I took it as that they were suggesting some kind of value was associated to their cause, which is the opposite of the cause of Microsoft. OSS has worked directly against Microsoft's interests
Really?! So OSS is simply the "Anti-Microsoft movement"? They have no other raison d'etre other than to bring down Microsoft? I bet that would be news to many in the OSS world, I hope you've informed them that the revolution is now. And for that matter, who is "OSS"? Last I checked it was a wide assortment of people with very little central guidance other than a principled belief that software should be "free as in speech", and even their degree of adherence to that principle varies widely from project to project - witness the number of "OSS" licenses out there. By painting Linux as simply "anti-Microsoft," you do a huge disservice to the many people who work on and have contributed to Linux & projects that run on Linux. Linux competes with many other platforms in many different spaces, it's not just "against Microsoft."
therefore that number could only represent $25 billion that Microsoft missed out on
You've got such a thing for Microsoft you don't seem to understand that Linux is also competing against Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and many other variants of Unix on servers & workstations; Symbian, WinCE, MacOS, on phone / PDA devices; Mac OS on desktops... numerous other smaller embedded OS systems & custom applications. There is no "single market" which Linux competes in that is just "Linux vs. Microsoft," and to the extent that Linux treats any market as "simply us against Microsoft," they will lose to some other competitor that they've been ignoring. There are MANY possible explanations for how Linux has achieved a 25Bn dollar value in the market, but nowhere has anybody (aside from you) made the claim that the Linux Foundation has stated that this 25Bn value is tied to a 25Bn loss in Microsoft's share of the market.
and that suggestion is the fallacy I was pointing at, because it couldn't possible be equivalent.
I'll say this one final time in big bold letters, maybe it'll finally sink in:
YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ADVANCING THE CLAIM THAT LINUX'S VALUE OF 25 BILLION IS SOLELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MICROSOFT LOSING AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF THE MARKET.
Microsoft hasn't made the claim. The Linux foundation hasn't made the claim. Nobody in the Linux world has made the claim. If you have evidence other than unfounded speculation to support your claims, then by all means share it. If you do not have evidence to provide, then simply admit to yourself that you are creating wildly speculative hypotheses, and go on about your business with the newfound knowledge that inserting random Latin phrases into your Slashdot posts does not make you sound smart, it just makes you sound like someone who doesn't know how to use Latin phrases properly.
Why else would Linux Foundation make a claim to the net value of Linux? They can't sell it. They can't hedge against it. They can't borrow against that figure. Tell me why they are releasing this information.
For the same reason any advocacy body does anything: getting your brand name out in the press with some positive association, so that people will be more likely to have a favorable impression when it comes time to make a decision about whether to buy Sun, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Linux, etc. "I read that Linux's ecosystem is worth 25Bn dollars... that must mean there's a lot of people out there using it successfully, let's check it out."
But if they can hold it up and show people how they have grown, well the likelihood is that they would try to demonstrate that the growth has eaten into their competition's market share,
That's a lovely assertion. Except nowhere in the article, summary, or any related supporting text about this study that I've seen do they make any such claim. You are assuming facts not yet in evidence. Perhaps they will make this claim in the full text of their study, in which case you may be right that they are comparing themselves to Microsoft's market share. But until you can show that they've made that claim, your arguments are pure, unfounded speculation as to their motives & reasoning.
but this is a comparison of apples and oranges but also this is Non Sequitur.
Do you just throw random latin into your posts in an attempt to sound more intelligent? The point is that you've claimed, repeatedly, that the Linux foundation is making claims which they have not made, according to any evidence you've provided. It doesn't matter if it's a bad comparison, or if it's not a logical conclusion based on the facts in evidence. They have not made the claims. You are assuming things about their motivations which you have no evidence to back up - that makes you foolish, no matter how much Latin you throw at the problem to cover it up.
It is more likely that the growth of Linux adoption has come from the fact that it's free, but not necessarily at the expense of any competitor.
And they have not claimed that the size of their market is at the expense of a competitor. Only an idiot would assume this is a zero-sum market, where any gain by one party must be offset by a loss to another. Linux is worth some slice of the market, and they've attempted to place a value on that slice. There are many possible explanations for how they got that market - by eating into the market share of more costly Unix alternatives, by replacing some Microsoft solutions, by growing whole new segments of the market, and by simply benefitting from the increasingly digital nature of our lifestyles - the entire market for computing has grown, and so has Linux with it. They haven't claimed it's a zero-sum market, and even if they did make that claim, they would STILL not be guilty of the logical fallacy you've claimed they are.
Apart from a sharp downturn after the bubble, Microsoft's MSFT stock has remained at a seemingly constant valuation.
