Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Tue 5th Dec 2006 18:30 UTC
Linux The title of the article seems completely wrong to you? Naturally it would, when you daily read something like this. But I do state all this stuff is being a big mistake, if not worse. I am sure, that Linux is now close to extinction, and still is getting closer and closer to the point of no return.
Order by: Score:
What have you been smoking...
by Fred on Tue 5th Dec 2006 18:54 UTC
Fred
Member since:
2005-07-06

...and can I have some of that too?

Reply Score: 5

RE: What have you been smoking...
by Joe User on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:03 UTC in reply to "What have you been smoking..."
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't believe anything he said.

Reply Score: 1

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I found one good thing:

... command-line interface (which is actually the most powerful interface in most cases).

Actually, you can view this article as just a rant against the GUI, although he really misses the point by defining Linux by it's optional GUI.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What have you been smoking...
by de_wizze on Wed 6th Dec 2006 02:25 UTC in reply to "What have you been smoking..."
de_wizze Member since:
2005-10-31

I don't understand much of what he said.

Reply Score: 2

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Same here.

I'd flame the article if I could, but honestly, I could only understand 5% of what he was trying to say.
(Beside the point that the OP doesn't seem to know the difference between GNU and Linux - which to me looks like a prerequisite if you're going to a Linux [or GNU] piece)

Oh well, slow day @OSNews?
- Gilboa

Edited 2006-12-06 06:04

Reply Score: 2

RE: What have you been smoking...
by Shakey on Wed 6th Dec 2006 18:24 UTC in reply to "What have you been smoking..."
Shakey Member since:
2005-10-11

Yeah, I agree...

This is the biggest piece of troll-bait that I have ever seen.

Reply Score: 1

Facts? Evidence? Statistics? Logic?
by walterbyrd on Tue 5th Dec 2006 18:58 UTC
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

>>I am sure, that Linux is now close to extinction<<

Based on what? Care to back up that extreme assertions?

Can you provide evidence of declining market share? Or anything of that nature?

If you can't, then why is osnews publishing such obvious FUD?

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you can't, then why is osnews publishing such obvious FUD?

There are three things you can do when you enounter an article you find rubbish or disagree with.

1) Write a comment why the article sucks, using arguments.

2) Write a rebuttal article which OSNews will be pleased to publish.

3) Ignore the article.

Take your pick. Empty claims like "this is fud" or "it is all nonsense" without any form or arguments is not really what we want to see.

Reply Score: 3

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

At the bottom of the article, the signature:

"Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is a Russian intellectual property and insurance lawyer, spending his free time on free software advocacy and UNIXes promotion. OpenBSD user, if you would like to know."

explains it all! There is a reason why I don't write analytical articles on law!

Reply Score: 5

DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

I really wish I could mod you up Thom.

Like I said yesterday, Linux is about being open. We're about discourse. We're about talking. We're not about hiding our faults and problems.

If we're going to succeed we have to be able to freely speak our minds.

If we can't do that, if we can't talk about what's wrong or what we feel is wrong, then we become like Microsoft who cover's up their problems and hides them from customers. When we become like our "enemy" we've lost the war, and the war is useless.

Don't stifle or shut up critics. Let them talk. If what they say is true, take it to heart. If what they say is false, rebut them and show them what is true.

But don't push away those who might be in the middle--potential customers or users--by crying wolf all the time.

Reply Score: 5

ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Thom, there simply is no substance to refute.

The article is based on a false premise, acts as if this false premise was a fact and then acts as if the conclusion it draws follows logically from this false premise, though it fails to show how it does.

To add to this the article doesn't present one single fact to back up its assertions.

So no, this article is clear rubbish and there isn't anything more to say about it. That it is clear rubbish is obvious to anyone with half a brain and should be obvious to anyone who calls himself an editor, even if he's working for free.

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So no, this article is clear rubbish and there isn't anything more to say about it. That it is clear rubbish is obvious to anyone with half a brain and should be obvious to anyone who calls himself an editor, even if he's working for free.

You don't seem to understand what the role of an editor is. It is my role to properly format the news, and filter out irrelevant stuff. It is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT my job to filter news and articles based on the opinions expressed. If I were to do that, I'd be biased. You think I agree with this article and it's contents? I won't reveal my opinion directly; read between the lines of this post and you'll know.

If I were to filter news based on the merits of its opinions, you'd all get your panties in a twist even more. Attacking an editor JUST because he did not dispose of an article with debatable opinions in it, is just as bad as writing that article.

In other words, comment with arguments, write rebuttal, or ignore. It's that simple.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

You don't seem to understand what the role of an editor is. It is my role to properly format the news, and filter out irrelevant stuff. It is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT my job to filter news and articles based on the opinions expressed. If I were to do that, I'd be biased. You think I agree with this article and it's contents?

Then perhaps you need an employee whose job it IS to filter out this stuff. After all, to draw an analogy, you don't see THE TIMES of London publishing anything that isn't right wing, or THE SUN publishing anything of substance, do you? And they do that by filtering. They probably filter employees rather than articles, but if you accept submissions from random people then you'll have to resort to filtering by article, I suppose.

Reply Score: 5

ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

"You don't seem to understand what the role of an editor is. It is my role to properly format the news, and filter out irrelevant stuff. It is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT my job to filter news and articles based on the opinions expressed."

Thom, you are supposed to filter them on their quality, not on wether you like their opinion or not. This article simply lacks the quality to be posted on any news site that wants to be taken seriously.

Reply Score: 5

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

That's an opinion.

Reply Score: 1

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

It'a got some serious evidence behind it. The grammar of the article is awfull.

Reply Score: 3

historyb Member since:
2005-07-06

You appear to not know either thom. You abdicate your journalistic responsibility by not holding the article to higher standards, for instances yo should of had him back up his claims. This was very poorly put together and poor standards were used.

You just don't put up an article just to put it up.

Edited 2006-12-06 04:13

Reply Score: 5

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>Empty claims like "this is fud" or "it is all nonsense" without any form or arguments is not really what we want to see.<<

Maybe you should take your own advise? This article is making assertions based on nothing. Why does osnews considering this pointless ranting newsworthy?

I don't mind any worthy opinion, pro-linux, anti-linux, makes no difference. But why publish unsupported cr@p?

Reply Score: 5

vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

The article appears to be satire. As such, facts ect. aren't really a requirement. With some "what if" ideas thrown in.

As far as the term WYSIWYG, I don't think that is quite the corect term when talking about a GUI centric desktop enviroment as as opposed to using the command line.

What you see is not what you get. It's what the devloper wanted to you to see or felt you needed to see in order to use the software.

The author did say that he just didn't have another word to use. I understand what he's talking about when using the term WYSIWYG in this context.

Personally I'd like to see more integration between the GUI and the command line. Not a split. Not that I think a split would happen. Why would it? Want to use the GUI, use it. Want the command line use it. A split is in no way needed. You know, the whole choice thing.

Reply Score: 3

gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

"I'd like to see more integration between the GUI and the command line"

And you can have it. For example use Konqueror. It looks and feels "Windows Explorer"-ish when you start it up the first time. But it is approximately 10 times more powerful, especially because it does not look like it:

-It is the perfect tool for a beginner who just wants to drag and drop files and folders through his filesystem.

- Then it provides a nice ftp client, without changing it's behaviour (no relearn).

- Then it is a CD-ripping tool, without changing it's behaviour (no relearn again).

- Then it is a manual page viewer, or a pdf viewer or a web browser, all that without changing it's behaviour and without having to have 100 buttons around.

- and last, it is a command line interface (CLI). And this CLI works TOGETHER with the GUI part of Konqueror. Just in existing, Konqueror disprooves the article perfectly. There is no real difference between a CLI and a GUI, the GUI simplyfies the access to often-done things, the CLI gives the user the power and flexibility for more complicated tasks. Konqueror does both, so it is a tool for beginners which grows it's powers as the user learns to use them. But it does not force the user to learn them!
Applications like Konqueror are the future, on which platform they run is irrelevant.

Reply Score: 1

Lots of words to explain a simple concept
by no_name on Tue 5th Dec 2006 18:59 UTC
no_name
Member since:
2006-12-05

The entire article assume that classical dev models (i.e pay for the copy) are better than the alternatives models (i.e pay for features or solutions to specific problems).
Has someone deeply analyzed this assumption? Any idea?

Reply Score: 3

v Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:01 UTC
RE: Hmmm?
by shotsman on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:12 UTC in reply to "Hmmm?"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Growth in many areas of IT is most certanily not linear.
In the area where I work, the growth in Linux Systems is far higher that Windows. I'm talking server (Window Server 2003 vs RHEL/SLED). One of my clients who is very .NET centric has admitted that the new Linux Server beats anything that MS can offer (on the same H/W) hands down (by a factor of 5 in terms of Throughput)
We have also started selling lots of Linux Servers into the SME space where once we would have put Windows SBS.
This is just my own view based upon my current (last 6 months) experience and not a statistically valis survey but I am sure that this is being repeated in many other places.
In my business area, the score for systems shipped in 2006 is as follows:-
Windows Server 2003 100
Linux(RHEL/SLED) 367
None of out Windows Customers are even thinking of moving to Vista for at least two years so the ship or not to ship of vista was not a factor.

I am always reminded of the quote about statistics, statistics and damm lies whenever I read a IDC/Gartner report but that is another matter entirely.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Linux server revenue growth is still higher than Windows' revenue growth.

And Linux share of the server market actually dropped from 12% in Q2 of 2006 to 11.8% in Q3 of 2006.

That's not Linux' server market share, that's Linux's share of server revenues. Please stop misquoting numbers to support your agenda.

From the article:

"Linux servers now represent 11.8% of all server revenue"

http://www.itnewsonline.com/showstory.php?storyid=6880&scatid=3&con...

See? That's server revenue - and that only counts those servers with are sold, as opposed to those that are downloaded for free. Linux' market share in servers could be much higher than what is believed (and is certainly not smaller).

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm?"
RE[3]: Hmmm?
by alucinor on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm?"
alucinor Member since:
2006-01-06

That study doesn't count OS-less servers (which often will have a Linux installed later) or Linux appliances.

Most Linux growth is in the community distros, not the supported ones.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/12/05/strong_growth_for_debi...

