General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2185050

    convince me


    by jaqui ·

    tell me why I would want to switch to using windows.

    why would I want to become vulnerable to 100% of viruses, 100% of exploits?
    why would I want to become at the mercy of one company, that has no vested interest in keeping my business a going concern?
    ( I know linux and apple don’t either, but linux at least wants compatability, and tries to address issues [ apple is as bad with macs as ms is with windows for proprietary ] )

    what does windows offer that cannot be met with linux?

    this is an opportunity for you to sell windows, go for it.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3047465

      Why not go even one better and use Unix..

      by black panther ·

      In reply to convince me

      A trusted ‘propriety’ brand like IBM’s AIX or HP /UX? 🙂

      Uptime ( as long as I want it to be )

      Viruses ( none )

      • #3047461

        Essentially because they successfully

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Why not go even one better and use Unix..

        targetted the OS at high end boxes not the home/utility PC.
        Unix is seen as a big iron solution, the only time I’ve seen it used was way back when on things like the HP9000 series and more recently on Sun/Solaris Oracle DB boxes. Linux is already a far better attempt to break into the PC market than the rare attempts made at it with flavours of PC-Unix.
        Uptime is not an issue for linux anymore than it is for Unix or VMS.
        Unix/vendor ? beats linux on the support front, but that’s only a worth while advantage in big time critical business solutions like say telecomms and banking. For a medium scale MIS server in non critical application it’s not value for money.

      • #3047436

        why not..

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Why not go even one better and use Unix..

        use the original, bsd.
        open bsd, netbsd, freebsd.
        all closer to the original than commercial unix.
        irix, is unix
        beos is unix.
        linux in a clone of unix.
        ( LINus’ UniX or Linux Is Not UniX, both been used for the name, for both are valid )

        all have the same benefits.

        • #3047430

          I always thought Linux was built more off of Minix

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to why not..

          ‘Course Minix was a Mini-Unix… 😉

        • #3047428

          well, it’s

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I always thought Linux was built more off of Minix

          part of the common history on learning linux books…

          a computer science student asked on usenet if anyone wanted to help him write a clone of unix that would run on a 386.

          this was the official birth of linux.

          a couple of years later, they had this great kernel, but not much else.

          meanwhile, had a great set of tools, but no kernel that was reliable.
          they approached the linux-kernel group, and asked if they wanted to partner up.
          creating the birth of
          ( GNU = GNU is Not Unix )

          we are just to lazy to call it gnu linux and call it linux.
          ( the kernel obviously being the most important part of an os )

        • #3055992

          A common misconception

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to I always thought Linux was built more off of Minix

          This story sheds some light on that:,39020390,39155268,00.htm

          As for the credibility of the Microsoft de Tocqueville Institution, Slashdot has a nice one:

          There’s no defense against the truth.

          A quick Google for the original Torvalds/Tannenbaum flame wars should prove both educating and entertaining. That may be one of the best flame wars ever.

    • #3047460


      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to convince me

      No can’t
      To stick with it yes, but to move to it, the arguments are going to be worse than those for switching the other way.

      • #3047437


        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Well

        I figure we always see people complaining about windows getting bashed, yet they never have any praise for it.
        lets give the rabid windows only people the chance.

        let them show exactly why someone should use windows instead of linux, irix, *bsd, beos.

        ( 10 times as much software for the *x systems.
        better security with the *x systems.
        maybe .001% of the malware for *x systems. )

        let the anti *x people give valid reasons to use it. 🙂

      • #3047435

        support the economy?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Well

        think of all the money you put back into the economy? Spyware checkers. Antivirus. Office products. OS. You are doing a public service by giving all of your money to other people.

        The fact that you will end up with a less stable system is besides the point. Look at the greater good that is served here.

        With you, it is all about me me me. :^O

        • #3046512

          Go Go Go

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to support the economy?

          Everyone should buy microsoft. Happiness is not the only thing in life after all 😀

    • #3048716

      What Windows Offers

      by lordshipmayhem ·

      In reply to convince me

      >>what does windows offer that cannot be met with linux?<< Windows keep mosquitoes and other insects out. Windows keep cold winds out during the winter. Windows keep air-conditioned air inside during the summer. By putting shades up, windows give you sunlight without losing privacy. And Pella now offers one with the blinds between the glass!! It allows a sound-proof environment while you're surfing the net on your Linux computer.

      • #3050371

        Windows offers many things

        by spyguy2you ·

        In reply to What Windows Offers

        I think most of the people in the world target windows only bcoz 90% of computers worldwide has windows o/s installed and here is the game….I can see that everyone is worried about Windows except billgates:)). If you dont want to use then please dont but let not ur lack of expertise in handling windows put blame on microsoft. windows is more flexible and open to both users and attackers. and i strongly believe that if u have expertise then u can make ur windows more secure and user-friendly than any other OS…..

        • #3050325

          more flexible?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Windows offers many things

          there is only one gui option.
          one interface style.
          zero install options.
          it has 1% of the flexability of linux.

          with 2 million plus registered linux users, figuring at best that is 10 percent of people using linux personally.
          over 20 million personal computers running linux.
          freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, bsd, irix, beos, solaris, unix, hpux. figure about another 500 million.
          making ms running on less than 60% of systems worldwide.

        • #3050263

          Don’t forget the Chinese aren’t going to use Windows

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to more flexible?

          That means 1 billion Linux users 😉

        • #3050220

          True, But…

          by firstpeter ·

          In reply to Don’t forget the Chinese aren’t going to use Windows

          But since China is a communist country that would imply that Linux is better for communists, and no red-blooded American should ever find themselves in line with the commies, so no red-blooded American should ever use Linux.


          Wow – I love it when I can go completely irrational in a post instead of sticking with my normal perfectly-phrased, completely correct responses.

        • #3047931

          Sure they are.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Don’t forget the Chinese aren’t going to use Windows

          They’re using it now. They’ve got one CD of XP Home and they pass it around. You should see the waiting list.

          The government isn’t going to buy it, but there tons of bootleg Windows and Office CD out on the Chinese black market. Somebody is buying and installing them. Lots of somebodies.

        • #3047888

          but do you

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Sure they are.

          know why china has officially adopted linux?
          because no-one in china can legally buy windows or windows based software.

          seems that the home countries of the software development teams won’t allow export to china.

          yes, you cannot buy windows in china.
          that’s why china was always getting nailed for hacking attempts, they wanted to get software.

        • #3049488


          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to but do you

          We have an Office in China, they didn’t have any problems buying Windows XP…

        • #3067179

          If both are “free”, why load Windows?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to but do you

          This thread raises an interesting question.

          Why would millions of people install bootleg Windows and Office when they could install a legal Linux distro instead?

        • #3067070


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to but do you

          China adopted linux officially before the government opened to allow western business into China.

          at the time they made the decision, you couldn’t get windows, or software for it in china.

          When they opened the doors for us companies to start manufacturing there, they opened the doors for all sorts of trade that was previously blocked by both sides.

        • #3067031

          Verb tenses

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to but do you

          “no-one in china can legally buy windows or windows based software.”
          “the home countries of the software development teams won’t allow export to china.”
          “you cannot buy windows in china.”

          I think you need to study the use of verb tenses. You use the present tense. Based on your follow-up posting (Shadrath, “they opened the doors for all sorts of trade that was previously blocked by both sides”), I think you meant to use the past tense.

          Fish usually flip-flop when they’re caught.

        • #3068657

          Windows bootlegs . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Sure they are.

          . . . make great coasters.

          They’re using them to hold their drinks in China. That’s why they’re so popular.

        • #3068596

          What is this, “Revisit Comatose Threads Week”?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Windows bootlegs . . .

          I almost wish someone would start a new “Windows vs. Linux” discussion just so we’d quit reviving the old ones.


        • #3071796

          New discussion?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Windows bootlegs . . .

          I could do that. I could do that very easily.

          Someone posted to this discussion, which caught my attention (since I was subscribed to it), and I decided to post about coasters. Is that so wrong?

        • #3071729

          You’re not wrong.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Windows bootlegs . . .

          I am. I really must learn to ignore these antiques when they reappear at the top of my “Discussions Participated In” list. I can understand your responding, but I don’t know why someone would suddenly chime in on a thread that hadn’t seen any activity in weeks. I guess its a way to try to get the last word.

        • #3044432

          1 billion that can’t use 90%

          by b8zs49 ·

          In reply to Don’t forget the Chinese aren’t going to use Windows

          1 billion that can’t use 90% of the exsisting applications out there right now.

          Don’t get me wrong I think Microsoft is a half-assed OS. However, they still has the ability to make a real Operating System, but they are to focused on a Windows PC in every home. They should be spending the resouces on a complete ground up overhaul. It won’t be in my lifetime though.

        • #3045346

          China is the biggest highjacker of Windows

          by t165 ·

          In reply to Don’t forget the Chinese aren’t going to use Windows

          I’ve seen several investigational exposes on China. Apparently intellectual property goes against communist beliefs. As a result you can pick up a pirated copy of Windows for $2 on the street in China. They will use Windows they just won’t line Bill Gates pockets with Yen to use it.

        • #3067050

          Open Source

          by rajpatel ·

          In reply to more flexible?

          Well yes windows is more flexible…what you want to do with many desktop changing options? when is quite enough???? you want to work on your documents or want to keep watching your desktop settings or keep on changing settings like today Gnome tommarow KDE and so on? why my dear? why you want to waste your time on desktop or any system settings when you need to work fast to compete in this fast changing world or you just want to sit and change the system settings instead of working to enable your company earn more or you want to waste your time going through command lines to set up JAVA (takes atleast 30minutes on linux box to set it up properly and in windows it takes less then 2minutes) same goes for all other applications we need to install…

          anyways there is many other reason to use windows but im not a s.o. of microsoft so do what ever you want.

        • #3066967

          Wow! Another Windows Bashing Session!!

          by compwzrd ·

          In reply to Open Source

          Can someone please call my 70 year old grandmother and tell her why she should switch from Windows XP to Unix??? After you do that, you can teach her how to open the console to “Build” the EXE file to install her greeting card program in Linux. (if they even have one)
          It’s fine for all of us who KNOW how to use a computer to talk about which OS fits us best. But explain to the “computer illiterate” (as they like to call themselves) why he can’t buy the “Nascar 2005” CD he saw at Walmart and load it on his Unix machine. And why there will be no one to call at Midnight when Open Office gives him an error message when he’s trying to save an important document. All this “Free” software for Unix (my experience is mainly with Linux) mostly has to be compiled before you can even install it. The average Joe can NOT do that. Nor is he easily going to find someone who DOES know. Lets face it. The MS infection has begun. Resistance is Futile!!! 😉 BTW- I prefer MAC OSX!!!

        • #3066516

          Uh, you do know Mac OS X is Unix, right? ;-)

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Wow! Another Windows Bashing Session!!

          My dad has a far easier time with a Mac than with a PC.

          ‘Course that is ’cause Mac made Unix easy…

        • #3066397

          Let me get this straight

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Wow! Another Windows Bashing Session!!

