Linux can't be absorbed or made proprietary by anyone because of the way it is licensed. If IBM or anyone creates their version of Linux, they have to supply source on request, and that source can be used in other distributions. That's what the GPL does.
It is quite likely that IBM etc will follow Solaris in preparing their own branded distributions which are supported on their hardware. In fact I expect the United Linux effort to result in an IBM brand server distro real soon. But that won't -- can't -- split Linux any more than Redhat and Slackware do now.
The big manufacturers and distro makers already contribute effort and code to Linux and they'll be doing more in the future -- they look for profit from support fees and hardware sales. They'll see commercial pressure to make Linuxs compatible not fragmented, because all the best ideas will be arbitraged between distributions.
Windows server is still as doomed as it ever was!
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
MS is under antitrust litigation. Shouldn't a CIO do a risk assessment given the possible negative consequences?
What if Linux does become a viable option, but you're the CIO that just signed the multimillion dollar lock in agreement with MS andsomeone does a TCO evaluation on your decision with a free Linux solution? Yes, you may be fired.
What if Linux does become a viable option, but you're the CIO that just signed the multimillion dollar lock in agreement with MS andsomeone does a TCO evaluation on your decision with a free Linux solution? Yes, you may be fired.
Why are some people so occupied with Linux (the snail) moving?
When it moves a percentage someone suggests that Microsoft will fall. Are these people liberal tekkies, only interested in bringing down the profitable giant? Or are they truly so incapacitated to believe that Microsoft will be dethroned by a snail?
Microsoft will buy Linux and then what? Then the penguin will visibly change to the snail.
Whatever does that mean? Like Gartner early on, are you confused that Linux is a company? Microsoft might buy into a Linux distro manufacturer (in fact, didn't they buy into Caldera? or was it some other company??). Linux doesn't belong to any single individual, Linus Torvalds being the closest thing to an owner, as copyright holder. As intellectual property, Linux belongs to Torvalds as well as the dozens or hundreds of programmers worldwide who have contributed to the kernel.
Pray tell, how will "Microsoft buy Linux"?
Pray tell, how will "Microsoft buy Linux"?
I dont think MS would ever buy Linux, and I wouldnt call Linux a snail. I will agree, however, that Microsoft will not fall to Linux, they will only get better, and that Linux will be a strong competitor.
I do see Linux and windows slowly killing of Unix, OS400 and other legacy style OS's.
I do see Linux and windows slowly killing of Unix, OS400 and other legacy style OS's.
Microsoft uses money and the courts to control its market position.
Microsoft has a court case behind every move in its history. In fact, it's efforts center around court cases - winning that is. Even the U. S. Government too them on. Their competitors applauded the effort and what happened. Microsoft came out stronger and passed another milestone in its history - competitors were none the better.
The battlefield of public (open source) versus private domain software is only another perimeter on the battlefield of the Information Technology war.
Strategy (which less than 1% of the world population understands) demands initiatives like defining the open source world.
Even if it is done through one company (that owns a Linux product) and is used to control that software - by improving it and charging for maintenance - it is tantamount to ownership of the product.
The world is full of companies who were bought out and destroyed by more powerful companies regardless iftheir product was better.
You can't get control or ownership of Linux by improving it and charging for maintenance. If you release improvements, you have to release your source, and then those changes can be incorporated into all the other distros. It's the GPL. You would have to clean-room rewrite from scratch or get assignments for all the hundreds of individual copyrights before you could release under a licence that gave you control.
The GPL is an amazingly subtle piece of recursive social engineering. MS lie about (or misunderstand) its effect, but it's easy to see why they hate it so much. The first real problem they can't buy!
T
The GPL is an amazingly subtle piece of recursive social engineering. MS lie about (or misunderstand) its effect, but it's easy to see why they hate it so much. The first real problem they can't buy!
T
Linux will grow and improve. Its not quite windows yet, but it is becoming more windows like.
I dont see linux killing windows, but rather becoming a competitor in the future. Linux and windows will both vastly improve for the data center, whileoffering a more modern OS, supporting many new technologies and applications.
