Microsoft executive Martin Taylor’s schedule is packed with meetings like the one in June when he met with representatives from French drugmaker Aventis in his Redmond, Wash. office. Aventis has tied together groups of computers running not Microsoft’s operating system but the freely available Linux. These high-performance clusters can analyze proteins at blazing speeds. “That’s great for Linux,” Taylor said cheerily, at the time.
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
54 Comments
2004-08-03 5:18 am
Anonymous
The point I was trying to make about iLife is that while MS is free to and can buy several products from multiple sources to duplicate iLife abilities – this is likely to be difficult, maybe even justifying starting from scratch.
Imagine MS trying to do that with Office and you will see that getting/buying WORD/EXEL/ACCESS/PP/etc. from multiple sources and then trying to make them look and work as consistently as Office does today is likely to a world class hack-job.
So, just saying they could buy this and that does not fly – at least with me – I still stand by the position that creating such application(s) would consume alot more MS resources (including time) than your typical Linux application/utility.
2004-08-03 5:21 am
2004-08-03 6:28 am
Anonymous
Another thing is they are betting alot on Longhorn. They do not want to push too hard a solution that is based on Win9x/NT coz when LH comes out those people will not want to switch just yet.
Longhorn *is* NT. It’s Windows NT 6.x
MS either already has or can mostly duplicate most OSS application in their sleep (or change the licence to OSS).
No, Microsoft can’t just “change the license to OSS” because that would destroy their entire business model and their primary source of revenue.
Microsoft make their money *selling software*. It’s practically impossible to sell Open Source Software for profit (particularly for “general purpose” software that “everyone” will use).
It’s barely feasible that one day we might see each copy of Windows come with a “User Source License” that allows the licensee to examine and modify the Windows source code for their own use (which IMHO covers 99% of the practical usefulness of OSS), but I sincerely doubt we’ll *ever* see Windows with a “real” Open Source license.
I have to agree that Linux isn’t a major threat to Microsoft at the moment, however (and that they consider their real competition to be Apple). On the desktop it’s a matter of “not there yet” and in the server arena they are generally targeting quite different aspects of the market.
2004-08-03 8:22 am
Anonymous
Ready for the desktop…hmmm. Have been using Linux on my desktop/WS for half a year. Having also used Windows, BeOS, MacOS 8 and Amiga I must say it is as ready as Windows is. Depends what’s important for you in a desktop envoirement.
Can som advocate answer me on this though:
Sometimes, when I choose to Shut Down in Gnome, it doesn’t do so but logs out. If I then login as root I can shut it down. Last night though, I was impatient and switched off with the powerbutton after having “Shut Down” wich brought me to the login screen. Today, it started X, prompted for b/p, but failed when it was about to load Gnome, going back to the login-prompt. I tty’ed to another screen and did init 3. Then I tty’ed again, loged in as user and did startx. Now I suddenly get IceWM, wich I never ran or chose to run before!
This is the kind of stuff you might get, also in Windows. I don’t know what can be wrong here, but things like that is not what grandma would be able to fix or what I am willing to do to nurse my desktop at any given time. I think Linux is a great desktop OS, but it has a looong way to go to the standards of Amiga and BeOS.
2004-08-03 8:31 am
Anonymous
“I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought [German Linux distributor] SuSe. We already won once against Novell.”
Well, intelligent, normal people high-5 when they _themselves_ do something right and great, not when is _no_ merit of your own. This kind of mentality is typical of corporate dead-brainers….
2004-08-03 9:48 am
Anonymous
“i disagree with the fact that linux is a general purpose desktop.”
OSX is a general purpose desktop, so why couldn’t Linux be?
2004-08-03 1:31 pm
Anonymous
This stuff is no surprise. MS is a company that sees a threat on their home turf. I did get a kick out of this quote…
All roads lead to madness
Thats exactly how I’ve described the situation with running windows on the average home user’s PC once the viruses and spyware take hold. lol
2004-08-03 2:02 pm
Anonymous
Uh dude come on. You want us to listen to anything Apple related and you’ll need to come off with something based a bit more in reality than anything that iGeek posts on the web.
VB ? It came about when someone at MS took gui concepts done by one Alan Cooper and mated his work to the QuickBasic compiler (in the begining), the OOP aspects of the language ? Every dev tools company out there was looking to leverage OOP.
2004-08-03 4:05 pm
Anonymous
“Imagine MS trying to do that with Office and you will see that getting/buying WORD/EXEL/ACCESS/PP/etc. from multiple sources and then trying to make them look and work as consistently as Office does today is likely to a world class hack-job. ”
The problem is that this is precisely what Microsoft did, with the exception of Excel which was developed in-house for the most part.
