Or Kolab? Or SamsungContact? Or exchange4linux?
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 1
It seems to be all the rage these days... what server does Microsoft have left that doesn't have a decent FOSS replacement? File services are having their lunch eaten by SaMBa, MS-SQL-Server has PostgreSQL and IBPhoenix nipping at its heels plus MySQL blowing away the rest of the low-end SQL market, now MS-Exchange is suddenly facing... what, five different competitors?
D'ya think we can blame all of that on Licensing 6.0? (-:
Oh how I wish Unix had that. But it doesn't. Nothing even close.
At an ordinary, boring BASH prompt, hit Tab, answer the ensuing question with y;
If you're stuck on a command, do "command --help" and you will either get parameters or be told how to get them. You can use "/?" with many commands under MS-Windows, too (not including PING). But the killer in this area (for detail, not friendliness) was OS/2;
If you add full command completion to BASH, you'll never look back;
Try F1 anywhere in KDE;
If you think man pages look ugly, try typing man:command into Konqueror. If you type slowly, it will give you alternatives as you go;
Why do you always take two Mormons fishing? If you only take one, he'll drink all your beer.
Daddy dearest went out to a nightclub when he was much younger (a pretty singular event all by itself) and was sitting around a large table having a drink with the crowd that had dragged him there. Being Dad, he drank only lemonade (Dad uses Coke as a turbo boost if he has to drive for more than about 6 hours).
After a while, he started to catch odd looks from a pair of blokes across the table. Then a tell-us-all-about-yourself started adjacent to them and went around the table until it go to him, and soon afterwards petered out. He did notice, though, that they'd both almost collapsed with relief when he'd described himself as a "Bush Baptist/Calathumpian Cross" in the department of religion, so he asked a mutual acquaintance about that when most of the table (including these two) hat hit the dance floor. Friend laughed, and explained that they were both Mormons, had deduced from Dad's drinking habits that he was too, and had been absolutely terrified that he would report them to the head office! (-:
What a way to live! If you believe, don't drink, because you know that your recording angel will jot it down. If you don't, don't pretend because (1) it's hypocrisy; and (2) it'll drop your lifespan down to within cooee of being gay.
I don't live there, and don't have the right. Is there a problem? (-:
Yes, you can! You can say "these dudes are different to each other". (-:
IRL, they both dispense authority down a pyramid with a very narrow apex, they both add a lot of stuff to what the bible has to say, they both do hair-raising stuff to/with dead people (almost as if they were in some way still alive) and so on. Admittedly the Mormons haven't massacred as many heretics or started any world wars, but maybe that was because they've never had a real opportunity?
As to the religion pervading everything, have you ever been to a truly Catholicised country? One where the peasants worship even effigies of the local clergy? One where your data goes straight from the Tax Office to the church (and they come and collect goods-to-the-value-of if you haven't paid enough tithe etc)? One where you suspect they're trying to convert you with sheer weight of Marys?
It's not like getting registered in a state church has anything to do with wether you actually believe in a particular god or religion, but more with that your forefathers got thrown in jail, whipped or burned if they didnt agree with that particular worldview.
"+1 Informative" only I used up all of my mod points already.
It's also kind of like using MS-Windows: many people in those systems don't know that a realistic alternative exists.
Even with the compiling, it takes less time to install some stuff (eg nmap) than it would take to locate the relevant.rpm.
This is on a Celeron 300A with 64MB of RAM, and had to update the menu entries for 13 (!) WM's (dd wanted to try them all):
[root@aiyana root]# time urpmi nmap-frontend To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be installed (1 MB): nmap-3.00-2mdk.i586 nmap-frontend-3.00-2mdk .i586 Is this OK? (Y/n) y installing//home/leonb/1/Mandrake/RPMS/nmap-3.00-2mdk.i586.r pm//home/leonb/1/Mandrake/RPMS/nmap-frontend-3.00-2m dk.i586.rpm
So hard, ooh, all that typing - tell you a little secret about optimisation, too: optimising to Pentium level (Mandrake's default) gets you 98% of the speed gains you'll ever get from the technique, except for a very few special maths-intensive programs. Some of the Cooker denizens spent a bit of time building distros optimised for their Athlon, P4, etc and with the exception of a handful of apps like X, glibc, the kernel itself and codecs the difference was squat (in fact, some apps ran slower).
neither Broadcom nor Linksys is obligated to pass on this written offer to anyone unless they are also distributing the software to them. Broadcom can nether stop Linksys from redistributing, nor can they force them to redistribute.