I do see Unix, OS400 etc fading away in popularity. The only reason they are still around is because they have a proven track record, many old IT folks are too afraid to migrate to windows or Linux, and many companies have spent big money on the hardware and machines that run there current systems. The depreciation on these machines is enough to give one a heart attack, too much money was invested, so until thoseold legacy systems break down, or become so uncompliant with new technologies that a migration to a new system is worth the money, it wont happen.
Our company was shocked at what our OS400 system was worth on the market. It was fraction of what we paid ouch!
Linux and windows datacenter machines will also become more attractive because they are much more cost effective.
I dont see linux killing windows, but rather becoming a competitor in the future. Linux and windows will both vastly improve for the data center, whileoffering a more modern OS, supporting many new technologies and applications.
I do see Unix, OS400 etc fading away in popularity. The only reason they are still around is because they have a proven track record, many old IT folks are too afraid to migrate to windows or Linux, and many companies have spent big money on the hardware and machines that run there current systems. The depreciation on these machines is enough to give one a heart attack, too much money was invested, so until thoseold legacy systems break down, or become so uncompliant with new technologies that a migration to a new system is worth the money, it wont happen.
Our company was shocked at what our OS400 system was worth on the market. It was fraction of what we paid ouch!
Linux and windows datacenter machines will also become more attractive because they are much more cost effective.
Microsoft's new licensing scheme (XP) and the soaring prices of their product will drive those riding the fence to alternate OS's. The blue screen of death wall paper and driver conflicts are just tooooooo agrevating. The computer novices will continue to give Microsoft the money unless the catchy colors of the MAC attracts them.
Linux is becoming more windows like and the installations are becoming more "sit back and watch" installs. The huddling of SuSE, Corel, Conectiva, and Turbo Linux could produce some interesting market shifts. I see the folks with a strong IT back ground shifting over to linux and running windows with VMWare or Win4Lin while Unix controls its own destiny.
The Unix giants are still producing a good product, albeit for specialized usage. Solaris 8 was a good move by Sun as it offered up a strong PC based OS that matched up well to the Linux offerings. Sun's decision to not offer Solaris 9 in an X86 mode could stop fan growth. HP had mentioned that it would develop to the X86 platform (exclusively) once the Itanium 64 bit chips were standard. That would open the market for some more unix exposure.
Linux is becoming more windows like and the installations are becoming more "sit back and watch" installs. The huddling of SuSE, Corel, Conectiva, and Turbo Linux could produce some interesting market shifts. I see the folks with a strong IT back ground shifting over to linux and running windows with VMWare or Win4Lin while Unix controls its own destiny.
The Unix giants are still producing a good product, albeit for specialized usage. Solaris 8 was a good move by Sun as it offered up a strong PC based OS that matched up well to the Linux offerings. Sun's decision to not offer Solaris 9 in an X86 mode could stop fan growth. HP had mentioned that it would develop to the X86 platform (exclusively) once the Itanium 64 bit chips were standard. That would open the market for some more unix exposure.
With Itanium servers and 64 bit computing for Linux and windows, Unix will begin to show its bloated cost disadvantages. An Itanium windows or Linux server that costs around $30,000 would be equivialant to a Unix server costing $133,000..Ouch.
I'm glad to hear that somebody is willing to pay about $100,000 for ... let's say FreeBSD? :))
I think, the great winners with all this, will
be the community who made reality Linux.
Remember, Linux is a product of the internet
community and will benefit them (or us), at last.
The nature free of Linux warrants that nobody
will prevealwith a propietary version of Linux.
The community apologizes it's behavior like the
chaos, and will find the ways to equilibrate.
I visualize Linux like a big public O.S. and the
bussiness will center at added value. Hardware
and software makers only wishes clear rules to
compete and the only way to warrant this is with
an Operating System totally neutral.
be the community who made reality Linux.
Remember, Linux is a product of the internet
community and will benefit them (or us), at last.
The nature free of Linux warrants that nobody
will prevealwith a propietary version of Linux.
The community apologizes it's behavior like the
chaos, and will find the ways to equilibrate.
I visualize Linux like a big public O.S. and the
bussiness will center at added value. Hardware
and software makers only wishes clear rules to
compete and the only way to warrant this is with
an Operating System totally neutral.