While Linux is a great platform for IT, it's not as good a platform for making revenues as Windows, since that OS requires higher specs for servers (thus more server revenue) and more servers (the one-server-per-service MS marketing model).

Linux, on the other hand, is most often installed on old or volume-bought clusters/grids, without support, and used to serve up websites via Perl/Java/PHP, database queries, or as a Java app server.

Companies like Red Hat base their business on the fact that as these (usually younger) companies that run community-based Linux like CentOS or Fedora grow to the extent that they start mitigating risk, they will move to a supported version. This would mean they keep their server, not buy new ones, and thus most Linux revenue growth will not be tied directly to server purchases.

Spend some time out in the real world of Linux deployment, NotParker, before spreading brainless marketspeak FUD.

Edited 2006-12-05 19:51

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm?"
RE[4]: Hmmm?
by el3ktro on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm?"
el3ktro Member since:
2006-01-10

Exactly. The company I'm working in as an admin has 5 servers running (file, mail, OTRS etc.) and we all bought them without an OS. So there's no revenue neither for Windows or for Linux. On all these servers we're now running Debian - on the 2 newer ones Ubuntu 6.06 - all downloaded for free from the Internet - showing up in no statistics at all, but still adding to the Linux "market" share.

Tom

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

This is a very common scenario, and it tends to favor Linux (due to Windows' more restrictive licensing).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmmm?
by ThawkTH on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

This is slightly OT, and I don't mean to troll, but why run a server on Ubuntu instead of Debian?

Is it ease?

Perhaps Canonical's support? Release cycle?

Just curious...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmmm?
by el3ktro on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm?"
el3ktro Member since:
2006-01-10

Most of our client computers run XP, while the PCs of our developers used to run SuSE. We switched them to Kubuntu several months ago, simply because we (the admins) found Ubuntu/Kubuntu easier to handle and more mature. Using Ubuntu instead of Debian for the servers was simply a question of homogeneity. Also, Ubuntu is simply more up-to-date. But there's no reason to touch the other three severs which run Debian. They do their job fine.

Tom

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmmm?
by stestagg on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

The Data-center that we use for CoLo, builds all their own servers onsite, they have a couple of hundred servers, Most of these run linux. We added 8 servers into their racks, each custom-built with Linux. Now tell me that Gartner were able to take these in to account?

Of course some of the other CoLo guys bought Dells/HPs, they all came with Windows licenses and would have been counted into any survey.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm?"
RE[5]: Hmmm?
by stestagg on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

This is one data-center in the corner of England. Work your subtlety and do the math.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmmm?
by Inhibit on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm?"
Inhibit Member since:
2005-10-25

Ohh, 80%. I'm wondering if that's part of the 80% of all statistics that get pulled out of the statisticians nether regions.

I mean.. 40% to 80%. Really. And you don't see anything wrong with a 100% difference in the variable, eh?

Being one of the people that continually tosses those surveys, I'd say they're bunk.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm?"
RE[5]: Hmmm?
by raver31 on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

That quote is great, if you believe everything cnet and gartner says !

their next report is about to be posted on the internet.....

"install linux and you will turn into a mass murderer who eats babies"

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

A Gartner study says that between 40% and 80% of computers with Linux pre-installed are wiped clean and replaced by a pirated copy of Windows.

I'm sure you'll have a link, so we can see that Gartner was talking about Servers in this particular case, right? Because we know you'd never ever try to misrepresent such statistics, right?

Look at the bright side: you can finally post all of your anti-Linux propaganda in this thread without being considered off-topic! :-)

(I'll still call you out when you're being dishonest, though...)

Edit: I see you've posted the link...and as I thought, it's not about Servers at all, but about Desktop PCs.

In other words, it was completely irrelevant to the point being made about Servers. Sorry, you lose yet again...

Edited 2006-12-05 20:23

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm?"
RE[5]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Sure. But there is no valid reason why it doesn't ahppen to server too.

Uh, because Linux is a proven Server OS with excellent performance and little overhead?

Do you think businesses in Asia who use pirated Windows on their desktops choose Linux instead of a pirated copy of Windows 2000 server or Windows 2003 server?

Well, it depends on the business for sure, but there's no reason to believe that this is actually the case either. Remember, businesses that use pirated software can face stiff fines and penalties, even in Asia. Mr. Gates made sure of this when he last visited these countries to push for Windows. Remember, China is already a modern nation, and it likes Linux (it even has its own brand, based on RedHat).

IDC noted very strong growth for Linux back in April:

"According to IDC, China’s Linux market revenue reached $11.8 mln in 2005, up 27.1% over 2004. 2005 saw a steady growth in the China Linux market, brought about mainly by the huge volume of government procurements and large-scale SCO Unix replacement by major banks and industrial projects such as Telecommunication and Internet cafes. IDC forecasts China’s Linux market will grow at a CAGR of 34.0% from 2006 to 2010, and reach $51.1 mln by 2010."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10601

I don't think so!

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but since you have no data to back it up, I'll simply state that I disagree with it. Meanwhile, research firms seem to indicate that Linux's growth in China is quite healthy.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[6]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm?"
RE[7]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

As we well know, Linux growth world wide was still 30% in 2005. Now its down to 5.4%.

Can you tell me how you arrived to the 30% figure? I think I know how you did, but I just want to hear it from you so I can better prove you wrong.

Please, tell me how you got the 30% figure...show me the passage in the article which you based this figure on.

I won't even go into the nonsense figures in the rest of your post. You seem to confuse market share with revenue growth, and so on...you seem to be confusing throwing around random statistics with actual arguments.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

In total dollars, Windows is growing by 3x the revenue as Linux since it has 3x the market share.

Irrelevant. Growth is expressed in percentages for a reason, you know?

Not to mention that an overpriced solution like MS will inflate their overall dollar share of revenue, while an (often) free solution such as Linux will decrease it.

Bottom line: Linux is still enjoying growth, despite you falsely claiming that it is "approaching zero."

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm?"
RE[5]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Someday, whe you grow up, you will realise that when growth goes from 100% to 60% to 40% to 30% than 6.1% and 5.4% it really does mean approaching zero.

Except that Linux' growth hasn't followed this pattern, therefore you have no logical reason to claim it is approaching zero.

Simply put, there's no long-term trend that would allow anyone to state that Linux growth is "approaching zero" with a straight face. Is it moderating in the U.S. to more modest levels? Sure, that was inevitable after the explosive growth it enjoyed over the last few years. However, it is still enjoying this massive growth in other parts of the world, so overall the picture is pretty good. HP and IBM don't look too sad these days, as far as Linux server sales are concerned...

I noticed that you did manage to put an insult in there ("whe (sic) you grow up"). Thanks for once again proving that you are incapable of engaging in logical debate without resorting to personal attacks.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[6]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm?"
RE[7]: Hmmm?
by segedunum on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I would say 63% in 2003 to 42.6% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2005 to 6% , then 5.4% in 2006 is definitely petering out and approaching zero.

I find it amusing that you're actually quoting growth figures here (not to mention on what basis they are arrived at), and you think that they're painting a picture of what you'd like to see.

Where's the market share figures or the percentage of server shipments over the last few years that shows a downward trend? Those are the only figures that matter for the sort of general trend you're hoping to see, which is simply the usual fantasy wishful thinking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I would say 63% in 2003 to 42.6% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2005 to 6% , then 5.4% in 2006 is definitely petering out and approaching zero.

Wait a minute? A couple of posts ago you said it was 30% for 2005, and now you say it's 6%? I think you're throwing too many statistics around, you're confusing yourself!

Anyway, I'll humor you and take these statistics to mean what you think they mean in order to prove how once again you are misrepresenting results and trends.

Indeed, the series of statistics you give here does not ten to approach zero. If we look at the difference between each scores, we get:

63% - 42.6% = 20.4%
42.6% - 20.8% = 21.8%
20.8% - 6% = 14.8%
6% - 5.4% = 0.6%

So, looking at the differences, this would indicate that the growth is *leveling out* and appears to stabilize at around 5%. Hey, look at that, that's *still* higher than Microsoft's.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmmm?
by merkoth on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Someday, whe you grow up, you will realise that when growth goes from 100% to 60% to 40% to 30% than 6.1% and 5.4% it really does mean approaching zero.

And someday when you grow up, you will realise that a decreasing growth porcentage doesn't mean fewer migrations. If I have 1 linux machine and I add another one I have 100% of growth. It's obvious that this amount will decrease as more machines are set up.

But I find amusing you calling another person "troll", I should mod you up. No, wait...

Edit: archiesteel beat me to it, sorry.

Edited 2006-12-05 21:53

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmmm?
by TechGeek on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm?"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You also fail to realize that its the growth that is declining, not the actual number of servers being deployed. If in 2004 I ship 50,000 servers, and in 2005 I ship 100,000 servers, thats 100% growth. If I ship 100,000 servers again in 2006, that 0% growth over 2005, but I still shipped 100,000 servers. Also, that says nothing to the number of servers out there that are Windows or Linux. Maybe server sales as a whole slumped between 2005 and 2006. You statistics are pontless without knowing the actual data points. Take a stats class, NotParker.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Hmmm?
by segedunum on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

In total dollars, Windows is growing by 3x the revenue as Linux since it has 3x the market share.

All you've told me there is that Windows is more expensive than Linux ;-). Thanks.

Small wonder why Microsoft uses server revenue at every available opportunity, and paints over server shipments and units sold.

A Gartner study says that between 40% and 80% of computers with Linux pre-installed are wiped clean and replaced by a pirated copy of Windows.

And that was purportedly done on the subject of Linux desktops and has no independent corroboration, since it was commisioned and is widely used by Microsoft.

Oh yes. We were talking about servers, weren't we?

Edited 2006-12-05 23:27

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm?"
RE[5]: Hmmm?
by segedunum on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmmm?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

IDC and Gartner report units sold as well.

Then quote them.

But revenue gives you an idea what the server is being used for.

The reason why Microsoft likes quoting revenue is they tend to add in a whole lot more than the cost of the server license itself. CALs and additional licenses can get thrown into the mix, bundled along with a single server. There's no definition of a server license - all it is is revenue. Key difference ;-). It is utterly meaningless.