          Your Grandma has a direct out of hours contact with Bill ?
          There are arguments for windows, Microsoft support is not one of them.
          Resistance can be ineffective and unproductive but’s it’s only considered futile by those that don’t want you to consider it.
          You might want to get up to speed on the latest linux distros, before you suck you own toes in public again.

        • #3055983

          apt-get install whatever

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to Wow! Another Windows Bashing Session!!

          The install process for most Debian-based distros is so easy I could fit it in a 75-character title field with room to spare. In fact, I just did. But, unlike Windows, you can, if you choose to, compile the source yourself to enable certain extra features, disable unnecessary ones, optimize for your CPU architecture, etc. etc. etc. The customization options for most Windows programs usually amounts to selecting a different directory than somewhere in C:\Program Files.

          One day, I had some time to kill while a smoked a cigarette, so I decided to install Apache since I happened to be sitting in front of the computer at the time. The installation was done before my cigarette was. Yes, that’s right, a full-blown, industry-leading web server installed in less than 4 minutes. You can’t get any simpler than apt-get install apache puff puff puff done.

          If Micro$oft is an infection, Linux is penicillin. And, just like real penicillin, it might take a couple of days for the sickness to go away completely, but when it does, you feel SO much better.

        • #3066400

          Two minutes

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Open Source

          for which version of the JRE ?


          The one written for windows, oh that explains it then.

        • #3068313

          Tony, that explains what?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Two minutes

          I’m confused.

          Rajpatel says it takes him two minutes to install the Java runtime engine under Windows but 30 under Linux. You say that’s because he’s install the JRE for Windows.

          What other JRE should he be installing on a Windows box? Based on your other postings I get the impression you were trying to show why this makes Windows inferior. Unfortunately, it just looks like you’re saying the Windows JRE installs faster than the Linux one because one is made for Windows and one is made for Linux. This doesn’t doesn’t reflect well on Linux or apps written for it. Perhaps it’s because I don’t know much about the nuts and bolts of jRE.

        • #3068285

          Well actually

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Tony, that explains what?

          I’m more likely to say the JRE is inferior.

          The JRE is a terrible piece of technology to use as a comparison between the OS’s, it’s wholly based on the trusted computing model which gives linux hiccups at best of times.

          Sun only recommend it for three distros and Netscape & IE for browsers. So I think we can take a guess why it’s hard to install on linux.

        • #3068278


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Open Source

          funny, installing sun’s j2re in linux is a simple su
          and install the rpm or deb.

          it doesn’t install on most sources distros.
          since most sources distros don’t support rpm or deb.

        • #3055986

          Why is it…

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to Open Source

          …that the dumbest, most incoherent posts always come from the managers? Is there some sort of Micro$oft-funded lobotomy IT managers have to go through or something?

        • #3050229

          Umugulu the God

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Windows offers many things

          of the Jungle also engenders a great deal of belief, experts on his writings can’t begin to understand how any alternative could ever be considered.
          Still those of us who’ve experienced other belief systems have a more rounded and informed outlook on life, death and IT.

          If Umugulu co-incidentally happens to be a real deity, it was not my intent to offend any of his worshippers, just Bill’s.

          Lack of expertise ?

        • #3049447

          B as in B, S as in S

          by cio at alphabetas ·

          In reply to Windows offers many things

          First of all, there is no way to make Windows MORE user friendly
          than a Mac. None. I would even argue that it can not be made
          even nearly as user friendly.

          Second, there is no way to make Windows MORE secure than any
          *NIX based platform gievn the same precautionary activities.
          Unless you unplug it.

          And the numbers thing (and the numbers you quote are wrong
          as well, just generalizations really) is also a fallacy. The facts are
          that the OS passes system calls through to the Kernel, which is
          why it is EASY to do it on W2k or XP, and HARD to do it on *NIX
          platforms which run outside the kernels in shells.

          I have 25 years of experience with multiple platforms, have an
          MCP for years, and have been trained as an MCSE but just
          haven’t bothered to get the actual certs and keep them up (I
          don’t need them for what I do). My experience tells me it is you
          who lack experience and knowledge, mostly about other OSes
          and their strengths, and that you Ostrich yourself about trhe
          many many serious flaws Windows introduces at every turn.

    • #3048675

      One day……..

      by choppit ·

      In reply to convince me

      If you’re able to meet all your needs using Linux today, then you’ll be hard to convince (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). Just remain open to the possibility that one day, however far away, however unlikely, that you may be presented with a compelling reason to switch. Personally, I choose to go with the best solution for my needs, which at this point in time is a mixed Windows/Linux environment.

      • #3048541


        by jaqui ·

        In reply to One day……..

        we are trying to give the windows is the only possible solution people a chance to brag about thier os here.

        • #3048531

          Bills Vision…just a thought!

          by black panther ·

          In reply to shhh…

          ….do you think we would all have a PC at home without his original vision??? If we were to wait for the mathematicians at the universities would we still be waiting 🙂 and what cost would we be paying?

        • #3048459

          Vison needs new glasses

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Bills Vision…just a thought!

          Sure, Bill might have been one of the marketing forces driving the growth of home PCs. That doesn’t mean he had the best solutions, or that he has them now. It means currently he has the market cornered. Everyone here is tired of hearing me make the comparison, but just because McDonalds is the first / largest seller of fast food doesn’t mean they’re the best.

        • #3047828

          Bill’s ‘vision’ was someone else’s idea

          by ronk2 ·

          In reply to Bills Vision…just a thought!

          Some vision, Bill stole or copied someone else’s ideas for the most part. He bought Dos which was a poor derivative of UNIX. He saw a GUI developed by a think tank at Zerox, and came up with windows. IBM paid him to develop OS2 and he developed Windows. Do you think IBM felt ripped off? How many software developers have had their ideas stolen by Visionary Bill? Just look at how many times he’s been sued.

        • #3049508

          Bills Vision.???????????????

          by jcrobso ·

          In reply to Bills Vision…just a thought!

          As I remember it Apple that invented the PC. Bill only got involved after IBM hired him to do DOS for the IBM PC and this was a few years after the Apple came out.

        • #3049441

          HIS “Original” vision?

          by cio at alphabetas ·

          In reply to Bills Vision…just a thought!

          Was DOS my friend.
          A better question is what would (Or wouldn’t) exist without Apple
          being liberally borrowed from (yes, please remind us again about
          PARK and the mouse… please) by MS.
          You’d still be in 16 colors…

        • #3054787

          The good old days

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to Bills Vision…just a thought!

          I had a Commodore 64 before Windows even existed. Everyone I knew back then had either a C-64 (most popular), an Apple ][, or a TRS-80. Personal computing was around long before Windows started to take hold. If you want to give the credit to only one person for the entire PC revolution, I’d suggest two candidates: Doug Engelbart or Steve Jobs. Jobs is an a$$hole, but his masterpice, the NeXT machine, was so far ahead of its time that Hasta la Vista is still trying to play catch-up. There are dozens of others I’d give the credit to first.

          Gates’s role in the PC revolution is close to Henry Ford’s role in the automobile revolution. Ford didn’t invent the car (that was Benz), and he didn’t invent the assembly line (that was Olds), but he was the first to make the combination an overwhelming commercial success and thereby commoditizing the product. Nevertheless, Ford often erroneously gets credit for inventing either or both of these things, just as Gates erroneously gets credited for inventing the PC, the window, or both.

          Good technology will inevitably find its way out of the hallowed ivory towers of academia if it is useful to society as a whole. The most obvious example: the Internet.

        • #3054624

          Kinda agree, but

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to The good old days

          The Internet didn’t supplant any existing technology already in use by a large sector of the public. (Yes, it did replace bulletin boards, etc., but these were in limited use by the general public.) Linux replacing Windows on the home desktop is a different migration. I’m not saying this change won’t occur, just that the Internet is not a very good comparison of academia-to-real world.

      • #3048026

        Yet again…

        by jrod86 ·

        In reply to One day……..

        Linux software is no comparison to other professional grade software (I’m talking multi-media software) that is offered in Windows and Mac OS. I’ve tried the crap that Linux offers for free (no wonder it’s free, you can’t work efficiently, nor accomplish the same quality results).

        But, I agree with Choppit, I too continue to use a Windows/Linux environment.

        • #3049833

          there are some..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Yet again…

          quality multimedia apps for linux.
          ( I haven’t been impressed, but they are well respected apps in windows and mac dreamscapes. 🙂 )
          both run on linux

          another that I’ve heard of but not seen at all, linux only

        • #3049028

          You need to do a little more research..

          by shadowpassword ·

          In reply to Yet again…

          For starters there is plenty of commercial software along with the open source software available for linux for multimedia use. Else why would studios like Disney, Double Negative, DreamWorks Animation be producing movies such as Star Wars, Harry Potter, Shrek (to name a few) on linux? You can find this information as well as available commercial and open source software at

          BTW, you should think long and hard before you start calling open source software *crap*.

        • #3049024

          problem is..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to You need to do a little more research..

          that ac3d, blender, wings3d, povray modeller…
          are not anywhere near as high a quality as max, maya, lightwave, c4d, softimagexsi…
          and even a lot of people using linux don’t know where to get high quality 3d software for linux.

          have you checked out cinelerra?

          open source movie editing and rendering tool, for linux.

        • #3068544


          by choppit ·

          In reply to Yet again…

          I certainly wouldn’t call the Linux offerings ‘crap’, some are certainly wannabes but many are simply at a different stage in evolution compared to their Windows counterparts.

        • #3067370


          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Evolution

          Programs aren’t subject to “evolution”, they are created by “intelligent design” 🙂

        • #3068085


          by choppit ·

          In reply to Evolution?

    • #3048510

      Only one reason to switch any OS

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to convince me

      The only reason to switch an OS is if you find an application that will not run under another.

      I doubt 100% of viruses and exploits are targeted at Windows. Most maybe, but not every single one.

      As you noted yourself, your second point is irrelevant. How are you defining compatability? With Windows, you’re compatible with the majority of desktop / laptop OS installations in the Western world.

      I’m not defending Windows, but your phrasing makes it appear you started this discussion just to bad-mouth it.

      • #3048496

        re compatability.

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Only one reason to switch any OS

        take any linux formated hard drive and install in onto a windows pc.
        you cannot access the data on it.
        windows is NOT compatable with linux.

        reverse it, linux will allow you to read and write to the hard drive.

        basic filesystem access is the foundation for compatability.

        btw, with over 200 million registered linux users alone, add in macs, solaris, *bsd you will find that ms barely has 50% of the total market share.

        • #3050415

          This incompatibility

          by voldar ·

          In reply to re compatability.

 solved it “half way” :D. And you’ll be able to have the other way arround too.
          Or, maybe … not 😉

          And one reason to give for using Microsoft – AutoCAD and every other CAD programs that are, for now, so childish in Linux.
          Give me one single example of software for Linux that do what AutoCAD 2005 do (or any version starting with 14) and I give you the credit you know what are you talking about.

        • #3050327

          you are

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to This incompatibility

          right, there is a dearth of professional level cad/cam apps for linux.

          but, you can do exactly the same thing with maya.
          as well as use maya to create a video presentation of the design, with a flythrough and full details included.
          ( autocad can’t do that last )

          biggest difference between them is that maya is a modelling app first, it can export it’s models as dxf files, for blueprinting.