The rest of your points are equally unsound and base on false assumptions.
Microsoft cannot match the kind of work that is going into the development kernel.
You want to hear about innovation? Ok,let’s talk innovation.
Find me a proprietary application that can do what Plone does. http://www.plone.org
Along these lines,find me something as feature-full as the Zope web application server.
Find me a program made by Microsoft that has robust support for the IMAP email protocol. I can list many FLOSS programs here that do. To this day, Outlook’s and OE support’s flaky, the latter being a bit better.
Find me a web server that is as good as Apache or an FTP server that is as good as VSFTP or ProFTP.
Find me a sound server/sound architecture as robust and feature-full as ALSA.
Why is it that Apple uses CUPS? Because it rocks and yes it is open source and it is the best printing system around.
How many file formats does Windows support out of the box?
Find me a clustering solution that is as advanced and as eaturefull as those available on Linux? Moreover, find me a piece of proprietary software that matches what a distribution such as ClusterKnoppix offers by allowing you to create a cluster in minutes without having to load any software to the machines themselves?
Find me a faxing system as versatile and robust as Hylafax?
I could go on and on and on.
But all of the above misses the true point of free software, which is that we are enriching humanity by making the tools of tomorrow available to everyone. Our true innovation is at the social level. We remove all boundaries and allow anyone to contribute to the betterment of society. We just ask that if you want to build on our efforts, you share your own and that you play nice.
2004-08-03 4:10 pm
Anonymous
Maybe you could have looked at your GDM configuration before spouting all that nonsense. Linux does what you tell it to do.
And you can configure GDM through its GUI. There are environments where you don’t want the users to be able to shut down the machine.
For instance, I run a server/thin-clients environment and I obviously don’t want users to be able to shut down the “machine” because since they are on a thin client, they would be shutting everybody else down as well as the server. Nice thing about thing clients is I tell them that they can just turn it off when they are done.
2004-08-03 5:44 pm
Anonymous
Evidently, I touched a nerve by my simple little comment regarding installing a Linux cluster to run Dyna simulations. I have to admit, I was a little taken aback by the vehemence of that comment’s initial reply, and heartened by the replies to that reply.
The thing is, I’ve been a sys admin for about 10 years. I’ve managed all major Unix flavors, Linux, Netware, and yes, Windows. I don’t see myself as a bench warmer (whatever that meant). Right now my job is to keep around 100 Sun/IBM/SGI boxes purring along running various engineering/CAD applications. Nothing fancy. I do have issues to deal with … so and so can’t get to this file … that plotter’s out of paper …. somebody’s powercable became mysteriously unplugged. Sometime’s there’s even an emergency: a hard drive died … CPU needed reseated … not to mention the ever popular “I need a new spaceball.”
But you know what I NEVER have to deal with? Let me use a numbered list, since that worked so well last time:
1) viruses
2) email worms
3) service pack whatever munging my connections
4) bad drivers bringing down the system
I just need to keep the script-kiddies at bay, and make sure the patches put out by my OEMs work on my test boxes, and generally speaking, life’s a good thing. I thank the powers that Be several times a day I’m not in the IT group.
As for my decision to use Linux for the cluster, that was not made lightly. This isn’t going to be free, for heaven’s sake. It is just that …. come on, let’s all be realistic and adult here … MS is not a clustering player. They have no background in high performance computing. They are a desktop OS, a fair-to-middling server platform. I think it’s laughable that just because word came from Redmond that MS wants to get into the HPC arena that compan ies would actually want to depend on it to manage their simulations? Those FEA guys are expensive. You want them waiting around for the server to reboot … again?
Hey, I want to build airplanes. But I’ve never built one (or anything much beyond a few bookshelves) before. Anyone want to buy one?
2004-08-03 5:53 pm
Anonymous
You use the word FUD to describe MS and declare Linux is ready for the desktop and easier to use?
I am not going to argue that Linux is not a viable solution because it is, but like most Linux cheerleaders, you have discredited your opinion as just another anti-MS advocate spouting anything they think will damage MS.
The fact that so many pro-Linux people are exactly like you is, if anything, reason to question whether Linux is really a better solution or if it just carries more hype.
When someone proposes Linux change for the better, it is misguided idiots just like you that stand in the way screaming that Linux is perfect and nothing needs to be changed.
Go find another bench to sit on, because you are in the water boys way nimrod. NIMROD!
2004-08-03 6:00 pm
Anonymous
MS users refuse to evolve, like the once great SA militia of the nazi party in the 1920’s.
They are afraid that all the time and money they put into learning they’re point and click enviroment will go to waste, that there once huge ego boosting attitude of Microsoft usability will get demoted down to some poor little linux wanna be guru.
This isn’t about anything else to them.