Again, all you're telling me is that Microsoft is more expensive.

If someone buys a mainframe with Linux on it, Linux revenue goes up millions.

Considering that no one buys Windows mainframes I would imagine that Microsoft needs all the help it can get.

Commissioned by Microsoft? Really? Where did you read that?

Along with the other umpteen Gartner and IDC reports commissioned by Microsoft. It belongs in the trash unless it is quoted by others. It isn't.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: Hmmm?
by NotParker on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmmm?"
RE[7]: Hmmm?
by archiesteel on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

BTW, seeing as how you're quoting Gartner, I guess you'll also agree with their 2.5% Desktop Market Share for Linux, right? Right?

Or are you going to insult me again?

Edited 2006-12-06 00:49

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Hmmm?
by segedunum on Wed 6th Dec 2006 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmmm?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I've posted this many times:

You've posted nothing. What you want to show is a decline for Linux in the server market, but you can't do this based on the actual number of servers and shipments. It's all about revenue, which as I've pointed out, means nothing.

According to IDC's stats, which count the factory revenue of the vendors that make servers

Which means that what is bundled with the server, counts. Again, all you're telling me is that Windows is more expensive.

Rather than count factory revenue, Gartner estimates the actual amount of revenue

Which makes Gartner's survey so utterly full of the brown stuff it just isn't funny. Is this what you've been proclaiming from the hills as fact?

As usual, your head is so far up your own ass you can't hear anything. Nothing unusual there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmmm?
by alcibiades on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Congratulations! That is the way to do it. Far more effective than modding down and saying nothing coherent.

Reply Score: 3

Interesting but abstract...
by karl1 on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:05 UTC
karl1
Member since:
2005-06-29

Is it Friday already?! That was one of the most abstract articles I have read about concrete matters.

Reply Score: 4

you got some of it wrong
by Haohmaru on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:05 UTC
Haohmaru
Member since:
2006-02-08

"Linux was just one of the numerous projects, which happened to rise due to being distributed as Free Software and supported by FSF. "

You should be paying more attention. Linux was never distributed as Free Software or supported by FSF. It's Open Source software. The only reason Linus chose GPL2 is to force sharing the source of any modifications you do to Linux.
And that is why it has been (and will continue to be) so successful both on servers and desktop workstations.

Reply Score: 4

RE: you got some of it wrong
by ronaldst on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:43 UTC in reply to "you got some of it wrong"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Very good.

The GNU/Stallman is trying to force Linus into adopting GPL3 when it's out. Linus and devs have said many times that they are satisfied with GPL2.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: you got some of it wrong
by boots on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:49 UTC in reply to "you got some of it wrong"
boots Member since:
2005-07-06

Uhh, maybe read up on the GPL (especially GPL2)? Using the GPL implies FREE software as expounded by the FSF, not "open source" as as expounded by the OSF. Since Linux is licensed as GPL2, it is hence Free software. You don't have to be supported by the FSF to release Free software. Furthermore, what makes it free is the whole reciprocal approach of the GPL that ensures that modifications get shared back. Without that, you have plain open source and not Free software. That's the whole point, really.

BTW, as bright as Linus can be, he has got the free/open source debate wrong so it is not surprising to see others get it wrong. Lucky for both of us that he still managed to pick the right license.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: you got some of it wrong
by Haohmaru on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: you got some of it wrong"
Haohmaru Member since:
2006-02-08

"You don't have to be supported by the FSF to release Free software."

Well, you're right. Of course Linux is both Free and Open Source. My point was that Linus main priority is that the source is open, and that changes to that code is also open. The GPL2 license was perfect to meet that end, and I agree with Linus that it still is.

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

BTW, as bright as Linus can be, he has got the free/open source debate wrong so it is not surprising to see others get it wrong.

You speak as if it's possible for there to be an objectively wrong and an objectively right position to take in the whole "Free Software" vs "Open Source Software" debate. Even describing it as a "debate" is overly generous, when it's clearly just semantic quibbling by people who know next-to-nothing about actual linguistics.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: you got some of it wrong
by boots on Wed 6th Dec 2006 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: you got some of it wrong"
boots Member since:
2005-07-06

You speak as if it's possible for there to be an objectively wrong and an objectively right position to take in the whole "Free Software" vs "Open Source Software" debate. Even describing it as a "debate" is overly generous, when it's clearly just semantic quibbling by people who know next-to-nothing about actual linguistics.

If it were just a petty semantic difference, it would be only so much hot-air and have no consequence. I believe there are consequences. "Right" and "Wrong" here are not moral assessments but rather are used to indicate which style leads to the maximum group utility. Objectively, there is a right position but it is dependent on what your aim is. If your aim is to ensure that software can be continuously used and developed in a shared manner such that no one can bar another from derivations of the software, then the objective choice of should be clear -- Freedom requires the quid pro quo or so-called "viral" clause. It is the same as saying, "We are free because I insist on the freedom of my neighbors".

Also, if it is just so much talk, why bother to say so?

Reply Score: 1

RE: you got some of it wrong
by HalcyonBlue on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:25 UTC in reply to "you got some of it wrong"
HalcyonBlue Member since:
2006-12-06

Linus chose the GPL for his kernel as a gesture of appreciation to the FSF for the GCC compiler suite - which he used to develop the kernel. Such a gesture is just one of many that demonstrate his political prowess.

If you need confirmation of this, you can find it in this interview with Linus:

http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html

Edited 2006-12-06 00:42

Reply Score: 1

RE: you got some of it wrong
by Haohmaru on Thu 7th Dec 2006 11:39 UTC in reply to "you got some of it wrong"
Haohmaru Member since:
2006-02-08

Looks like it's too late to edit.
Of course the GPL2 license makes Linux Free Software, but it looks like because of pragmatic reasons more than ideological. Torvalds shares his source, and wants changes to that code to be shared as well.

The latest GPL v2 vs v3 debate brings this up:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161

Reply Score: 1

Controversial?
by Chicken Blood on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:06 UTC
Chicken Blood
Member since:
2005-12-21

Why don't people take a deep breath before getting emotional over what this guy said? I predict the replies are going to be over 200 for this one.

There will be few that aren't knee-jerk responses though.

Reply Score: 5

Not to be picky but...
by Noremacam on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:06 UTC
Noremacam
Member since:
2006-03-08

It's lose, not "loose"(seen on page 2)

Also, the idea of linux flavors splitting over whether it uses gui tools or command prompt based tools is ridiculous. To make that argument you'd have to not be able to have both. Most distros have both. I often use apt-get instead of synaptic in ubuntu, just as an example. Yes the command prompt is more efficient, but it requires a greater learning curve. Why anyone thinks that it would be split into two camps is beyond me. Perhaps the user base could split into two camps, based on personal preference, but I can't see the mainstream distros doing so.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not to be picky but...
by wannabe geek on Wed 6th Dec 2006 12:52 UTC in reply to "Not to be picky but..."
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

"It's lose, not "loose"(seen on page 2) "

Another typo: it's "extinct", not "instinct" (page 2, "while the second group will instinct") Anyway, typos alone don't make the message invalid.

WYSIWIG is a paradigm for text edition, not for UI. The term the author is looking for is "point-and-click". OpenOffice is as WYSIWIG as MsWord. On the other hand, there's the WYSIWYM paradigm of Lyx, where you get much of the power of LaTex without having to learn the markup.

Point-and-click relies on consistent configuration APIs, that's why KDE and Gnome are so good with their respective applications. The Windows way of doing this is the registry. The Linux answer to this may well be Elektra. There's work to do, but nothing to care much about. Package management and shared libraries need some reworking as well. I'm trying Gobolinux and I think they are going in the right direction (but many will disagree).

Reactos is interesting, but most of their work can be leveraged by Wine, as Reactos devs clearly admit.

In the long run, I think the C language and monolithic kernels are doomed. The future of OS may well be Minix3 (microkernel), JNode (Java) or House (Haskell) if they stay open source and become better than GNU/Linux. Oh, and maybe the Hurd if they switch from Mach to Coyotos. More online applications (Web 2.0) are to be expected as well. Of course this last paragraph is just a guess. In any case, FOSS users will win, not lose.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not to be picky but...
by Fred on Wed 6th Dec 2006 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to be picky but..."
Fred Member since:
2005-07-06

The 90's called, it wants its hypes back ;)

Seriously, how often have we heard this? Microkernels are going to rule, online web applications are the future, OO is the bomb. Over and over again, kinda like "this is the year of the linux desktop" for the past 5 or six years.

Why does there always have to be an end all solution to all perceived problems of the current ones?

Reply Score: 1

Amazing!
by diegocg on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:06 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

I didn't know that Linux was doomed! Thanks for opening my eyes!

I wonder - how it's possible that linux has been getting more and more and more market share - slowly, but steadly - with all that failures?


I also love completely how the author seems to think that "unix" and "desktop" are mutually incompatible. He reduces the design of user interfaces to "the unix way" and "WYSIWYG". Obviously, if you think that bash shells is all what Unix is about, you may think that. Of course, if you realize that what "Unix" really means is "POSIX", and that POSIX is just a basic API to do some basic tasks and that posix + qt or even QT alone is pretty much the same than win32 (better actually, but it pretty much delivers the same basic functionality) you may wonder why on earth you can't build a desktop on top of QT, if microsoft was able to do it in top of win32.

I specially love how the author seems to think that OS X "wraps" Unix because it tries to hide the system and that Linux "doesn't really try to hide away the UNIX nature of the system". Indeed, the linux desktop is not the best desktop available in the world, but I fail to see how Linux is inherently doomed. Now that linux has cloned the win9x/xp level of functionality, there's a lot of work to do, both for windows and for linux. UIs are still a young thing, we're just starting to get hardware acceleration into the desktop APIs that will allow us to re-do in long term (Core Video and XAML are only getting into the hands of developers THIS year) how the UIs are done and managed, and that there's plenty of innovation left.