There are so many holes in this reasoning: by your own claims, they could NOT make the claim that, "We're worth 25Bn. Microsoft has lost value. Therefore our value comes from Microsoft's losses." If it's true that MSFT's valuation has remained the same, then any person with a shred of a functioning brain would look and say, "Microsoft has not lost value, though." In addition, you're confusing "market capitalization" with "market value". The amount of money a company's stock is worth is at best a lagging indicator of the value they create, and is subject to all kinds of market pressures that are not created by or accounted for by Linux's existence. You can't look at a stock price and say, "MSFT has lost 25Bn dollars this yea
I am a big picture thinker. I connect disparate facts, and sometimes I forget to fully support my arguments. Typically I let Slashdot figure it out for themselves, but I think that people are missing the boat on this thread.
That sounds suspiciously like "if you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not going to bother explaining it." That argument doesn't hold any water from my girlfriend, so it's sure not going to hold any water when it's advanced by you.
Yes, you are absolutely right. He is saying that. He's just incorrect. See my supporting arguments and feel free to debate them. If you decide not to debate them, I'll accept that as a nod from you, in support of them.
I've read your "supporting arguments," and they still make no sense, as I indicated in my response. Your assertion that they're committing a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is not supported in any post you've made, because there is no mention in the summary or the article that Linux Foundation has claimed "Linux is worth 25 Billion. Microsoft is losing market share. Therefore, Microsoft is losing market share because Linux is worth 25 Billion." So please, for us benighted ignoramuses, please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that they're committing this logical fallacy, or admit that you used the term improperly in an attempt to sound intelligent which has failed miserably.
I don't think his statement is intended to "oppose your position". I think what he's done is pointed out that the logical fallacy you referenced doesn't apply to this situation. Or, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
A: Linux is worth $25 Billion
B: Microsoft market share has decreased
I think I missed some part where any mention was made of Microsoft's market share. Where are you getting that the Linux Foundation made that assertion, or concluded that B was a consequence of A?
As stated in the article, and the summary, the Linux Foundation asserting that "the Linux ecosystem is worth 25 Billion dollars" is not an example of the logical fallacy you're claiming they've made.
You cannot attribute a price on the value of Linux. It's simply priceless and that was the intent of my original comment.
"Priceless" is not the same as "having no value." Linux certainly has value - if nothing else, the amount of time & effort required to write the code has value, and the cost of paying someone to write that code has value. That doesn't mean you can "buy Linux" for a price, but the effort that was put into creating Linux certainly has a value associated with it.
See my post above - I believe he's referring to Mr. Stephen Brown, which happened in Guilderland, NY. A case from 2003 in which Mr. Brown was arrested & charged with trespassing for refusing to leave a shopping mall after being asked to do so by security, ostensibly because he was wearing a "Give peace a chance" t-shirt.
What Plasmacutter neglects to mention is that the guard that asked him to leave was fired, and the trespassing charges were dropped. This is not exactly evidence of secret gulags and a conspiracy by the right to repress dissent.
PBS slants liberal because reality has a well known liberal bias.
Again, citation please?
If you had bothered to read the "debate on wikipedia", my link was to the section on wikipedia about actual research into media biases. You know, actual studies that have been done? I did not use Wikipedia as a source to show that there's debate, I used it because it had some good references to studies that have concluded that there is no clear, monolithic bias as you stated. Thus refuting your point that "the media is functioning as a propaganda arm" for either party.
Let me boil down your response then to make sure I'm clear. What you're saying is:
"I have no citation, but I will spew out a set of preconceived notions that I believe make me right. I just make the accusations, I don't defend them or back them up!"
That about right? This is the problem with political discussion today. "Damn the facts, I know what I believe and no examples or evidence to the contrary will even be entertained!" You, sir, are contributing to the problem far more than you realize, or will admit.
when your political enemies run the media as a propaganda arm of their party, then whistle innocently or cry "tinfoil hat" when anyone points out the obvious.
Citation, please? Certainly a lot of room for debate that the media is performing propaganda solely for either party, or that there is a monolithic bias to the entire industry. Yes, conventional wisdom says that Fox News slants conservative, and PBS slants liberal, and shame on BOTH of them for it.
When your political enemies start arresting people for wearing "give peace a chance" t-shirts in the mall.
I assume you're referring to the case of Mr. Stephen Downs, in Guilderland, NY? Yes, the dispute reportedly arose from his wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt. However, the facts of the case are that he was arrested for refusing to leave private property, and charged with trespassing. The charges were later dropped against him, and the guard who signed the trespass complaint was fired. You can read a good summary of the case law, and why malls aren't considered public property in the sense of free speech protections over at Slate.
When your political enemies create "free speech zones", and their partisan court appointees uphold the obvious constitutional breach
The same free speech zones used repeatedly by both the Democrats and Republicans at their conventions? Let's be intellectually honest at least - neither party is interested in having their elaborately planned proceedings disrupted by minor inconveniences like disagreements.