        • #3049676

          Reply To: convince me

          by gargantuchet ·

          In reply to you are

          I may be underestimating Maya.

          AutoCAD can do engineering simulations — laminar flow, mechanical stress, etc. You can create several structural designs and AutoCAD will be able to tell you which is strongest.

          CAD isn’t always about simple modeling. It’s often about real-world physics and engineering simulation.

          What engineering functions does Maya offer?

        • #3049619

          hmmm good question..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          I know that for amination purposes it has a lot of real world physics data, using particle streams to show flows on objects, and dynamics to show stresses.

          it was not written as a cad tool, but when a cam tool gets into the particle flows for smoke, wind, rain, fire and dynamics for clothing and hair, they have gotten a lot, if not all, the same tools as a cad system, just focussed differently.

        • #3050110


          by mcollins1 ·

          In reply to re compatability.

          I found (using Fedora) that I required an NTFS reader to view a Windows disk (Obv. because it is a differnet file system). So this kinda disproves your last point…
          Just my ?0.02…

        • #3048065

          actually it proves it..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to NTFS

          you had to get and use a tool to access it, but you could.

          ( and that is actually red hat’s fault, there is read write support for ntfs available, they just didn’t include it.
          ( it’s generally installed only when you have an ntfs formatted drive / partition during linux install )

        • #3049434

          Then use a mac

          by cio at alphabetas ·

          In reply to NTFS

          And you can see/view/copy to and from NTFS, HFS, HFS+ FAT,
          FAT32, and UFS systems…
          All from the finder installed on every Mac.

        • #3048024

          I’d like to see your source…

          by jrod86 ·

          In reply to re compatability.

          for those numbers. There is no real way to measure the market share because you can really skew the numbers in favor of either OS if you want to.

          You can’t track the true number of Linux users because of all the free downloads and multiple OS’s on single PC’s. And, you can’t track Windows because they count all the boxes on the shelf at Best Buy (not to mention the people that buy a computer with Windows and switch to Linux). So, those numbers could be way off base.

          PS – I’m just trying to keep people honest, it does feel like you started this thread just to continue the ever wonderful Windows bashing…in yet another thread.

        • #3048017


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I’d like to see your source…

          is where I got the linux numbers.

          I estimate that maybe 10% actually register.
          the counter actually counts machines according to person, as well as multiboot by person.

          so, for evey person running a netowrk of 10 machines, that is one user by thier count.

          the fortune 500 that has linux servers, is one user, yet they have 20 machines running linux..

          that’s where I estimated 200 million users for linux. ( yup, I posted 200 million registered, to account for multiple machines in server rooms. )

          OS Hits
          Linux + linspire 269 M
          Win3.1/95/98/2000/ME 88 M
          Win2003/Server 19 M
          WinXP 33 M
          WinNT 33 M
          WinLonghorn 33 M
          TOTAL WIN 162 M
          Solaris 27 M
          *BSD 55 M
          NetWare (Novell) 7 M
          Mac (Os X) 6 M

          results from google and teoma’s records of search terms by os.. february 2005

        • #3047979

          Thanks for the source.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to here

          Servers aren’t users; servers are corporate infrastructure. Each of those Linux servers may be providing data to dozens of Windows computers. If you’re going to include those Windows computers as Linux users, then you’ve got to count Linux users as Windows users if they connect to a Windows server.

          Their numbers include all devices running Linux (phones, TiVO, etc.) not just desktop / laptop computers.

        • #3047959

          but even

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Thanks for the source.

          a server has someone maintaining it.
          that is a user.

          I noticed after posting the link that they include devices.
          thier reasoning is valid… but it’s an arguable inclusion.

    • #3048483

      a few things…

      by jck ·

      In reply to convince me

      Not that I’m a big Windows supporter…because…I’m not. But:

      1) No OS is vulnerable to 100% of viruses and exploits. Some viruses are OS specific, and some exploits applicable to software found only on one OS platform.

      2) In actuality, you don’t have to be at the mercy of one company…and in fact, you can run server-based Windows-compatible software under emulation on Unix/Linux platforms now with 99.9% compatibility. Therefore, you can cut MS out of the picture while running MS-compatible apps.

      3) What does Windows offer that Linux doesn’t? 3rd party software choices. Speaking strictly from an aspect of software available for that OS…Linux is severely limited…at least for the time being.

      BTW…I’m not selling Windows…just trying to marginalize the sensationalism…

      and…I’m still working with Linux at home in my spare time…and trying to convince the boss here at work to do linux-based database servers.

      Thank God for ADO.NET…proof-positive Microsoft doesn’t understand client/server database concepts…helps me with my case to get Linux and a Linux-based SQL database online.

      • #3050331

        re #3

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to a few things…

        3rd party name brand software choices.
        but there are far more options for linux.
        ( sourceforge, freshmeat both have far more options that are linux only than windows only. )

    • #3048454

      The Issue

      by firstpeter ·

      In reply to convince me

      I think this is where a lot of people completely miss the boat. There isn’t a compelling reason to move Linux->Windows, nor is there a compelling reason to move Windows->Linux for a majority of users today.

      If you’re currently an average Linux user and are comfortable there then there’s not much to convince you to move to Windows.

      If you’re currently an average Windows user and are comfortable there then there’s not much to convince you to move to Linux.

      Windows is not vulnerable to 100% of viruses and exploits.

      Linux is not vulnerable to 0% of viruses and exploits.

      Neither MS nor Linux distros have great concern about your business, but both have excellent support structures.

      Microsoft has security issues. Linux has split personality issues. Pick your poison.

      But the bottom line is that, for the most part, there is not a compelling reason to move from one platform to the other if you’re comfortable with what you’re using and it gets the job done well.

      • #3049422


        by cio at alphabetas ·

        In reply to The Issue

        No compelling reason to move from Windows to Linux? Cmon…
        the VAST majority of attacks are there because Windows is so
        easy to hack or subdue.
        The average guy with zero to small tech ability spends 2 hours a
        month cleaning crap and updating OS, Antivir, AntiSpyware, etc.
        Most spend as much as 2 hours a week.
        Then they still generally yearly reformat and reinstall.
        so, 24 to 96 hours a year… three work days to 12 work days of
        time a year…
        That’s a vacation with your kids, rekindling the romance with the
        wife/husband fer cryin out loud.
        That is the difference between using Windows on an always on
        BB connection and using Linux or a MAC.
        Make mine Apple, please, and hold the extra junk.

        • #3067187

          Overestimating the “average guy” – Off Topic

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Ahem…

          The vast majority of attacks are against Windows. But the average guy runs it because it came loaded on the Gateway, Dell, or other major brand name PC he bought. The vast majority of the applications THAT HE IS AWARE OF (caps for emphasis, not shouting at you) run on Windows. You and I know there are free Linux apps available on the web, but he gets his apps from Wal-mart and Best Buy.

          I disagree with your estimate of the time the average guy spends on security and maintenance. I don’t disagree with his need to do it. We might discuss your time estimates, which I think are quite high, but I can even let that slide. Where we really disagree is that you think the average guy is even doing this maintenance at all. I think he’s sitting on his gluts, relying on the wimpy Windows firewall and the AV software he hasn’t updated since he first opened the carton. He’s turned off the automatic updates since he got tired of them tying up his dial-up connection. Since he’s got zero ability, he regards reinstalling his OS in the same category with replacing his own kidneys. When it starts running too slow, he takes it to the shop and they install a new version of Windows (since he doesn’t have the OS or restore CDs), he reloads Halo, and he’s ready to repeat the cycle.

          I wish the average Windows-using guy was spending as much as three days a year on maintenance. I wish he was spending three consecutive nights at the tech college “Intro to Home PC Security” class. If he did, he’d be able to reduce the threat to his machine to the point he wouldn’t have to worry about it. But then, he’s not worrying about it now.

        • #3067178

          Need The Whole Recipe

          by firstpeter ·

          In reply to Ahem…

          Your points are well taken, but I think you’re missing a couple of key ingredients why there’s no compelling reason to move from one to the other.

          First, though, I’m not sure you’re spending time around the “average” user I see. The average users I work with with minimal tech ability typically don’t reformat/reinstall the OS every year – maybe every other year (if that). I’m not arguing that they SHOULD do it that way – I’d argue every 9-12 months is the most you’d want to go. But that’s not what the “average” person does (at least in my world).

          But on to the missing components.

          First, as far as security, nobody in their right mind would argue that Linux is more susceptible to damaging attacks than Windows. Even if Linux were in the position (market-wise) that Windows is in now I don’t think anyone in their right mind would try and argue that it would be less secure than Windows is today. It would certainly be less secure than it is NOW, but not compared to MS.

          But then again, the average user really doesn’t care. I care, because I manage their networks. I care because I know what can happen. They also know there are alternatives (Firefox vs. IE; Linux vs. Windows, etc.) but they choose not to go there. And that’s okay – they understand the risks, they know what’s at stake. THAT, my friend, is your average user.

          Second, don’t forget the learning curve. The UP FRONT learning curve. And don’t anyone try to pull the “there is no learning curve” argument – there IS a learning curve, and it can be fierce. “This doesn’t look like Windows.” That one can be (reasonably) solved by a decent *nix GUI install. But that’s not even half the problem. “This doesn’t look like Word.” “Where’s solitaire?!?!” “What happened to my PicturePerfect software?” “Where’s ‘Program Files’?” “Why don’t my games run anymore?”

          I’ve had clients (home clients; the problem is significantly larger in business) that have called me in specifically because someone moved them to Linux because “it was better”. They called me after a week because they hated it. They weren’t familiar with it and didn’t care to learn it. THAT, my friend, is your average user.

          And THAT, my friend, is why there is no compelling reason to move from one to the other for the average user – the vast majority of people.

    • #3048410

      No vested interest? Incorrect

      by wordworker ·

      In reply to convince me

      You come out swinging with falsehoods. 100% of viruses and exploits? Incorrect, and typical of your cheap shots to misrepresent the truth.

      >>why would I want to become at the mercy of one company, that has no vested interest in keeping my business a going concern?
      Au contraire, in my experience. Microsoft goes to great lengths to accommodate the CIOs and CTOs at my client companies. They (the C*Os) like running Microsoft-only or Microsoft-mostly shops because they have someone they can beat on when they need urgent support – and they get support in the form of teleconferences, IM contacts, and in-person visits from Microsoft when required. Try putting urgent requests in to the LUGs – you don’t have any leverage in a community of volunteer developers.

      BTW, it’s compatibility with an “i.”

      Microsoft wants businesses to be successful. You can’t sell new versions and licenses to companies that close their doors.

      What does Windows offer that cannot be met with Linux? Enterprise- level applications we use only run under Windows systems.

      • #3050385


        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to No vested interest? Incorrect

        What enterprise apps does Linux NOT have? Linux is FAR more robust in the server area than MS. Plus, companies like Red Hat have EXCELLENT support that is far more efficient than MS (when was the last time a MS tech sshed into your box and poked around and FIXED the problem for you…all under your support contract?)

        • #3048033

          Third party support

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to What?