But you're free to write two pages taking about WYSIWYG-ness (no matter that it doesn't means that much alone when building a desktop). But the thing I like most are the typical predictions that We Should Listen To: AND LINUX WILL DIVIDE IN TWO GROUPS, A COMERCIAL AND A ENTHUSIAST ONE, AND A DRAGON WITH SEVEN HEADS WILL CAME AND BURN EVERYTHING

Edited 2006-12-05 19:20

Reply Score: 5

halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

Now you'll see OSNews be reduced to rubble in the aftermath.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm

Reply Score: 5

...
by Mitarai on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:13 UTC
Mitarai
Member since:
2005-07-28

I say Linux is failing not doomed.

In 1999 I remember Linus and the rest claiming they will have the 10% of market share in 2 years or something like it, its almost 2007 and the market is near zero in the desktop department, in the server I'd say that's BSD ground.

What is failing?

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by borker on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:25 UTC in reply to "..."
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

and I'd say that without any stats (or quotes from 'Linus and the rest') to support what you're saying that you're talking out of your ass

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by gilboa on Wed 6th Dec 2006 06:16 UTC in reply to "..."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh come on!

A. It was 2003.
B. He said that 2004 will be the year of the Linux desktop.
C. He never said anything about 10%. He just said, and I quote "This year there will be a lot of desktop users, which will impact kernel developers."

At least get the fact strait before posting them.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by toogreen on Wed 6th Dec 2006 12:54 UTC in reply to "..."
toogreen Member since:
2006-06-03

Saying that the market share is near zero is quite pessimistic. I don't think anybody has any concrete stats about this, as most people using Linux downloaded it for free. However, there is a new music player called "songbird" and it has a neat feature that lets you see how many of its users are running Windows, Mac and Linux. Here are the stats from it as we speak:

Users by Platform
Windows 81%
Linux 10%
Macintosh 9%

So I guess the people who claimed a 10% is not that off the track. Interesting also that the Linux number is higher than the Mac now...

Reply Score: 1

LOL
by GStepper on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:16 UTC
GStepper
Member since:
2006-03-08

The author really demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about. From the technical standpoint.... there's just nothing at all !!!.

Now predictions ??? LOL

Dimitri Nostradamus... I'm sorry but the author really should stay in the scope of his skills... (Russian justice .... LOL).

And please, please, PLEASE stop writing things like "I use this OS and that OS so I have a legitimate right to critic/comment/whatever" this doesn't give you any credibility at all, quite the opposite.

Das Vidagna Dimitri !

Reply Score: 3

Life is too short ...
by Rehdon on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:18 UTC
Rehdon
Member since:
2005-07-06

... to even start debunking the false assumptions, half-truths and illogicities of this "article". That is, if you survive the errors in spelling and grammar. I admit I couldn't finish it, so perhaps there might be people more determined than me.

Are things going so badly at OS News that you have to resort to this kind of trollish dribble to raise the page click counts? Really really sad ...

rehdon

Edited 2006-12-05 19:19

Reply Score: 5

Windows!=GUI
by RandomGuy on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:18 UTC
RandomGuy
Member since:
2006-07-30

"Why would Linux loose trying to provide the same user experience as Windows, but at lower cost?

First of all, you can't copy the thing you've never seen. Microsoft's plans are changing all the time, some features are found only at release time, so they would hardly find their way into Linux UI in short term."

Wow, give me a break!
It almost seems as if the author believed that
a) MS invented the GUI and
b) MS was the only true innovator of GUIs?

And of course, they release products so often that you are always playing catch up!
Sure, buddy...

Would you please tell me how (among others) Linux got multiple desktops and the like long before Windows if they are playing catch up?
(Vista finally has them, right? If not that would be _really_ ridiculous!)

Now if he said the GUI had won that would be a different thing...
Obviously the CLI is not for everybody and not the best tool for every task.

But Linux lost? No fscking way!

Reply Score: 5

OS News == perpetual Microsoft FUD
by moneypenny on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:19 UTC
moneypenny
Member since:
2006-09-28

I used to check the OS News RSS feed daily for interesting articles, but eventually got disgusted because it seems the majority of articles here have a decidedly pro-Microsoft, anti-Linux feel. I took a break from OS News, but eventually gave it another try. Well, here we go again: I'm sick of the stories this place purports as "news" or truth. I'm saying goodbye for good this time; Slashdot, Digg, Ars Technica, LXer, Google News, The Register, Reg Developer, and Wired News have a large enough variety of viewpoints that I don't need this Windows hole to keep up-to-date on recent technological happenings.

Reply Score: 5

Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

Well, you forgot that the majority of articles are anti apple too.

Reply Score: 1

diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Stop that. Osnews posts LOTS of anti-Microsoft news. Hell, most of the people here are linux zealots. It also posts lots of anti-Linux news.

It _even_ posts which mix pro-haiku/anti-linux, or pro-BSD/anti-linux sentiments.


If you want a site that talks only good about Linux, osnews isn't your site. Osnews touches all OSes

Reply Score: 5

Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I love it. I wish I could show you the emails that come through the crew list. We get called pro-Microsoft, pro-Linux, and pro-Mac, as well as anti-Microsoft, anti-Linux, and anti-Mac every week. Everyone seems to think we are against what they like and for everything they hate.

It's actually quite comical, since this story was SUBMITTED.

If you're so angry and feel your opinion is so misrepresented, why do you come to a forum to complain? Why not just submit an article yourself?

PS: I'm OSNews staff, and I have ZERO machines running Windows at my house.

Edited 2006-12-05 21:17

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I agree...OSNews has done a good job of staying away from bias.

I'm still not convinced that its comments section aren't visited by astroturfers, but that's fair game, as OSNews isn't responsible for what appears in those comments (and I have absolutely no concrete proof of astroturfing, and so it remains only a nagging suspicion).

I do think the article was especially poor, but hey, at least it has generated a lot of debate!

Reply Score: 4

Drexel Member since:
2006-12-05

ok... I take back some of my last posts then. I wasn't aware of this.

Reply Score: 1

Like NetBSD?
by situation on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:22 UTC
situation
Member since:
2006-01-10

Will Netcraft confirm that Linux is dying too? They could keep doing it for the next 7 years like they have for BSD!
Linux isn't dead on my desktop or in my home, and that's good enough for me. Seems like ther are 2 camps when it comes to Linux users. Those who are Windows refugees and want the whole "overthrow MS!!11!" to happen, and those who just use the best tool for the job.

Browser: Links (0.99; Linux 2.6.13 i686; 116x42)

Reply Score: 2

Meh
by Fred on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:25 UTC
Fred
Member since:
2005-07-06

This article falsely assumes that "linux" has the sole purpose to provide a UNIX based "clone" of Windows. Everything else is based on that false presumption, and thus makes no sense at all. What a load of rubbish. What makes people write this garbage, I wonder.

Reply Score: 5

ReactOS???
by WarpKat on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:27 UTC
WarpKat
Member since:
2006-02-06

I think the 3 question marks in my subject line say it best.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ReactOS???
by KenJackson on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:47 UTC in reply to "ReactOS???"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

(ReactOS has very strong chances to replace Linux).

Yeah! When I read that I could feel those three question marks popping up over my head. I really like the concept of ReactOS, but I can't even think of a metaphor to describe this silly assertion.

Reply Score: 2

What war?
by Sphinx on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:29 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

More like a secular conflict really.

Reply Score: 2

Opinion Piece
by jdodson on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:32 UTC
jdodson
Member since:
2006-03-29

This is an opinion piece, which is fine, people can have opinons right? We can disagree with this guy without throwing rocks at him right? Hmmm, maybe.

With that said...

I appreciate this guys opinion even if I don't agree with it. It takes guts to post that "Linux" or the free software desktop will fail. I believe, from my own experience and observation of local trends, world trends, trends I read about online, etc(which seems to be how the author came to his conculsions, which is fine. you do it too.) that "Linux" or the free desktop will gain some market share but won't achieve desktop critical mass for quite sometime.

GNU/Linux, OpenSolaris, BSD, whatever(they are all similar in that said kernels are free softare.), will continue to gain server share over Windows. As Samba matures to Samba 4.0 the requirement for Windows on the server end will all but deminish as it already has.

As the server space gains market traction, desktops will follow over time now that the "requirement" for Windows deminishes. OpenOffice will also help this adoption quite a bit. Also, now that applications are becoming more web centric and not tied to a OS type. Firefox is helping in this area quite a bit. As those corporate used applications that require IE diminish(and they are), other desktop options will come to light.

Then again, I could be smoking crack as some have noted that this author could be. However, we are dealing in opinions based on observation and experience. Things like this really boil down to if you put stock into the person giving the opinion. "Industry experts" do this kind of thing all the time, read Slashdot for more information.

Again, I applaud this guys tenacity even if I don't agree. We can have civility in disagreement, even on OSnews right?

Right.

Reply Score: 5

BSD troll
by pecisk on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:33 UTC
pecisk
Member since:
2005-10-20

Why it sounds like BSD troll and smells like BSD troll? Because IT IS BSD troll ;)

Questions rised is not that bad, but almost has only one side viewed.

BSD said Linux must die, because it can't be true - people must choose either "light" - console, or "darkness" - Windows. There can't be middle way, no way.

Reply Score: 5

OSNews turning a corner
by desNotes on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:34 UTC
desNotes
Member since:
2006-05-26

Rather than comment on the article itself, I will comment on what seems like a trend here at OSNews. I predict there will be more doom and gloom articles about Linux linked/posted here while the Microsoft articles will be more positive, stomping Linux, etc.

My guess is in the next six months the focus will be almost entirely on Microsoft-centric articles. There is obviously more money to be made from a huge corporation who have a track record of wanting to put themselves on any and all billboards available.

When I became member of OSNews it was with the hope of discussing the technical aspects of all operating systems, Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, etc., not the immature slinging of insults.

I am off to greener pastures. I am sure somewhere within the vast internet there is at least one discussion board where the signal-to-noise ratio is higher than that of a grade school playground.

Peace,

desNotes

Reply Score: 4

RE: OSNews turning a corner
by Rayz on Wed 6th Dec 2006 15:12 UTC in reply to "OSNews turning a corner"
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

I am off to greener pastures

Yup. Sure.

See you back here later today, ok?

Reply Score: 1

Strange predictions
by DrCurl on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:42 UTC
DrCurl
Member since:
2006-01-17

This article is full of strange predictions with very light backup.

