Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Jan 2009 10:27 UTC
Every now and then, some blogger working for a big website will write a story about how company Abc should make radical move Xyz in order to better, eh, well, that's usually left in the dark. These are generally more akin to said bloggers hoping for radical move Xyz rather than there being a well-argumented reasoning. Radical moves in the technology business don't happen very often, but when they do, there's generally a good reason for them.
Thread beginning with comment 343233
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-27
If I don't like Windows, then I don't use it - simple as.
Really is? Than tell it my boss, or our IT department that took years to setup our IT environment as it is now. Or tell it all people that are using special scientific, business or what ever special needs software that is only available for Windows.
I don't whine on about how such-and-such open source licence would be better than propriatry software. I just use and support the opperating systems I like.
What you and "Joe the Plumber" like does not matter. What Siemens, Deutsche Bank, Boeing, and Gazprom like is relevant because they have the cash to pay software developers or SaaS providers to engineer, maintain, AND support software THEY want.
RE[3]: stupid question.
by Laurence on Tue 13th Jan 2009 14:40
in reply to "RE[2]: stupid question."
Member since:2007-03-26
"If I don't like Windows, then I don't use it - simple as.
Really is? Than tell it my boss, or our IT department that took years to setup our IT environment as it is now. "
If you're a member of the IT department then you're in a position to change the network - or even un a non-MS OS on your own work desktop.
If you're not a member if the IT department then this whole thread is irrelevent as you'd have no control over the software loaded - be it if Windows was open sourced or not.
Or tell it all people that are using special scientific, business or what ever special needs software that is only available for Windows.
* A lot of software that there's no FOSS alternative runs ok in Wine or ReactOS.
* Games consoles are just as good as PCs for games.
* Graphic designers, laptop DJs, musicians / producers / engineers can all use OS X.
* Professional FX studios for movies usually run their own software in Linux
Granted, if a company forces you into using Windows, then you have little choice. But my point was other OSs are mature enough that, should you have a choice of OS, you could replace Windows with x, y or z.
What you and "Joe the Plumber" like does not matter.
It matters enough for Microsoft to spend $millions on pushing their software onto us minions.
What Siemens, Deutsche Bank, Boeing, and Gazprom like is relevant because they have the cash to pay software developers or SaaS providers to engineer, maintain, AND support software THEY want.
I don't deny that, but then the general public wouldn't be directly using those systems - hense back to my earlier point.
RE[3]: stupid question.
by FellowConspirator on Tue 13th Jan 2009 15:11
in reply to "RE[2]: stupid question."
Member since:2007-12-13
Really is? Than tell it my boss, or our IT department that took years to setup our IT environment as it is now. Or tell it all people that are using special scientific, business or what ever special needs software that is only available for Windows.
Well, presumably your IT department is vigilant about maintaining the environment and keeps it flexible enough to adapt to change.
WRT to special scientific software, that's clearly Linux domain today (and increasingly so), at least with regard to physical sciences. That's the domain I operate in, and while we still have vendors that sell Windows software, the majority of software is either Linux, or Linux and Windows. Even Agilent is moving that way, and they were one of the staunchest Windows hold-outs. Not that IT doesn't put Windows on everyone's desktop (except the physical chemists in our org, they have Linux desktops), but it's increasingly to run Notes and Microsoft Word -- in most other respects they act as thick terminals to apps hosted elsewhere on our network (generally running Linux).
[p]What you and "Joe the Plumber" like does not matter. What Siemens, Deutsche Bank, Boeing, and Gazprom like is relevant because they have the cash to pay software developers or SaaS providers to engineer, maintain, AND support software THEY want. [/q]
Poor examples. I don't know about Gazprom, but most of Boeing and Deutsche Bank's server assets run on Linux. The key exception is their E-mail and directory services. Boeing still uses MS Exchange for most of that (save for DNS). Deutsche Bank migrated from Notes on Windows to Exchange on Windows a while back, and they're still reeling from that a little bit. Ironically. Deutsche Bank uses primarly SuSE linux for much of their infrastructure and they were Microsoft's first client for Linux support (sounds bizarre, but it was a product of that MS-Novell deal about 3 years ago).
Member since:
2007-03-26
Indeed.
I might hate pretty much every version of Windows (aside 2000) and I might think that it's bloated yet still lacking a number of (for me) the must-have features OS X and UNIX/Linux offer - but at the end of the day Microsoft is a business and Windows is their income.
If I don't like Windows, then I don't use it - simple as.
I don't whine on about how such-and-such open source licence would be better than propriatry software. I just use and support the opperating systems I like.