          Red Hat does provide better support than Microsoft. If you don’t like MS’s support, don’t pay extra for it. Use a third party support company that will remotely access your box and fix it. That’s not any different from paying Red Hat.

        • #3048014

          I wouldn’t agree….

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Third party support

          at least with red hat you are paying the company you purchased the product from.

          so paying a 3rd party for windows support is different, they aren’t the provider you purchased the software from.

        • #3047976

          They aren’t the creator

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I wouldn’t agree….

          They may be who I -purchased- the product from, but they didn’t create it. I can purchase MS products from the same third party I buy the support from. By your logic, the only one who is qualified to provide Linux support is Linus.

        • #3047954


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to They aren’t the creator

          Linus, and a few hundred for kernel support.
          the group for the core utilities
 for kde
 for gnome.

          red hat created thier distro.
          ( bundled software, customised to suit thier own opinion of what linux should be )
          so, yup red hat is the creators of thier distro.

          novell, has yet to have ownership of suse long enough to be able to claim they created the current version.
          ( they only bought it at version 8. )

        • #3049689

          Reply To: convince me

          by gargantuchet ·

          In reply to Third party support

          How many support calls have you logged to Microsoft? To Red Hat? I’m just curious, because your claims run counter to my experiences.

          I’ve heard quite good things about Microsoft support. A friend had support on the phone for hours to identify a problem, and Microsoft actually produced a hotfix for them so they could continue production. My experience with Red Hat support has been that they don’t care about making a quality product and are quick to tell you that they don’t support what should be legitimate usage of their software (for instance, multipathing in certain RHEL3 drivers is present, but unsupported).

        • #3049691

          Reply To: convince me

          by gargantuchet ·

          In reply to What?

          I’ve actually had really bad service from Red Hat support. When something they ship doesn’t work, they’ll suddenly declare it “unsupported” rather than work with their customers.

          You want an example of an enterprise app not supported by a Linux machine? How about something like Active Directory and MMC, which allow for centralized user management in an integrated package?

          RHN (when the site isn’t down) doesn’t allow the depth of administration available through MMC, and there isn’t an integrated user management solution available at present that touches Active Directory. Sure, you can cobble together Samba, Kerberos, and LDAP, but it:

          1) requires tons of integration work done by the admin
          2) lacks a robust management interface

        • #3067096

          Back up a tick

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          What? When is RHN down? I’ve been the many times in the past 3 years and it has never been down. I’m sure I could go dig up the uptime for it, but I really don’t care that much. 😉

          What are you talking about? Red Hat doesn’t have an MMC, but it does have “central” management via various apps. Plus you have more robust apps like webmin.

          Are you trying to get Linux to work with AD or are you trying to get Linux to work LIKE AD? It makes a huge difference.

        • #3067069

          centralised user management…

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          why use a poor copy of the original *x based software?

          samba, kerberos and ldap are fine, but they are duplicating, and new, exactly the functionality of yp.
          ( yes. Sun’s yp / nis has been a part of linux for years. The name was changed to NIS from YP a few years back, as it’s only based on YP now. )

          far better centralised user management that even Novell’s netware.
          in this, I would say you picked the wrong tools to examine.

          If you also take into concideration that LDAP is
          a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, it is clear it’s meant for a small system, not an enterprise system. 🙂

          I would never recommend that an Enterprise use a small business targeted toolset, whoever did suggest this to you made a serious error in estimating your needs.

      • #3050318

        ms support?

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to No vested interest? Incorrect

        sucks bigger than open source support.

        look at secunia’s reports on ms’ updates.

        ms claims 7 updates addressing 7 issues this month.
        3 updates of the 7 were for ie, and addressed 6 critical issues, 9 high risk issues and about 12 lower rated issues.

        that is not a good indication of quality support, when they lie to everyone about thier security fixes.

        and, my spell checker, using Canadian english says compatability, not compatibility.

        I’ll use the correct language for here thanks.

        • #3050207

          3+6+9+12 = 7 ?

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to ms support?

          You must be using Canadian arithmetic too.

          ha ha 🙂

          I know I know. Each patch addresses several issues. It just looked funny the first time that I read your post.

        • #3050153


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to 3+6+9+12 = 7 ?

          ms for that.

          but the math in my post would actualy be:

          if ms is being honest about thier updates.

          Being pro-Linux and anti-MicroSoft is fine, but there may be a better time and place to wear your “I’d rather die than deal with MS” t-shirt than at a support group for people with multiple sclerosis.

        • #3049749

          Surely key point is DIY Support

          by jevans4949 ·

          In reply to ms support?

          If you are a big enough IT shop, you can probably afford to employ people to specialise in Linux support. When you do hit a problem, you have the source code and can address it yourselves. With proprietary software, you do not have the source code and are completely at the mercy of the internal priorities of the vendor.

        • #3049686

          Reply To: convince me

          by gargantuchet ·

          In reply to ms support?

          I’ve been using Linux at home since 2.0.x days, and always felt great about the security. You should see how many security-related RHEL 4 updates there have been since release, though. It’s pretty surprising, although certain RHEL security features (yes, RHEL specifically — see make it harder to exploit such holes.

          I’m a GNU/Linux user/fan just trying to give some other perspective to the discussion.

        • #3067061


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          started using linux when bleeding edge in kernel development was 2.2

          been using it ever since.
          took me six months to “crash” my system ( trying to ) and even then, it only locked up, kill couldn’t fix the problem, a reboot did.
          ( started a process that used 100% cpu time and it hit an infinite loop, couldn’t break the loop no matter what I tried. )

      • #3067211

        Good points, and one bad one

        by cio at alphabetas ·

        In reply to No vested interest? Incorrect

        Which Enterprise level applications? And are you saying that there
        is NO alternative, or just that (because you are ALREADY an MS
        shop) you CHOSE an application (where alternatives exist) that is
        only AVAILABLE on Windows? Please be specific. Not all of us are
        Word experts after all….
        And please, we don’t correct each other for spelling here. We are all
        busy professionals who are generally rushing our posts as we have
        REAL work to do…

    • #3050369

      Personal vs. Corporate

      by billbohlen@hallmarkchannl ·

      In reply to convince me

      Personally I enjoy both Windows and Linux. There is nothing in Windows that I can’t do with Linux, albeit it takes a little more work to find the right packages to install and to configure the system properly.

      In the corporate world however, your choice of operating system is governed by the applications your company runs. Corporate politics makes it very hard to simply “make the switch” to Linux.
      There are many enterprise applications that have clients only available on a Windows platform, with no alternatives except to spend $$$ developing a Linux/UNIX alternative.

      • #3050324

        re: corporate

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Personal vs. Corporate

        depends, if the company picks an os, then they pick apps that run on it.
        not pick apps then pick os for apps.
        can work either way.

        • #3047860

          Corporate world and beyond

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to re: corporate

          The larger the corporation, the easier it is to get hamstrung by who you have to deal with outside the company. And if their apps are windows only, be prepared to deal with windows, or invest a lot of your own profit in re-inventing the wheel.

          Back when I worked for a UNIX shop, our biggest local customer had a NT4 box running exchange. No real reason for it, other than their in house IT guy set it up, and it worked for them. Thier POS system swas ours (UNIX) and their web server was on Red Hat 6.

        • #3049681

          Reply To: convince me

          by gargantuchet ·

          In reply to re: corporate

          Not necessarily — if you’re running Oracle against a SAN with EMC hardware, your won’t want to buy new hardware and retarget another database because Oracle doesn’t yet support RHEL4 on 64-bit hardware and PowerPath doesn’t do multipathing yet. Chances are you’re going to opt for something other than Linux.

          You’re going to choose whatever runs the apps your business needs — the apps are required by business, the OS is required by apps. The business needs should drive app choice. They’re not paying us because they want to run Linux, they’re paying us because they have business needs which are met by certain applications. Sometimes there’s choice in OS, sometimes there’s not, but saying that the apps should be driven by OS choice is putting the cart before the horse.

        • #3049654

          Welcome aboard

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          “Member since August 2005”? That explains why you’re making sense. Hang around long enough and we’ll break you of that habit 🙂

      • #3050316

        Corporate Politics

        by firstpeter ·

        In reply to Personal vs. Corporate

        One note – it’s not just “corporate politics” that makes it very hard to switch to another platform, but the reality of ROI, as well.

        There is no situation in which you simply cannot make the switch from one platform to another. None. It might take lots and lots and lots of time and lots and lots and lots of money to make the switch (enough that it’s pointless to even consider the path seriously), but the switch can always be made.

        However, when you start factoring in the time to train people on a new interface, new productivity packages, new applications, new ?, you really start to bog down any sort of return you may very well see from reduced licensing cost. Admittedly it’s an up-front expense (for the most part), but it’s a very real cost that has to be considered.

        In addition to that you have to factor in any potential increased support cost for your admins (if they’re not up to speed on the new platform) or a wholesale changeout (if that’s the best approach), and the intangible (but still real) cost of user backlash.

        It’s rather inconvenient and stupid (“I’m sorry you want Windows, but we’ve moved to Linux. And dragging your feet on your job to justify a switch back won’t work…”), but it’s a very real cost.

        All to say that it’s not just corporate politics (although that certainly plays in, as well) that make it difficult to switch.

        • #3050223

          Agreed even if application wise it’s

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Corporate Politics

          a relatively painless switch. The risk factor coupled with initial cash outlay for potential future cost savings makes any platform switch unpalatable. If you’ve only got ‘tech’ benefits as the justification, don’t waste you time putting a proposal together.You need the alternative to more expensive in hard numbers that the bean counters will wear otherwise the new platform will stay the unused alternate.

        • #3050151

          which is why

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Agreed even if application wise it’s

          with ms releasing new version of windows it’s a perfect time to make the suggestion.

          figure initial release cost of 500 per license for a corporation.
          add to that the 500 for each license for the new version of office needed for the new version of windows.

          if a company has to also look at the new hardware upgrade to meet system requirements for new os…
          add another 1000 per system

          one lawyers office here in town.. 10 floors of a tower. 1500 workstations.

          we are talking huge amount of money for them to “upgrade” to new version of windows.
          with the edditional costs of the staff learning new systems quircks etc as mentioned in another post.

          by them going open source they could cut the cash layout for systems huge.
          like, buying RHEL would be what a grand. for the one copy needed to install it on all machines.

          just using this office as an example, since the number of workstations can create the situation where buying new versions of windows can be prohibitive. this particular office is the one I wired for a wang system 14 years ago.
          I doubt they have removed thier mainframe for pc network.

        • #3048025

          I question your numeric assumptions

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to which is why

          I don’t know where you’re getting your costs for Windows, Office, and hardware. Those costs are above even retail, and anybody with 1500 machines is going to be able to negotiate better prices. You can’t assume they’ll upgrade Office or that they’ll need to upgrade all the hardware. For that matter, don’t assume they’ll even upgrade just because a new version of Windows is released. Just because we use Windows doesn’t mean we all dance to Bill Gates’ tune. That’s why MS has this huge marketing campaign trying in trade mags to get companies to upgrade Office 97. Many companies don’t adopt a new OS until it begins to arrive on new machines. If there’s no app that requires the new OS, they’ll wait as long as possible, often until after the first service pack is released.