Having heard what Aaron Seigo has to say about KDE4 (http://www.linuxactionshow.com/?p=50), a lot of inovations are coming to the Linux desktop... And these are things that don't involve several complex layers between the actual desktop and the kernel.

About Vista, sadly, I think that it will be very widely adopted. OS X is very successful with 5% of market share... Linux doesn't necesseraly need to replace Windows everywhere to be a tremendous success.

Edited 2006-12-05 19:47

Reply Score: 3

What is he on about?
by moleskine on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:52 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Talking about a "war" says more about some people than they might care to admit. If you're a member of a community (or army) that requires a Beast-666-Enemy in order to define itself, ask yourself what you're doing. The end of that road is primitive and tribal Taliban-stylee. Nothing good will come of it.

I use Linux because I like it and I want to. Not because it has or will have a 1, 10 or 100 per cent market share. I avoid Microsoft not because I think it is a Great Satan but for the same reason I avoid fast-food outlets and Starbucks shops, most chain stores and the buy-me-buy-me life. I don't like their one-size-fits-all attitude, I don't like the way they treat people and often I don't like what they do to the planet. Oh, and their food is usually disgusting.

Linux is doing just fine so far as I can see, and it will continue to do just fine. Of course it will change and transform because everything in life does. But there will always be room for an alternative to the mainstream. However, imho, the alternative only prospers when people commit to it positively and don't merely use it as a way of being negative about the mainstream. There's really not much wrong with Microsoft. Some of us just don't like what they offer, is all.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What is he on about?
by JGDoucet on Wed 6th Dec 2006 19:54 UTC in reply to "What is he on about?"
JGDoucet Member since:
2006-12-06

I totaly agree with your post.

In my case I use both, Linux and Windows. Everyone agrees that more work is needed in Linux and people should stop this nonsense of a Great Satan (like you say. I'm so tired of this so called "war".

This is my first post on a forum, don't think though, that I haven't read thousands of them all over the internet on different subjects. (God there is a lot of seperated people on this one planet).

Both OS have different things to offer that works for different people. It's the owner's of these OS that makes the perceived notion of each.

Reply Score: 1

Linux cannot fail
by sbenitezb on Tue 5th Dec 2006 19:59 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

It's plain simple. It was conceived as a free operating system. A free operating system is, now. It has achieved all that was needed for its developers to use it everyday as a workstation and server.

KDE developers started coding it back in '98 to fullfill a need. Today, much of that need is gone. I can use KDE over Linux without any dependence on Windows. Others too. Their developers certainly would agree with this.

There's no chance Linux or KDE will die or become unsuccessfull, because they are needed today and will be needed tomorrow. That need is what drives Linux.

Reply Score: 3

this guy
by historyb on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:01 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

is full of poop

Reply Score: 1

Mac OS X Not Unix ?
by Duffman on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:03 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

But the way OSX wraps the underlying OS makes me feel comfortable while excluding OSX from UNIXes list.
But Linux is really UNIX, and unlike MacOS X Linux doesn't really try to hide away the UNIX nature of the system, although the percentage of UNIX-styled software decreases dramatically.


I agree, it's because of that Leopard will be certified by the open group as Unix and not Linux, because Mac OS X is not Unix ...

Anyway, perhaps that Windows has .Net 3.0 but now the open source has Java.

Reply Score: 1

twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

The WYSIWYG and traditional UNIX way to accomplish the task are incompatible.
This comment shows the level of this article's "argument". This guy has obviously never heard of KDE, GNOME, CDE or even the X Window System; this is unforgivable unless he has never heard of Linux or is calling from about 1984 (in which case he wouldn't have heard of it anyway, because it didn't yet exist).

SCOX and the Eighties called; they want their Bullshit back.

Why does OSnews persist in publishing this uninformed dross?

Edited 2006-12-05 20:06

Reply Score: 5

Fundamental flaw of argument
by kev009 on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:10 UTC
kev009
Member since:
2006-11-30

Linux != an OS though the author compares it as such

Reply Score: 1

Dear Author: Please Research
by sorpigal on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:21 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

Please read this: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

And then consider revising your article.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Dear Author: Please Research
by alcibiades on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:43 UTC in reply to "Dear Author: Please Research"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Very nice link. Very true.

Reply Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

"Please read this: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

And then consider revising your article."

This is a nice article (I recall reading it a while ago) but it has a few sentences and implications I strongly disagree with. For instance:

-----
If you really just want Windows without the malware and security issues: Read up on good security practices; [..]Don't get Linux: It will fail miserably at being what you want it to be.

If you really want the security and performance of a Unix-based OS but with a customer-focussed attitude and an world-renowned interface: Buy an Apple Mac. OS X is great. But don't get Linux: It will not do what you want it to do.

It's not just about "Why should I want Linux?". It's also about "Why should Linux want me?"
----


This is tired trash and this kind of attitude clearly hurts the Linux comunity. Accept some criticism, Linux is not perfect. It is improving, that's what counts. No, users should not have to adapt to Linux, Linux has to adapt to users. Doesn't it hurt the intellectual prides of developers, to be unable to provide a (new) user experience just as good as (or better than) Windows? What's this crap about Linux not being for everyone? Learn from Steve Ballmer, and always reply "Linux, Linux, Linux!"

Reply Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I agree with your points concerning the few failings of the linked article.

I firmly believe that Linux is or will be pretty close to all things to all people because it is made of so many things and can be made in so many ways that you can make it work the way you want it to work.

Reply Score: 1

If Linux has won then why ..
by redbarchetta on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:45 UTC
redbarchetta
Member since:
2005-11-14

has every Enterprise project I have worked on over the past 12 years been deployed on Unix servers not Linux! Every Enterprise size project I have worked on, bid on, or seen is running on Solaris or AIX period. And Windows still dominates in the email and domain server markets. Not that Linux is necessarily bad, but I think this article is making a rediculous assumption that just doesn't hold water and he totally ignores the Unix market..weird...

Reply Score: 2

doomed?
by Morin on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:48 UTC
Morin
Member since:
2005-12-31

I need some of the stuff the author has taken... Despite the problems it has, Linux is farther from doomed than ever. What the author describes are hurdles than can be taken, and not the inevitable demise. Anyway, technical issues are not the only issues that determine the fate of a piece of software, and Linux seems to do quite well "politically" at the moment.

Guess what, Windows and OSX are, at the core, not "WYSIWYG systems" as the author calls them. At the core, all three systems provide a programming interface (that no user is going to see anyway) and which even differ only in details (because they essentially perform the same functions). These systems have varying success in hiding the details (with OSX currently at the top), but such things can change very quickly.

Bringing the shell into the game is even more ridiculous. First, Windows and OSX have a shell too. Second, all three systems are designed from the ground in a way that makes the shell an optional component that can be replaced by something completely different (for example, a GUI).

That the Linux world will be split into command-line fans and GUI fans is a valid fear. If and when that happens, its success may very well depend on the skill of the developers to integrate both into a whole, where each user can choose independently between the two. This problem is however solvable.

Reply Score: 1

linux close to critical mass
by vasper on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:51 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

I have used Windows sinse the days of 3.1 and 386 computers... In the past year, I have moved to Linux on the Desktop. Why? Because Microsoft wants to tell me how and where to run their operating system. I cannot accept Microsoft's terms, so I moved to a system that complies with my needs.

An OS is a tool to help me use my hardware better, and Microsoft is making it into a tool to control my money.. well no thanks. WGA was the last drop...

(Microsoft has the right to receive payment for every copy of Windows a person uses, but not to control where and when to run it.)

Reply Score: 3

Heh
by merkoth on Tue 5th Dec 2006 20:54 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

Dear author:

If your only intention was to piss of the GNU/Linux fans of this site, as it seems to be, writing "Linux sucks" is enough. You don't really need to write so much nonsense disguised as article.

Thanks

Reply Score: 5

I installed two Linux systems today
by Shaman on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:21 UTC
Shaman
Member since:
2005-11-15

Yeah, I know it isn't much, but mark one desktop Windows replacement and one new server on the Internet running on Linux.

Just like the other two dozen or so systems in this office, I didn't pay for the OS in any form, nor did I buy the servers as "Linux" systems.

Reply Score: 2

lol
by SK8T on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:23 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

linux has lost a war? May you want to hear that…, but that's no true.

Who was fighting against who? Linux is no company, as everyone knows. You can't fight against them - no fight means no war.

But just lets thinking about war.
It it was a war, linux has won it, because it's the property of everyone and just of nobody, too ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Ok I am a Microsoft fan
by CrazyDude0 on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:29 UTC
CrazyDude0
Member since:
2005-07-10

but this article is bullcrap.

Author's name should be Dmitrij Nostradamus P*ssOff

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ok I am a Microsoft fan
by archiesteel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:57 UTC in reply to "Ok I am a Microsoft fan"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

For once we agree.

I think pro-MS advocates should distance themselves from such a poorly-written article, just as pro-Linux advocates should stay away from crap pro-Linux articles.

Seriously.

Reply Score: 3

His article makes sense
by Nighteyes on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:43 UTC
Nighteyes
Member since:
2006-09-20

I'm sorry guys, but I agree with him. Far from being a windows zealot, linux is far from being as usable and user friendly as windows.

The main reason of this assertion is that MS (and Apple) tries to improve the user experience, so as to secure its market. Average joe doesn't really care about the underlying system, since the top useable interface is able to render its every day tasks.

The X interface is a pain in the ass. It was a smart good thing decades ago, but now it's really aging bad and not properly suited for any desktop appliance (or server, by the way). On top of that, the most popular desktop suites are suffocating under numerous half working configuration tools (without talking about the ugly rendering).

The author wasn't criticizing the idea behing linux, which is great. Just that some radical architecture choices should have been made long time ago, and because they haven't the whole LINUX is not going to do better as its 12 % of utilization. (more by mail...)

Reply Score: 3

RE: His article makes sense
by skymt on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:24 UTC in reply to "His article makes sense"
skymt Member since:
2006-12-05

I think you should make a distinction between "usable", "user-friendly", and "beginner-friendly". Windows is beginner-friendly. It does as much as possible to make a user productive without requiring knowledge of the underlying system. This approach was a smart decision for Microsoft, as it allows home users to get up and running quickly, and businesses to minimize training costs.