The fact is with windows they feel powerfull, and with linux they will be nothing.
I say let them be the way they are, and when the revolution comes. They will be left in the dust.
2004-08-03 7:32 pm
2004-08-03 10:04 pm
Anonymous
Microsoft cannot match the kind of work that is going into the development kernel.
Like what ? A great deal of the hyped stuff that was going into the “development kernel” last time (like the O(1) scheduler) Microsoft had already done a decade ago.
Find me a proprietary application that can do what Plone does. http://www.plone.org
Along these lines,find me something as feature-full as the Zope web application server.
I’m not going to spend hours doing a feature for feature comparison just for an OSNews discussion. What *particular* features do these tools have that you find lacking in proprietry solutions ?
Find me a program made by Microsoft that has robust support for the IMAP email protocol. I can list many FLOSS programs here that do. To this day, Outlook’s and OE support’s flaky, the latter being a bit better.
A loaded question. It’s like saying “find an OSS program that has robust and featureful support for Exchange”.
Find me a web server that is as good as Apache or an FTP server that is as good as VSFTP or ProFTP.
A lot of people seem to find IIS quite sufficient.
Find me a sound server/sound architecture as robust and feature-full as ALSA.
What’s missing from DirectSound or Quicktime ?
Why is it that Apple uses CUPS? Because it rocks and yes it is open source and it is the best printing system around.
Or maybe because they just couldn’t be bothered writing anything themselves ?
How many file formats does Windows support out of the box?
Redhat Linux doesn’t even play MP3s “out of the box”.
Of course, the question is fundamentally loaded. All you’re going to do now is quote how Custom Media Linux Distribution #6 supports more.
Find me a clustering solution that is as advanced and as eaturefull as those available on Linux?
http://www.apple.com/acg/xgrid/ ?
Moreover, find me a piece of proprietary software that matches what a distribution such as ClusterKnoppix offers by allowing you to create a cluster in minutes without having to load any software to the machines themselves?
ClusterKnoppix *is* “loading software onto the machines”.
Find me a faxing system as versatile and robust as Hylafax?
WinFax ? Specifically, what’s hylafax do that other solutions don’t ?
I could go on and on and on.
Hey, I could come up with a similar bunch of loaded examples favouring non-OSS software as well, but it wouldn’t be any more valid.
But all of the above misses the true point of free software, which is that we are enriching humanity by making the tools of tomorrow available to everyone. Our true innovation is at the social level. We remove all boundaries and allow anyone to contribute to the betterment of society. We just ask that if you want to build on our efforts, you share your own and that you play nice.
You also forget another advantage of OSS – particularly relevant to your little list of things above – is that nothing OSS does has to be financially justified, so it can come up with all these little tools that are only relevant to a tiny minority, allowing the easy creation of “hey, look, OSS does this and Windows doesn’t !” bullet points.
2004-08-03 10:07 pm
Anonymous
3) service pack whatever munging my connections
4) bad drivers bringing down the system
You’ve been a sysadmin for *ten years* and never had either of those happen ?
You should go out and buy some lottery tickets.
2004-08-03 10:23 pm
Anonymous
A loaded question.* It’s like saying “find an OSS program that has robust and featureful support for Exchange”.
With the minor problem that while Microsoft has access to the documentation for the IMAP protocol, OSS developers don’t have access to the documentation for the Exchange protocol.
This really sums up the whole problem that Linux/OSS/FS Zealots/Coders/Nazis/Enthusiasts have with Microsoft. They don’t want to play on a level playing field (understandably). Rather than working with open protocols, or helping to create new ones, they modify existing ones just slightly enough to screw things up, or write their own from scratch, and refuse to document them, and then activily work to make reverse engineering them difficult to impossible.
From this we end up with the fiasco with HTML, DOC, Exchange, and so on. Again, we wouldn’t care, but they are (for whatever reason), a monopoly, and if a monopoly refuse to play nice and screws me over, I’m going to fight tooth and nail to cut them down to size and/or make them play fair.
* I agree, it is a loaded question.
2004-08-03 11:03 pm
Anonymous
With the minor problem that while Microsoft has access to the documentation for the IMAP protocol, OSS developers don’t have access to the documentation for the Exchange protocol.
You’re missing the point – Microsoft’s interest is in making an email solution, not an IMAP client. There’s no motivation for them to make an (excellent) IMAP client, because (from their POV) they have Exchange and the customers are better off using that.
Hence, the IMAP support in Outlook and OE isn’t particularly good (Outlook, in particular, sucks in many not-so-obvious ways that I’ve only recently discovered trying to get an IMAP solution going for a client).