          The cost of training the staff on new system quirks in a new version of Windows is going to be minimal compared to the cost of training them on an entirely new operating system.

          It is possible to cost justify the switch in a way the bean counters will accept. First, gather data on how much time / cost the support staff spends on fixing problems directly caused by flaws in the Windows operating system. Include the time they could spend working on more productive projects. Then include the much bigger number of time / cost lost by unproductive employees while their Windows machine is screwed up before IT can fix it. Include the time / cost of IT service calls not directly related to Windows, but caused by an inability to lock the machine down so the user can’t accidentally screw it up or intentionally load unauthorized crapola. That’s just a quick list.

          There’s tons of ways to justify the cost, but it’s got to be more than just hardware / software savings. You’ve got to show the money saved by switching will cover the transition costs (training for users and IT staff, productivity lost while climbing the learning curve, etc.) There will be some machines that still have to run Windows for those apps that don’t have Linux counterparts.

        • #3047998

          not for Vancouver.

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I question your numeric assumptions

          retail, brand new version of windows is almost a grand.
          office, after been out for 5 years, is a grand.
          ( and this is only 300 miles from ms corporate head office. overpriced garbage being force fed to us here )
          commercial quality workstations, singly, are 10 grand.
          ( home user pc is a grand retail from name brand chains, available at less than 1/3 of that in small computer shops )

          have you looked at the newer versions of linux?
          there is very little functionality difference from an end user’s viewpoint.
          the big difference is in the options available during installation, and the cost for the software being installed, as well as the fact that, unless your end users take the time to learn the “under the hood” abilities, they will not be able to break thier workstations.

        • #3047973


          by firstpeter ·

          In reply to not for Vancouver.

          Wow – glad I don’t live in Vancouver. Those prices are steep, even for Canadian$.

          One thing that’s not in the equation is the emotional impact of switching OSs. While the emotion itself doesn’t have an economic impact the results do. People are less productive while they learn the new ins and outs of their OS. The help desk gets hammered with calls because Solitaire isn’t here any more and people need it for stress relief or they’ll end up on short-term disability. Techs have to respond to more calls because someone doesn’t know how to find x. Office isn’t installed, and I can’t use this new spreadsheet. Blah blah blah.

          All one-time, all up-front, and all SHOULD BE non-issues (if people would take the time to think and explore their OS before panicking) but they’re not. Decreased productivity + increased initial support cost = harder to switch.

          Ultimately those costs disappear (for the most part), but they can be killers up front.

        • #3047942

          Ah, Canadian dollars

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to not for Vancouver.

          Even with the exchange rate, you guys are getting screwed. Your Mom and Pop shops are reasonable. You ship me some prescription drugs and I’ll send you some software.

          We looked at RH9 about eighteen months ago. The network / desktop / non-mainframe side of our IT department is only nine people for over 700 users at three sites. Only three of us have Unix / Linux experience. We’ve always had a minority of boxes with *nix loaded that we use for software development, not for traditional end user apps. Those of us without experience loaded it onto some spare boxes, but we couldn’t find the time to do much with it and still do all our other work (typical IT problem). I personally had problems trying to figure out how to get Samba to pass my network credentials to our NT servers / domain; at that point I gave up. The other problem preventing wide-scale deployment here is the a perceived lack of support for applications. We need more than just a suite. We’ve got a several dozens draftspeople running four different CAD packages (AutoCAD, Solid Edge, others). We need something that integrates with our existing document management system (DocsOpen, eCopy Desktop, a few dozen users), software configuration management system (ClearCase, ClearQuest, a couple of hundred users), and project management systems (MS Project, Primavera, several dozen more). We’ve discussed deploying it on the manufacturing floor where the users don’t need more than a browser and a suite, but this is less than 30 machines. It’s not worth the opportunity cost to train the IT staff to support that small a number.

          I think Linux is a great piece of technology. I have no loyalty to MS. I’ll take it on faith that it’s superior to Microsoft’ operating systems, especially on a server. But there’s more to corporate IT than running a web or database server, and more to corporate desktop apps than a suite. This particular shoe just doesn’t fit our foot. I think that I can keep my home computer with Windows at an acceptable level of security with less time and attention than it would take me to learn Linux. I think you can train a home Windows user to keep his security up quicker and easier than you can train him to use another operating system.

          I also can’t stand to hear Microsoft put down purely because they are making a huge profit. Bad-mouth their technology all you want; it’s fun and easy. But there’s nothing wrong with Bill Gates making money, and so far he hasn’t been convicted of anything.

        • #3047928

          but, it’s

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to not for Vancouver.

          not as much of an additional cost, if the company was going to be changing from say 2k to xp
          ( since vista being released soon )

          the ins and out for 2k are hugely different from xp.
          it’s when ms is releasing a new version so that companies start seriously looking at getting the old version being phased out that a lot of the “hidden” costs of switching are equalled by the “hidden” costs of changing versions of windows itself.

          reducing the tco to switch from ms solutions.

          one thing about linux that isn’t often discussed.. new versions are not at 5 year intervals, they are at 6 month intervals.
          the development is far faster with linux.
          this is probably the biggest reason a lot of windows it guys still think linux is cli only.
          ( on top of thier server boxes that are not running a gui ) 😀

        • #3047926

          Brand new retail

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to not for Vancouver.

          on (shipped from Canada in Canadian $$.

          Windows XP Pro – $377 (not OEM but full retail)
          MS Office Professional 2003 $583 (full retail version)

          Both would be much less if you can use upgrades or buy OEM.

          Future Shop – Canadian wide chain – has home computers for $500 and up for “home” models. $1000 packages include monitor, printer and software (MS Works, MS Money, Quicken).

 – low end business models (Optiplex) from $568, workstation that my company uses for developers and power users from $668. Dells best workstation ( Xeon processor, dual processore capable) starts at $1953. HP’s best workstations start at $2500 Cdn

          Now these are Canadian prices off the web – but its a little hard to believe that Vancouver retail could be so far off. And I don’t think that Future shop has a Vancouver surcharge.

          Have you actually bought anything lately?


        • #3047922

          Jaqui, Missing the point

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to not for Vancouver.

          In my twenty years in IT, I’ve only seen one mass OS migration, and that was only to the minimal level necessary, not to the newest level. I don’t know anybody that completely swaps OS’s every time Bill spits out a new ad campaign, but there may be some misguided individuals that do. We leave a box with the OS it came with until we have to do some other major mainenance on it. That could be years; I’ve got machines still running the original install of W95 / O97. They are still meeting their users needs.

          We disagree about the differences between 2K and XP. I’m in that camp that believes XP is 2K with a face lift. We don’t retrain IT staff or users for each desktop version of Windows; I haven’t seen that much difference in supporting them. We set all users to the “Classic” settings so XP and 2K look like 9x. We are rolling out Office 2003, but since our users didn’t user 20% of the features in O97, we aren’t even bothering with retraining them. The features they do use are all still in the same place. Contracts with our customers often dictate the application we must use (not just the compatible file type generated). The non-suite applications don’t change at all when MS lays a new egg, and unless I can get Linux counterparts to those apps I described earlier, changing the OS isn’t even an option.

          Yes, the refresh rate on Linux is much greater than with Windows or Mac. But unless there’s a new application that requires the new OS, why do I care? It’s all about the applications.

        • #3047882


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to not for Vancouver.

          at the future shop 6 blocks from here, the only systems available are the hp / compaq home stations, complete with monitor and printer.

          staples, same thing

          mdg, own name on the systems, but home systems, complete are a grand.
          ( I think they finally opened a bc store )

          only 2 shops in town sell commercial workstations.. one optimised for graphics work only, at 12 thousand.
          the other will build to suit only, and bare bones is a grand.

          we are on the wrong side of the rockies to get real support from any major vendor.

          dell, had an inspiron laptop. could not get new modular cloppy from dell for it.
          ( dell canada didn’t support the 3200 )
          dell usa will not ship to canada.

          with garbage support like that, won’t use dell.

          hp, can’t even get them to fix a driver problem for one of thier printers.

          I personally also have a lack of interest in buying online.
          I only buy when I can deal with someone face to face.

          this lets dell out.
          it lets hp / compaq out ( other than home pcs )
          and gateway is in the cold also.

          if I’m going to be spending a lot of money for systems, it’s gonna be face to face in thier local office / outlet, so I can see they intend on being here when needed.

        • #3047855

          Other vendors

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to not for Vancouver.

          MDG starts at about $700 Cdn – intel MBs, but consistently lousy service.

          If you want a true graphics workstation try a larger vendor like Compugen – they have a Vancouver office, but service across the country. I bought hundreds of business workstations and a few high end Graphics stations for CAD at my last employer and was very happy. HP makes some great CAD workstations – you don’t have to spend 12k on one.


        • #3049673

          Reply To: convince me

          by gargantuchet ·

          In reply to which is why

          True for smaller organizations, but a lot of larger companies sign enterprise agreements which allow support for Microsoft products as well as free upgrades for an annual fee.

          This is partly why Microsoft feels compelled to keep adding things to Exchange and Windows — customers like to feel like they’re getting something other than support for their annual payment.

        • #3049528

          Not even true for smaller shops

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          I used to work for a small retailer/reseller of cell phones. They had a nice little Linux POS setup (can’t remember which distro) on relatively inexpensive HP Vectras.

          Only a few small problems. Did not interface with the companies accounting package for real-time data acquisition. No drivers for the Credit Card reader/swiper. No in-house developers either, and no budget for development anyway. The paper data archive was unavailable because of no reader in linux. And everything from our principle supplier (Verizon) was windows only.

          After the last girl quit whose job it was to take data from each POS and hand enter it into the accounting package, it was pretty easy to stick a wet finger in the air and see which way the wind was blowing.

          When I left there was a mixed bag of Cisco, Suse, Win2k and Gentoo-is-Cool!! on the backend, but outside of the data center it was POS-over-Win2k at the sales locations (our image) and WinXP Pro (factory install) in the office.

          Lessons learned? You can cut expenses to the point of not being able to make money.

          And MS Windows has a certain amount of traction in the marketplace that Linux doesn’t have.

          (Now if we only had been able to hire a Linux development team …)

        • #3049732

          I find the whole argument ridiculous

          by davidwexler ·

          In reply to Corporate Politics

          I may be mistaken but the premise of the article was ‘convince me to switch from Linux to Windows’, not ‘convince me to switch my company’, though both of which are rediculous subjects. This post called ‘Corporate Politics’ makes the most sense in why companies don’t turn on a dime to switch. It’s not technical in nature nor an OS zealot chant for one OS over the other; it’s simple economics and ROI on time and money vs gain. In other words it is simply easier to build on what you have than it is to start from scratch to get back to where you already are.

          However getting back to the start of this rediculous yet consistantly beaten to death argument; don’t switch. You are happy with what you have so stay with it.

          Most people who use Windows don’t care if there is another option out there. They just want to turn on their computers and get to what they need to do. Usually the home PC is for email, web surfing and/or games (maybe we can count storing recipies too).

          Sure you can do the same with another OS based machine, but folks who want to go to Fry’s or Best Buy and pick up an inexpensive computer to do these simple things don’t care. They are not the kind to order a machine online, build it themselves, or care to know that it is an insecure Microsoft product.

