quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:
Slightly off-topic but I would challenge, Gir, that linux is a vialbe alternative for many, and if it continues to progress much farther with the desktop in mind it will be a viable one for all. Remember that the latest mac os is built ontop of bsd after all

However, the best that can be expected of linux in the not too distant future is to level the playing feild a bit more and force more honest competition i think.

---

Technically speaking, Linux is a great alternative. But it does not have the business potential that Windows has. In order to replace windows, the OS must be 4 things:

- User friendly
- Stable and otherwise technologically sound
- Compatible with lots of stuff
- Able to make money

Linux has many points in the tech caqtegory, half-decent in user-friendliness, low compatibility, and dismal business potential. Disadvantage: OS based on Communism does not fare well in the Capitalist world.

Mac OSes are great user freindly, stable but lacking in capability, not really compatible with things not Apple, and do have business potential. Although recently they have been getting better with performance. Has a chance if they get better with the compatibility thing. Disadvantage: If they usurp MS's power, the power would just be going from one old big business to another. Just like changing Liberal party leaders- different face, same BS.

Compatibility is definately on the rise. Lets face it, the big hurdle is 'office'. Just about anything else can be imported/exported if needed, but despite claims to the contrary office just does not edit well in anything other than office. However, such projects as wine and lindows have made surprising progress.

As to 'business opportunity' on the desktop, i suspect there is a model there which will grow. Look at the tremendous business that's been done using it's server capabilities to create 'network appliances' as stand alone systems. I suspect that the desktop model may evolve as a service model. Right now, computer hardware sales are a cutthroat commodity based endevor. I could easily see companies selling 'linux loaded' systems for a lot less money than the same system loaded with windows, and actually make more money. The os and MS software can easily add 500 or more to the cost of the system, with little of it staying in the hands of the vendor. Drop that to 200 with a host of free programs already loaded, and that's a lot more cash in the hands of the seller.

Mandrake comes bundled with a ton of software so I didn't have to worry about finding programs for word processing, listening to music, or programming. And I've found all the Office clones do an amazingly good job of opening my old Microsoft Office documents. The only downside is it comes with a whole whack of arcade style games that have been more addictive than you would imagine.

I find that I use Windows less and less every day. The only pain has been trying to synchronize my files between the two operating systems. Once I figure out how to move all my Calendar information out of Outlook and into a Linux app, I can't see myself using Windows very much any more. I do a lot of computer programming, and I find the development tools in Linux to be far superiour to anything I could find for Windows - but I guess that's part of its geek appeal.

And doesn't fare well? Huh. Proof again right wingers don't need to know anything before blowing open their mouths.

Just one very recent example and overlooking the fact Linux is surpassing MS in the server market:

Communist Software Fights Disease:
With the help of a cluster of PCs running Linux, Canadian researchers have made a major breakthrough in tackling the deadly SARS virus.

The scientists, at the Genome Sciences Centre at the British Columbia Cancer Agency in Vancouver, used a 232-node Linux cluster to uncover the genetic sequence of the coronavirus believed to be responsible for SARS.

quote:

---

Besides, it seems to me that Open Source is more analogous to anarchy than communism.

---

quote:

---

Besides, it seems to me that Open Source is more analogous to anarchy than communism.

---

There's a bit of that, but it's more cooperative. The important thing is that the source code isn't a top secret proprietary thing that no one can access. With Windows, you can't change a thing. If it has a bug, you have to wait for M$ to fix it. Their usual response is to issue a new release that you have to pay for. With Linux, if there's a bug, anybody who's clever enough can access the code and fix it.

Linux has a big impact in the Third World. I read a while back that China is developing it's own distro in order to not have to pay royalties to M$.

quote:

---

Their usual response is to issue a new release that you have to pay for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:
Wingnut - no sane person is questioning its sutibility or acceptance as a server platform - i could turn this into a 10 page post real quick with success stories from that angle - but we're talking about desktop viability. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Linux did not grow up as a desktop platform the way windows did.

Ahh- the 'communist' stuff is a bit of a 'red' herring I think guys hehe. There are pro's and con's to open source, and none of them have anything to do with political leanings.

---

quote:

---

Disadvantage: OS based on Communism does not fare well in the Capitalist world.

---

And, I would disagree anyway.
Microsoft has been on desktop computers since 1981 . Windows 3.1 was released in 1992. Linux, by contrast, has only been available since 1994. And I would argue the development has been nothing short of phenomenal. And it continues to be.

I no longer use windows on my desktop at home.

I do not need to pirate software. I do not want for software. The latest Linux desktops are as easy to install and use as Windows and far more stable.

And every release gets better.

It is only a matter of time.

