OSNews

I'm scrambling even now to delete my Gentoo partitions and reinstall Windows ...

Everyone knows statistics can't be wrong. Now, if all 36 other people using Linux and the few dozen more using Macs will do the same (well, they'll need a whole new computer, too, I guess) we can all wait for Longhorn and Office2005 (combined cost -- US$1275.00 + US$450.00/hour for a team of lawyers to translate the EULAs).

Of course, in the spirit of offering the user a choice, and to show a kinder, gentler face to the world, future Microsoft EULA's will offer an additional, more humane choice at install time: "With lube, or without?"

Proprosal to bring the Microsoft EULAs into line with the Reduction of Paperwork Act:

"Thank you for using <MS PRODUCT NAME>.

"Use of this Software Product is governed by the following License Agreement. By using this Product, you agree to all of the following:

"ALL YOUR COMPUTER ARE BELONG TO US!"

Now, isn't that a much more concise/efficient way to say it than the present wording?

Okay, okay. Before everyone goes ballistic and starts flaming me, I'm NOT serious. I mean, in a way I am, but seriously ... these numbers don't mean anything. There's no real way to gauge this sort of thing since there's no way to prove -- or disprove -- the veracity of the numbers used to derive the final percentages. I'm using Konqueror right now, set to spoof as IE because my bank gets all panicky otherwise. --- And with 2 mouse clicks I'm now spoofing as "Internet Explorer 5.0 on Mac PPC".

Besides, LOTS of people use Windows and Linux. Windows and Macs. Macs and Linux. *BSD, BeOS, any of the less-well-known systems. What's the point?

Simple: If you just look at those numbers, your first reaction is probably to think, "X% uses Windows, X% uses Linux, X% uses Macs ..." And, subconsciously, you might be tempted to expand that to, "WOW! X% of people use Windows and NOT anything else!"

Wrong. Even if those numbers WERE true, it wouldn't matter. The story you do NOT get is, how many of those Windows users ALSO use other OSes? How many use Windows as their PRIMARY OS, but also have an alternative OS installed? That's certainly the way I started. I didn't just pick up a Linux CD, install it, and burn my Windows CDs that same day. I know plenty of people (such as my roommate) who boots into Windows or Linux fairly randomly. He doesn't do anything except surf the Web, instant messaging, play a few games. He has favorite games on BOTH OSes. He prefers to IM with gAIM. He prefers to surf with Opera, no matter which OS he's using. In other words, he doesn't care which OS he's using -- all depends on his mood, I guess, or what, specifically, he intends to do.

In my not so humble opinion, THAT is what we should ALL be encouraging. The whole Either/Or thing is ... silly. It's worse than silly -- it's the EXACT same thing we allegedly dislike Microsoft for! I use only Linux, but if I wanted Linux to destroy Windows I'd simply be working my ass off to trade one monster for another. Choice is the key. It makes those providing the choices bust their collective asses to produce the BEST product, not merely the ONLY product. Not all Linux advocates are rabid zealots, and while I rant passionately about some of the crap Microsoft has done/does/has yet to do, I also happily troubleshoot my roommate's Windows machine. And my mom's. My sister's. My roommate CHOSE to use Linux (sometimes) because he started to like it after using my laptop (Gentoo) a few times. I never pushed.

Linux is growing. In time, it will be "big enough" and ISVs and OEMs *will* begin to support it more heavily -- this is already happening, slowly but surely. I don't want to see Microsoft disappear, I just want to see something like the Intel/AMD wars. Do I secretly hope for something more along the lines of the 3dfx/nVidia war? Sure, but only if another competitor (like ATI in the 3dfx/nVidia war) will be there to offer real competition to the winner in the end. Without ATI (or the reverse, without nVidia to challenge ATI) how much do you think a new high-end video card would cost now? Would it be even half as fast? If Microsoft had truly been innovating for the past decade, if it had truly been challenged to do its utter best or be cast unceremoniously by the wayside, how much better would Windows be today? Think about it. AMD beat Intel to 1Ghz, and then "it was on" as they say. Speeds increased, prices dropped, faster and faster. It was literally a war. And who won? Neither, yet, but as long as they fight, the consumer will ALWAYS win. Microsoft has never faced a challenge like that, and, say what you will about Windows, it is only a pale shadow of the product we could have if they HAD faced such a challenge and been forced to fight their way through it.

I think everyone can agree, without competition, MS has no REASON to improve, just as, before AMD declared war on Intel with the Athlon, Intel was complacent, content, slow, and horribly overpriced. And that is the one thing Microsoft fears more than any other. Microsoft can't fight Linux with any of its traditional methods -- they've basically admitted as much -- and for the first time in a LONG time they are actually having to THINK. Personally, I think the next 2-3 years are going to be very interesting ... so far MS has faced enemies pretty much on the level of Elmer Fudd (such as IBM, who created a wonderful OS and didn't bother to sell it). Maybe Linux will prove to be something else altogether ... in time.

...or maybe the judge will surprise us all ... the verdict is still out. Any day now ...