Agree.
Distributing a router running said software == "distributing the software".
...if you used an old PROM with the binaries in it as a spacer to keep a circuit board away from a piece of metal inside the box, you would still be required to distribute the source. It would be appropriate, of course, to burn the source into another PROM and use that as a spacer in a different part of the box. (-:
Let's dwell on this phrase for a second (all bolding is mine):
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
I just want to emphasise that point, the written offer (presumably binding) is to give "ANY THIRD PARTY" at all a copy of the source for the cost of copying it.
Sorry, that was neither the European nor the African red-breasted DSL connection, but an Australian one. 24-26ms to hit most other WAIX-connected hosts including Swiftel.
BTW, I can't understand why anyone would bother modding down the AC who replied to the parent. Surely you can find better places to spend mod points? And if not, give him a +1 Funny or explain what you have against Python misquotes.
But under a less-restrictive license that isn't going to let me make profit over my OWN work at a later date.
Er, what in the BSD licence prevents you from profiting from your own code later?
What in the GPL prevents you from profiting from your own code later? Just the other contributors. You can only profit from your own pieces of code, which in a big project are going to be pretty close to useless by themselves. And that's totally fair.
I also reckon that it's totally fair, fine and dandy if you choose to release your own code under a licence which is open to abuse. It's your code, and I refuse to ping you for throwing it to the wolves. Now please bite your tongue (fingers?) about what I do with my code.
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it?
No, on two counts. Firstly, like BSD, GPL is all about taking off restrictions. Without the licence, the general public get no access to the code at all.
Whackers like Microsoft regularly complain about the "viral nature" of GPL but what they really mean is that they can't flood the market with bent versions of it that nobody else can see the code for (think Kerberos, then heark back to file format and MS-DOS programming changes intended to break Lotus 1-2-3, or DR-DOS, or Word Perfect, or even Microsoft's nobbling of their own Word 6 on the Mac - the intent is the same even if the licence is totally different). Without the GPL, Microsoft would have no access at all to the most important parts of the SFU package which they sell, they would have had to invest a fortune in writing their own.
But finally, anarchy only works if everybody is willing to play fair. In other words, anarchy only actually works with idealised humans. If your human falls outside your parameters, boot them out of your commune. The sand in this vaseline in the general sense is that Planet Earth currently has nowhere to boot unsuitable people to - and what eventually happens in similar Real Life(tm) situations is you end up with pleasant, peacful, well-intended people killing off the unsuitable candidates. The GPL ensures fair play, or at least goes a long way towards it.
In short, "they only deserve freedom, who are prepared to defend it", the motto from ANZAC House, here in Perth. Yes, BSD looks nice, is nice in some circumstances, in that it has less strings attached than GPL - but that also opens it to more abuse than the GPL. Choose your licence, choose your consequences.
...if you shot all of the standard ones. Probably operating over GRE or something your firewall doesn't know exists (which is a good reason for French Foreign Legion firewalling rules, but it's real work to nail down everything even so).
Make up something anti-Microsoft that's plausible, but false and not immediately disprovable by technical means such as a packet sniffer. Occasionally post it and make references to it on./, your web page, and Usenet. If you do a good job it will soon be picked up as truth, and become part of anti-Microsoft lore. You've won the game when other people start linking to your site and post as "evidence" for how Microsoft is evil.
I think it'd quickly get lost in the noise. It's not as if it's necessary to make up anything greedy about Microsoft, it'd be like taking a heater to Tahiti.
Consider DR-DOS again. It really doesn't matter in terms of an evilness indicator whether The Canopy Group bought DR-DOS solely for use as a lawsuit weapon or not (it seems pretty obvious that they did). What matters is that it was only available as a weapon because of Microsoft's cheatin' heart. DR-DOS was a better system across the board, always led Microsoft for features, escpecially useful features like being able to DISKCOPY A: C:\BOOTDISK.IMG which don't make it onto any sales brochures but do make an administrator's life so much easier, and should have been a lot more popular than it was. The overwhelming preponderance of nails in its coffin were hammered in by Microsoft. They did not compete on features, robustness, utility or any honest measure of usefulness, instead they competed by badmouthing it, doing shonky deals with OEMs and pulling evil stunts like the Win3 installer with the encrypted DR-DOS detection code. It's also important to note that the code did not detect non-Microsoft DOSes, it simply and only looked for DR-DOS and nobbled itself on sight. Nor was this a one-off. DOS ain't done, after all, until Lotus won't run - and look again at their TCP cheats of only a few years ago.