          In fact just the opposite…they look for the brand names they recognize, INTEL and MICROSOFT, because that’s what the marketing machine told them to do.

          If Linux had:
          – as good a marketing dollar as the WinTel
          – was as pervasive to the market as WinTel
          – worked as seamlessly as WinTel stuff usually works (and yes, native Windows stuff usually installs easily and works seamlessly)
          – had recognizable products (example: GIMP is not as recognizable as Photoshop to the laymen)

          Then Linux would prevail for the general user as an alternative. (You could argue that Apple does have all this, however they lack in at least two places when compairing to WinTel, they are more expensive and their software titles are not as widely recognized, yet).

          If Linux had a product stack that was far more tightly integrated, then the same could be said for the less to moderate technical corporate side of things.

          Personally, I look forward to the day that Microsoft gets kicked in the pants by Linux on more fronts than security and uptime. I think if Novell or SUN bought/merged with Apple, Sybase and Palm and worked (with IBM’s help?) toward integrating everything… and then learned how to market their products…and then….ah well… that’s for a different tirade threaded discussion, isn’t it.

    • #3050295

      You wouldn’t want to switch

      by jdmercha ·

      In reply to convince me

      “why would I want to become vulnerable to 100% of viruses, 100% of exploits?”
      If everybody used Linux there would be a lot more viruses and exploits written for it.

      “why would I want to become at the mercy of one company, that has no vested interest in keeping my business a going concern?”
      The same could be said for the phone company, power company and cable company.

      “what does windows offer that cannot be met with linux?”
      Eventually nothing. But Windows is much quicker to adopt new technologies.

      • #3050256

        re quicker to adopt..

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to You wouldn’t want to switch

        if you are meaning hardware, that is exactly backwards, the hardware is developed with windows in mind.

        if you mean advances in software, open source is far faster to adopt them.

    • #3050113

      Melodramatic perhaps?

      by mcollins1 ·

      In reply to convince me

      Maybe a little melodramatic there! While Windows does have a lot of flaws, it is not open to every vulnerability on the planet (100%)!
      You mention Apple, and can I bring attention also to the recent “problems” raised with Cisco equipment…
      Like the above, MS are the market leaders, so they’re going to be targeted more than the open source software. Chances are, a lot of virus writers etc. are using Linux and do not wish to compromise their own “working” environments.
      Windows is what most people know how to use, and what most “popular” applications are compatible with. While I know there are linux equivalents for these applications, the penguin is always gonna have that geek chic about it… So I guess it depends on what you want out of it. Linux is perfectly good for doing pretty much anything if you know what you’re doing. Whereas Windows tends to be used and abused, hence the occasional(!) problems with it…
      Your call! I use both for different purposes!

      • #3048064


        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Melodramatic perhaps?

        I use windows as they have been meant to be used for eons.. light and air.

    • #3047952

      Not a Fan…

      by frenchwood ·

      In reply to convince me

      I am by no means a Windows or MS fan, however I still use a dual boot home system.

      Why? The company I work for uses windows, therefore it pays to have the platform available for taking work home etc.

      Linux is definitely my O/S of choice, however as long as the company I work for uses Windows, I will always have dual boot system.

    • #3047893

      If you understood math and business…

      by havacigar ·

      In reply to convince me

      You could switch because you wouldn’t become vulnerable to 100%
      “why would I want to become vulnerable to 100% of viruses, 100% of exploits?”
      It’s better to be at the mercy of a company that exists rather than someone who does something for free and then decides not to
      “why would I want to become at the mercy of one company, that has no vested interest in keeping my business a going concern?”

      • #3047877

        and with

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to If you understood math and business…

        a company that removes all choices from you?
        that says you have one user interface to choose from,
        that you MUST have the biggest security breaches in existence to have the system work right?
        ( activex and ie both )
        whose own corporate website will not display in lynx?
        ( yup, requires a gui browser. console browser gives blank screen. )
        with thier known security issues it wouldn’t suprise me if a linux rootkit trojan could destroy a windows box.
        so yup, 100% of exploits / viruses / malware

        • #3049657

          Is your head up your ^#& for warmth

          by havacigar ·

          In reply to and with

          or is there to visit your friends?
          “If” a linux rootkit? Prove it can and you’re still wrong. There’s an old Commadore virus that won’t run on Windows. 100% is 100% and you are flat out wrong and idiotic. Do you need a flashlight in there or is your shining brilliance so bright it lights up your cavity all by itself?
          Remove all choices? What have they removed? I can run from the command line if I’m afraid to use a menu. Oooh, but I can’t run Word or Wordpad in console mode…oh yeah, there’s that edlin program I can use, I’ll just need to know how type in all that rtf formatting.
          ActiveX is a great tool, as is IE, and they have their purpose and work great in a business environment. Microsoft’s products have always been a business tool, but since everything else sucked, they took over the home market as well.
          Who cares if their website will display in lynx or not? If you are that much of a cretan, don’t go to their website.
          If you had the slightest clue of actual workflow management and automation/collaboration you would choose tools that work, and work well and easily. That is, and always has been, Microsoft.

    • #3047880

      Because I said so

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to convince me

      Because the CEO (or his admin assistant) said you will use the corporate standard which is Windows. You can play with your toys on your own time.

      And yes, I was at a company once that considered AS/400’s toys to be played with when the real work was done.

      • #3049842


        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Because I said so

        and you’ll be signing an agreement that because the company’s choices do not meet international os standards that the company will be accepting full liability if there is a security breach right.

        you are forcing me to use non standards compliant tools, against by professional opinion, you are going to take the fall if any system gets exploited.

        no, you won’t?
        then I’ll use standards compliant stuff, and cover both our a$$es.


        • #3049829

          International OS standards?

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to ~wink~

          Did I miss the post where you provided evidence of such standards?

        • #3049816

          here’s the INTERNATIONAL standards

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to International OS standards?

          that MS refuses to meet with any of thier software.


          the posix standard

          the IEEE:
          The original and largest worldwide organization serving as the leading provider of technical information, standards, conferences, and services to computing …

          for web content standards

          all three of which are used by ISO in thier standards.

          a good example of ms refusing to meet international standards.
          ms charset defs.. codepage 850 isn’t it?
          iso8895-X for all other os.
          ( charset definitions )

        • #3049787

          Reply To: convince me

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to here’s the INTERNATIONAL standards

          From the Posix standard – “POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is a set of standard operating system INTERFACES (my capitalization) based on the Unix operating system. The need for standardization arose because enterprises using computers wanted to be able to develop programs that could be moved among different manufacturer’s computer systems without having to be recoded.” Not an OS standard, an interface standard. Further, Windows is designed to run on Intel-compatible boxes. Why should it comply with a standard for portability? That’s like expecting it to comply with a standard for crude oil specific gravity or copper wire conductivity. You’re using a standard that doesn’t fit the product.

          You may have me on the IEEE standard; I was too lazy to set up a username and password. Wanna give me yours?

          W3C is a web design standard. Windows is not a browser, not is it a web design tool. The IE browser will view web sites that meet the W3C standard, along with some that don’t. Many Microsoft web design tools will generate non-compatible pages, but the non-compatible features can be turned off by default. Also, those are apps, they aren’t the Windows operating system.

          A search of the ISO web site for the term “computer operating system” yielded no results.

        • #3049774

          ie will through

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          errors galore on sites that meet the xml 1.0 standard.
          ( current web standard )

          it’s not xml friendly.
          ( xml, xhtml, xslt and css )

        • #3049771


          by wordworker ·

          In reply to ie will through

          Palmetto beat me to the punch. Care to try again with a valid resource, or are you having too much fun just rattling cages?

        • #3049767

          “IE AIN’T AN OS!”, he screamed.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to ie will through

          Jaqui, to answer your original question, if nothing is requiring you to run the Windows operating system (applications, employer, customer, etc.), stay with Linux. Have a good week.

        • #3049765

          re ie and standards

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to ie will through

          “in ie7 they will support some of the w3c…”

        • #3049766

          the fact remains

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: convince me

          that ms does not meet posix for api for thier operating system.
          guess it doesn’t matter that the api for windows is not posix compliant.
          guess it doesn’t matter that it’s an international standard for software to be portable that any reasonable os developer would meet.

          International Standards Organisation, has standards for programming languages, structural engineering, eletrical safety, chemical process manufacturing..
          they listen to the IEEE for the electrical and electronic stadnadrs.
          theIEEE is the one that set the standard for the electronic devices called computers, in the operating system
          also in the usb ports.
          firewire ports
          hard drive connectors..

        • #3049762

          You’re right,

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to the fact remains

          None of that matters for $h!t.

          What matters is that Windows runs the applications that I have to support, applications that my company’s customers mandate by contract that we use, applications that I had no authority to approve or disapprove when they were selected, applications that I can get plenty of training on at multiple skill levels at the local technical college for myself and my end users, applications that in some cases have no Linux counterparts (especially in the CAD and document management fields), applications we choose not replace because the ROI isn’t there, applications, applications, applications. What part of applications haven’t I been able to make clear?

        • #3049809


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to International OS standards?

          even TR isn’t standards compliant.
          I validated this discussion and got 939 errors.. for html 4.01
          which hasn’t been the offical standard for over 5 years.
          (xml 1.0 as of January 29, 2000 for website markup standard )

        • #3067778

          iso and it:

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to International OS standards?

          the second link breaks into a dozen groupings, with the number of sub links ranging from 6 to a dozen.
          covering it from electronic typewriters through mainframe systems.
          hardware and software specs.
          ( at least from reading link titles software aspects covered.)

          the first, is iso security for it.

        • #3049797


          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to ~wink~

          If it’s my company and I tell you what to use, who am I signing this agreement with? You, the employee?

          If the contract with my customer names the specific Windows-based applications that I use (and we have those where I work), with whom am I signing this “international compliance ” agreement?

          If it’s my company and I’ve decide to run Windows despite your advice to the contrary, are you going to quit your job on the spot, without another one lined up, and a house payment due? I assume you’ll at least do the professional thing and give two weeks notice.

    • #3047823

      This is probably why most people use it…

      by rknrlkid ·

      In reply to convince me

      Three things: America Online, Compuserve, or Microsoft Network (MSN).

      As distasteful as it is to most technical people, more people use one of those three than “real” isps. Until AOL et al figure out the need to port to Linux, home users will stick with Windows. My guess is that there is no real reason to do that, because they are included with Windows “for your convenience” and why ruin a good thing (businesswise, that is).

    • #3048836

      Well let me tell you why

      by zlitocook ·

      In reply to convince me

      You will be part of a world wide bata test community.
      You will get software that is buggie from the start!
      You will get to pay the most for using it and pay the most for how many people use it.
      And all the hackers love it. So it is a win win game you get to run it and others get to help them selfs to your computer.
      And each new version has the same code as the last so you keep helping the poor hackers to get into your new OS.
      Did this help?