1. Never say never.
2. IBM doesn't do well selling a commodity. Look what happened to the PC.
2. IBM doesn't do well selling a commodity. Look what happened to the PC.
I would like to think that for all our foibles as a species we do have some capacity to learn from our mistakes (albeit limited).
Look at networking standards. We had dozens of incompatible ways to "talk" to each other. Finally, we've all settled on TCP/IP for the most part and this is good. No one is rushing out to create a new proprietary communication protocol.
I think the same will happen with operating systems. We will all converge on one open, non-proprietary OS and it will become part of the infrastructure like TCP/IP. Hardware mfgrs will not have the incentive to fragment the OS for the sake of differentiation because they will realize interoperability is better- same way that TCP/IP has not fragmented into various incompatible implementations.
As for funding Linux development, the same mfgrs that are now funding their own proprietary OS, can take a small portion of that and fund a consortium that will benefit all participants. This is the delicate art of balancing competition vs. cooperation. The govt could even pitch-in if this were setup as a non-profit organization (as it should be). Finally, end users could always make contributions in some manner (time or money) as they do now to other public service organizations such as the Red Cross, Public TV/Radio, United Way, etc.
Look at networking standards. We had dozens of incompatible ways to "talk" to each other. Finally, we've all settled on TCP/IP for the most part and this is good. No one is rushing out to create a new proprietary communication protocol.
I think the same will happen with operating systems. We will all converge on one open, non-proprietary OS and it will become part of the infrastructure like TCP/IP. Hardware mfgrs will not have the incentive to fragment the OS for the sake of differentiation because they will realize interoperability is better- same way that TCP/IP has not fragmented into various incompatible implementations.
As for funding Linux development, the same mfgrs that are now funding their own proprietary OS, can take a small portion of that and fund a consortium that will benefit all participants. This is the delicate art of balancing competition vs. cooperation. The govt could even pitch-in if this were setup as a non-profit organization (as it should be). Finally, end users could always make contributions in some manner (time or money) as they do now to other public service organizations such as the Red Cross, Public TV/Radio, United Way, etc.
Yeah right, maybe in a perfect world.
Now lets all hold hands and sing Kumbia...
Now lets all hold hands and sing Kumbia...
the article seems to assume that large volume application development will be at the Operating system level .
"And the need for a unified platform on which to build large volume applications will drive people toward their only commercially viable option?Microsoft Windows"
I guess web based apps and web services aren't a trend that is being followed by the author . The future is mark up based user interfaces ( HTML , XML XSL ) coupled with HTTP/ other protocol based communication ( SOAP , webservices ) .That automatically means J2EE / .Net .So it's not a MS only world .
"And the need for a unified platform on which to build large volume applications will drive people toward their only commercially viable option?Microsoft Windows"
I guess web based apps and web services aren't a trend that is being followed by the author . The future is mark up based user interfaces ( HTML , XML XSL ) coupled with HTTP/ other protocol based communication ( SOAP , webservices ) .That automatically means J2EE / .Net .So it's not a MS only world .
paragraphs.
You have asserted that "The novelty of working on an OS as a public service will ultimately wear off" Please remember that Linux has been around for over 10 years now, with development continuously expanding that time. If the "novelty" was going to wear off, I belive it would have done so by now. Open Source / Free Software has never had to depend on vendors of any sort to grow, nor will it need to in the future.
Secondly, there are many Linux vendors with a profit motive already in existance (Red Hat, SuSe, and Mandrake, to give a few examples). Each is making major contributions to the growth of Linux, both in functionality and in user base.
Third, you raise the spectre of incompatibility between competing versions of Linux, comparing it to the Unices of the 80's. I would like to point out that the open source nature of Linux makes it extremely unlikely that any major code forking would occur. Since, under the GPL, source code to the Linux OS, (including changes and enhancements) must be made available to those who purchase the software from the vendor, the chance of any major enhancement remaining under one vendor's control is extremely minimal.
You have asserted that "The novelty of working on an OS as a public service will ultimately wear off" Please remember that Linux has been around for over 10 years now, with development continuously expanding that time. If the "novelty" was going to wear off, I belive it would have done so by now. Open Source / Free Software has never had to depend on vendors of any sort to grow, nor will it need to in the future.