This is not a matter of advocacy, nor is it a matter of dragging in any and all possible distractions in order to make Microsoft in some way look like just a particularly large corporate "regular guy" or claim that "everybody does it". Two wrongs definitely do not make a right, and a simple "the ends justify the means" causes more wars and suffering than any known combination of raw greed and simple zealotry.
I objectively believe I'm closer to the truth than you are. [...] You go on and continue to read and believe Rex Ballard, Bill Parish, RMS, and the catacombs of/. and comp.os.linux.advocacy, and claim to know everything
Yes, O great chocolate lips - at least, I will when you actually start reasoning instead of relying on prejudice supported by the standard not-quite-debating techniques; you know: handwaving, appeals to authority, ad hominiem, begging the question, the false dichotomy and so on. (-:
Seeing the source isn't as important as understanding the source - that is, what it does, possibly quite different from what it says it does. Your inaccuracies WRT things like Win3.X's DR-DOS crash, and your handwaving of the point that it was the only encrypted code in MS-Windows all point to you essentially getting your stuff second- or third-hand anyway.
This could be easily taken to be an abuse of the patent system ala. GIFs, Amazon one-click, etc.
But wasn't. They sued on the IP, but what actually happened was the very code itself got pirated.
That beta of Windows 3.X [...] had dubious code that checked for DR-DOS and gave a strange error message.
The error message wasn't strange, the code that dunnit was the only encrypted code in MS-Windows at the time, and it didn't give "a bypassable compatibility warning" but killed the system. I know, because it did it to me.
Oh, and DR-DOS was bought by Caldera (now SCO) for pennies on the dollar for the sole purpose of suing MS. Sound familiar?
Oh, very. So now two wrongs make a right?
Now, cutting to the chase and ignoring things like a mandatory spam filter beginning to bin all BMGC messages immediately after Microsoft evaluated their product for possible acquisition and then started a competing product (which required artifice in the MS greeting-card design to trigger the filter)...
Microsoft isn't Mother Teresa, but 98% of the instances in this track record falls apart upon closer examination--or at minimum it becomes clear that there are two sides to the story that could easily be logically argued.
What's basically happened is you've fallen for Microsoft's "plausible deniability" ploy. Or you're a troll/shill. Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but scores of times is beyond belief.
Your approach sounds fair and reasonable up front but "upon closer examination" it really is serious head-in-the-sand stuff. Tell me that they didn't know what they were doing to SpyGlass Systems, for one example among those scores! Or when they faked the can't-remove-IE video? Hah!
If ten percent of what they're reasonably accused of is correct, they're criminals. Hey - they are criminals, US Courts said so, despite enormous amounts of backwatering and concession, political pressure, yadda yadda: the "two sides to the story" were "logically argued" and as a result Microsoft were formally judged to be criminals.
Now go listen to "Excitable Boy" and think about it for a bit.
Reposting this AC because I don't have mod points
on
LSB & Posix Conflicts
·
· Score: 1
He'd be +1 Informative if I did
Using the web as a source of statistics for overall market share is a poor measure. Many sites outsource their web site hosting, and this particular market is an unusually strong one for open source software. It also tells you nothing about what is in the server room, or the desktop.
More than 50% of my desktops are Suns, about 6% are Linux, the rest are Windows. Our web site is outsourced and runs on Windows due to its use of some specific server software. At my last employer the desktops for our division were mostly Macintosh, with some Windows and Unix. The external web site was outsourced and on Windows. An important internal site ran on Linux. Our department web server ran on HP/UX. The corporatation was overwhelmingly Windows, and the corporate site ran on company hardware on Solaris on Ultrasparc servers. My brother's company is planning a web site. His company is 2/3 Macintosh, 1/3 windows, and the web site will almost certainly run on either Linux or a Sun.
I think that this is a fairly common pattern. You can't reliably tell anything about what is in the server room or desktop by its web site.
