacy, anti-competitive, corporate evil-doers we all know and love, but I'm just not convinced that this is one of them.
I'm sorry, but Linux has never, is not, and will never be a mainstream operating system.
Actually, in the server room, it is very much mainstream, and gaining ground. It sounds like what you're thinking of is the consumer/desktop OS market, where MS does so well. You might be right that Linux will never be competitive in that market, but that would be an awful shame... if Linux were to become a major desktop operating system, it would be the best thing that ever happened to MS.
You mean as opposed to Windows, which is hacked-up DOS? Actually, the open source development model has, I think, proven itself as a perfectly viable way of producing high-quality software. (We wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't).
Most people do NOT care about the free-software ideology, they just want to turn on their computer, read their e-mail, browse the web, and look at porn/pictures of their grandkids (not necessarily the same people). Why screw around with Linux when Windows comes for free on their computer?
For most people, a new computer is a big expense. The same people you're talking about, the ones who just want to browse and get their email, they would - all of them - be using Macs if they were less expensive than PC's. Apple's OS is easier to use than MS', and (these days) more stable and secure. And yet, these people buy PC's with Windows. Why? Because, like you said, they don't know what OS stands for and they don't care... they'll just buy the cheaper one, even if it's put out by a monopolist company, and even if it has the worst kind of DRM, and even if it has security holes you can drive your hummer through. I think people will buy cheaper PC's with Linux (given that you can just turn it on and browse, get your porn, whatever), and never miss Windows, even if they never imagined that there might be some kind of computer-nerd ideology attached to it.
Perl6 is a mistake (Score:0, Flamebait)
Like most everybody else, I have some serious doubts about the idea that XP can last until 2006 as a viable competitor in the desktop market... Linux is a serious alternative to Windows on the desktop, and frankly, OS X is way ahead if you got the cash.
But the thing that jumps out at me with this news is the idea that there will be no new Internet Explorer until Longhorn's integrated browser. There will be plenty of XP die-hards still using it in 2006, I'm sure. But IE is old, buggy, and is facing vastly superior competition right now. There's no way IE can survive that long unless there's some sinister aspect to this plan I'm just not seeing.