Secondly, there are many Linux vendors with a profit motive already in existance (Red Hat, SuSe, and Mandrake, to give a few examples). Each is making major contributions to the growth of Linux, both in functionality and in user base.
Third, you raise the spectre of incompatibility between competing versions of Linux, comparing it to the Unices of the 80's. I would like to point out that the open source nature of Linux makes it extremely unlikely that any major code forking would occur. Since, under the GPL, source code to the Linux OS, (including changes and enhancements) must be made available to those who purchase the software from the vendor, the chance of any major enhancement remaining under one vendor's control is extremely minimal.
you raise the spectre of incompatibility between competing versions of Linux, comparing it to the Unices of the 80's. I would like to point out that the open source nature of Linux makes it extremely unlikely
I agree, hopefully, and I knowmany in the linux community are shooting to avoid the Unix incompatibility issues.
Unitedlinux is one meovment by several Unix distro's to assure standards on linux, although some are against it.
Linux will hopefully avoid the incompatibility issues of different distro's that haunt the Unix world. That is one of the advantages of windows. Migrating your DB from one windows machine to another is seamless...migrating your DB from SCO Unix to AIX unix etc is NOT seamless.
Unix fragmentation is one of the bad aspects of Unix. Your tied into the vendors Unix and platform.
I agree, hopefully, and I knowmany in the linux community are shooting to avoid the Unix incompatibility issues.
Unitedlinux is one meovment by several Unix distro's to assure standards on linux, although some are against it.
Linux will hopefully avoid the incompatibility issues of different distro's that haunt the Unix world. That is one of the advantages of windows. Migrating your DB from one windows machine to another is seamless...migrating your DB from SCO Unix to AIX unix etc is NOT seamless.
Unix fragmentation is one of the bad aspects of Unix. Your tied into the vendors Unix and platform.
"Unitedlinux is one meovment by several Unix distro's to assure standards on linux, although some are against it."
I believe that UnitedLinux is more a avenue to potential financial gain. Now that they have large corporate sponsorship (per se) and the world is waking up to the fact that there is a choice these companies are coming together to be the competitor to RedHat.
Each flavor of Linux basically directs the bulk of their attention to certain specific functions of the OS so that they can try to be the best at that function yet still be usable in all areas (one is porported to be the best Server version, another the most user friendly Desktop version, etc). By uniting they can have all the disciplines equally represented and make one kick-ass O/S.
Although, I don't believe they are looking at the basic software to generate the big $$$, moreover they are looking at paid Support and application software that will come later.
Just my 2 cents...
I believe that UnitedLinux is more a avenue to potential financial gain. Now that they have large corporate sponsorship (per se) and the world is waking up to the fact that there is a choice these companies are coming together to be the competitor to RedHat.
Each flavor of Linux basically directs the bulk of their attention to certain specific functions of the OS so that they can try to be the best at that function yet still be usable in all areas (one is porported to be the best Server version, another the most user friendly Desktop version, etc). By uniting they can have all the disciplines equally represented and make one kick-ass O/S.
Although, I don't believe they are looking at the basic software to generate the big $$$, moreover they are looking at paid Support and application software that will come later.
Just my 2 cents...
How did I know that a Langrave column on Linux would end up, no matter how slyly, denigrating it? It's absolutely amazing.
Where does the offhand assumption come from that the "novelty" of open source will wear off? Linux's development has very little to do with novelty and everything to do with practicality. As more people use Linux, there will be more people with a vested interest in contributing to the further development of the Linux core. The process will be momentum building, not draining. At most, what might happen is some financial and organization support from the major vendors to better manage the development process.
But, I wonder how many Tech Republic readers bother reading the comments which so often effectively debunk this site's relentless Microsoft boosterism.
Where does the offhand assumption come from that the "novelty" of open source will wear off? Linux's development has very little to do with novelty and everything to do with practicality. As more people use Linux, there will be more people with a vested interest in contributing to the further development of the Linux core. The process will be momentum building, not draining. At most, what might happen is some financial and organization support from the major vendors to better manage the development process.
But, I wonder how many Tech Republic readers bother reading the comments which so often effectively debunk this site's relentless Microsoft boosterism.
