When many people here started using computers, Spyware & Malware were much of a concern. Pre mass internet proliferation, Microsoft products were the forefront of easy to use technology at a reasonable price. Mac was probably the only major alternative.
The dominance of IBM PC's over the past few years is much greater than any dominance of Microsoft in the software market, yet the haters of this technology are few and far between (mostly Mac fanbois). I guess with multiple vendors making products for the platform, open-source junkies are satisfied that one company isn't making all the profits whilst the majority who follow the lead are happy that new innovations are constantly being made and they have the backing of an established, relatively stable platform.
Is the success of the IBM platform an argument for open-source software? Obviously IBM doesn't make a heap of cash from every PC product sold, so there's not a great long-term monetary argument for a company developing an open-source standard per se, or is there?
This is because the "average user" doesn't want to use Linux, pure and simple. They do, however want to copy DVDs and share them with their friends. Thus they'll find the means to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
When many people here started using computers, Spyware & Malware were much of a concern. Pre mass internet proliferation, Microsoft products were the forefront of easy to use technology at a reasonable price. Mac was probably the only major alternative.
The dominance of IBM PC's over the past few years is much greater than any dominance of Microsoft in the software market, yet the haters of this technology are few and far between (mostly Mac fanbois). I guess with multiple vendors making products for the platform, open-source junkies are satisfied that one company isn't making all the profits whilst the majority who follow the lead are happy that new innovations are constantly being made and they have the backing of an established, relatively stable platform. Is the success of the IBM platform an argument for open-source software? Obviously IBM doesn't make a heap of cash from every PC product sold, so there's not a great long-term monetary argument for a company developing an open-source standard per se, or is there?
Do you have figures that back up your claim that Mozilla's problems aren't found in the wild? I'd be interested in looking at those statistics.
This is because the "average user" doesn't want to use Linux, pure and simple. They do, however want to copy DVDs and share them with their friends. Thus they'll find the means to do so.