This harks back to the final thing I said – OSS doesn’t have to worry about commercial viability, whereas proprietry software nearly always does. There’s little commercial viability in Microsoft making anything more than a basic IMAP client because they’re trying to sell you Exchange.
This really sums up the whole problem that Linux/OSS/FS Zealots/Coders/Nazis/Enthusiasts have with Microsoft. They don’t want to play on a level playing field (understandably). Rather than working with open protocols, or helping to create new ones, they modify existing ones just slightly enough to screw things up, or write their own from scratch, and refuse to document them, and then activily work to make reverse engineering them difficult to impossible.
This is because Microsoft[0] are only interested in the *results*, whereas the OSS community are only interested in the *process*.
Microsoft are successful because they concentrate on giving their customers what they ask for – ie: their primary concern is the end result, and how they get there is of little concern.
The OSS community, OTOH, tends to focus more on “just writing code”, with much less attention paid to the final objective (if one exists at all), coherency, tool interaction, not constantly reinventing whell, etc, etc. This is why “open standards” are so much more important to it – because there’s so little co-ordination between the myriad different projects, they rely on everyone doing certain things the same way to be able to interact. This is also why most OSS “environments” tend to have that “patchwork quilt” feel.
This is why the “OSS world” gets so hung up on things like network protocols and file formats (processes), while the “proprietry world” gets so hung up on things like user interface and binary compatibility (end results). They’re basically two completely opposed philosophies to solving the same broad problems. Microsoft say “this is how you fix your problem” while the OSS community says “these tools will help you fix your problem, but it’s up to you to figure out how”.
Incidentally, the average manager or accountant is far more interested in the end result than the process, which is why selling OSS solutions to decision makers *because they’re OSS* is so bloody hard.
This was the point I was trying to get across in my other reply – the poster I was replying to was speaking from the “OSS” perspective, and (possibly unconsciously) loading his questions because of that. I was trying to point out it’s equally as possible to load the questions from a “proprietry” perspective, but the answers that would result would also be equally as specious to someone of the “wrong beliefs”.
From this we end up with the fiasco with HTML, DOC, Exchange, and so on.
It’s only a “fiasco” from the minority OSS perspective and people with that mindset. For everyone else, it’s non-issue, because *the end result* is solutions that work for the vast bulk of customers.
[0] I say “Microsoft”, really it’s pretty much anyone and anything that isn’t OSS, or of similar philosophy. Feel free to ‘s/Microsoft/Apple/g’ or any other proprietry software vendor at your discretion.
2004-08-04 4:09 am
Anonymous
i disagree with the fact that linux is a general purpose desktop.
Why would you disagree with a fact? 
2004-08-04 7:03 am
Anonymous
Firstly, why is my reply to anonymous from .ipt.aol.com moderated down? Ok, so it was a little hot-headed (and god knows a lot of comments on OSnews are), but so is the post from the guy at .ipt.aol.com … and he is directly swearing at people, while all I said was something about worthless advice. Ok, so I realize that might be unfit (mood I was in), but still I cannot realize how it’s worse than swearing?
MS has had a horrible track record of security on the server, this has been improved a great deal in 2003 server, but it is much easier to lose trust than it is to earn it back.
Microsoft is doing its best to beat open source but it won’t work.
open source has too many movements. It is decentralized, and it has some power supporters (including the respective governments of china, japan, and south korea).
In any case, i am quite certain that the fud and lawsuits will continue against linux. I suspect MS may see lawsuits as its best chance to defeat linux but the guy says something that shows he does not get it. Linux and open source are not any company so attacking novell, ibm, etc won’t kill linux or open source.
that Aventis isn’t using NT at all. Trust me, they are. This is just an article saying that their cluster is Linux. I’m not surprised actually. One of the problems when people spec out clusters of Windows boxes is they jump the gun and order quads. You get more overhead with quad’s in a windows box and you will find better performance with dualies in a windows cluster.
Name it.
My company is also deploying a linux/Opteron cluster to run Dyna jobs. Why? Simple:
1) cost
2) scalability
3) security
4) reliability
5) ease of use
MS cannot touch linux on any of these points. And yes, Linux is easy to use (don’t listen to the FUD telling you otherwise — it’s ready for the desktop too).
*clap* well said
Linux is ready for the desktop on my end. It’s what everyone in my research group uses. Now sure it may not suit your needs, but it can definitely suit the needs of others. Heck, my 64 year old mother uses Linux no problem. Granted all she does is browse the web and read email, but the Linux desktop certainly is ready as far as she’s concerned. And I tell ya, it sure is great to come back to her machine and find it exactly the way I left it without a ton of viruses and spyware installed.