I agree with Paula, Landgrave is just a lapdog for MS and why shouldn't he be. All his bucks come from propping up organisations which use the buggy, unstable OS he loves so much. Running a Linux set up is much cheaper on sys admins, so less bucksfor him. Don't let the truth get in the way of a little self interest. I knew the punch line from the beginning. Waste of time reading this Tech Republic BS ant more.
I agree with Paula, Landgrave is just a lapdog for MS and why shouldn't he be. All his bucks come from propping up organisations which use the buggy, unstable OS he loves so much. Running a Linux set up is much cheaper on sys admins, so less bucksfor him. Don't let the truth get in the way of a little self interest. I knew the punch line from the beginning. Waste of time reading this Tech Republic BS ant more.
I agree with Paula, Landgrave is just a lapdog for MS and why shouldn't he be. All his bucks come from propping up organisations which use the buggy, unstable OS he loves so much. Running a Linux set up is much cheaper on sys admins, so less bucksfor him. Don't let the truth get in the way of a little self interest. I knew the punch line from the beginning. Waste of time reading this Tech Republic BS ant more.
I'm a Linux Lover/MS-Basher. Who can dislike a OS that is free and can do everything you can do with a MS-Server that costs $1500 if not more?? It's a no-brainier that Linux SHOULD be on the move but I think it will be slow b/c most folks are used to Windows. And Linux does take some getting used to. Nevertheless, I see a bright future for Linux.
Now if we can only get that darn X-windows to be phased out!!! Bring on the command line!!!!
Now if we can only get that darn X-windows to be phased out!!! Bring on the command line!!!!
Good god folks like you hurt the Linux movement. You should look at windows strengths, learn from them and try and help improve Linux to match it or better yet excel over it.
Windows has the workstation server integration advantages. Linux needs this as well. Linux also needs to standardize.
Also, Linux like windows has yet to prove itself in an enterprise environment running an enterprise DB. Not your lil cheesy poof MYSQL DB running some PHP application message board for your personal web site.
Windows has the workstation server integration advantages. Linux needs this as well. Linux also needs to standardize.
Also, Linux like windows has yet to prove itself in an enterprise environment running an enterprise DB. Not your lil cheesy poof MYSQL DB running some PHP application message board for your personal web site.
Say what you like about Oracle 9, unlike some cheesy poofs we could discuss, it does understand transactions. And it runs fine on Linux. I don't think they'd be spending the money and the reputation unless it worked and sold....
http://www.oracle.com/features/9i/index.html?t1db_unbrlinux.html
The PDF about the FAA ATC system is worth a look.
So I really can't agree that Linux isn't up to the serious stuff. There's no magic with server OS -- they just provide access to the disk and run the web server.
Maybe it's just that Larry thinks that promoting Linux will at last make him richer than Bill!
http://www.oracle.com/features/9i/index.html?t1db_unbrlinux.html
The PDF about the FAA ATC system is worth a look.
So I really can't agree that Linux isn't up to the serious stuff. There's no magic with server OS -- they just provide access to the disk and run the web server.
Maybe it's just that Larry thinks that promoting Linux will at last make him richer than Bill!
First of all let me say that I am an OS/400 guy, as well as an MSCE and Linux advocate. We have recently got rid of 2 clients' MS and Novell server to run them on Samba under RedHat Linux. Everything works well except the printing. We can print out text files, but that is about it. The plotters especially will do no drawings. The only solution I had, after many calls to the printer manufacturers and other tech support was to install a windows based print server. Now printing works fine. Other than that, Linux has been great!
Let the X-windows where it is, it makes incredibly much sense there. If only for bridging the M$ Windows users to the Open Source OSes ... And imagine doing Gimp without X ... :))
(Linux since RH4.1 up to SuSE8.0, FreeBSD since 4.5)
(Linux since RH4.1 up to SuSE8.0, FreeBSD since 4.5)
The second likely scenario is that these same companies will create their own enhanced, incompatible Linux versions in order to differentiate themselves. Linux could become like UNIX in the 80s. And the need for a unified platform on which to build large volume applications will drive people toward their only commercially viable option?Microsoft Windows.
In the first place, the GPL protects against this.
In the second place, Linus Torvalds has to approve all modifications to the kernel.