Linux (along with other Unices) is usable and user-friendly for me. I love the fact that it doesn't constantly hold my hand. I enjoy editing text config files. It allows me to customize my operating environment far beyond the level Windows allows. The command-line interface, while somewhat hard to learn, is amazingly powerful. Oh, and speaking of friendliness to users, I have no DRM or WGA.

The average user should use Windows, if they don't want to go beyond "average". I have no problem with that. Meanwhile, I'll be over here, happy in my little Linux corner, getting stuff done.

Oh, and I love X.

Reply Score: 1

WYSIWYG
by jack_perry on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:46 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

But there is no room for logical structure of document in the case of WYSIWYG software.

To the contrary, I've always found that well-designed WYSIWYG software represents the logical structure of a document much better than a hash of markups---in document preparation, for example, where many latex style files are unreadable even to humans who have used latex for years. There's a reason many publishers prefer Quark XPress and the like.

Reply Score: 1

v Re: Bullcrap
by aGNUstic on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:47 UTC
owned
by PipoDeClown on Tue 5th Dec 2006 21:53 UTC
PipoDeClown
Member since:
2005-07-19

well... in russia... machines own you!

Reply Score: 1

RE: owned
by gavin.mccord on Wed 6th Dec 2006 12:59 UTC in reply to "owned"
gavin.mccord Member since:
2005-09-07

Oh dear..this is now the new Slashdot

Reply Score: 1

kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

1) Businesses and other large enterprises want standardization.

Where I work (unless you're one of the programmers) you get a "Goatway" running XP Pro. There are 5 standard drive images and I've got one of the slightly more exotic ones, meaning I've got some programs my office mates do not, but about 40 other people have the same drive image as me. I've installed a few extra little programs (like iTunes) but anytime somebody from IT sits down at my workstation, they have a very good idea what to expect.

When I have to walk down the hall to help troubleshoot a co-worker's computer, I know what what "right" should look like. Same when I have to help a patron on the floor.

Standardization makes life easier.

It's why I won't get an iMac with Parallels on it when I get my next work computer. IT agrees that wanting to check for cross-platform compatibility is nice, but they don't want to make & maintain a unique XP/Vista image for that machine.

It's why I end up cursing and swearing everytime I have to use a very ancient CLI program that pre-dates the standard of ctrlC for Copy.

2) Yes, there are problems with and some very good critiques of the Windows UI, but the fact that Windows, OS X, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, etc. all share certain similar features helps make them much easier to use and shortens the learning curve. (Goodness knows, these similarities certainly helped get my computer inept DH switched from W98 to OS X fairly smoothly.)

While I'm all for making it smoother, rounder, more refined, etc. much of current UI design/theory builds off the idea that there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Plus, due to the use of GUI's and standard keyboard shortcuts there's a certain amount of muscle memory now involved in computing. It's really hard (thinks of non standard Copy commands) to retrain those impulses.

3) The writer has a real bias towards the CLI. He speaks of it's power and how the GUI puts layers of abstraction between self and the hardware.

He does not seem to recognize that the old way of formatting a document (where one typed in various formatting codes) was also a layer of abstraction. A different kind of abstraction, but abstraction none the less.

Or, to take a sample from my own life, I build webpages. I both hand code and use Dreamweaver.

Ever try to code tables by hand? It's a frikkin nightmare. Ever finish a page and then preview it and it's not displaying correctly and then spend considerable time and energy looking at the code and try to find that one very suble mistake that's borking the rest of things up?

Not fun.

WYSIWIG pre-empts that sort of mistake

And GUI's generally a much shorter learning curve, meaning that the time between training a worker and making them productive is shortned and since for business time = money ...

No tool is right for all jobs, but there's a damn good reason we have GUI's.

Reply Score: 2

Here is a `real world` Linux v. McSoft
by aGNUstic on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:11 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

"I did a simple test using a Toshiba S2435-S255 laptop in an effort to
identify the cause of very slow form loading. This laptop is a 2.4Ghz
Pentium 4 with 512 MB.

When booted with Windows XP sp2 and McAfee antivirus and personal
firewall plus with (name of product withheld) running in IE7 and Sun J2SE Runtime Envoronment 5.0 Update 9 (name of module withheld) loads in 16 seconds.

This same laptop, when running Linux Debian and (name of product withheld) running with Firefox 1.5.0.7 and Java(TM) Plug-in 1.5.0_10-b03 (name of module withheld) only takes 6 seconds to load.

The server configuration, network, SSL etc and platform are the same in
both tests."

So. Let's see. We are in a mission critical environement and we mutiply the extra 10 seconds to the total number of times this module is called in in the program.

This is but one example of why many data centers are migrating to a better operating system.

Reply Score: 1

Obviously payed off by Microsoft Relax
by Drexel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:20 UTC
Drexel
Member since:
2006-12-05

Vista is out and this has money written all over it. Anybody that believes these internet postings is a Sheep following the herd.

Reply Score: 1

percentages? LOL
by Drexel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:23 UTC
Drexel
Member since:
2006-12-05

Where the hell do you get these percentages? how the hell do you know that joe downloaded Linux last night and how many of them did? YOUR OUT OF YOUR MIND!!! Anybody that takes these reports from the analysts as to how many people are using linux are just ignorant as hell.

Reply Score: 1

Just for fun
by Phoenixfire159 on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:38 UTC
Phoenixfire159
Member since:
2006-12-05

This guy doesn't understand that Linux isn't really competing with anything. It's not like Mac, where if it can't compete, it'll die. People use Linux because it's Linux - free and open-source.

I'll agree with him on one thing; if Red Hat = Linux, Linux = dead. But Red Hat (or Canonical or etc.) != Linux. Community = Linux. The community can't die unless Microsoft drags them out of their homes and slaughters them or something, but then the courts will have something to say about that.

So no, this article is wrong.

Reply Score: 1

Now...
by somebody on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:50 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

this is the kind of article that defines nonsense:)

My god, I have to smoke more pot, I can't understand logic behind this.

Reply Score: 2

OS News, make comments viewable by default
by Drexel on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:55 UTC
Drexel
Member since:
2006-12-05

I bet this was printed by microsoft employees and I bet they knew that OS News doesn't show the comments to the articles by default and think nobody will even look at it which is the most important part of this article is the responses to it.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

He speaks with authority....

The GNOME project is a good example. Being initially intended to provide the IBM OS/2 user experience it gained vendor attention. When the project's officials started to state that the next goal of the project was the Windows UI, it became the default desktop in some commercial distribution (including Red Hat), and the GNOME adoption fastened when the developers starter to decrease the features amount, making it really no more difficult to customize than Windows' Shell32 UI.

...but anyone who actually was using the os (or does some basic research) will find...

The GNOME project was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and Federico Mena in response to licensing concerns over software used by KDE, a free software desktop environment that relies on the Qt widget toolkit. At the time, Qt did not use a free software license and members of the GNU project became concerned about the use of such a toolkit for building a free software desktop and applications. Two projects were started: the Harmony toolkit, to create a free replacement for the Qt libraries, and GNOME to create a new desktop without Qt and built entirely on top of free software.[2]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#Origin)

This idea is just silly...
Linux was just one of the numerous projects, which happened to rise due to being distributed as Free Software and supported by FSF. This sort of publicity made it possible to start several commercial projects (namely Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and some Debian derivatives) based on Linux. The rise of free-of-charge Linux-bases system attracted the views of software vendors who started sharing the benefits of Linux's publicity by contributing to the project.

The success of linux has to do with the distancing from the FSF that the OSF gave it. RMS doesnt even like the stance that Linus takes, and it is very clear that the linux-kernel is more closely allied with open source then with free software.

the difference is made quite clear here
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

This time we have two different styles of operating available: WYSIWYG and non-WYSIWYG (I can't recall any good all-known word for it and don't want to introduce my own term). The first one is the natural domain of Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS (including OSX) and BeOS (now ZETA). The later once used to be the default UNIX's style. Things changed dramatically since.

First of all, he means GUI(graphical user interface) vs CLI (command line interface). The fact that he doesnt know these basic terms shows a real lack of knowledge related to what he is talking about.

Secondly, he seems to be saying that X is a new thing, which shows a suprising lack of ignorance on the subject. X started mid 1983, while MS Windows started late 1985
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_windows)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_windows#History)

I couldnt get past the first page.

The lack of knowledge of the writer on the topic he is trying to write about is astonishing. He sounds like a windows user who read about linux, was possibly made fun of by linux fanbois, tried it for a week, and gave up because it wasnt windows. You see this all the time in tech forums, but you rarely see something this uninformed in an actual article on a major tech news site.

Reply Score: 5

Coalescence
by nzMM on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:56 UTC
nzMM
Member since:
2006-06-22

I think linux is healthy, but is still getting all the infrustructure up to scratch. I think linux based OS's need to focus on a few things, most notably how to make ANY package install and work on any linux based distro.

Give it 5 years imo, see where Apple goes, how Microsoft does/reacts to Vista et cetera. And how linux fits in, in the picture.

I am an optimist, given that a few bits of tech fall into place.

Reply Score: 1

Just a little confused
by cyclops on Tue 5th Dec 2006 22:56 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

@notparker you've done this once already in the Vista is pretty so its great article.

I'm a little confused by the article. I think it is saying as its linux roots gets watered down, and it becomes a windows clone the *nix faithful will move to a more unix environment. As an aside it says Mac Os X is a screen scraper so can run on anything.

I find the the article surprising when I thought the two *newsworthy* points of Linux *death* is.
1) Fragmentation of interfaces when the kernel is used and nothing else.
2) Interaction with the Web and the web based OS.

What is true is that Hardcore users of Unix will always be attracted to a baremetal approach to an OS, and certainly some will look for a more *nix in there OS.

The reality is though that Linux is a definition is not windows. Windows is evolving to becoming a one vendor end to end solution. The trouble is, is that the definition of Linux is wrong in the article. GNU/Linux is a better term as it describes the kernel and the modular tools and applications that run on top. That can literally come from anywhere.

If you replace the kernel and use a variation of the tools, you may well be able to say proudly this is more *nix.