Most servers today are bought with the OS they will use. This is particularly true now that most big vendors sell computers with Linux so there is not a strong reason to change. (I could see a small exception to this for *BSD since so few vendors sell *BSD boxes preconfigured.) I think that its pretty likely that the new sales figures are probably a much closer approximation of the market share than web server statistics.
I also think you are overlooking the fact that some systems migrate from Linux to Windows. Don't kid yourself, there are people that try Linux and find that its not for them. There are also people that buy a box for a specific purpose and then recycle it later. I just bought a Very well equipped preconfigured Linux box from HP for my company, but it will live as a Linux box for only about 60-90 days. After that it will become a Windows 2000 box. Why? I bought it as a compute server for a short term project that needs the power. After that it will go to a lucky software developer. There is no doubt that particular box will be counted as a Linux sale, but that is only part of the story. Is this sort of thing a big influence on the numbers? Probably not. But then Linux is not a huge percentage of the market either.
Even if the market share of Linux was huge, it is an irrelevant question. If Linux doesn't conform to existing standards where they exist, and which many other company's products adhere to, it is no better than Microsoft and its "standards."
Slashdot Mirror
D'ya think we can blame all of that on Licensing 6.0? (-:
My book-keeper swears by it. I ask them to port it and/or Open it about once a quarter, you should too.
...it seems more likely that Oracle is controlled by Mormons.
Yes, it does. It guarantees that one day they will screw you.
Daddy dearest went out to a nightclub when he was much younger (a pretty singular event all by itself) and was sitting around a large table having a drink with the crowd that had dragged him there. Being Dad, he drank only lemonade (Dad uses Coke as a turbo boost if he has to drive for more than about 6 hours).
After a while, he started to catch odd looks from a pair of blokes across the table. Then a tell-us-all-about-yourself started adjacent to them and went around the table until it go to him, and soon afterwards petered out. He did notice, though, that they'd both almost collapsed with relief when he'd described himself as a "Bush Baptist/Calathumpian Cross" in the department of religion, so he asked a mutual acquaintance about that when most of the table (including these two) hat hit the dance floor. Friend laughed, and explained that they were both Mormons, had deduced from Dad's drinking habits that he was too, and had been absolutely terrified that he would report them to the head office! (-:
What a way to live! If you believe, don't drink, because you know that your recording angel will jot it down. If you don't, don't pretend because (1) it's hypocrisy; and (2) it'll drop your lifespan down to within cooee of being gay.
I don't live there, and don't have the right. Is there a problem? (-:
...just find out more about Scientology. All fixed, no problem.
Yes, you can! You can say "these dudes are different to each other". (-:
IRL, they both dispense authority down a pyramid with a very narrow apex, they both add a lot of stuff to what the bible has to say, they both do hair-raising stuff to/with dead people (almost as if they were in some way still alive) and so on. Admittedly the Mormons haven't massacred as many heretics or started any world wars, but maybe that was because they've never had a real opportunity?
As to the religion pervading everything, have you ever been to a truly Catholicised country? One where the peasants worship even effigies of the local clergy? One where your data goes straight from the Tax Office to the church (and they come and collect goods-to-the-value-of if you haven't paid enough tithe etc)? One where you suspect they're trying to convert you with sheer weight of Marys?
"+1 Informative" only I used up all of my mod points already.
It's also kind of like using MS-Windows: many people in those systems don't know that a realistic alternative exists.
I win. (-:
(edits urpmi into the BIOS)
I win again. (-:
This is on a Celeron 300A with 64MB of RAM, and had to update the menu entries for 13 (!) WM's (dd wanted to try them all):
[root@aiyana root]# time urpmi nmap-frontendk .i586 //home/leonb/1/Mandrake/RPMS/nmap-3.00-2mdk.i586.r pm //home/leonb/1/Mandrake/RPMS/nmap-frontend-3.00-2m dk.i586.rpm
/. junk filter happy]
To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be installed (1 MB):
nmap-3.00-2mdk.i586
nmap-frontend-3.00-2md
Is this OK? (Y/n) y
installing
Preparing... [row of # deleted to make
1:nmap [ditto]
2:nmap-frontend [ditto]
24.75user 21.40system 1:17.24elapsed 59%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (2583major+11904minor)pagefaults 0swaps
So hard, ooh, all that typing - tell you a little secret about optimisation, too: optimising to Pentium level (Mandrake's default) gets you 98% of the speed gains you'll ever get from the technique, except for a very few special maths-intensive programs. Some of the Cooker denizens spent a bit of time building distros optimised for their Athlon, P4, etc and with the exception of a handful of apps like X, glibc, the kernel itself and codecs the difference was squat (in fact, some apps ran slower).