    • #3049721

      Why bother?

      by boriqua1 ·

      In reply to convince me

      I’m sure someone used this same argument, but I did not take the time to read all of the posts from this thread.
      It is not about features, or this thing or that, or your personal feelings about Bill Gates. Rather do what you like, because in the end if you get the job done, and you’re happy using Linux then it works out just fine. I would only favor one OS over another, if it ran a piece of software I need not found in the others. With open source thriving today and cross-platform development efforts of individuals increasing, choosing one OS over another almost boils down to personal preference and style. Heck, I’d use a C64 if it can play some of my 3-D games.

    • #3049715


      by brian.kiser ·

      In reply to convince me

      Sounds like already have your mind made up, but I’ll throw a few good reasons out there.

      1. You’re not vulnerable to 100% of viruses, because some viruses target Linux. Windows is heavily targeted because it’s the most popular OS. You can take steps to make yourself safe. For instance, I don’t use Outlook, and have Active X controls turned off. I run Norton Antivirus and have a firewall. And please, lock down IIS securely (lots of people don’t). I’ve never had any trouble with viruses.

      2. You’re at “the mercy of one company” no matter which vendor you decide to use. No company out there has a personal interest in keeping your company afloat. They’re all just interested in their OS/tool. I used to be a Java developer using IBM’s WSAD. When we tried to migrate to Oracle, we found that Java isn’t as “open” as advertised.

      3. A Microsoft platform offers more software, and software you’ve actually heard of, then any other OS.

      4. So what if it’s proprietary? This isn’t micro-channel technology, where you have no choices and little expandability. You have everything at your fingertips with Windows. The question I would ask is this: what does it buy you using Linux? (And give yourself real answers, not generalities like “freedom.”)

      5. For developers, Windows gives you access to an excellent developer tool, with the best IDE (imo) ever, in Visual Studio .NET. Along with hundreds of good third party tools to augment your development.

      6. What does Windows offer that can’t be met with Linux? I would guess a larger user base. Put a Linux application that you wrote out on (if they’ll even let you), then put one on there you wrote for Windows, and see which one gets more hits.

      There are probably major points I’m leaving out–that’s just an off-the-cuff answer. This is also just my opinion–your mileage may vary. Basically, I see lots of different choices in OS out there. You should pick the one that suits your needs the best, and leverage its strengths (while mitigating its weaknesses).

      As a developer, Windows works great for me. I did two years of UNIX support back in the early/mid 90s, and I can’t imagine going back.

    • #3049561

      You are not really asking a question

      by saintgeorge ·

      In reply to convince me

      You are just venting your prejudices.

      I’ve been working with PCs (in the broad sense of the term “Personal Computer”) since their inception. And before that I worked on IBM, Texas and Sperry mainframes with proprietary OS.

      In almost a quarter of a century I’ve gone all the way from DOS (both MS and DR) to WinXP-SP2.
      I’ve also had perforce to work with several versions of MacOS, UNIX, AIX and Linux.

      I’m no MS lover and it’s fun to join the crowd and to be an MS basher. MS jokes are great. But that’s it. I happen work for corporative, small business and home users whose main interest in this life is get their job done, and go home to wife and kids, hobbies or whatever else rocks their world.

      MS might be a ruthless thug of a company, but apart from their morals, they get the job done. Non-IT gents can go around PCs, nets and the Internet without having to learn much about the innards of the OS or applications they are using.

      Compare it with a car. How many people would have the time or the capacity to understand how to put in a new motor, or an upgrade of the old one? Sure, cars don’t crash so frequently as MS Windows does, but again, Windows is way cheaper than a car and the repair is even cheaper.

      That is why MS is so popular. Not just the phagocytosis or squashing of upstart companies, or the maketing skills of their people. Windows is pretty and easy and cheap.

      Compare it with a restaurant. Yes, I like analogies, so what. Macintosh is a great place to eat, wonderful dishes, always good, but kinda expensive. Linux is a good place because the prices range from low to zero, and there is plenty of choice, but you have to cook your own food and you really need to know how to do it. And then you have MS. MS is McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s, KFC, Popeye’s, all in one.

      Ever wonder why there are so many junk food places around? Most people, like me, might like nouvelle cuisine francaise now and then, and might know how and like to cook themselves. But most of the time we end up in Mc or BK.

      So, that’s the main reason but I know it will not appeal to you. Talibans do not like fast food joints…

      An aftertought. Why not call Windows releases Windows Whooper or Windows DLT? Do you want fries with it?

    • #3053636

      Why Linux?

      by brandon.aiken ·

      In reply to convince me

      Trying to convince you to switch to Windows is a stupid as trying convince me to switch away from it.

      Windows offers AD and Group Policy. It is more flexible, more powerful, and more usable than the absolute joke that is NIS. I cannot begin to imagine the nightmare of trying to manage 3000 user accounts and 2000 computers without something like AD. Nearly all our applications authenticate or manage access with AD and groups. Group policy allows us to enforce security restrictions and control user environments.

      Desktop use isn’t even a question. I’m in healthcare, where you buy the industry-standard Windows app (which generally run Windows on the desktop, app server, and database server) or you go back to dumb terminals connecting to the IDX system and developed films instead of PC-based PACS. That is, go back to the 80’s. Nearly all the Web-based applications are .NET-based or ActiveX-driven.

      We do use Linux. We use it to run VMWare for virtual Windows servers for our test environment. We also use it on a few file servers for some IT-only services. We also use IDX and AIX systems.

      Currently, however, Linux has no chance replacing any of our Windows systems.

      • #3054867

        Then why does *nix hold about 50% of the server market?

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Why Linux?


        • #3054854

          Because it’s invisible

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Then why does *nix hold about 50% of the server market?

          and Bill hasn’t noticed yet ?

        • #3054767

          Souce of statistics, please

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Then why does *nix hold about 50% of the server market?

          Boy, we sure throw that 50% around pretty heavily and everyone just takes it for granted. Does anyone have a source for this figure? Also, does anyone have a breakdown on what percentage of those servers are web servers, file servers, domain controllers, app servers, etc?

        • #3047053

          Here is a good link

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Souce of statistics, please

          Now keep in mind this is from ’03, so you can guestimate the growth over 2 years (about 5%). Plus, factor in things like after market installs, “non reporting” servers, and interal/development/test servers. So about 50% of the server market.

        • #3046842

          Thanks, but

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Here is a good link

          Does anyone have any more recent numbers?

          This doesn’t show web servers as a percentage of overall servers. I’ll grant there are more web servers running Linux / Apache than MS / IIS.

          But what exactly do we mean by a 5% growth over two years? Is that a 5% increase as part of the total overall server base, or just a 5% increase over existing 2003 Linux installs? Even assuming the more generous first number, and even assuming that you meant 5% per year and not for the two year period, that still give Linux only 33% of the market. That’s a third, not a half.

          Yes, I know there are a large number of “hidden” installs. Surely somebody can provide a better guess-time of this number. If I were looking to enter the Linux market as a developer or support company, I would be concerned that there’s no accurate estimate on the size of the market and how it breaks down by use.

        • #3046942


          by brandon.aiken ·

          In reply to Then why does *nix hold about 50% of the server market?

          So what? What does Linux offer me to replace AD? To replace .NET?

          How about Exchange? I’ve never seen a replacement for Exchange that didn’t bill itself as a replacement for Exchange. “SUSE LINUX Openexchange Server is an attractive groupware alternative to Microsoft Exchange.” That’s a direct quote from their website. Their primary marketing strategy is “I’m not Microsoft!”.

          Linux has it’s uses. It is a very good OS. If you can build a whole network from the ground up or migrate to it, that’s excellent. Doesn’t mean I should abandon what MS does well in our enterprise.

        • #3047310

          Why Linux hold 50% of Server Market_EASY:Cuz MS Holds Other 50%.

          by warhog73 ·

          In reply to Then why does *nix hold about 50% of the server market?

          Man, I’m pretty bad at math, but even I know that answer: because Microsoft holds the other 50%! Haw!

    • #3047313

      Best Reason of All To Switch

      by warhog73 ·

      In reply to convince me

      Don’t want to end up like this!

    • #3068673

      No one cares….Convinced yet?

      by larry ·

      In reply to convince me

      You seem to be under the impression that anyone beside yourself cares what OS you run.


    • #3071781

      because …

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to convince me

      … you just picked up the Linux server support from a major company, and they say “By the way, EVERYONE who has access to our system uses a mandated WindowsXP image on a certain Dell laptop … where should we send yours?”

    • #3071736

      It is a bad practice…!

      by mountytech ·

      In reply to convince me

      I try not to take the practice of only choosing one OS. They all have there pro’s and con’s. The only system that is not susceptible to a virus is one that has no possible way to input info. The only real reason windows is more vulnerable to viruses is that 90% of desktops around the world are running windows. This makes it a much easier target. If Linux was on 90% of desktops it would be more vulnerable to viruses and we would be trying to convince you that OpenSource OS’s are better than a proprietary OS!

      You should consider all OS’s when you are starting a new project. Each OS will out perform another depending on resources, environment, and / or function. It is only through a proper analysis for each project you can decide which will be the best solution.

    • #3072461

      I switched… to Mac!

      by boitsfort ·

      In reply to convince me

      I switched from Windows to Mac!

      Yes I swapped my personal computer (Win XP) for an iMac. It is quite recent, but I can say I love it! The Mac OS X interface is impressive and many of the features provided don’t exist on Windows or would just not be as efficient.
      For now, I’m still at the basics, but the more I learn the more I like it.

      See my blog to follow my day-to-day experience:

      • #3045263


        by excorpguy ·

        In reply to I switched… to Mac!

        Despite my screen name, I am not totally biased toward
        one OS or another. After countless hours patching
        hundreds of servers due to customer needs manually
        (instead of a automatic process), I had enough.

        While OS/X is not without fault, it is more secure and
        requires less patching IMHO. It is nice to go home and
        have a generally stable system for all that I need
        without having to apply patch after patch just to stay

        Go ahead and flame away. I make my living supporting
        Windows boxes, but use Macs at home.

    • #3060707

      Give the Dead Horse a Rest Already

      by mrrichguy ·

      In reply to convince me

      It’s been my experience over the years that the only things that topics like this produce is mostly useless opinionated banter. Sadly, any real useful information is often lost in the fray and the original poster never gets to it. There are few subjects around the IT community that will immediately turn educated, talented professionals into to flame-wielding, eight-year-olds.

      As far as convincing you to switch to Windows… I don’t believe that you rose to the position that you have without learning how to research features and performance data for yourself. Message boards are NOT research and if you were the type to base an enterprise decision on inputs from a message board, I would fire you on the spot.

      • #3045124

        dead horse a rest?

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Give the Dead Horse a Rest Already

        I haven’t posted to this thread in 2 months.
        why are people still posting to it?

        I would never trade my better performing linux systems for windows.
        ms could not pay me enough to use ANY of their software.
        why not?
        because they do not write anything reliable enough for the workplace.
        anything that says otherwise is ms advertising.
        and advertising is not to be trusted at all.

        linux works, is more cost effective, and has far fewer security issues.
        10 years with linux.
        virus infections = zero
        hacks, successfull = zero
        adware infections = zero
        downtime = zero
        money spent = zero

        what is your record for last 10 years with windows?

        money spent with ms for anyone using ms != zero

    • #3044465

      Your Minds Made Up

      by hutchtech ·

      In reply to convince me

      If you don’t need to use it, please don’t. It’s amazing how you zealots always set up this argument. The rest of the known world uses Windows because it is what they want. If it didn’t work for them, they’d switch. Get over it.