When your political enemies engage in domestic surveillance which makes watergate look like piss in the ocean.
I assume you're talking about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program here? Which was, rightfully, exposed & subjected to intense scrutiny & oversight? I'll agree that these programs were disgraceful - but to pretend that nobody in the democratic-controlled congress knew about the programs (or indeed, has continued to vote for bills that support them, such as the recent FISA amendment) is flat-out dishonest.
When your political enemies give rise to a multi-billion dollar industry of astroturfing campaign firms trying to "manufacture" "public support" for their intolerant, totalitarian positions.
Yes, because Democrats never astroturf in the interests of winning a campaign, right? The name David Axelrod sound familiar? (Hint: Chief media strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.) Again, let's not pretend that one side does it, and the other doesn't.
You have to fight dirty too. The age of honor is over.
No, what you should do is throw every stinking, corrupt one of the bunch - Democrats & Republicans - out of office. They represent YOU, so what does it say about you that you turn a blind eye towards ugly tactics in the support of your own principles, and decry them when used by your "political enemies"? The ends do not justify the means. The ends should be achieved by honorable men & women representing their constituents in a conscientious manner. "Eye for an eye" tactics sure don't seem to be the "change" and "reform" both candidates are promising us.
I was saying Apple wouldn't pick the legal fight with Efix if there was any chance they could lose and be required to open up their platform.
Now that I can agree with.
While we're on the subject, guess when linux wins big? When consumers are forced to live with in their means, and can't keep putting $2000 laptops on their Visa. Choosing between a family vacation and a new iMac isn't going to go in Apple's favor. If they are going to remain relevant in a tough economy, they are going to have to seriously lower their prices, but I think they're about to drop everything by 20% on their next round of updates.
I'm not so sure I agree that Linux wins big in that equation... for the people who can't afford the "status symbol" iMac, there's always that $650 Dell laptop or $450 Dell desktop. I agree that a sour economy could really cut into Apple's profits, but I don't think that necessarily translates to increased Linux adoption.
Question: Even if Obama was a muslim, why on earth would it matter at all? Oh right this is the US we are talking about. Nvm.
I reckon it would matter for the same reason that many liberals sneer at conservative Christian candidates as being backwards, ill-informed, and stupid. ("They cling to their guns, and their religion," I believe is the phrase Sen. Obama used?). It would matter for the same reason those same many liberals assume that everybody with a devout Christian background is going to simply use the office of the President as a way to force Christianity on everybody. You can't have it both ways - either a religious background is relevant, regardless of the particular religion, or it's not.
Personally, I find Obama's willingness to listen to the rhetoric of Rev. Wright to be more cause for concern than any sort of "Muslim" upbringing. However, I'll also absolutely agree that he's not responsible for the content of the Rev. Wright's statements, and I also don't believe that he fundamentally agrees with them. But, his religious beliefs and background do have room for legitimate questions about the way he sees the world, and his & America's place in it. Much the same as it's fair to ask Gov. Palin if her religious beliefs would lead her to promote book bannings & censorship. And if it's clear that she did promote that notion, or attempt to enact it, that point certainly is relevant to her qualifications for the job of Vice President.
"For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
John F. Kennedy
Commencement Address at Yale University
June 11, 1962
We've been doing it for generations, and it doesn't appear to be improving. Attempts to reason and produce facts are dismissed as "one more attempt" by the vast [LEFT|RIGHT] wing conspiracy to cover up what's "really" going on. Sometimes plain old stupidity is just plain old stupidity, but we tend to paint stupidity as some proof of the malicious conspiratorial behavior we like to see around every corner. In short - the comfort of opinion, without the discomfort of thought.
Personally, I hope Apple keeps to their closed platform, as it would put a hard squeeze on Linux if OS X were available on any machine. The chances of this happening are so low that I'm not even worried about it. Apple won't pick the fight if there's an even slight chance they could lose.
On the one hand, you admit that Apple being available on any hardware would put a squeeze on Linux... on the other hand, you claim that Apple wouldn't do so because they're terrified they might lose to Linux. Frankly, I think Linux barely enters into the equation for Apple. I find it highly unlikely that their desktop strategy is based around protecting themselves from a competitor with a vanishingly small share of the desktop market.
And despite being absolutely *terrified* of having to compete against the wildly successful desktop Linux, they manage to keep on chipping away at the market share of that little also-ran, Microsoft Windows...
Yes we all know about third-party apps that do what should already be included with the system to begin with.
Who decides what should "already be included with the system"? A crappy telnet client that's been done much better by someone else is about as high on most users' lists of "things that should be included" as a solid poke in the eye. Oh, and what's more, the third-party version for download is free, and takes about 30 seconds to download & run if you are one of the few people who actually DO need a telnet client on your windows box.