Where it all goes wrong is that Microsoft is the only company on the planet large enough to provide an end-to-end solution. Apple chose BSD because it was simply too time-consuming and costly to create there own solutions, look at a list of installed *BSD applications any linux user will be familiar with most of them. In reality windows users who have strayed enough from the Microsoft fold will be familiar with packages like OpenOffice and Firefox. If Hurd was finished tomorrow how many would care.

All in all I would argue that this is the age of the distribution for anything but Microsoft, whether the kernel is removed of has an alternative windows manager, the changes are becoming marginal.

If anyone want more *nix in their Linux another distribution will come along for them.

That said the article clearly ignores several things.
1) Graphical interfaces are not new ;X is really old
2) People mix there environment as best suits them, or the job that they do.
3) CLI environment is still important; even for Microsoft.
4) Graphical applications are often built the *Linux way*...modular i.e. K3B built using 10 CLI commands; Windows mangers with pick and choose components; replacement 2D with 3D windows managers.
5) *BSD Linux Solaris has and always will be about first and formost licenses.
6) That change; automation; ease of use is not always bad, and the flexibility and *choice* in linux means that the superior solution will often win out.

Now there is a change in the linux world happening, but its more to do with licenses than it has to do with any old *nix environment. I do see a split between those who accept propriatry software to fulfill there immediate needs, and those who think compromise is not worth it at any price, and licensing is going to make these software environments difficult to mix. So I would be prepared to argue that linux as we know it is Dead.

Reply Score: 3

Didn't Get Over the Finishing Line
by segedunum on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:06 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

There were some ideas and observations that could have lead to something in that article, but he didn't get over the finishing line, instead collapsing shortly after he started. He was certainly absolutely spot on about his observation of software within desktop OS systems taking a great deal of effort and money to produce, and that this would affect the open source and Linux world's chances against Windows, but he didn't follow through with it. That has implications.

Instead, he comes up with a lot of ridiculousness about using the CLI over WYSIWYG (graphical interfaces, basically) and the odd comment about how ReactOS might overtake Linux. Hmmmmm, right. I'm not too sure what that is based on, because other parts of his article contradict it.

I could write something that would lay out in no uncertain terms what would be required for Linux to overhaul and leave Windows behind, especially on the desktop, but a lot of people just flat-out would not like it and the whole thing would just descend into bickering shortly after.

He's right in that the war for Linux is spluttering out, despite the apparent successes that open source software and Linux has that open source proponents believe cements Linux's place. However, it could all be peeled back over the next few years.

Reply Score: 2

FUD
by viator on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:41 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

Osnews seems to be posting more and more of these NON stories. And almost all of them have a microsoft slant. Take a look back if you dont belive me.

Reply Score: 1

WHAT A FREAKING JOKE!
by Milo_Hoffman on Tue 5th Dec 2006 23:48 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

This has to be the WORST, MOST INSANCE, IGNORANT(in the classic sense), CLUELESS, RETARDED articles in the history of OSNEWS.



OSNEWS -100 points for even having the thought of running this TRASH!

Reply Score: 2

WYSIWYG
by ma_d on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:11 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

WYSIWYG only appeals to people who don't deal with complex data or documents. The key thing to realize is that your monitor is in fact not a sheet of paper, or whatever other medium the final product goes on.

Not that this matters. There is WYSIWYG and non WYSIWYG software on almost any platform and both are used by a number of people: For every latex or docbook user on Linux there are probably 6 OOo users...

Reply Score: 2

What the?!
by Phloptical on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:28 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Bad grammar aside, what in the hell was that all about? Let me just cut to the chase and put this is in simple terms for all. For any Linux (or other OS, for that matter) to succeed they cannot compete directly with Microsoft. The goal needs to be: Make every release the best, most feature perfect product we can. I hate to use the "if you build it, they will come" analogy, but in my mind that's exactly what needs to be done.

Personally, I believe Microsoft is incapable of achieving a goal like that simply because they rely on the bottom line. Perfection is expensive, and "good enough for now" pays the bills.

Any adoption (i.e market share) of Linux should be considered a success.

All this about Linux "losing" because of emulating Windows' UI experience, blah blah blah...is basically bunk. If Linux can lose anything it will be from trying to compete with Microsoft on Redmond's terms.

I also think it's very obvious from that incoherent diatribe that this guy is a lawyer, no matter what country he practices law in.

Reply Score: 1

revenue share
by arielb on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:35 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

obviously if linux companies aren't making much money, there will be little future investment in linux itself. What would happen if Redhat went broke? Fewer businesses would consider linux as a result.
So I think it is important as an indication of its viability.

Reply Score: 1

v Censure
by Phoenixfire159 on Wed 6th Dec 2006 00:51 UTC
doomed!
by Redeeman on Wed 6th Dec 2006 01:01 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

Yes! linux is doomed!,
oh wait, didnt some maniacs also claim elvis would return at the top of empire state building at exactly newyear 2000?

Reply Score: 2

OSNews editorial policy must change
by b3timmons on Wed 6th Dec 2006 01:23 UTC
b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

Assuming that the site owners care about its credibility, the OSNews editorial policy should exercise some minimal level of control on submissions like this.

To more responsibly accommodate diverse views, consider the following compromise. If the content of a submission does not meet some minimal level of plausibility and coherence from a few minutes' glance, then the submitter should be required to ensure that the title is not disproportionately grandiose like, for example, "War for Linux Is Lost - Almost". If you have qualms, tell them to moderate the title.

(Of course, comments, with far less prominence, deserve far less control.)

Edited 2006-12-06 01:41

Reply Score: 3

Whoa, what an article!
by WereCatf on Wed 6th Dec 2006 01:38 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Gnome is trying to become Windows' UI clone?? Err...I can't see that. I use Gnome daily, and both the look and feel are completely different. Sure, both have some sort of a panel, windows, app menu...but doesn't Macs have that too? Or KDE? I wish the author did explain this to me, I don't see how can he claim such.

And the authors idea of UNIX-style approach...Err. UNIX-style approach is actually: a small tool for a single task. Then you just combine tools to accomplish something more complex. It isn't at all about GUI versus CLI! And I don't really get what he is complaining about..I use CLI only when I emerge something..Everything else is readily possible from GUI. Is he complaining about UNIX-style file semantics? Well, Linux isn't Windows, so why should Linux pretend to be Windows? So in that sense, why should everything work the way it does under Windows?

SysV- and BSD-styled init scripts are being replaced with event-based system in Ubuntu, different other over complicated projects are developed to make the UNIX-like Linux base system resemble Windows

I only see them trying to improve the system. Having a fast, interactive and multi-threaded init has nothing to do with Windows, it just is means of improving the start-up time and improving the base system. This is completely irrelevant whatsoever.

Linux distributions will split in two groups: those relaying on UI and Windows-ish tools and others relaying on UNIX way utilities and command-line interface

It's Windows style to have a GUI?? Doesn't Macs have that, too? Err, doh! Besides..most GUIs are just that: front-ends to CLI apps..There is simply no point in choosing one or the other. If you prefer CLI, use CLI. No one is gonna force that to you, no one is gonna create a pure-CLI distro..

As for the author: please stop ranting about BSD's superiority! It shines very clearly through from your article that you think BSD is superior to anything else. And just so you know: even if all the commercial vendors suddenly went bankcrupt, I can't see Linux dying away. There are just too many people using and supporting Linux without ever having been paid.

Reply Score: 4

Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem with this article is all the TOTALY WRONG statements about the history of various OS issues.


There are MANY readers of OSNEWS who have been following the OS landscape for many years more than this moron has and I would be that each and every one of those people that frequent this site will tell you that this GUY IS CLUELESS when it comes to historical accuracy.


If you can't even get the history of these OS Projects, and their evolutions right how can any of your arguments about the future be even worth anything.



OSNEWS is supposed to be a site for people that "digg" the wide lanscape of operating systems, OS history, OS development, OS design etc..

THIS ARTICLE IS A INSULT to anyone who fits that category.....REGARDLESS if they are Apple Fans, Linux Fans, Be Fans, or Microsoft Fans.

Edited 2006-12-06 01:49

Reply Score: 1

Illogical nonsense
by porcel on Wed 6th Dec 2006 02:41 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

This diatribe is the most illogical piece of writing I have read in a long time. It lacks any sense of coherence, it fails to make anything that might look like an argument or a point.

Why was this even published? Oh, yeah, flamewars and ad money, I get it.

Reply Score: 3

BSD user predicting Linux doom
by shapeshifter on Wed 6th Dec 2006 03:07 UTC
shapeshifter
Member since:
2006-09-19

Why is a BSD user and lawer writing about the demise of Linux?
But I wish the first part of his second scenario came true ;)
The whole article, however, sounds like someones mumbling in the morning after parting all night.
Go easy on the Vodka Dmitrij.

Reply Score: 0

My views
by rx182 on Wed 6th Dec 2006 03:15 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

I kinda agree with the author of the article. When I first used Linux (Slackware 3.3 at the time), I discovered a new way to work. I moved some projects from Windows to Linux because making a few bash scripts and a few curses interfaces was quick, fun and simple. Since then, I always told myself that the only thing missing in Linux was a standalone graphical browser (a true native port of Firefox for the framebuffer for example). By the way, I know about DirectFB->GTK->Firefox, thank you in advance.

Unfortunately, things changed over time. When I install Fedora, Ubuntu or SUSE, I get an incomplete and buggy ripoff of Windows. I know I can still access everything I used before but why would I install Linux for that? Cygwin or SFU give me the best of both world: the true Windows experience and all the commandline tools I ever wanted.

Those who believe that Linux is a good desktop OS need to tell me why they believe so. Is it me or everything graphical under Linux is just 25% of the Windows equivalent. DE like Gnome and KDE have too many open bugs and missing features, not to mention that their underlying toolkits slow down applications developed with them. Furthermore, Software in general are incomplete and buggy. On Windows, I have Winamp for years. It's stable since day 1 and it has all the features I ever wanted. On Linux, I have buggy ripoffs based on XMMS or slow beasts like Rhythmbox and Amarok, both of them full of bugs. For example, when you use the search field to find a song in the latest version of Rhythmbox, you have to press Tab several times before getting to the playlist to select a song among the matches. Being a developer myself, I can't believe that the Rhythmbox developers didn't take care of this already. And this is just one example.