Also, I’d definitely say that Linux is much much easier to use than Windows in many many situations. And before ya get all bent out of shape again, let me give you a little example, something I just found myself doing just this morning:
cat my_file | awk ‘{print $2}’ | sort | uniq > my_new_file
You’d do that on windows how? Cut and paste? Have fun.
I am glad I escaped from the clutches of M$, they are really behaving like THE big brother, trying to crush every form of competition by whatever means possible.
Linux is not perfect but it is a shame that Windows absurd complexity makes us unnecessary dependent on so called MCSE wizkids which are able to create a far too expensive IT Infrastructure.
I am perfectly happy with OSX though.
//You’d do that on windows how? Cut and paste? Have fun.//
Ever hear of Cygwin?
You use the word FUD to describe MS and declare Linux is ready for the desktop and easier to use?
I am not going to argue that Linux is not a viable solution because it is, but like most Linux cheerleaders, you have discredited your opinion as just another anti-MS advocate spouting anything they think will damage MS.
The fact that so many pro-Linux people are exactly like you is, if anything, reason to question whether Linux is really a better solution or if it just carries more hype.
The acid test is whether it gets things done. The answer is yes, and no amount of hearsay around the periphery makes a blind bit of difference.
When someone proposes Linux change for the better, it is misguided idiots just like you that stand in the way screaming that Linux is perfect and nothing needs to be changed.
Go find another bench to sit on, because you are in the water boys way nimrod.
Likewise. Now tell us why he is wrong, and why Windows costs less, is more scalable, more secure(!) and more reliable without silly Microsoft sponsored Gartner reports. As more people start using it, that will get steadily more difficult.
…but the Linux desktop certainly is ready as far as she’s concerned.
What is the Linux desktop?
Of course.
That’s kinda a silly question.
>MS cannot touch linux on any of these points.
Apparently, users are looking for something different. If you have read the article, Linux replaces UNIX. No wonder, why.
From the other hand, Linux can’t make a dent at Microsoft revenues, for the last 5 years. No wonder, why.
>And yes, Linux is easy to use.
Well, then explain why in countries like Russia, where people prefer to buy hardware without an OS, even laptops, and can- the OS later installed on that hardware is Windows. Must be hardship loving Russians, what else?
If you can read in Russian, you’ll find articles in computer magazines discussing, say, new notebook, and saying “the price of OS is irrelevant for us, you know…”
That is the acid test for me: when Russians buy hardware the way they are doing it now, and install Linux on it. That is when I can agree that Linux made it.
One thing is clear from the article: Microsoft treats Linux not as the commie cancer, but as a regular competitor. MS knows how to deal with competitors: Netscape was offering browser for free too, if you follow my drift.
So, let the best OS win. I’ll keep an eye on my Russian friends and their software tastes.
That was so well placed. Man, that’s just perfect I don’t think there is a come back to that.
GNU/Linux is not a desktop, quit calling it one people! Repeat after me: “Gnome is ready for the desktop” “KDE is ready for the desktop” “Xfce is almost ready for the desktop” “fluxbox will always be geeky, but it’s still cool” “*box is not meant for Joe Trailer Park” “I did not have xxxual relations with that woman” “GNU/Linux, not Linux, is a fine OS that is ready for common use but it is not a desktop”.
Got it?
Also, I’d definitely say that Linux is much much easier to use than Windows in many many situations. And before ya get all bent out of shape again, let me give you a little example, something I just found myself doing just this morning:
cat my_file | awk ‘{print $2}’ | sort | uniq > my_new_file
You’d do that on windows how? Cut and paste? Have fun.
You should not confuse the process with the objective when discussing ease of use. You should also consider how operations that may be commonplace in one OS are completely absent from another.
Tell us what you were trying to do, rather than how you did it, and perhaps a decent ease of use comparison can be made.
Bleh. Quit with the silly semantic games. It’s pretty obvious what I mean when I say “the linux desktop” is ready for my mom: whatever particular distribution I’ve decided to put on there, Mandrake in this case, works well as a platform for reading email and browsing the web.
Ok, how’s this, I just found myself doing this just the other day.
Rename about 15,000 files of the form:
blah.hour_xx.2002xxx.blah
to this:
blah.2002xxx.hour_xx.blah
with the xxx being numbers here.
Simple bash for loop and presto. Have fun doing that with the my computer thingy. And yeah yeah, cygwin, I know, but saying ya need cygwin to make Windows productive kinda proves my point, no?
Oh, and that awk | sort | uniq thingy, that was to extract the list of collection stations from a huge text/data file.
You use the word FUD to describe MS and declare Linux is ready for the desktop and easier to use?