But to say third-party alternatives exist for download ignores the entire point I was making, which was that they should be there already. For example, how hard would it be to include wget?
I understand what your point was. I'm just pointing out that it's nonsensical. Third party alternatives exist. Is it any OS' job to provide every tool ever written in case one user somewhere needs it and is too lazy to download it? Or should Microsoft arbitrarily decide that they won't allow people to install any new software on their system, and simply say "What we included for you is good enough, you don't need anything else, quite whining."?
If it's a third party tool available for download, why the need to have it preinstalled? Especially such a limited-demand tool like wget or telnet?
If it's an in-house version of a tool which already exists as created by a third party, then they will invariably make a shoddy knockoff of the third party functionality (see your precious telnet.exe), since it's impossible to write every possible tool in-house and do it well while still delivering on some reasonable schedule.
but I hope they think about what's necessary a little harder than they did when deciding to remove the telnet client from the default install of Vista.
I started to laugh at this, and then I realized you might actually be serious, so I'll offer an alternative solution:
If you have any need for telnet/ssh access (preferably ssh if you care at all for security), go install PuTTy. It's exponentially better than the default telnet.exe, has a small footprint, and is one of the first apps I install on every windows box I work with. It's really a great little app, and free. Worth checking out.
Look for MS to offer an advertising free solution that is part of a subscription package.
I'm not sure I see why this would be a problem. It's not as if your only option for email is a Windows Live Mail account, and it's not as if your only option for an email client is webmail. Plenty of free (as in beer, and some as in speech) alternatives out there for windows. For instance, Gmail & Thunderbird. Neither of which require a "subscription" or the viewing of advertisements on a Microsoft-controlled web site. (In point of fact, Thunderbird via POP or IMAP access to Gmail requires no viewing of a single ad during normal usage.)
If people are too lazy to investigate their alternatives, and instead pay for the ad-free web mail, or support Microsoft via ad-supported web mail... well, I'm hard-pressed to feel much sympathy for them at the hands of Microsoft's "evil tyranny". If this decision means less crapware and bloat preinstalled on a Windows box, I'm happy to see it.
You sure about that? There's no bioinformatics tools that run on Microsoft Windows? It's absolutely inconceivable that some of them may require significant (cluster/HPC) horsepower for processing terabytes of data for analysis and data mining?
Not a fan boy either, but OS elitism won't win you any points for accuracy either - just because YOU wouldn't choose to use Windows as your research institute's computing platform doesn't mean that it's not in use & perfectly viable as such.
computers are still relatively new, and eventually you won't need a whole staff of IT gurus to keep a network up and running, when a basic desktop computer can get rid of every moving part, there is less to replace and maintain, thus less IT workers needed.
Yes, just as soon as the Year of the Linux Desktop is upon us, I predict that all IT workers will become obsolete.
What's even more likely is that there will be a dramatic increase in the prevalence of computers & computer systems, and that they will eventually get easier to maintain & keep up, resulting in a large increase in the number of systems a single IT person can support effectively. However, since it's likely that the number of information systems to be administered will grow drastically, I don't foresee IT "dying out" anytime soon - I think it's likely IT will continue to grow, though perhaps at a slower, more "mature" rate.
the only thing that won't go away is the need for real security.
All I'm saying is that support by at least some of those companies WOULD help.
And if I could just be a doctor, I could make lots of money & drive a fancy car. Nobody with a brain would dispute such an obvious statement. The important part of the question is how you get there, and I've seen nobody advance a proposal for it that seems realistic.
I guess commercial products do get all the commercial attention.
Almost right. Commercially VIABLE products get all the commercial attention. If your product is not capable of self-sustaining growth, then it is not commercially viable.
If Linux can become the default choice for standard office work as well as on mobile devices, hardware vendors and game programmers alike will become much more inclined to develop for Linux.
That's an AWFUL lot of hand-waving there, that "IF Linux can become the choice..." statement. What path does Linux pursue to achieve this? I hear the "year of the linux desktop" meme repeated ad nauseam, and nobody answers the hard-but-obvious question of HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
I hear endless talk about how Linux can't get hardware vendor support - So where's the startup company that's producing open-standards hardware either with the drivers to support it, or public documentation to allow others to write drivers to support it?
I hear endless talk about how Linux doesn't have games - so where are the companies producing native Linux games for casual gamers, the largest portion of the gaming market?
I hear endless talk about how you can't buy Linux preinstalled like Windows - so why hasn't some enterprising Linux geek started the Dell of the Linux world, selling preconfigured, preinstalled, guaranteed-supported hardware?
