Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop

[John Bailo]

The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.

Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.

In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.

But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.

Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.

And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.

[ytv]

People you need to understand what is going on.
Take for instance the phenomen of Sun/Java. It is relatively small company,
but I suggest you to learn what industries are behind it. You will be
surprized I assure.
All this mess just express dissatisfaction of big business community by the
state in software development. The problem is that noone having significant
money wants to invest them in such stupid things as software for OS etc. And
reason is that those investment can not be secured or controlled. Just one
example from relatively resent past. I sorry that it can be rather painful
for somebody, but it just reality.
Former USSR back 1970 stopped production of own line of Mainframes and just
started production of exact copies of IBM mainframes. Surely the idea was to
get free all software and it was stollen completely. It was not even
translated into Russian. The only problem was that Russians were not able to
make production quality as needed so those mainframes typically went down
after 5 hours.
At relation to PC, the technology is simplified and open to the extent that
seems any country is able to produce the needed quality hardware. But even
without such extremes you know that tipycally owners can not control their
software property and rather happy if nobody asserts that he/she has
copyrights at and demand pay for. I do not want to continue about all those
dirt. Combined with MS inability to
provide clear description of the system that caused that insteed competion
among
programmers on level of skills, it became a kind ugly first in history of
programming competion just to know how the system work. It might be funny
that such an situation happened in former USSR, when some well connected
people got ownership of origional manuals of IBM and tryied to play Gurus.
Surely those hopes were broken like happened in the USA, when the experts on
Windows programming became the citizens of other countries. I assure you that
such way of things can not be tolerated by business so the changes will
happens.
"billwg" wrote:

"Jeff_Relf" <[e-mail] > wrote in message
news:Je******** *************** @Cotse.NET...

Hi John, You wrote: <<
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be,
the Server OS in the form of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money
to get companies to install servers, they failed miserably,
and the 1 Billion per quarter Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know,
is that the only reason they wanted to dominate the server,
is to protect their desktop and office applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe;
cede the server, and the desktop will fall.
And so it is... falling into the hands of Linux. >>

Meanwhile, Bill buys anther Jumbo Yacht with twin helicopters,
...Why ? Because his competition thinks like you John.

The desktop is the net.

Linux advocates are quick to claim victory in the server market and
gleefully cite reaching the $1B mark in server sales, but Mr. Softee has
been increasing its market share, too, and if you combine the linux and
traditional unix shares you find that Windows is gaining on the pair of
them. Linux is cannibalizing traditional unix at a rapid rate, but some of
that business is obviously going to Microsoft as well. When unix is as dead
as Novell, linux is not going to be as healthy as unix was when the whole
thing started. And linux will be the next to lose.

[Linønut]

Be*******@hotma il.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
1. That's more like his entire worth. So he donated everything and now
walks around in burlap garb like St. Francis of Assissi?

2. A good portion of what Bill and Melinda donates is Microsoft Funny
Money. That is, Microsoft software overvalued for charitable
purchases.
he owns billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for.
No thanks. I would not want to work for Microsoft.
The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.
The desktop is actually a small portion of the net. Microsoft does not own
the net.

And the desktop is starting to shift.
Bezu

Gesundheit.

--
Tux: "If you bought a computer with Windows, sorry, you paid too much!"
Ballmer: "We need to get paid!"

[chrisv]

Be*******@hotma il.com wrote:

Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent.
he owns
billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for. The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.

Idiot.

[General Protection Fault]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.a dvocacy.]
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:48:18 -0600, chrisv wrote:

Be*******@hotma il.com wrote:

Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,

Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent.

They give out money quite often.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Globa...?showYear=2004

and that's just for Global Health.

--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
2:00PM up 15 days, 19:22, 0 users, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi billwg, You wrote: <<
Linux is cannibalizing traditional unix at a rapid rate,
but some of that business is obviously going to Microsoft as well.
When unix is as dead as Novell, linux is not going to be
as healthy as unix was when the whole thing started.
And linux will be the next to lose. >>

No one currently owns the cellphone/hand-held market,
Same for the server market, both markets are very custom,
and that's where Linux shines the most.

Will those two markets ever become standardized like the desktop ?
And will Micro-Soft own that standard ?
I doubt it, I think those markets will remain splintered.

But if you want to take on Bill,
you can't dismiss the importance of WinXP like Bailo does.

Just look at Wireless LANs ( WiFi ), they're everywhere these days
....that's where the revolution is, the guy next door.

[Scott M.]

Corrections to your post:

Um, in 2003, the UW donated just under 4 billion, so try more than 10 years
of the United Way's annual budget.
Bill has donated over 50 billion, not 42.
The desktop is most certainly NOT the net. Internet standards are not
created with a specific platform in mind.

<Be*******@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget, he owns
billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for. The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.

