General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2312967

    About the Future of Linux

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    A bunch of Linux questions:

    What percentage of the PC and/or server installations are currently running Linux? Is there some hard data available, or is it more or less a guesstimate?

    In 2 years, what percentage of the PC and/or server installations will be, or I suppose I should say, could be, running Linux? What about 5 years?

    It’s my understanding that Linux is open source and is free of cost. Is it all open source, and is it all free?

    Redhat, Inc. is a provider of Linux. Is there another provider? If so, who might that be?

    If the software is free, how does Redhat (and/or others) make money? Redhat is estimated to earn about $117 million this year, and $143 million next year, an increase of 22%. Who pays, and for what?

    What other companies are poised to make money because of linux? What do they provide?

    I read (about a year ago) that IBM entered into an agreement with Redhat (I think it was Redhat) to use linux on some IBM servers. Can anyone expand on this? Is this an exception, or are (will) more computer makers start offering this? (Maybe they already do.)

    Are there any other interesting tidbits about linux that I didn’t ask about? I’m not talking about functionality and/or which is better, this or that, but rather how ingrained it is and/or could be in the future of computing? In short, what is the potential future of linux? (As it pertains to companies – providers – making money because of it.)

    Why do I ask these things, you might wonder? Well, I don’t know much about linux, and I don’t have any linux installations, but I like the penguin, so I want to learn more.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2742546

      Disregard this discussion – I just saw. . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to About the Future of Linux

      …the article (and discussion) on the same subject which addresses many of my questions.

      • #2651878

        Which one was that?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Disregard this discussion – I just saw. . . .

        • #2651860

          Are you stalking him, in hopes of luring him back?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Which one was that?

          BTW, did you notice that he’s changed his avatar?

        • #2642677

          Oh, no!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Are you stalking him, in hopes of luring him back?

          Was that deliberate?

          [i]Are you stalking him, in hopes of [b]luring[/b] him back?

          BTW, did you notice that he’s changed his [b]avatar[/b]? [/i] – which is a sign that says “Gone [b]fishin[/b]'”.

          It could be just a coincidence, but I have to know for sure.

        • #2642649

          really, you have to know for sure?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Oh, no!

          ok.
          The email I sent via peermail and his reply:

          Hi Jaqui,

          Thanks for the email. I miss the good debates now and then as well. But I’m kinda’ focusing my efforts in another direction. The time I spent in those off-topic discussions has been redirected to something new. I don’t have time for both, so my choice has been made. I’m sure they’ll get along fine without me or my discussions. But thanks for the kind words. They really are appreciated.

          (But I do miss the opportunity to argue that man-caused global warming IS the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind! Those who’ll inhabit the Earth in forty or fifty years will look back and laugh at those dupes. Okay, Max, don’t get started………. don’t………)

          Best Regards……

          One of your fellow TechRepublic members has sent you a private message:

          From: Jaqui
          Subject: hey you
          Message:
          everyone on TR is still complaining because you left.

          not enough good debates any more in the discussions.

        • #2642644

          side note

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to really, you have to know for sure?

          I saw Max on TR the day I received the reply to the peer contact email.

          He didn’t post anything, but he was here reading the discussions. 🙂

        • #2642641

          Or, he may have been editing his prior posts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to side note

          There’d be no way of ascertaining that without reviewing all of his past post, observing any and all Edit Dates, and comparing those to that during which he was observed to be logged-in.

        • #2642642

          Forensic analysis is inconclusive.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to really, you have to know for sure?

          On the surface, the style of writing appears to [b]not[/b] be that of max.

          Furthermore, that he should, on the one hand, purge his Profile, thereby removing the evidence of his publicly acclaimed stance re. GW, but on the other hand, claim in a recent missive to miss discussing such, lacks an air of credibility.

          Then, again, perhaps max really is a Sybil.

        • #2642627

          or

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Forensic analysis is inconclusive.

          his other activities are professional in nature and having his name tied into the sensative subjects could hurt the venture(s) he is currently pursuing

          I know Max and I usually were on opposite sides of the discussions, but neither of us took it personally. A non inflamatory message wouldn’t generate an inflamatory response.

        • #2642613

          “A non inflamatory message wouldn’t generate an inflamatory response”?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Forensic analysis is inconclusive.

          Only if one considers blind obeisance the measure, as max did indeed frequently go off the deep end at the merest hint of disagreement.

          In fact, more often than not, his “rebuttals” were purely [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks, directed not at the message but knowingly and deliberately at the messenger alone.

          I, frankly, would not count his “professionalism” elsewhere, such as may or may not be the case, when compared to his behavior here, as weighing much in the balance.

        • #2642149

          On Max

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Forensic analysis is inconclusive.

          Deep, Max was not always so fast to boil over. If you look at his (much) earlier posts, he forged a good reputation. Over time, his fuse shortened… This happens to nearly everyone once in a while. A break, I often told him, would do him good. I backed off a lot, too, and I feel better for it.

        • #2642630

          Most Excellant

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to really, you have to know for sure?

          – 40 or 50 years – we’ll all be enjoying a good laff and a cool drink on our beachfront property in Montana 🙂

        • #2642621

          40 or 50 years?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Most Excellant

          If the current warming trend continues at the same rate, less than that.

          Check the antarctic melts in the last few years, there was one 3 month period where 200 miles of ice broke off and floated away.. 200 miles at 3 miles thick is a lot of water. yet it is less than 1% of the water in the antarctic ice cap. The scary part is, that is the ice cap that is actually resting it’s mass on land. It is so heavy it has pushed the continental plate under sea level. if that ice cap was to float away, the reduction in pressure would have that land rise, causing changes to the tectonic plates around the world. This COULD lead to massive numbers of volcanic eruptions, it would cause a huge number of earthquakes around the world as the plates adjusted to a new balance.

          The higher humidity from that ice melting would promote higher temperatures, melting more areas we currently call permanent ice caps, like the mountain tops in the higher ranges.

          doesn’t matter if the warming trand is natural or not. doesn’t matter if humans contribute or not. if we don’t pay attention to it those living near sea level will be living below sea level.

          the antarctic ice cap itself contains enough water to raise sea levels by appoximately 120 meters. that is in the area of 500 feet.

          The artic ice cap is not supported by land, it freely floats on the ocean, so it melting is of no concequence to sea levels. it has ecological concequences, such as causing many creatures adapted to the arctic climate to have no climate suitable to survive in.

          most people live in the northern hemisphere, we tend to forget about the impact of the southern hemisphere on us and visa versa.

        • #2642610

          Let’s not forget the Greenland ice cap.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Most Excellant

          It contains a volume of water roughly equivalent to that of all the Gulf of Mexico.

          And, there is recent evidence to suggest that it’s might be about to begin melting even faster, owing to the presence of a hot spot in the Earth’s mantle beneath it.

          Luckily, having been born and raised there, I’ll feel right at home back in the Appalachian Mountains.

Viewing 0 reply threads