If the best way you can answer this question:
"How will Linux gain market share?"
Is with this statement: "Somehow!"
Then Linux is destined to fail as anything more than a bit-player in the desktop OS space.
The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that there is no appreciable market for Linux on the desktop. Yes, it will always appeal to geeks & hobbyists who enjoy being able to tinker with the guts of their system. Yes, it will have a solid presence in the server market. But all I hear about Linux on the desktop is what it *can't* still do compared to Windows or Mac OS X. There is no compelling reason for an *average* user to switch to a Linux desktop *right now*, and so any wishing or hoping without a real plan for making it happen is just hot air.
Mark my words: barring a direct meteor hit on Cupertino, Linux will never, ever be a major player in the desktop market.
Well, it's clear you missed this bit of news, which clearly explains why Linux is set to unseat Apple as the number 2 Desktop OS! Gartner even predicts that Linux will be 7.5% of the desktop market in four years!
And Apple has successfully created an association in people's minds that their machines are easy to use and are the right choice for smart people who have better things to do with their time than fiddle with computers.
And with the exception of a small (but obnoxiously vocal) minority of computer users, the phrase highlighted above in bold describes the computer-using public. The computer is a tool for most people - a means to an end, not an end in itself. If you're a carpenter, is what you do best described as "building houses"? Or would a carpenter's work be better described as "cleaing, oiling, sharpening, and otherwise maintaining tools needed to build houses"?
Incidentally, THIS is exactly why Linux struggles for wider acceptance as a desktop OS. The people who want an OS where they can do anything and play around as they see fit aren't primarily concerned with the computer as a tool for accomplishing something else. For them, the computer is an end in itself: learn how it works, play around with it, have fun. It's the difference between someone who enjoys tinkering with & restoring cars as a hobby and someone who just needs a car that runs so they can get to work and go out with friends on the weekend.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?! So OSS is simply the "Anti-Microsoft movement"? They have no other raison d'etre other than to bring down Microsoft? I bet that would be news to many in the OSS world, I hope you've informed them that the revolution is now. And for that matter, who is "OSS"? Last I checked it was a wide assortment of people with very little central guidance other than a principled belief that software should be "free as in speech", and even their degree of adherence to that principle varies widely from project to project - witness the number of "OSS" licenses out there. By painting Linux as simply "anti-Microsoft," you do a huge disservice to the many people who work on and have contributed to Linux & projects that run on Linux. Linux competes with many other platforms in many different spaces, it's not just "against Microsoft."
You've got such a thing for Microsoft you don't seem to understand that Linux is also competing against Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and many other variants of Unix on servers & workstations; Symbian, WinCE, MacOS, on phone / PDA devices; Mac OS on desktops... numerous other smaller embedded OS systems & custom applications. There is no "single market" which Linux competes in that is just "Linux vs. Microsoft," and to the extent that Linux treats any market as "simply us against Microsoft," they will lose to some other competitor that they've been ignoring. There are MANY possible explanations for how Linux has achieved a 25Bn dollar value in the market, but nowhere has anybody (aside from you) made the claim that the Linux Foundation has stated that this 25Bn value is tied to a 25Bn loss in Microsoft's share of the market.
I'll say this one final time in big bold letters, maybe it'll finally sink in:
YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ADVANCING THE CLAIM THAT LINUX'S VALUE OF 25 BILLION IS SOLELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MICROSOFT LOSING AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF THE MARKET.
Microsoft hasn't made the claim. The Linux foundation hasn't made the claim. Nobody in the Linux world has made the claim. If you have evidence other than unfounded speculation to support your claims, then by all means share it. If you do not have evidence to provide, then simply admit to yourself that you are creating wildly speculative hypotheses, and go on about your business with the newfound knowledge that inserting random Latin phrases into your Slashdot posts does not make you sound smart, it just makes you sound like someone who doesn't know how to use Latin phrases properly.
For the same reason any advocacy body does anything: getting your brand name out in the press with some positive association, so that people will be more likely to have a favorable impression when it comes time to make a decision about whether to buy Sun, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Linux, etc. "I read that Linux's ecosystem is worth 25Bn dollars... that must mean there's a lot of people out there using it successfully, let's check it out."
That's a lovely assertion. Except nowhere in the article, summary, or any related supporting text about this study that I've seen do they make any such claim. You are assuming facts not yet in evidence. Perhaps they will make this claim in the full text of their study, in which case you may be right that they are comparing themselves to Microsoft's market share. But until you can show that they've made that claim, your arguments are pure, unfounded speculation as to their motives & reasoning.
Do you just throw random latin into your posts in an attempt to sound more intelligent? The point is that you've claimed, repeatedly, that the Linux foundation is making claims which they have not made, according to any evidence you've provided. It doesn't matter if it's a bad comparison, or if it's not a logical conclusion based on the facts in evidence. They have not made the claims. You are assuming things about their motivations which you have no evidence to back up - that makes you foolish, no matter how much Latin you throw at the problem to cover it up.