That said, there *are* slight incompatibilities in the Linux distros, mainly a matter of the paths for the libs. Otherwise, they're all source *and* binary compatible in the sense that a binary will run on Red Hat and its variants (Mandrake, Lycoris, etc) and on Debian, Slack, etc.
Regards
When is tech republic going to print out some decent articles? Sure has been a while...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't quite understand why the author feels that the excitement will wear off of open sourse and contributions will die out. Linux has bee going for close to 10 years now, and as a new generation embrasses it open sourse can only grow. As a user of Linux I understand what can be done with this O/S by us old hands, but as a member of a Linux user group, when some of the projects and possiblities are discussed for the application of Linux, my head swims in the information that is brought forward by the younger members. I came from a time when computers were a novelty turned tool, this next generation sees the tool that that is tried and true. And as these people spread the Linux word, price and availability will do the rest.
Should I write a program that works with Windows I must then persue a market for it, with Linux I can just throw it out there to watch it grow and evolve. There's no licensing no cost to me, and someone may find it, and then be able to modify and to enhance it to suit there needs. Sure Shareware and Freeware serve a similar function for the Window community, but it is not open source.
I think Open Source will only grow. The "novelty" should have worn off by now.
David Goss
David Goss
Should I write a program that works with Windows I must then persue a market for it, with Linux I can just throw it out there to watch it grow and evolve. There's no licensing no cost to me, and someone may find it, and then be able to modify and to enhance it to suit there needs. Sure Shareware and Freeware serve a similar function for the Window community, but it is not open source.
I think Open Source will only grow. The "novelty" should have worn off by now.
David Goss
David Goss
I must agree with the tenor of many of the replies here. The article is too superficial and too sensation seeking to be taken seriously. The author seems to link Linux and Open Source together as if (a) they are the same thing, and (b) that the fateof one is dependent on the fate of the other. Let's just look at Open Source for a minute.
Firstly, it's been around for a long time (longer than Microsoft) - it's a mature concept that has not only been keenly adopted, but has continued to grow in popularity.
Secondly, what has changed recently is media hype which has brought Open Source to the forefront. The media is a fickle being and its attention will drift somewhere else. But Open Source will continue - it doesn't depend on media exposure. So don't let's assume that that it will disappear just because a few media hacks move their short attention span somewhere else.
Linux, which is part of the Open Source environment has benefitted from that environment and arguably would not have grown into the product it is today without it.
Firstly, it's been around for a long time (longer than Microsoft) - it's a mature concept that has not only been keenly adopted, but has continued to grow in popularity.
Secondly, what has changed recently is media hype which has brought Open Source to the forefront. The media is a fickle being and its attention will drift somewhere else. But Open Source will continue - it doesn't depend on media exposure. So don't let's assume that that it will disappear just because a few media hacks move their short attention span somewhere else.
Linux, which is part of the Open Source environment has benefitted from that environment and arguably would not have grown into the product it is today without it.
If you can not see that linux is on the rise, then you can not see the nose on your face.
Lets keep in mind that Miscrosoft, stole most of its work from Apple, and or Xerox, and that they had a OS to build on since the late 70's or so. and now they just finaly have an OS that is as stable as my Redhat 5, XP is the first truly robust scalable and stable OS from microsoft.
Now lets look at linux, the first version came out in the 90's almost 20 years later. My last install of Linux wasRedhat 7.2 and it installed faster on a slower machine with fewer problems the XP did that i installed on the same day. Redhat was the first one to be up and running with out any errors and with every thing working correctly. XP's install that i started first took longer with all of its reboots, and updates, and patches, and what not. also Linux was cheaper, 65.00 vs 198. (usd). and Linux came with a free office software, that is as good as office XP that I also have, but lets look at the price, free vs 499. (usd).
I bought both machines at the same time and they have the exact same stuff inside.
cost of Linux VS Microsoft XP
machines Same 1068.85
OS 65.00 198.00
Office Free 499.00
total cost 1183.85 1765.85
savings of over 582 per machine
I know what i would want to save when i am building a new office, or what not. Right now all of the work machines in my office are running Linux and we have never had a serios problem
Linux Rulz,
Where do you want to go today?
