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.

[john bailo]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Pokeweed ( and John ), You asked me: <<
It costs money to make things ' dumb ' for ' dummies ' ?
Are you the first to admit you're one of them ? >>

I'm as " dumb " as hell when it come to complex programs
( and the accompanying source code ) that I've never seen.
( Especially in a distro/language that I seldom/never use )
Would you admit the same ?

The common man/woman is never going to tweak
the endless source code contained in your typical Linux distro.

No one says that he has to directly code the Linux c code.

I expect a whole new set of middleware to appear that will allow changes
to be made using GUI or automated interfaces.

For example, you could have a company that sets up a service which acts
as a middle man between the Linux source and the build for your machine.

The point is that the code /can/ be changed -- it can always be tailored
to the man/woman's specific machine.

You can never do that with Windows.

[john bailo]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

You don't sound like the common man/woman to me
( who, by the way, wouldn't know a TCO from a TKO ).

How much do you pay to support your Linux boxen ?
( Don't forget to count the time you put into it )

How often are you delving into the source code on your distro ?

Here's how the common man will handle it:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...2_geeks09.html

Electronics retailers have a hit with in-home service
HDTV too difficult to set up? Geek Squad, or rival, can help

By DAN RICHMAN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Redmond resident Ron Smith wanted his family's four laptop computers
connected in a wireless network -- but no way would he do it himself.

Smith, 63, had suffered such emotional trauma trying to install
Verizon's DSL Internet service recently that he sought professional help
from electronics retailer Best Buy Inc., where he had bought the
network's components.

Wearing the trademark black and white get-up of the Geek Squad, Fred
Deichler prepares to enter the home of a customer in Redmond this week.

The store dispatched a member of the Geek Squad, its staff of nerdily
attired technicians, to Smith's home this week, charging about $300 for
two trips. Once some operating system issues had been resolved, "we were
up and running in virtually 20 minutes," Smith said.

[john bailo]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi John, Re: Micro-Soft being the original name of Microsoft,

You wrote: << I thought it was Traf-O-Data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traf-O-Data >>

No, that was just something Bill and Paul did when Bill was 16,
see news:Je******** *************** @Cotse.NET

No, thanks.

I could care less.

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Andrew_DeFaria ( ¿ K-Unit ),
Re: How computer professionals either code for themselves,
their friends... or to pay the rent,

You replied: << What the hell are you talking about ?
Professionals use professional tools. Amateurs use toys. >>

Tons of sourse code, on tons of distros,
written in tons of languages == tons of Tiny niches.

That sounds expensive to me, even if your time is worth nothing,
even if you're the world's most " literate " programmer.

P.S. Seeing as you use <> instead of !=
I should explain that == means: " equal to ".

[Eddie de Bear]

<snip>

It costs money to make things 'dumb' for 'dummies'? Are you the first to admit
you're one of them?

So, what you are saying is that by keeping linux hard to use for the average
user (dummies), it's better, and therefore everyone should use it?

I deal with real world clients everyday, and many of them have trouble using
"dumb" software. None of these people are dummies by any means. Many of them
run their own companies, manage large departments etc.

As far as I'm concerned, making software dumb so these people can use it is
a good idea, and well worth the money that Microsoft charges.

Sure, if you are talking about server side, where only people who are
technical are likely to deal with the software, it does not matter either
way. It can be complicated, and you can get away with saying "Just write
yourself some shell scripts, recompile a few modules and all will be well".
This does not work for the average user...

This is something that you will likely find when you start working for money
to support a family, instead of sitting in a dark room, bludging of your
parents and looking at midget pr0n all day.

Cheers

[Andrew DeFaria]

john bailo wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi John, Re: Micro-Soft being the original name of Microsoft,

You wrote: << I thought it was Traf-O-Data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traf-O-Data >>
No, that was just something Bill and Paul did when Bill was 16,
see news:Je******** *************** @Cotse.NET

No, thanks.

I could care less.

Add to that it's an invalid link... ;-)
--
I love defenseless animals, especially in a good gravy

[Bill Unruh]

Jeff_Relf <[e-mail] > writes:

Except that the common man/woman ( including myself )
has never even heard of such programs,
much less tweaked the source code.
That is because they run Windows, in which case why would they have.
And why in the world would they or anyone just running either Windows or
Linux "tweak source code"?
If they want to in the Linux world they can. Most do not want to, or need
to.
P.S. Rick, You can't win any arguments by shifting the burden of proof.
In fact, you can't win any arguments... period.

Unfortunately you cannot make arguments.

[john bailo]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Andrew_DeFaria ( ¿ K-Unit ),
Re: How computer professionals either code for themselves,
their friends... or to pay the rent,

You replied: << What the hell are you talking about ?
Professionals use professional tools. Amateurs use toys. >>

Tons of sourse code, on tons of distros,
written in tons of languages == tons of Tiny niches.

That sounds expensive to me, even if your time is worth nothing,
even if you're the world's most " literate " programmer.

Expense can be only measured in terms of two providers or more.

Microsoft /cant/ offer that level of detail.

Linux can.

So, Microsoft is the most expensive, because the source can't be had --
at *any* *price* !

P.S. Seeing as you use <> instead of !=
I should explain that == means: " equal to ".

[Bill Unruh]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> writes:

Micro-Soft was never the public comapy name. It was the company name prior
to going public. That's all I'm saying here. You are making too much out of
it.

What has that to do with it. It did business under that name. What does the
fact that it is private or public got to do with anything. Did Google only
begin to exist this year?

[Scott M.]

"Bill Unruh" <un***@string.p hysics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cp******** **@nntp.itservi ces.ubc.ca...

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> writes:

Micro-Soft was never the public comapy name. It was the company name
prior
to going public. That's all I'm saying here. You are making too much out
of
it. What has that to do with it. It did business under that name.

Yeah, before anyone had ever heard of it. To use that name today (some 23
years later) seems not really correct to me. That's all. Get over it.
What does the
fact that it is private or public got to do with anything. Did Google only
begin to exist this year?

No, but then again, they didn't have a different corporate name before they
went public now did they?