Bezu

[Scott M.]

"Linønut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= "@bone.com> wrote in message
news:CK******** ************@co mcast.com...

Be*******@hotma il.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and
said:

Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
1. That's more like his entire worth. So he donated everything and now
walks around in burlap garb like St. Francis of Assissi?

That is less than half is net worth. He has pledged nearly 50% of his net
worth to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.

2. A good portion of what Bill and Melinda donates is Microsoft Funny
Money. That is, Microsoft software overvalued for charitable
purchases.
No, you are confusing what Microsoft donates with what the Bill & Melinda
Gates foundation donates.

he owns billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for.
No thanks. I would not want to work for Microsoft.

Agreed that many do not want to work for MS.

The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.
The desktop is actually a small portion of the net. Microsoft does not
own
the net.

The desktop is not a portion of the net at all.

And the desktop is starting to shift.

What in the world makes you say that? That's not true at all.

[Scott M.]

"chrisv" <ch****@nospam. invalid> wrote in message
news:2h******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

Be*******@hotma il.com wrote:

Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,

Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent.

You are entirely misinformed. You confuse what MS donates with what the
Bill & Melinda Gates foundation donates. He has, in fact, pledged over 50%
of his net worth (over 50B) to charity. That is a FACT.

Last week, as MS shareholders (like me) got our $3 per share dividend, Bill
donated all 3 billion of his!

From http://www.businessweek.com/magazine.../b3910401.htm:

"The year's other billion-dollar-club members include No. 1 givers Bill and
Melinda Gates, the world's largest international donors, who made history
this year by giving their estimated $3 billion Microsoft Corp. (MSFT )
dividend to their foundation. It's one of the largest donations in history
by a living donor. To put it into perspective, that one gift is three times
bigger than the amount that America's richest family, the descendants of
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) founder Sam Walton, has given during their
entire lifetimes, according to our ranking."

It is so easy to make Bill out to be the devil, isn't it? Why don't you
invest some of that energy into learning the facts instead of calling others
liars and spreading myths yourself?

Now, I won't stoop to your level and call you a derogatory name. But, it
would be nice if you closed your mouth and opened your ears a little more.

[bLaDe]

"Fact corrector" wrote:

Fact from fiction

Unix and Linux is rubbish operating system that falls over on any server and
any person who say that you can not get a virus or worm on unix or linux are
full of themselfs,
You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about Unix when you rubbish Unix's stability.

Unix is was never a desktop operating system and neither was linux until
around 1998,

This crap that unix or linux is this wonderful operating system that is
stable has never put it through its paces and the truth of the matter is this
any software can be comprised by a simple binary test and all operating
system can crash by a simple power failure or hardware fault.

there is nothing great about Linux or Unix to me it is just another piece of
software for some person to sell and make money off wether it is by actually
selling the operating system or by running it in a company,

And all these virus, trojans, and worm writers are really programmers who
have nothing better to do than cause head aches for every person who is
trying to get there job's dun and stay in a job.

Microsoft may not have a good track record but at least there operating
system is straight forward no bull crap and gets your job dun in the least
amount of time with having to go through countless of webpages just to find
and update something linux and unix are hopeless at.
Straight forward? Check (if you know how to) the # of known bugs in Server
2000 & how many of them will never be resolved.

and the claims that billions of companies are using linuxs are exaggerated
because the truth is they are use upto three different operatings systems
just to prevent attacks to there servers which are ussually run by a linux
server that can not stop a hacker in the first place.

most companies will not install linuxs becuase of the long hours of
installing and the complex training involved which cost money and profits and
time learning the language while the alterative is windows which is easy to
install managable easy to fix and widely available information on how to use
it and updates,

Windows can be backup and running without lost of data if managed correctly
after virus and worm attacks also most windows only involves one cd disk
instead of the linux two to three disk installation.

Microsoft may not be the favour of people because of the cost but when you
put linux on the same platform cost wise or free windows is far greater
accepted in the community because of its ease of use and relability to get
the job dun,

Unix and linux are over rated software and only mandrake came close to
windows for desktop environment competiveness


"John Bailo" wrote:

The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.

Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.

In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.

But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.

Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.

And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Scott, You told Linønut: <<
The desktop is not a portion of the net at all. >>

Anything can be used to connect PCs... Don't believe me ?
Just look at rising surge of USB Flash devices
and wireless LANs ( WiFi ).

WinXP _ Is _ the net,
....the particular connection choosen is quite irrelevant in comparison.

You added: << many do not want to work for MS. >>

That is the Fucking understatement of the year !

Micro-Soft's labor problems are almost as bad as Wal-Mart's.
Take a look at their call center workers,
by law, these sub-sub-contractors ( working for temp agencies )
have to be either hired or fired after working 12 months,
....they're usually fired.

And that's when the work isn't totally exported.

Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.