Lets keep in mind that Miscrosoft, stole most of its work from Apple, and or Xerox, and that they had a OS to build on since the late 70's or so. and now they just finaly have an OS that is as stable as my Redhat 5, XP is the first truly robust scalable and stable OS from microsoft.
Now lets look at linux, the first version came out in the 90's almost 20 years later. My last install of Linux wasRedhat 7.2 and it installed faster on a slower machine with fewer problems the XP did that i installed on the same day. Redhat was the first one to be up and running with out any errors and with every thing working correctly. XP's install that i started first took longer with all of its reboots, and updates, and patches, and what not. also Linux was cheaper, 65.00 vs 198. (usd). and Linux came with a free office software, that is as good as office XP that I also have, but lets look at the price, free vs 499. (usd).
I bought both machines at the same time and they have the exact same stuff inside.
cost of Linux VS Microsoft XP
machines Same 1068.85
OS 65.00 198.00
Office Free 499.00
total cost 1183.85 1765.85
savings of over 582 per machine
I know what i would want to save when i am building a new office, or what not. Right now all of the work machines in my office are running Linux and we have never had a serios problem
Linux Rulz,
Where do you want to go today?
Consider replacing Linux with one of BSD Open Souce systems and the Open Souce Machine would be even less expensive, letting to the Micro$oft Machine the honor to be the cheaper one ... 
As Linux becomes more important to the profits of the big guys, they will be forced to control the direction of the enhancements to the core. But the real control will be done by surrounding Linux with non-GPL "applications" (aka. middleware, frameworks, virual machines, etc.). Sun controls Java/J2EE. IBM controls MQ Series and Websphere. The OS is not the platform anymore. The applications more and more depend on these higher level layers. The big guys have to battle for market share, so they will have to be different and that different code will never become Open Source unless it becomes the defacto standard. By which time, the big guys will have added another level of non-GPL code.
I hate buggy M$ products. Wherever possible I use open source.
Here's a question: Why are so many HW companies (Big Blue, Dell, Mac (sort of) even Sun now) starting to wave the penguin (and open source generally) flag? Because it's good? Partly. Because it's not M$? For sure.
Sure enough, it had to be seen to be viable first, but a lot of these companies have been burnt by Billy boy's hard-core trade practices in the past.
Obviously they want to make a buck, but the big thing is breakingthe monopoly. They will be working very hard to ensure there is a viable alternative to M$. If they can't own it themselves, they'll pick something no-one can own (thereby getting a bit of cooperation from other companies as well).
They aren't going to start mucking this up untill Microsoft is just another alternative, till Microsoft has to concentrate more on grunt and security than chrome, 'de-comoditizing', and killing companies they can't buy.
That's just my 2 cents (Australian cents too, so they're worth less than most)
PS. If anyone wants to understand why there are so many M$ bashers, go and read the Halloween Documents.
Here's a question: Why are so many HW companies (Big Blue, Dell, Mac (sort of) even Sun now) starting to wave the penguin (and open source generally) flag? Because it's good? Partly. Because it's not M$? For sure.
Sure enough, it had to be seen to be viable first, but a lot of these companies have been burnt by Billy boy's hard-core trade practices in the past.
Obviously they want to make a buck, but the big thing is breakingthe monopoly. They will be working very hard to ensure there is a viable alternative to M$. If they can't own it themselves, they'll pick something no-one can own (thereby getting a bit of cooperation from other companies as well).
They aren't going to start mucking this up untill Microsoft is just another alternative, till Microsoft has to concentrate more on grunt and security than chrome, 'de-comoditizing', and killing companies they can't buy.
That's just my 2 cents (Australian cents too, so they're worth less than most)
PS. If anyone wants to understand why there are so many M$ bashers, go and read the Halloween Documents.
I hate buggy M$ products. Wherever possible I use open source.
Here's a question: Why are so many HW companies (Big Blue, Dell, Mac (sort of) even Sun now) starting to wave the penguin (and open source generally) flag? Because it's good? Partly. Because it's not M$? For sure.
Sure enough, it had to be seen to be viable first, but a lot of these companies have been burnt by Billy boy's hard-core trade practices in the past.