      – Hutch

      P.S. I’m writing this on my Mac–I know that doesn’t qualify as anything special in your universe, but I mention it to show that some of us do live outside the Windows world.

    • #3044449


      by b8zs49 ·

      In reply to convince me

      Nobody makes software for LINUX. It’s sad, but true. E.g. If you want to use my company’s infrared Thermography, or Imaging products for scientific or surveillance purposes you will need to run our software. Our software runs on Windows. It runs on Windows because that is the Operating System the majority of other companies use.

      You may say well, develope software for Linux too, but that uses up resources that are used to develope improvements on the exsisting systems. It’s a catch 22. Microsoft’s halfway attitude forces us to use more resources to make our software and drivers function properly. If we switched everything over to linux we would loose customers because they don’t have resources in place to support linux because they already have their own systems in place with support people trained in Microsoft products.

      I’m sure this is true throughout the industry.

      We have customers that would really like to see us support our product on Linux, however there aren’t enough of them to impact the market.

      So switch and be able to run 90% of the applications out there, or don’t and stay with the 10%.

      As far as Mac, If your going to do multimedia you will have all the software and support you need, but for buisiness they will never substitute an $800 PC with a $2500 Mac now matter how much better it is.

      I have nothing against Linux, Microsoft is on top and that’s where the focus will stay unless one version of Linux comes out pre-packaged with all the bells and wistles, and a huge support team. Aunty Barbra has to be able to plug it in and go or linux is just a cult OS.

      • #3046692

        Wrong, wrong, and no

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Because…

        A) You are making some HUGE assumptions. Are you sure there isn’t software for *nix out there for you? I worked for the Bureau of Geology and we had plenty of *nix boxes running various spectrometry (sp?) software. I would image it would be a simple hop to thermal imaging.

        B) There are TONS of various open source projects out there. Have you even talked to the open source community? Have you even presented this as a need?

        C) If your FUD was true, *nix would hold over 50% of the server market.

      • #3046673

        Nobody? Really?

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Because…

        It’s interesting that your company doesn’t support the single most common embedded systems OS, considering you’re talking about infrared thermography — which has a greater market in embedded systems than anywhere else, as far as I’m aware. It sounds to me that by focusing on Windows you’re ignoring 90% of the potential business, by limiting yourself to desktop systems. Sure, it may be true that 90% of desktop systems running infrared thermography software are Windows (I don’t have any statistics on that, so I’ll just go with it), but since desktops aren’t the main platform market for infrared imaging, that doesn’t mean as much as you might think. In fact, I’m working for a company that, among other things, is working on software for orbital infrared tracking systems. Linux is the main target platform for development.

        Maybe you’re just thinking inside a Microsoft branded box.

        As for software in general being developed only for Windows, you’re even further out in left field. Even on desktop systems, there’s more free and open source unix/Linux software for most tasks than comparable Windows software. Try comparing the number of options on Windows vs. those on Linux for word processors, text editors, GUI systems, GUI toolkits, web browsers, file browsers, IM clients, encrypted protocol tunneling (VPN, et cetera), DNS, mail servers, mail clients, programming compiler and interpreter implementations, file compression, data backups, web servers, screen capture, virtual terminals, filesystems, drive partitioning, IRC, FTP, network monitoring, penetration testing, firewalling, media players, PDF authoring and viewing, raytracers, and so on. Better yet, that’s just the stuff that’s free.

        If you want to look at commercial software, you could have a look at Maya (industry standard 3d modeling and animation), Oracle, MATLAB (scientific calculation and programming), and great scads of similarly high-power, respected, industry standard software.

        “[i]Microsoft is on top and that’s where the focus will stay unless one version of Linux comes out pre-packaged with all the bells and wistles, and a huge support team.[/i]”
        Odd. That seems to be exactly what companies like Novell and Red Hat offer. In fact, it’s their entire business model.

        “[i]Aunty Barbra has to be able to plug it in and go or linux is just a cult OS.[/i]”
        I see two problems with that right off the bat. One: Aunty Barbra, or whoever, can do just that — perhaps you haven’t heard of distros like SuSE, Lycoris, Xandros, Linspire, and so on, all of which were designed with that use in mind. Two: You seem to be ignoring the fact that a “cult OS” is unlikely to be supported, used, and relied upon by a great many very formidable and highly respected organizations. If you disagree with that statement, perhaps you should tell the following that they’re all making a terrible, terrible mistake:

        California Institute of Technology
        California Polytechnic State University
        Canadian National Railways
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        Electric Company of New Zealand, Ltd.
        Kentucky Fried Chicken
        Mercedes-Benz AG
        Munich, Germany
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        National Disaster Communication Response Team
        National Disaster Communication Response Team
        National Research Council of Canada
        National Security Agency
        Netherlands Office for Science and Technology
        Netscape Communications Corp.
        New Jersey State Police
        Northrop Grumman Corporation
        Numerica Corporation
        Palm Beach County Workforce Development Board, Inc.
        Redevelopment Authority, City of Philadelphia
        Sun Microsystems
        United States Postal Service
        US Bureau of Reclamation
        US Senate Democratic Leadership
        US West, Inc.
        Wikimedia Foundation
        World Council of Churches
        Yellow Cab Service Corporation

        Maybe next time I’ll go to the effort of finding more companies and governmental organizations who use Linux extensively, but that should be a nice start, and I’ve already wasted fifteen minutes of my time just finding those. After all, it’s not easy to find out what kind of computers a company is using when their main line of business involves aggregating local rentals for online services (for example).

        • #3046657

          Does anyone else find it ironic that Sun uses Linux?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Nobody? Really?

          Also, at one time (I don’t know if it is still true) Hotmail was *nix based.

          Oh, and the DoE and DoD are migrating more and more to *nix…Don’t forget various state agencies, like the Bureau of Geology, that use *nix or a *nix/Windows blend…

        • #3046617


          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Does anyone else find it ironic that Sun uses Linux?


          Sun Microsystems’ management has been very confused for a long time. They make a great honest-to-god genuine Unix but they thought that offering Linux would help them regain their declining market share. I think that was misguided.

          They also made a mistake with their x86 compatibility for Sun OS. First they made Solaris for x86 then they dropped x86 support. Now they say that they believe in x86 for Solaris. It’s difficult for enterprise customers to believe in them.

          Their most recent mistake was making Sun OS/Solaris free. That should be their cash cow. Actually I don’t know the license details for commercial use. Maybe they’re charging for non-personal use.

          Anyway Sun’s management don’t know what they’re doing.

        • #3046492

          Point taken

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to No.

          You are spot on…Sun seems to be managed by the schizophrenic and lobotomized…

          They’ve made so many strange decisions in the past few years, corporations (and education) are starting to move away from them…

        • #3046486

          re: Solaris

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to No.

          Sun wasn’t making any money on Solaris for x86, and it was a market they were unable to be able to break into with expensive OS sales. Since it’s only the x86 version that Sun released under and Open Source license, the move actually makes a bit of sense. They can harvest any open source development for material to reincorporate into their commercial versions of Solaris at their leisure and discretion (the real reason Sun didn’t use an already existing OSS license).

          On the other hand, I think they overlooked something: if anybody cares to, they might start porting open source x86 Solaris to other hardware platforms, cutting into non-x86 Solaris sales. Only time will tell.

          More than anything else, though, I think releasing x86 Solaris as open source software was sort of a PR deal.

        • #3046491

          That’s right . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Does anyone else find it ironic that Sun uses Linux?

          I forgot to include Microsoft on that list.

    • #3046553


      by opensource?bah ·

      In reply to convince me

      I have both a G5 and Compatible running Windows XP Pro. I use my Apple for Unix (kinda Open Source but with Jobs twists) and Windows with my Compatible. And yes, both are PC’s, don’t confuse the issue about that. I can get to MSN using my Apple, but I can also get to Yahoo or any other site. The same with my Compatible. I find the Apple great for graphics and security. Windows has its problems, but with a strong Firewall, which I have, a good Anti-Virus, a must-have with open source, more so than Windows, and a Spyware component, Windows is reasonably safe. A person who can write open-source programs, using Red Hat, SuSe or whichever can insert it into Linux, bypassing that idiot team that ok’s the program, using code of course, and then you have what is called a virus, by definition, an unwanted program. Stick open source where it belongs, under your hat.

      • #3046545

        And here I thought I was ignorant

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to MSFT/Linux

        “… bypassing that idiot team that ok’s the program, …”

        You obviously know even less about the approval process than I do. How are you going to bypass them? No one is going to download new code, or include it when they rebuild their kernel, or stick it in their next distribution until it has been checked by a massive number of coders. There are people who live for doing just this sort of checking. This means this piece of code is never going to get green-lighted for any form of distribution, and no open source web site is going to make it available for download. If the author wants to propogate it, he’s going to be reduced to e-mail or sneakernet. Then he’s going to need root privs on the machine he’s trying to infect.

      • #3046543

        Did you change your alias

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to MSFT/Linux

        just to post this flame bait?

        ‘A person who can write open-source programs, using Red Hat, SuSe or whichever can insert it into Linux, bypassing that idiot team that ok’s the program, using code of course, and then you have what is called a virus, by definition, an unwanted program. ‘

        Look up peer review, for starters, in fact look up everything. ‘Using code of course’, what were expecting them to use someone with a cough ?

        There are some potentially good arguments for sticking with windows, this is not even a start at one of them, in fact it’s complete drivel.

      • #3046480

        May I have a tissue please!

        by mountytech ·

        In reply to MSFT/Linux

        That was funny Tony!

        I think my Windows box has a cold. Would you recommend Triaminic Night Time Cough & Cold?

        Or how about this, maybe the pharmaceutical companies should develop operating systems. Perhaps they could genetically engineer something as adaptive and intelligent as the Flu!

        A quick judgment to repudiate any OS only shows lack of experience. I have used and found many operating systems, such as Windows, Linux, Mac, OS/400, Unix, and etc, work very well depending on the needs of an organization, function of the server or computer, training and experience of users and technical staff, applications available, and many other factors that should be considered.

        As Tony said, ?There are some potentially good arguments for sticking with windows,? one such argument is if you are comfortable with it then use it. When you are planning or implementing a new system for an organization there needs should be considered not yours.

        • #3045226

          Guy’s is an IT manager

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to May I have a tissue please!

          according to his profiles as well, must be damn scary, being that ignorant and in charge.
          Why don’t they stick to window’s strong points, if you already have a large software investment ad particularly in legacy stuff, there’s a good business argument for coping with windows poor effort at security. Not even a Gartner fan could swallow this argument.

      • #3046420


        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to MSFT/Linux

        Whta are you talking about? What do you mean “bypassing the idiot team that ok’s the programs.”

        Why is open source any worse than closed source? What are you saying?

    • #3045358

      I wouldn’t dare.

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to convince me

      Try to convince you. You should use what is comfortable for you until it is no longer comfortable for you. All other people can tell you is what is comfortable for THEM!

Viewing 29 reply threads