Agree.
Distributing a router running said software == "distributing the software".
...if you used an old PROM with the binaries in it as a spacer to keep a circuit board away from a piece of metal inside the box, you would still be required to distribute the source. It would be appropriate, of course, to burn the source into another PROM and use that as a spacer in a different part of the box. (-:
I just want to emphasise that point, the written offer (presumably binding) is to give "ANY THIRD PARTY" at all a copy of the source for the cost of copying it.
BTW, I can't understand why anyone would bother modding down the AC who replied to the parent. Surely you can find better places to spend mod points? And if not, give him a +1 Funny or explain what you have against Python misquotes.
Er, what in the BSD licence prevents you from profiting from your own code later?
What in the GPL prevents you from profiting from your own code later? Just the other contributors. You can only profit from your own pieces of code, which in a big project are going to be pretty close to useless by themselves. And that's totally fair.
I also reckon that it's totally fair, fine and dandy if you choose to release your own code under a licence which is open to abuse. It's your code, and I refuse to ping you for throwing it to the wolves. Now please bite your tongue (fingers?) about what I do with my code.
No, on two counts. Firstly, like BSD, GPL is all about taking off restrictions. Without the licence, the general public get no access to the code at all.
Whackers like Microsoft regularly complain about the "viral nature" of GPL but what they really mean is that they can't flood the market with bent versions of it that nobody else can see the code for (think Kerberos, then heark back to file format and MS-DOS programming changes intended to break Lotus 1-2-3, or DR-DOS, or Word Perfect, or even Microsoft's nobbling of their own Word 6 on the Mac - the intent is the same even if the licence is totally different). Without the GPL, Microsoft would have no access at all to the most important parts of the SFU package which they sell, they would have had to invest a fortune in writing their own.
But finally, anarchy only works if everybody is willing to play fair. In other words, anarchy only actually works with idealised humans. If your human falls outside your parameters, boot them out of your commune. The sand in this vaseline in the general sense is that Planet Earth currently has nowhere to boot unsuitable people to - and what eventually happens in similar Real Life(tm) situations is you end up with pleasant, peacful, well-intended people killing off the unsuitable candidates. The GPL ensures fair play, or at least goes a long way towards it.
In short, "they only deserve freedom, who are prepared to defend it", the motto from ANZAC House, here in Perth. Yes, BSD looks nice, is nice in some circumstances, in that it has less strings attached than GPL - but that also opens it to more abuse than the GPL. Choose your licence, choose your consequences.
...if you shot all of the standard ones. Probably operating over GRE or something your firewall doesn't know exists (which is a good reason for French Foreign Legion firewalling rules, but it's real work to nail down everything even so).
For a little ISP, ArachNet is pretty good for connectivity.
I've got 512/128kb and consider it to be luxury. Perth, West Oz.
I think it'd quickly get lost in the noise. It's not as if it's necessary to make up anything greedy about Microsoft, it'd be like taking a heater to Tahiti.
Consider DR-DOS again. It really doesn't matter in terms of an evilness indicator whether The Canopy Group bought DR-DOS solely for use as a lawsuit weapon or not (it seems pretty obvious that they did). What matters is that it was only available as a weapon because of Microsoft's cheatin' heart. DR-DOS was a better system across the board, always led Microsoft for features, escpecially useful features like being able to DISKCOPY A: C:\BOOTDISK.IMG which don't make it onto any sales brochures but do make an administrator's life so much easier, and should have been a lot more popular than it was. The overwhelming preponderance of nails in its coffin were hammered in by Microsoft. They did not compete on features, robustness, utility or any honest measure of usefulness, instead they competed by badmouthing it, doing shonky deals with OEMs and pulling evil stunts like the Win3 installer with the encrypted DR-DOS detection code. It's also important to note that the code did not detect non-Microsoft DOSes, it simply and only looked for DR-DOS and nobbled itself on sight. Nor was this a one-off. DOS ain't done, after all, until Lotus won't run - and look again at their TCP cheats of only a few years ago.