And they have not claimed that the size of their market is at the expense of a competitor. Only an idiot would assume this is a zero-sum market, where any gain by one party must be offset by a loss to another. Linux is worth some slice of the market, and they've attempted to place a value on that slice. There are many possible explanations for how they got that market - by eating into the market share of more costly Unix alternatives, by replacing some Microsoft solutions, by growing whole new segments of the market, and by simply benefitting from the increasingly digital nature of our lifestyles - the entire market for computing has grown, and so has Linux with it. They haven't claimed it's a zero-sum market, and even if they did make that claim, they would STILL not be guilty of the logical fallacy you've claimed they are.
There are so many holes in this reasoning: by your own claims, they could NOT make the claim that, "We're worth 25Bn. Microsoft has lost value. Therefore our value comes from Microsoft's losses." If it's true that MSFT's valuation has remained the same, then any person with a shred of a functioning brain would look and say, "Microsoft has not lost value, though." In addition, you're confusing "market capitalization" with "market value". The amount of money a company's stock is worth is at best a lagging indicator of the value they create, and is subject to all kinds of market pressures that are not created by or accounted for by Linux's existence. You can't look at a stock price and say, "MSFT has lost 25Bn dollars this yea
That sounds suspiciously like "if you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not going to bother explaining it." That argument doesn't hold any water from my girlfriend, so it's sure not going to hold any water when it's advanced by you.
I've read your "supporting arguments," and they still make no sense, as I indicated in my response. Your assertion that they're committing a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is not supported in any post you've made, because there is no mention in the summary or the article that Linux Foundation has claimed "Linux is worth 25 Billion. Microsoft is losing market share. Therefore, Microsoft is losing market share because Linux is worth 25 Billion." So please, for us benighted ignoramuses, please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that they're committing this logical fallacy, or admit that you used the term improperly in an attempt to sound intelligent which has failed miserably.
I don't think his statement is intended to "oppose your position". I think what he's done is pointed out that the logical fallacy you referenced doesn't apply to this situation. Or, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I think I missed some part where any mention was made of Microsoft's market share. Where are you getting that the Linux Foundation made that assertion, or concluded that B was a consequence of A?
As stated in the article, and the summary, the Linux Foundation asserting that "the Linux ecosystem is worth 25 Billion dollars" is not an example of the logical fallacy you're claiming they've made.
"Priceless" is not the same as "having no value." Linux certainly has value - if nothing else, the amount of time & effort required to write the code has value, and the cost of paying someone to write that code has value. That doesn't mean you can "buy Linux" for a price, but the effort that was put into creating Linux certainly has a value associated with it.
See my post above - I believe he's referring to Mr. Stephen Brown, which happened in Guilderland, NY. A case from 2003 in which Mr. Brown was arrested & charged with trespassing for refusing to leave a shopping mall after being asked to do so by security, ostensibly because he was wearing a "Give peace a chance" t-shirt.
What Plasmacutter neglects to mention is that the guard that asked him to leave was fired, and the trespassing charges were dropped. This is not exactly evidence of secret gulags and a conspiracy by the right to repress dissent.
Again, citation please?
If you had bothered to read the "debate on wikipedia", my link was to the section on wikipedia about actual research into media biases. You know, actual studies that have been done? I did not use Wikipedia as a source to show that there's debate, I used it because it had some good references to studies that have concluded that there is no clear, monolithic bias as you stated. Thus refuting your point that "the media is functioning as a propaganda arm" for either party.
Let me boil down your response then to make sure I'm clear. What you're saying is:
"I have no citation, but I will spew out a set of preconceived notions that I believe make me right. I just make the accusations, I don't defend them or back them up!"
That about right? This is the problem with political discussion today. "Damn the facts, I know what I believe and no examples or evidence to the contrary will even be entertained!" You, sir, are contributing to the problem far more than you realize, or will admit.
When the post has to sound ominous to obscure your lack of data.
When you absolutely must communicate a sense of false gravitas.
When you have no facts to back up your assertions, but really want to say something.
On November 4th, one common man will rise up to defend his vision of freedom with truthiness.
That man is Plasmacutter.
(This film not yet rated.)
Citation, please? Certainly a lot of room for debate that the media is performing propaganda solely for either party, or that there is a monolithic bias to the entire industry. Yes, conventional wisdom says that Fox News slants conservative, and PBS slants liberal, and shame on BOTH of them for it.
