Since UnixWare is much more powerful, scalable and secure than Linux, customers may replace multiple Linux servers with a single, more powerful UnixWare server.
I belive you, but my experience is quite different. I've already seen BSOD on almost every Microsoft OS, despite the fact that I don't even work with Windows on my own. Most (but not all) of the Windows computers I've seen (i.e. at work) had crashed for some reasons (don't ask me why). And I've seen quite a lot of them. That includes Widows NT, 2000 and XP (professional edition) with various service pack installed. And the hardware was not always the cheapest sort available. And if all the problems were related to the hardware and/or the drivers than Windows is really a bit too picky about it.
Now, I agree with what the author says, but I still don't think it is completely adequate in this context. Why? Simply because of the price factor.
It doesn't matter how good the product (in this case Windows) is. Yes, I agree that it is good enough, but that's irrelevant.
If there is another product that not only does the job (is good enough) but is also cheaper - it will win. No matter what they do, linux will be cheaper. Is it good enough? Even if it isn't yet, it will be soon. So it seems like Microsoft is going to lose this battle.
But wait a moment. They're smart. They're very smart. Actually they may win. How? By changing the rules. What about making use of Linux illegal? Maybe it is what the SCO case is about. Or maybe I'm a bit paranoid?:) Anyway, be prepared for new, brave actions. Thay have to do something.
Ironically, it was Microsoft who used to eliminate competitors using this practice (delivering 'good enough' product for less money).
If you live by the sword you're gonna die by the sword.
I do not agree. All Linux needs is to be "good enough". That is how Windows entered the server area. Was it better than commercial unixes? No. It was just cheaper and good enough. And then Linux which was even cheaper has started to replace Windows.
And the same will (hopefully;-)) happen in the user area.
I don't know about US, but here, in Europe, it is possible to buy cheaper PC without Windows and the price difference is noticable.
That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place. What??? Did I miss a fight? Now, I am really disappointed... I though that the fight for desktop is about to begin.
The answer to all your questions is no and that's exactly what makes Slackware so attractive. It is clean and tidy distribution which keeps everything as simple as possible. It is beautiful.
It is flamebait. Imagine all those nasty GNU Copyright owners coming with lawyers just because someone have used GNU software on linux to produce commercial code. And the opposite, all those peaceful Microsoft representatives coming with flowers just because someone have attempted to use Ms code.
And you forgot that in 95 there was a system vastly superior to Windows 95. It was called OS/2. Yes, OS/2 Warp 3 was there before Windows and was much better (I would rather compare it to Windows NT than to 9x).
Yes there were other reasons why this os has failed but it really has nothing to do with windows superiority.
Well, maybe m$ would've gotten their monopoly on operating system market but there is no way they would have extended it to the other areas, like browses or office software, without thier anticompetitive pratices.
Slashdot Mirror
that makes me think about "+1 Scary" modifier.
And also from the same page:
Since UnixWare is much more powerful, scalable and secure than Linux, customers may replace multiple Linux servers with a single, more powerful UnixWare server.
It's not amazing. It's amusing.
or anybody else has read "SCO complaint failed"?
It is explained here
Because if someone (i.e. Microsoft) acts illegaly it is a job for the goverment to punish him.
And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.
Can't you really see the difference?
I imagine that if runtime support was available on mac / unix, it would kill java in about 6 months.
But that is not going to happen. Why? Beacause it would kill Microsoft in just another 6 (well maybe a bit more) months.
Now my Atari-based Linux terminal is no longer safe.
Thank you very much!
I belive you, but my experience is quite different. I've already seen BSOD on almost every Microsoft OS, despite the fact that I don't even work with Windows on my own. Most (but not all) of the Windows computers I've seen (i.e. at work) had crashed for some reasons (don't ask me why). And I've seen quite a lot of them. That includes Widows NT, 2000 and XP (professional edition) with various service pack installed. And the hardware was not always the cheapest sort available. And if all the problems were related to the hardware and/or the drivers than Windows is really a bit too picky about it.
I would call it a rather stable OS.
The fact that it does not crash all the time does not make it a pretty stable os yet.
6) ???
7) profit
in your joke.
Thanks for the link - it's interesting.
:) Anyway, be prepared for new, brave actions. Thay have to do something.
Now, I agree with what the author says, but I still don't think it is completely adequate in this context. Why? Simply because of the price factor.
It doesn't matter how good the product (in this case Windows) is. Yes, I agree that it is good enough, but that's irrelevant.
If there is another product that not only does the job (is good enough) but is also cheaper - it will win. No matter what they do, linux will be cheaper. Is it good enough? Even if it isn't yet, it will be soon. So it seems like Microsoft is going to lose this battle.
But wait a moment. They're smart. They're very smart. Actually they may win. How? By changing the rules. What about making use of Linux illegal? Maybe it is what the SCO case is about. Or maybe I'm a bit paranoid?
Ironically, it was Microsoft who used to eliminate competitors using this practice (delivering 'good enough' product for less money).
If you live by the sword you're gonna die by the sword.
I do not agree. All Linux needs is to be "good enough". That is how Windows entered the server area. Was it better than commercial unixes? No. It was just cheaper and good enough. And then Linux which was even cheaper has started to replace Windows.
;-)) happen in the user area.
And the same will (hopefully
I don't know about US, but here, in Europe, it is possible to buy cheaper PC without Windows and the price difference is noticable.
I don't know what you people are doing.
:)
They're browsing the web I suppose.
That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place.
What??? Did I miss a fight? Now, I am really disappointed... I though that the fight for desktop is about to begin.
I meant of course one hundred thousand.
No. It only means that one MSN hit is worth 1 milion ;)
Google hits.
so you can switch off your TV just to see who is watching you from behind?
So they're not going to release any product any time soon?
It is not a contadiction. Slackware has very simple installation which can be not easy for a novice. :-)
Yes, there is one . It's called swaret.
The answer to all your questions is no and that's exactly what makes Slackware so attractive.
It is clean and tidy distribution which keeps everything as simple as possible. It is beautiful.
Since when having a security problem became a required feature for desktop OS?
Oh... never mind!
It is flamebait. Imagine all those nasty GNU Copyright owners coming with lawyers just because someone have used GNU software on linux to produce commercial code. And the opposite, all those peaceful Microsoft representatives coming with flowers just because someone have attempted to use Ms code.
At my company it is even beter: 100% of the developers (me) use Linux on desktop. :-)
Now I am wondering how to generalize this result.
And you forgot that in 95 there was a system vastly superior to Windows 95. It was called OS/2. Yes, OS/2 Warp 3 was there before Windows and was much better (I would rather compare it to Windows NT than to 9x).
Yes there were other reasons why this os has failed but it really has nothing to do with windows superiority.
Well, maybe m$ would've gotten their monopoly on operating system market but there is no way they would have extended it to the other areas, like browses or office software, without thier anticompetitive pratices.