Damn skippy it is. If my parents can use it on a regular basis to browse the Internet, email, word-processing, online banking, spread sheets, games*, printing, play DVDs, Mp3s, CDs, DivX’s, and quicktime movies, without calling me for tech support**? I’d say it’s ready.***
* Yes, they play mine sweeper, tetris, breakout and fifteen varieties of solitaire – exactly as they did under Windows.
** I’m also going to refuse to buy into the ‘But they don’t know how to install new hardware and new applications’ argument, since I did that for them under Windows (3.11 through to 2K) as well. The only difference is that I can now do it remotely without jumping through hoops to do it over their 56K dialup. They also have far less issues (read: none) with codecs and DVD zones than they did with Windows. This year, when they bought the hard drive down (I have broadband), instead of reinstalling, I simply apt-get’d an upgrade.
*** If this isn’t Joe-Average desktop usage, what is?
If you guys would stop arguing amongst yourselves and increase the signal-to-noise ratio, you might consider the article.
In it Taylor says: “Before, Linux was this cloud we didn’t get, now it is Red Hat, Novell, IBM. We know how to compete with companies. I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought [German Linux distributor] SuSe. We already won once against Novell.”
So you see, he still doesn’t get it. He thinks Linux is a company! He’s spent his entire professional life working for Microsoft, and he’s the guy in charge of undermining Linux.
Nothing to worry about.
it’s because Mr. Taylor knows that it’ll take a company (or a few companies) to get Linux to advance in its battle against MS.
we all know that Linux is a community effort but without the support and input of these companies (like IBM, Red Hat, etc) Linux won’t be anywhere near where it is now.
so…if Mr. Taylor thinks that MS can repeat over Novell, that’s one less Linux entity to worry about
I have always had a problem with the “Is Linux read for the Desktop?” question. It seems everyone assumes Windows is ready for the desktop and Linux distros are playing catch-up. We argue endlessly over applications, installation and setup all the while missing the point:
Windows is not ready for the desktop, not Win9x, not 2000 and not XP. Never has been, and from the looks of things, never will be. Too many security holes, memory leaks, poorly written applications and buggy device drivers.
We hear MS pundits rant about installation and configuration
of Linux systems, but no one ever seems to ask how many Windows users can actually install their OS, or set up their machine.
The only reason anyone outside of Microsoft uses Windows is because it came installed on the machine when they bought it. Most people (read joe average) are not aware an alternative is avalible. And those who are are likely under the impression it won’t run on their machine because their’s is a “Windows machine” or it is too hard for them to use.
On the selfish side, however, I am sort of happy with the state of Windows and it’s readyness for the desktop. I won’t use it on any of my machines, but fixing those problems sure does pay well.
>> Just as Microsoft has gone through a wrenching
>> transformation from a combative bully to a mature
>> corporate citizen–the recent cash dividend of $32
>> billion, the end of its stock options program, a
>> settling of old scores with Sun Microsystems, Apple
>> Computer and dozens of federal and state trustbusters–it
>> is changing its approach to Linux.
Ha ha ha ha ha, the person that wrote the article does believe this? This is FUD, MS still missbehaves like it has always done, and always will do.
MS can not crush GNU/Linux, even if they manage to clone all the functionality, GNU/Linux will still be free, it will still have more geekish appeal, and it will evolve much faster and stable than MS. WHat MS is interested in is in stopping the GNU/Linux momentum on business.
But no one ever seems to ask how many Windows users can actually install their OS, or set up their machine.
Judging from some of the questions I had when I was in tech support, it’s a wonder any of them can turn it on, let alone set it up.
In all seriousness, outside of the gaming/enthusiast crowd, it’s scary how many non-IT people need help installing basic things like printers of the plug-in-put-in-CD-click-next-till-icon-appears variety.
it seems like microsoft is still clueless when it comes to linux. Martin Taylor (two-timing, little…) is a step in the right directino for them, but from the article it sounds like they’re living in a cave.
a couple reason’s i use FOSS apps on my desktop and other computers:
– cost – as an individual home user, it is infinitely cheaper for me to run FreeBSD and Linux on my computers at home then it is to run Windows. This is at the operating system level. the application level, of course, has increased costs for both any OS, but in my experience, i have spent less on Linux apps then i have on Windows apps (and i have purchased both).
– open standards – i know that if i’m running OSS servers, they most likely comply with open standards meaning services from other, non-related sources can communicate (also one of the reasons i support OS X). i also know i won’t get the pants sued off me if i write software that impliments open standards. it’s like taking the mp3 vs. wma argument and applying it to the whole operating system.
– innovation involvment – microsoft claims to have all these grand “new” idea with longhorn, but there’s little that says they are anything more then vaporware with a sdk. i read in a news group that there is an O(1) scheduler for linux, i can grab a patch set and use it. someone’s adding layering and alpha blending to X.org, i can see how the development is going and how i can be writing apps to leverage the technology. this may not sound like a big deal to most people, but when the developers on projects are real people, with names and accessible email addresses, it at least provides a sense that the developers are humans, and that your software isn’t being mass produced by a faceless entity that only cares about your dollar.