Obviously they want to make a buck, but the big thing is breakingthe monopoly. They will be working very hard to ensure there is a viable alternative to M$. If they can't own it themselves, they'll pick something no-one can own (thereby getting a bit of cooperation from other companies as well).
They aren't going to start mucking this up untill Microsoft is just another alternative, till Microsoft has to concentrate more on grunt and security than chrome, 'de-comoditizing', and killing companies they can't buy.
That's just my 2 cents (Australian cents too, so they're worth less than most)
PS. If anyone wants to understand why there are so many M$ bashers, go and read the Halloween Documents.
Here's a question: Why are so many HW companies (Big Blue, Dell, Mac (sort of) even Sun now) starting to wave the penguin (and open source generally) flag? Because it's good? Partly. Because it's not M$? For sure.
Sure enough, it had to be seen to be viable first, but a lot of these companies have been burnt by Billy boy's hard-core trade practices in the past.
Obviously they want to make a buck, but the big thing is breakingthe monopoly. They will be working very hard to ensure there is a viable alternative to M$. If they can't own it themselves, they'll pick something no-one can own (thereby getting a bit of cooperation from other companies as well).
They aren't going to start mucking this up untill Microsoft is just another alternative, till Microsoft has to concentrate more on grunt and security than chrome, 'de-comoditizing', and killing companies they can't buy.
That's just my 2 cents (Australian cents too, so they're worth less than most)
PS. If anyone wants to understand why there are so many M$ bashers, go and read the Halloween Documents.
I hate buggy M$ products. Wherever possible I use open source, just remember that when read the following.
Here's a question: Why are so many HW companies (Big Blue, Dell, Mac (sort of) even Sun now) starting to wave the penguin (and open sourcegenerally) flag? Because it's good? Partly. Because it's not M$? For sure.
Sure enough, it had to be seen to be viable first, but a lot of these companies have been burnt by Billy boy's hard-core trade practices in the past.
Obviously they wantto make a buck, but the big thing is breaking the monopoly. They will be working very hard to ensure there is a viable alternative to M$. If they can't own it themselves, they'll pick something no-one can own (thereby getting a bit of cooperation from other companies as well).
They aren't going to start mucking this up untill Microsoft is just another alternative, till Microsoft has to concentrate more on grunt and security than chrome, 'de-comoditizing', and killing companies they can't buy.
That's just my 2 cents (Australian cents too, so they're worth less than most)
PS. If anyone wants to understand why there are so many M$ bashers, go and read the Halloween Documents.
Here's a question: Why are so many HW companies (Big Blue, Dell, Mac (sort of) even Sun now) starting to wave the penguin (and open sourcegenerally) flag? Because it's good? Partly. Because it's not M$? For sure.
Sure enough, it had to be seen to be viable first, but a lot of these companies have been burnt by Billy boy's hard-core trade practices in the past.
Obviously they wantto make a buck, but the big thing is breaking the monopoly. They will be working very hard to ensure there is a viable alternative to M$. If they can't own it themselves, they'll pick something no-one can own (thereby getting a bit of cooperation from other companies as well).
They aren't going to start mucking this up untill Microsoft is just another alternative, till Microsoft has to concentrate more on grunt and security than chrome, 'de-comoditizing', and killing companies they can't buy.
That's just my 2 cents (Australian cents too, so they're worth less than most)
PS. If anyone wants to understand why there are so many M$ bashers, go and read the Halloween Documents.
All the big unix vendors are already supporting Linux on their big Iron and as the usage rate climbs up at some point, Microsoft will have to give out Windows for free and concentrate more on support fees.
Till that time they can make a killing from the meeks who are still afraid to take the plunge.
But fragmentation is a worry - the big bucks can derail the whole stuff and do the dirty job for Microsoft if they wanted to do . But as of now everyone wants to make the money jumping ontothe bandwagon and lets hope linux community makes maximum benefit by making the most of this
arun
Till that time they can make a killing from the meeks who are still afraid to take the plunge.
But fragmentation is a worry - the big bucks can derail the whole stuff and do the dirty job for Microsoft if they wanted to do . But as of now everyone wants to make the money jumping ontothe bandwagon and lets hope linux community makes maximum benefit by making the most of this
arun
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