As a side note, I have been sourcing software for my employer. There is a sound of panic that appears in the voices of vendors when you tell them you require platform independent solutions as you plan to switch your office desktops to Linux within the next two to three years.

[ 15 July 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

I disagree.

---

er.. with which bit?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disadvantage: OS based on Communism does not fare well in the Capitalist world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no distinguishment in that statement between desktop or server platforms.

---

You're right, i'm wrong, i'm sorry. I DO believe that the original writer was refering to the desktop environment only when he made that statement, but you're correct - that's not what it says.

I find new users learn and adapt to Linux much faster than experienced users. With experienced users (and by experienced I mean Joe Average who uses a computer daily but isn't neccessarily technically savvy) there is greater resistance to any change. People just dislike change.

I know people who hate Microsoft and consider Bill Gates the devil but won't move away from the platform because it is what they know.

Similarily, I have a friend that insisted on using DOS right up until the technology finally forced him to switch.

But, on the other hand, a friend setup a senior, in his building, with Linux just for email and word processing. It is the old guy's first computer and he can't be happier. The system was a hand me down and the software was free.

The guy is now emailing his family and reading the news from the old country. He doesn't even know who Bill Gates is. Doesn't care either.

But more importantly, he doesn't need to know anymore than anyone else to do what he wants.

Don't get me wrong. There are problems. The biggest problems, from my experience, are vendors who refuse to either release drivers or code for others to write drivers. This is less and less of a problem but still persists.

To make matters worse, i just realized you're arguing my original point, whilst i am not. Remind me again - is it duck season or rabbit season?

The os with the most compatibility issues is always the latest version of Windows or Office. My wife's windows 95 has serious issues with anything sent from Windows 2000 or the latest Office. MS deliberately makes things that are not fully backward compatible.

quote:

---

The problem is proprietary software vendors not adhering to standards.

---

That was a problem with fax machines, too. It may still be to some extent. It was customers who demanded that the manufacturers adhere to standards; thus the G3.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
I find new users learn and adapt to Linux much faster than experienced users. With experienced users (and by experienced I mean Joe Average who uses a computer daily but isn't neccessarily technically savvy) there is greater resistance to any change. People just dislike change.

I know people who hate Microsoft and consider Bill Gates the devil but won't move away from the platform because it is what they know.

---

heehee. You could be describing me with that

And yes, I used Windows for Workgroups 3.11 right up until mid-1996 when I finally decided to give Windows 95 a go after a fresh install.

Why did I say it is based on Communism? Because it relies on people to contribute their gifts for the good fo the whole without personal gain. It is an OS that depends on co-operation instead of competetion. Nothing inherently wrong with that, it just does not seem to generate the large revenues which would make Linux a serious contender vs. Windows.

I suppose it's kind of communitst in a way. Sort of in the same way a library or other usable system of information is. It's 'community' based, and a 'colaborative' effort.

quote:

---

If this is not so, how come Mandrake went bankrupt?

---

However, IMHO, the Linux community needs to lose the script-kiddy attitude that if you don't know what $ grep '"[a-z]"' means then you should go back to Microsoft. This isn't contributing to the success, y'know?

I am not going to pretend when it comes to server configuration it is easy. But I would argue it is tremendously easier to configure a Linux box as any sort of server, even if manually editing text files, than a Windows 2000 server.

However, if you look up and reread my comments on the old guy, Linux, on the desktop, is easy to install and use. As easy, in most cases, as Windows. Making Linux easy to use has been an important part of the development process.

quote:

---

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- America Online cut about 50 jobs from its Netscape Communications' Web browser development team, as the Internet division of AOL Time Warner cuts costs and tries to recharge growth, a spokesman said Wednesday.

The cuts account for less than 10 percent of AOL's Mountain View, California campus, which is home to Netscape and the company's Web development and programming teams.

The move comes less than two months after AOL said it would use Netscape rival Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser technology for seven years as part of the software company's settlement of an anti-trust dispute.

That settlement, in which Microsoft agreed to distribute AOL's online service, again raised questions about the viability of Netscape.

---

I think that the best internet browser/mail client was IE 3.02. It did everything I could wish for with no bloat. Unfortunately, the geeks at M$ thought it didn't have enough "features" and replaced it. Too bad. This is one of the reasons I switched to Linux.

[ 17 July 2003: Message edited by: Cougyr ]

quote:

---

Another emerging item the open-sourcers might want to watch is the rise of Open Groupware -- an open source initiative aimed directly at Microsoft's Exchange product line.

---

Hey thanks for that tip. Going to have to check it out...I'm running an Exchange Server at the office.

quote:

---

Linux has a big impact in the Third World. I read a while back that China is developing it's own distro in order to not have to pay royalties to M$.

---

Red Flag Linux