I assume you're referring to the case of Mr. Stephen Downs, in Guilderland, NY? Yes, the dispute reportedly arose from his wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt. However, the facts of the case are that he was arrested for refusing to leave private property, and charged with trespassing. The charges were later dropped against him, and the guard who signed the trespass complaint was fired. You can read a good summary of the case law, and why malls aren't considered public property in the sense of free speech protections over at Slate.
The same free speech zones used repeatedly by both the Democrats and Republicans at their conventions? Let's be intellectually honest at least - neither party is interested in having their elaborately planned proceedings disrupted by minor inconveniences like disagreements.
I assume you're talking about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program here? Which was, rightfully, exposed & subjected to intense scrutiny & oversight? I'll agree that these programs were disgraceful - but to pretend that nobody in the democratic-controlled congress knew about the programs (or indeed, has continued to vote for bills that support them, such as the recent FISA amendment) is flat-out dishonest.
Yes, because Democrats never astroturf in the interests of winning a campaign, right? The name David Axelrod sound familiar? (Hint: Chief media strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.) Again, let's not pretend that one side does it, and the other doesn't.
No, what you should do is throw every stinking, corrupt one of the bunch - Democrats & Republicans - out of office. They represent YOU, so what does it say about you that you turn a blind eye towards ugly tactics in the support of your own principles, and decry them when used by your "political enemies"? The ends do not justify the means. The ends should be achieved by honorable men & women representing their constituents in a conscientious manner. "Eye for an eye" tactics sure don't seem to be the "change" and "reform" both candidates are promising us.
I know this is slashdot and all, but if anybody's actually interested in looking at the full report, it's available for reading in pdf format online.
Now that I can agree with.
I'm not so sure I agree that Linux wins big in that equation... for the people who can't afford the "status symbol" iMac, there's always that $650 Dell laptop or $450 Dell desktop. I agree that a sour economy could really cut into Apple's profits, but I don't think that necessarily translates to increased Linux adoption.
I reckon it would matter for the same reason that many liberals sneer at conservative Christian candidates as being backwards, ill-informed, and stupid. ("They cling to their guns, and their religion," I believe is the phrase Sen. Obama used?). It would matter for the same reason those same many liberals assume that everybody with a devout Christian background is going to simply use the office of the President as a way to force Christianity on everybody. You can't have it both ways - either a religious background is relevant, regardless of the particular religion, or it's not.
Personally, I find Obama's willingness to listen to the rhetoric of Rev. Wright to be more cause for concern than any sort of "Muslim" upbringing. However, I'll also absolutely agree that he's not responsible for the content of the Rev. Wright's statements, and I also don't believe that he fundamentally agrees with them. But, his religious beliefs and background do have room for legitimate questions about the way he sees the world, and his & America's place in it. Much the same as it's fair to ask Gov. Palin if her religious beliefs would lead her to promote book bannings & censorship. And if it's clear that she did promote that notion, or attempt to enact it, that point certainly is relevant to her qualifications for the job of Vice President.
We've been doing it for generations, and it doesn't appear to be improving. Attempts to reason and produce facts are dismissed as "one more attempt" by the vast [LEFT|RIGHT] wing conspiracy to cover up what's "really" going on. Sometimes plain old stupidity is just plain old stupidity, but we tend to paint stupidity as some proof of the malicious conspiratorial behavior we like to see around every corner. In short - the comfort of opinion, without the discomfort of thought.
On the one hand, you admit that Apple being available on any hardware would put a squeeze on Linux... on the other hand, you claim that Apple wouldn't do so because they're terrified they might lose to Linux. Frankly, I think Linux barely enters into the equation for Apple. I find it highly unlikely that their desktop strategy is based around protecting themselves from a competitor with a vanishingly small share of the desktop market.
And despite being absolutely *terrified* of having to compete against the wildly successful desktop Linux, they manage to keep on chipping away at the market share of that little also-ran, Microsoft Windows...
Who decides what should "already be included with the system"? A crappy telnet client that's been done much better by someone else is about as high on most users' lists of "things that should be included" as a solid poke in the eye. Oh, and what's more, the third-party version for download is free, and takes about 30 seconds to download & run if you are one of the few people who actually DO need a telnet client on your windows box.
I understand what your point was. I'm just pointing out that it's nonsensical. Third party alternatives exist. Is it any OS' job to provide every tool ever written in case one user somewhere needs it and is too lazy to download it? Or should Microsoft arbitrarily decide that they won't allow people to install any new software on their system, and simply say "What we included for you is good enough, you don't need anything else, quite whining."?
I started to laugh at this, and then I realized you might actually be serious, so I'll offer an alternative solution:
If you have any need for telnet/ssh access (preferably ssh if you care at all for security), go install PuTTy. It's exponentially better than the default telnet.exe, has a small footprint, and is one of the first apps I install on every windows box I work with. It's really a great little app, and free. Worth checking out.
