convince me

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.

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.

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!!!

for which version of the JRE ?
...
..

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

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.

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.

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
current.

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

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

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.

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:

AMD
Autozone
Boeing
California Institute of Technology
California Polytechnic State University
Canadian National Railways
Cisco Systems, Inc.
DaimlerChrysler
Electric Company of New Zealand, Ltd.
Google
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Kentucky Fried Chicken
Match.com
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
Nokia
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Novell
Numerica Corporation
Palm Beach County Workforce Development Board, Inc.
Redevelopment Authority, City of Philadelphia
Rent.com
Sony
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).

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...

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.

"... 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.

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.

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.

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?