This is not a matter of advocacy, nor is it a matter of dragging in any and all possible distractions in order to make Microsoft in some way look like just a particularly large corporate "regular guy" or claim that "everybody does it". Two wrongs definitely do not make a right, and a simple "the ends justify the means" causes more wars and suffering than any known combination of raw greed and simple zealotry.
Yes, O great chocolate lips - at least, I will when you actually start reasoning instead of relying on prejudice supported by the standard not-quite-debating techniques; you know: handwaving, appeals to authority, ad hominiem, begging the question, the false dichotomy and so on. (-:
Seeing the source isn't as important as understanding the source - that is, what it does, possibly quite different from what it says it does. Your inaccuracies WRT things like Win3.X's DR-DOS crash, and your handwaving of the point that it was the only encrypted code in MS-Windows all point to you essentially getting your stuff second- or third-hand anyway.
But wasn't. They sued on the IP, but what actually happened was the very code itself got pirated.
The error message wasn't strange, the code that dunnit was the only encrypted code in MS-Windows at the time, and it didn't give "a bypassable compatibility warning" but killed the system. I know, because it did it to me.
Oh, very. So now two wrongs make a right?
Now, cutting to the chase and ignoring things like a mandatory spam filter beginning to bin all BMGC messages immediately after Microsoft evaluated their product for possible acquisition and then started a competing product (which required artifice in the MS greeting-card design to trigger the filter)...
What's basically happened is you've fallen for Microsoft's "plausible deniability" ploy. Or you're a troll/shill. Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but scores of times is beyond belief.
Your approach sounds fair and reasonable up front but "upon closer examination" it really is serious head-in-the-sand stuff. Tell me that they didn't know what they were doing to SpyGlass Systems, for one example among those scores! Or when they faked the can't-remove-IE video? Hah!
If ten percent of what they're reasonably accused of is correct, they're criminals. Hey - they are criminals, US Courts said so, despite enormous amounts of backwatering and concession, political pressure, yadda yadda: the "two sides to the story" were "logically argued" and as a result Microsoft were formally judged to be criminals.
Now go listen to "Excitable Boy" and think about it for a bit.
He'd be +1 Informative if I did
Using the web as a source of statistics for overall market share is a poor measure. Many sites outsource their web site hosting, and this particular market is an unusually strong one for open source software. It also tells you nothing about what is in the server room, or the desktop.
More than 50% of my desktops are Suns, about 6% are Linux, the rest are Windows. Our web site is outsourced and runs on Windows due to its use of some specific server software. At my last employer the desktops for our division were mostly Macintosh, with some Windows and Unix. The external web site was outsourced and on Windows. An important internal site ran on Linux. Our department web server ran on HP/UX. The corporatation was overwhelmingly Windows, and the corporate site ran on company hardware on Solaris on Ultrasparc servers. My brother's company is planning a web site. His company is 2/3 Macintosh, 1/3 windows, and the web site will almost certainly run on either Linux or a Sun.
I think that this is a fairly common pattern. You can't reliably tell anything about what is in the server room or desktop by its web site.
Most servers today are bought with the OS they will use. This is particularly true now that most big vendors sell computers with Linux so there is not a strong reason to change. (I could see a small exception to this for *BSD since so few vendors sell *BSD boxes preconfigured.) I think that its pretty likely that the new sales figures are probably a much closer approximation of the market share than web server statistics.
I also think you are overlooking the fact that some systems migrate from Linux to Windows. Don't kid yourself, there are people that try Linux and find that its not for them. There are also people that buy a box for a specific purpose and then recycle it later. I just bought a Very well equipped preconfigured Linux box from HP for my company, but it will live as a Linux box for only about 60-90 days. After that it will become a Windows 2000 box. Why? I bought it as a compute server for a short term project that needs the power. After that it will go to a lucky software developer. There is no doubt that particular box will be counted as a Linux sale, but that is only part of the story. Is this sort of thing a big influence on the numbers? Probably not. But then Linux is not a huge percentage of the market either.
Even if the market share of Linux was huge, it is an irrelevant question. If Linux doesn't conform to existing standards where they exist, and which many other company's products adhere to, it is no better than Microsoft and its "standards."
However, there are several (at least 8 plus 3 MIA) Forth operating systems afoot. Including one which is implemented as a Linux kernel thread.