– security/spyware – because a linux desktop is almost always a heterogenous environment, spyware and other nusances have little place to get in, and because of lowered priveleges, have less of an opportunity to wreak havoc on my system.
– total control – most people don’t need total control, but more control then what windows provides is necessary. not being able to uninstall things like Internet Explorer was one of the straws that broke the camel’s back for me. there is no reason a web browser, one that’s a security nightmare at that, should be embedded at the system level. imho, the only part of the operating system that can retreive data from a network should be the network stack, everything else should run in user mode. now they’re doing the same thing with media player. until those are out, i won’t even think of windows as anything more then a gaming operating system, little more then a toy.
the NT series were decent operating systems: in 1996. 8 years, not enough innovation, too much marketing, too many blatant attacks on companies who were trying to innovate; i had enough.
that’s just me though. i don’t intend to represent any population of linux users other then myself, and i’m not saying microsoft would gain marketshare if they employed any of the reason’s i use linux, or even get me back as a customer. i just think microsoft has a long way to go to “compete” with linux and FOSS in general. they are one of the reasons the movement is so big to begin with, any uncareful steps are only bound to drive more people away.
Oh, and that awk | sort | uniq thingy, that was to extract the list of collection stations from a huge text/data file.
For what purpose ? Why couldn’t the software output a list on its own, if that sort of list was important ?
Ok, how’s this, I just found myself doing this just the other day.
Rename about 15,000 files of the form:
blah.hour_xx.2002xxx.blah
to this:
blah.2002xxx.hour_xx.blah
with the xxx being numbers here.
Simple bash for loop and presto. Have fun doing that with the my computer thingy.
Well, there’s no shortage of GUI file renamers, but it’s really a task for a CLI – you should be able to do it at a cmd prompt with the same sort of for loop.
However, you’re still stuck in the process, not results, mindset – why did you need to rename the files at all ? Why didn’t whatever it was that generated them do it the right way in the first place ? What were you trying to achieve with a boatload of sequentially named filed.
As they say, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And yeah yeah, cygwin, I know, but saying ya need cygwin to make Windows productive kinda proves my point, no?
No, not really.
“Windows group chief James Allchin accuses Linux of being a cheap knockoff: “There’s no innovation. Linux is still in the business of cloning existing technology.” Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off, with programs still running.”
Anybody ever heard of openssh? lol
For what purpose ? Why couldn’t the software output a list on its own, if that sort of list was important ?
I’m not really certain what my boss wanted with the list or where the text file came from, so I can’t really comment. However I do know that producing the results my boss wanted was simple on Linux.
you should be able to do it at a cmd prompt with the same sort of for loop.
Somehow I doubt that it’s that simple at a dos prompt. But then maybe I underestimate it. Anyway, I’m 99% certain that dos doesn’t have handy little utilities like awk, grep, sort, uniq, and all the countless others that come standard on most Linux distros.
However, you’re still stuck in the process, not results, mindset – why did you need to rename the files at all ? Why didn’t whatever it was that generated them do it the right way in the first place ? What were you trying to achieve with a boatload of sequentially named filed.
Sure, I should have generated the files with the correct names in the first place. I screwed up my program. No argument there. But hindsight is 20/20. After the fact what’s easier? To wait for hours to regenerate them or to just rename them?
No, not really.
Well I beg to differ. Cygwin is open source software.
The fact that so many pro-Linux people are exactly like you is, if anything, reason to question whether Linux is really a better solution or if it just carries more hype.
Sorry, a line like yours got nothing to do with “whether Linux is really a better solution or if it just carries more hype”; what Linux does got to do with it. Yeah, we have heard you line countless times, it was innovative the first time it was said, but now it’s old and boring. Next line!
“we all know that Linux is a community effort but without the support and input of these companies (like IBM, Red Hat, etc) Linux won’t be anywhere near where it is now.”
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. As Andrew Morton said in his recent speech in Ottawa, the Linux and Free Software developers are adding enterprise-level features because they are excited about making them work, not because of any corporate guidance.