I'm not sure I see why this would be a problem. It's not as if your only option for email is a Windows Live Mail account, and it's not as if your only option for an email client is webmail. Plenty of free (as in beer, and some as in speech) alternatives out there for windows. For instance, Gmail & Thunderbird. Neither of which require a "subscription" or the viewing of advertisements on a Microsoft-controlled web site. (In point of fact, Thunderbird via POP or IMAP access to Gmail requires no viewing of a single ad during normal usage.)
If people are too lazy to investigate their alternatives, and instead pay for the ad-free web mail, or support Microsoft via ad-supported web mail... well, I'm hard-pressed to feel much sympathy for them at the hands of Microsoft's "evil tyranny". If this decision means less crapware and bloat preinstalled on a Windows box, I'm happy to see it.
You sure about that? There's no bioinformatics tools that run on Microsoft Windows? It's absolutely inconceivable that some of them may require significant (cluster/HPC) horsepower for processing terabytes of data for analysis and data mining?
Not a fan boy either, but OS elitism won't win you any points for accuracy either - just because YOU wouldn't choose to use Windows as your research institute's computing platform doesn't mean that it's not in use & perfectly viable as such.
Yes, just as soon as the Year of the Linux Desktop is upon us, I predict that all IT workers will become obsolete.
What's even more likely is that there will be a dramatic increase in the prevalence of computers & computer systems, and that they will eventually get easier to maintain & keep up, resulting in a large increase in the number of systems a single IT person can support effectively. However, since it's likely that the number of information systems to be administered will grow drastically, I don't foresee IT "dying out" anytime soon - I think it's likely IT will continue to grow, though perhaps at a slower, more "mature" rate.
Sounds like somebody is a security guy...
And if I could just be a doctor, I could make lots of money & drive a fancy car. Nobody with a brain would dispute such an obvious statement. The important part of the question is how you get there, and I've seen nobody advance a proposal for it that seems realistic.
Almost right. Commercially VIABLE products get all the commercial attention. If your product is not capable of self-sustaining growth, then it is not commercially viable.
That's an AWFUL lot of hand-waving there, that "IF Linux can become the choice..." statement. What path does Linux pursue to achieve this? I hear the "year of the linux desktop" meme repeated ad nauseam, and nobody answers the hard-but-obvious question of HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
I hear endless talk about how Linux can't get hardware vendor support - So where's the startup company that's producing open-standards hardware either with the drivers to support it, or public documentation to allow others to write drivers to support it?
I hear endless talk about how Linux doesn't have games - so where are the companies producing native Linux games for casual gamers, the largest portion of the gaming market?
I hear endless talk about how you can't buy Linux preinstalled like Windows - so why hasn't some enterprising Linux geek started the Dell of the Linux world, selling preconfigured, preinstalled, guaranteed-supported hardware?
If the best way you can answer this question:
"How will Linux gain market share?"
Is with this statement:
"Somehow!"
Then Linux is destined to fail as anything more than a bit-player in the desktop OS space.
The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that there is no appreciable market for Linux on the desktop. Yes, it will always appeal to geeks & hobbyists who enjoy being able to tinker with the guts of their system. Yes, it will have a solid presence in the server market. But all I hear about Linux on the desktop is what it *can't* still do compared to Windows or Mac OS X. There is no compelling reason for an *average* user to switch to a Linux desktop *right now*, and so any wishing or hoping without a real plan for making it happen is just hot air.
AMEN! QFT! And it's guaranteed that nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM, either.
Now would you pesky kids get off my lawn?!
Well, it's clear you missed this bit of news, which clearly explains why Linux is set to unseat Apple as the number 2 Desktop OS! Gartner even predicts that Linux will be 7.5% of the desktop market in four years!
Oh wait! That article is from 2004.
Four years ago...
You wanna sleep with that pretty new hardware vendor, you damn well better have shown the ability to make some money & have some clout in the market.
Otherwise, where's the return for the company to write drivers for your platform?
And with the exception of a small (but obnoxiously vocal) minority of computer users, the phrase highlighted above in bold describes the computer-using public. The computer is a tool for most people - a means to an end, not an end in itself. If you're a carpenter, is what you do best described as "building houses"? Or would a carpenter's work be better described as "cleaing, oiling, sharpening, and otherwise maintaining tools needed to build houses"?
Incidentally, THIS is exactly why Linux struggles for wider acceptance as a desktop OS. The people who want an OS where they can do anything and play around as they see fit aren't primarily concerned with the computer as a tool for accomplishing something else. For them, the computer is an end in itself: learn how it works, play around with it, have fun. It's the difference between someone who enjoys tinkering with & restoring cars as a hobby and someone who just needs a car that runs so they can get to work and go out with friends on the weekend.