Compare P2P applications that the kids use on Windows (Napter at the time, Kazaa a while ago, Limewire now, eMule, etc) with the Linux equivalents. Well, theres no equivalent except buggy GTK/QT frontends to console tools. Compare Nero, DVDFab, CloneCD, etc to K3B... Compare MS Office to OO.org in term of performance. Compare Windows Linux Messenger to aMSN, Gaim, Kopete. Compare FlashFXP to hrmm... gFTP (buggiest piece of software ever and this is actually the only "featured-enough" graphical FTP client for Linux). Compare Photoshop to Gimp, Visual Studio to Kdevelop, Anjuta, etc. I could go on like this forever. I cant find something under Linux that beats everything on Windows, I can't.

On Windows, there are new impressive pieces of software all the time. When ripping DVDs became popular, we had at least 5 big software to rip DVDs with 10 zillions options each. On Linux, a few commandline tools with a few undocumented behaviors. Why?

I know I will end up being modded down because I say things that nobody wanna hear. But I'm not trying to be destructive against Linux. In fact, I use tools coming from Linux all the time. All the GNU core tools are very valuable pieces of software. I just want to express my views and I hope you guys will give me answers. I think too many just shut up and use Linux as it is right now. Please, raise your voice...

Reply Score: 2

RE: My views
by WereCatf on Wed 6th Dec 2006 05:15 UTC in reply to "My views"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

When I install Fedora, Ubuntu or SUSE, I get an incomplete and buggy ripoff of Windows

That's why I stick to Gentoo.

DE like Gnome and KDE have too many open bugs and missing features, not to mention that their underlying toolkits slow down applications developed with them

Err..I can't see any missing features that i'd really need or that are part of Windows (without add-ons, you know). Nautilus has a few rough spots, sure, but I still find it a lot more useable than Explorer myself. Though, it's just my opinion. But you know, if you didn't use GTK or QT, what would you use then? Plain X protocol? Besides, GTK and QT are both pretty fast toolkits, and very well documented and easy to program with. If they weren't high-quality, why would so many people use them?

On Linux, I have buggy ripoffs based on XMMS or slow beasts like Rhythmbox and Amarok, both of them full of bugs

I don't know of any Winamp clones cos I'm more than happy with Rhythmbox myself. It does exactly what I want, it's fast, and it's stable as a rock. So, you see, it all comes down to what you're used to and what you expect. I myself would never touch Winamp even with a long stick.

As for the apps you talk about..I only use Azureus for my P2P needs, but Azureus is available natively for both Windows and Linux. NeroLinux isn't as featureful as the Windows versions, but who knows how it'll turn out to be in a few years. But then again, why need CloneCD or such? As far as I know, they're usually used to take copies of games or such. Maybe there aren't clones because no one has seen enough need for one?

Compare Windows Linux Messenger to aMSN, Gaim, Kopete

No, they aren't equal. But this again is about personal prefence. I for example prefer Gaim over the native Windows Messenger, and if I wanted to use webcam, I'd just use aMSN.

I admit though that Gimp doesn't come near to Photoshop, but Pixel..Pixel rocks.

Oh, and there are GUI apps for ripping DVDs for Linux. Out of plain memory I can name Thoggen and Ogmrip. Haven't used either in ages so can't say much.

Reply Score: 1

In russian I say...
by astsmtl on Wed 6th Dec 2006 05:35 UTC
astsmtl
Member since:
2005-11-23

...Afftar, ubey sibya ap stenu!
(Author, run into a wall and kill yourself!)

Reply Score: 1

NP
by nana on Wed 6th Dec 2006 07:22 UTC
nana
Member since:
2006-03-10

And P==NP! It's true!

Reply Score: 2

RE: NP
by grfgguvf on Wed 6th Dec 2006 12:26 UTC in reply to "NP"
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

Actually, it is!

Now go and prove it faster than me and win $1,000,000

http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/

Reply Score: 1

What that?
by kaiwai on Wed 6th Dec 2006 08:14 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I read the article, and what was the purpose of that 2 page diatribe?!

Linux simply needs three things:

1) Large commercial third party support by software vendors; one can't expect to ever see Microsoft Office on Linux/*NIX but if atleast if the big names like Peachtree accounting, MYOB, Quicken and other applications, are made available; you'll find there will be more businesses willing to move.

2) Better support for Linux via third parties; not just drivers, but actually acively maintain drivers; Nvidia has been, so far, the most outstanding company along with Intel in regards to not only supporting Linux, but other operating systems as well.

2) Fixing the niggly small things that piss end users off; I'm running Fedora Core 6, and sure, for me, I could set it up, I spent a few hours getting it setup (http://kaiwai.blogspot.com has the information on how I got things setup), but at the same time, the end user wants to be able to plop it in the drive, install it, then install the drivers without worrying whether the wireless network daemon loads before wpa_supplicant!

That I think is the biggest problem with many distributions; when they test, they're too worried about the show stop stoppers when waht they should also be concerned about is correcting niggling issues that might trip up an end user for a first install.

Reply Score: 2

was this article necessary?
by irbis on Wed 6th Dec 2006 08:54 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

I really don't see the point of OSnews publishing a very one-sided propaganda article like this. A link to an article elsewhere might be ok. But OSnews should try to maintain some level of quality and objectivity, at least in its own articles.

Reply Score: 1

linux, a windows clone? WTF?
by agrouf on Wed 6th Dec 2006 11:36 UTC
agrouf
Member since:
2006-11-17

The author really doesn't get it.
Linux is the kernel. It's not WYSIWYG or bash and it's not comparable to windows or whatever he tries to compare it to.
And it's not like free software was not leading the way in WYSIWYG.

Reply Score: 1

Well...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 6th Dec 2006 12:36 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

...all I can say is *LOL*

Reply Score: 2

jensa
Member since:
2006-12-01

Why on earth did osnews.com post this article???
It has nothing to it bet mere guesses!!

bah, what crap! The author has no idea what will happen, only speculates, and wildly too!!

Reply Score: 1

Wow, that was silly...
by Tuishimi on Wed 6th Dec 2006 14:15 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...I put off reading this article figuring it would irritate me, but it didn't. It just made me think "what??"

When I started out on my current career path I was able to use Windows 1.0, 2.0 and the very early Macs. I also had a chance (in fact used as m personal workstation) a VMS box running X Windows.

X Windows beat the other two hands down in flexibility and was very useful. Back then I could fire up an X Windows session from a remote machine, making system management tasks much easier.

But I guess my point is that a GUI has been available for the *nixes before the other GUI OS's took off. I remember the excitement when motif arrived on the scene... but not any excitement for Windows 3.1, which I had to support as well...

I don't know. It's just wrong to say that any operating system is not meant to have a good user experience by applying a simplified or complex user interface to it. Also, the GOOD thing about linux is that you have choices as to which user interface suits your needs. AND while there can be terminal maintenance, so what?

I know people get all upset when you say "learn the shell" like it is some unspeakable horror... but frankly it is just another application that allows you to make fine grained adjustments to your files and system configuration.

And, these days, you don't NEED to use the terminal for 99% of the adjustments you want to make. There are GUI command boxes, or applications that pass your commands onto the shell, should you need to, or you can find (or if you are adventurous) write your own programs using Python or Ruby or some other scripting language... write once use often.

I have 5 macs in my house and work on [this] one all day long. I really appreciate the simple UI and the graphical applications, but I use the command line all the time, not because I have to, but because I actually prefer to. It's great to compile and test apps, even tho' my editor can be "programmed" to do it. I also use telnet and ftp with some frequency (from the command line) even tho' there are graphical applications available.

The terminal is your friend and so is the shell. It is there for a reason, it is a very useful application. Stop with any FUD regarding how linux is being ruined or that it isn't meant to have a simple UI and that it just deludes or deceives people.

If you are THAT simple a user, you probably have a system administrator at work who can configure your system, and you probably will never need to make changes...

But the road to the current versions of GNOME and KDE have been long and fraught with experimentation... that experimentation has led to good products that allow you to drag and drop your way through linux all you want. I think it is good. And should you encounter a bump in the road, take the opportunity to learn something (not even 5 minutes of your time, likely, by "googling" your problem) new and if necessary, fire up your friend the terminal.

Reply Score: 3

The man's an idiot !
by chemical_scum on Wed 6th Dec 2006 14:23 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

I have RTFA but not read the comments so I guess I will be duplicating what a lot of people have said.

He has no understanding of operating systems, software in general, the history of free software or for that matter how free software works.

His description of the history of GNOME had me LOL.

His use of the term WYSIWYG which applies effectively only to WP to signify a an OS with a GUI is ludicrous.

His failure to understand that a GUI is optional. Necessary for a Desktop/Workstation nowadays but that you can also run at the other extreme of a headless server with Linux just shows his lack of understanding.

I could go on but his ignorance and idiocy have left me speechless.

Reply Score: 2

diogor
Member since:
2006-12-07

Linux applications is moving to "WYSIWYG", pretty cool... But the unix way still there. Who cares with these "facts"?

Reply Score: 1

WYSIWYG != unstructured
by phoenix on Thu 7th Dec 2006 06:53 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

The WYSIWYG and traditional UNIX way to accomplish the task are incompatible. WYSIWYG (acronym for What You See Is What You Get) introduces user to a graphical environment, where the result of every manipulation is displayed as it would be seen in result. For example you are shown the document and you see how it would look like. But there is no room for logical structure of document in the case of WYSIWYG software. The other way puts it different: you are presented to a plain text document with the markup describing both logical structure and formatting, but you are not given any idea about how that all would look on paper.

All one has to do is fire up any version of WordPerfect for Windows to see you can have both structured and WYSIWYG. ALT+F3 brings up the Reveal Codes window that shows you all the markup tags, and what they do. And right above that is a WYSIWYG representation of the document. Not really rocket science.

Same with any decent HTML editor.

Reply Score: 1

absolutely true
by Oliver on Thu 7th Dec 2006 14:14 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

Full ack. And to the rest of the "comments", selfcriticism isn't a strength of the open source community. You can come out stronger with criticism or you can fall very deep - and this is the future for the selfish wanna-be-Linux-community!

Reply Score: 1