Companies may request features, but the only thing preventing development on some architectures is the lack of an available machine. It’s businesses flocking to Linux, and not the other way around.
wow, where to start…
first off, windows is not where microsoft makes its money, and hasnt been for many years. its their office suite that is their cash cow now.
windows is all but the dominant desktop operating system, but its place in the server room is quite a bit more tenious. you will find windows servers being used alot more for network services (such as domain controllers or exchange servers) then for stuff like high performance computing.
when it comes to office work, windows reigns supreme. when it comes to the academic/scientific community, all the programs are for *nix, not windows. for any half decent CG house, again its unix all the way. when it comes to enterprise web apps, you would be an idiot to deploy on windows.
i disagree with the fact that linux is a general purpose desktop. the only way it can be is with outside administration, which wont happen with home computers (unless, like was previously mentioned, some lucky grandmother happens to have a linux guru for a grandson). Linux is a fantastic desktop for the technically inclined, not for the general public, and hopefully that will never change, as linux would lose quite a bit of what makes it so awsome if it did.
and the reason that netscape lost the “browser war” was netscape, not microsoft. netscape v4 was such a raging piece of crap, which is why people stopped using it. if you want an example of this, microsoft is currently doing the same thing with internet explorer. feature wise, its about five years behind the rest of the browsers, so theres no real reason to use it. not only that, it has hooks deep into the os, and with the miracle of activx can execute code off the web with very few security restrictions. so there is not only no reason not to use ie, there are alot of reasons not to, which is why we have seen it lose market share for the first time in years.
last point, youre argument seems to stem from the fact that windows is the operating system of choice for thieves. if you dont pay for what you own, you are absolutely right, just from an application point of view. what i mean is that if i install windows, i also get photoshop/illustrator/office/flash/dreamweaver/3dsmax and every game imaginable for free. that is quite the incentive to use windows, and says nothing about the actual quality of the operating system. i would use pretty much anything if you threw in several thousand dollars in state of the art software with it.
and please dont get offended by this but i honestly cant resist (the slashdotter in me is too strong), but in soviet russia, the system operates you!
for any half decent CG house, again its unix all the way.
I think you’ll find a lot of CGI and 3D related businesses do their *design* work on Windows (or Macs) and the unix is at the renderfarm.
Depending on who you ask, it’s either Windows/Macs or unix doing “all the real work”.
when it comes to enterprise web apps, you would be an idiot to deploy on windows.
Must be a lot of idiots out there then. Windows is extremely popular as a WWW platform, particularly in intranets.
well, i would say an SGI workstation would be the platform of choice for high quality CG work, but you are right, it is far from the only one available. was just trying to make a point that while windows is dominant on the desktop, there are many other fields where that isnt the case.
for intranets, windows is suitable for serving www. the idiot comment was mostly aimed at servers exposed to the net, where windows is far from being the platform of choice.
Recently I just got through explaining to a friend why MS is not scared of Linux AND why Apple is the company they are truly afraid of. This could be a really long post so I’ll just summarize and ask that people please look at the big picture instaed of picking on insignificant details.
What Does Linux Have That MS Cannot Have?
=========================================
This is the best way to understand where I am coming from. Now for the answer; technically/theoretically speaking – nothing. However, when you include the intangibles just as they do when they value a company, the answer is slighlty different. MS does not have the community, loyalty, trust of Linux – that’s it.
When it comes to cost, products, service, open source, etc., it is easy for MS to do anything Linux does – all they have to do is just do it.
What alot of people confuse is MS being “happy” with their current business position vs. stubbornness or refusal to change. Most people either think it is the latter (or something like it) or that there is some sinister (SkyNet? – just joking, :-)).
What it is is they are comfortable with what they are making (or charging) – for now at least – so they do not have to go OSS right away. BUT, that stance is changing quickly due to multi-faceted market reasons that are making it no longer viable for MS to continue the way it has.
Should Linux turn up the heat a notch too high then you will see MS respond accordingly. Another thing is they are betting alot on Longhorn. They do not want to push too hard a solution that is based on Win9x/NT coz when LH comes out those people will not want to switch just yet.
So they have to wait. That’s another reason why I think the XP update is taking so long. They are adding as much .Net technology/ability to it without, of course, including the features that they are counting on to compel users to upgrade to LH.
Apple?
======
I am getting a little tired so here is one bullet point:
1.) MS either already has or can mostly duplicate most OSS application in their sleep (or change the licence to OSS). This is true ranging from utilities, to office apps and dev. environments, etc.
On the other hand, MS cannot just wave their hand and produce FCP, Motion, GarageBand, etc. These type of apps take WAY longer to write/test and need several years to aquire necessary technical insights and “best practices” that are needed to produce apps of that quality.
Yes they could buy existing apps and expertise but these will need to be melded into the existing system (of practices, attitude and behavior) and by the time they are complete the “new” will be “just like the old”. See the following…
Read up on this story of how MS had several dozens of opportunities to create superior products, usually after they had strong armed somebody (Apple in this case – SEVERAL TIMES) but consistently chose the low road – behaviour that is as old as the company not just recent as the DOJ would like us to believe…