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.

[nev]

"General Protection Fault" wrote:

By law, every Linux user should be able to sue WinXP users for putting
hazardous material on the Internet.

Not true. You're only liable if you *know* you're doing it.

generally speaking.. does this also hold up when you dont know something
that you should be knowing ;)

[Nick Malik [Microsoft]]

May I recommend a slim business book called "Crossing the Chasm" about how
software adoption cycles work?

You may find that your opinion of the Linux software adoption process is not
on par with reality.

Linux, like any new software package, is not "snapped up" by value seekers
first. It is first taken on by early adopters who are motivated by features
or non-economic concerns. For a software package to make the jump to
middle-market acceptance is very difficult, even more so for an open source
system like Linux. It has not made that jump yet.

While you appear to disdain the intellectuals of the world, they are the
primary reason that Linux exists as an alternative to anything at all.
Intellectuals are your early adopters.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"Moe Green" <mo*@green.vega s> wrote in message
news:33******** *****@individua l.net...

Linux is like WalMart when it was a small single store, and all the big
stores laughed at it and it's low prices.

Then middle America saw the bargain and snapped it up in droves.

Then the intellectuals such as yourself embrace it.
sam f wrote:

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

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

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[Rune T.S.]

"Jeff_Relf" wrote:

Hi unruh_string_ph ysics, You admitted: <<
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 [ a-a-ah ha ha ha ].
Most do not want to, or need to [ a-a-ah ha ha ha ]. >>

Being able to tweak the source code is, as you just admited,
not an advantage to the common man/womand,
as they typically can't/won't do it.

So where is the open-source advantage then ?
The advantage is that you don't have to pay a lot of money to use it, as it
is free!
You can only argue that the entire package is superior ( for the common man ),
from installation/configuration to daily use to the next upgrade.
This is a aspect of open source software which has been made significantly
better durring the last years. It is no harder to do than it is on windows,
you just have to learn how to do it as it is not allways done in the same
way...
Yet, if that is true, you have to explain why the common man/woman
rejects this free " solution " in favor of a product that costs money.

It's better, but few want it ? Why is that ? Marketing ?

Oh wait... don't tell me... it's a conspiracy... headed by Bill Gates et al.

No, not a conspiracy, just the result of a lack in advetising.
The main reason why the common user doesn't change to *nix,
is that they are used to working with windows, and the thought of
shiftng to another OS "scares" them. This is partly because the common
user has an idea of the *nix systems being very complicated and, as you
keep argumenting, you have to fiddel with the source codes to make it work
probably, but this is just an option the more advaned user can make use of,
if he/she wants to.
For 99% of the open source programs out there you also have the option of
downloading a self-installing binary version of the program. The major
distro's
even make RPM's, which is the *nix eqivalent to the Windows MSI, for many
of the most common programs, which makes installition and upgrading someting
everyone can do with a little practice.

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.a dvocacy, Rick
<no**@none.co m>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:36:13 GMT
<pa************ *************** *@none.com>:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:52:54 +0000, Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Rick, You squeaked to me: << Your quoting non-style is crap. >>

I'm surprised you even know how to breathe, Rick, You're so mindless.
AHah HAHA haha HAHahah HAHaha HAHahh...

Re: Second-level quoting ( " > > " ) being spam,

You replied: <<
that is the way is done... by convention... by etiquette by RFC 2646 >>

If true, then RFC 2646, and you, are wrong.
You'll never drag me down to your level, Rick... so why don't
you give it up ?

That's right Relf... everyone is wrong but you.
Go take some more Thorazine.

I'm mildly surprised someone's codified it, but it's clear
that someone did -- and even mentions (in Section 3.2)
two "stupid line wrap" problems; the first one has to do
with chevron inclusion, the second with too-wide text on
a PDA or even on a standard newsreader if the poster was
using a variable-width font such as New Times Roman.

It's not clear to me whether the
header Content-Type: text/plain; Format=Flowed parameter
is processed properly by SLRN. (Does it need to be? It
would save me some work... :-) )

You concluded: << you just do things the way you want to and custom,
ettiquette and rfc be damned. >>

You're the damned one, Rick... not me, not ettiquette or RFCs.

... more of your psychoses.

--
#191, ew****@earthlin k.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.a dvocacy, Scott M.
<s-***@nospam.nosp am>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:35:46 GMT
<OK************ **@TK2MSFTNGP09 .phx.gbl>:

The figures are a little hard to come by, especially with dual-boots.
Actually, they are not. Read my other post on where the numbers come from.

OK, over 90%, probably as high as 95%, if not even higher.

But there is a problem. Opera is probably the best known browser
for its ability to impersonate Internet Explorer, but other
browsers should also have that ability as well, to combat
stupid websites. While the number of those who need to
make that adjustment is small, one has to wonder how many of
those user agents reporting Internet Explorer actually *are*
using Internet Explorer, or somebody else trying to hack around
a website that insists that Internet Explorer is the only
browser worth using on said website. (I suspect another
fraction of a percent, though I'd have to look.)

So how does one actually determine the number of desktops
actually *using* Linux?

I've seen 80%; I've seen 95%+. In my household it's 33%
(1 server system, 1 pure Linux game system, 1 dual-boot system
which might become SMP if anyone still has an 866 MHz PIII (not likely!),
and 1 dead dual-boot system which I may have to resurrect to
get my DOOM, Heretic, and Hexen off the Win95 disk there).

You do realize that you and others who have dual boots
make up less that .1 percent (that's < 1/10%) when we
are talking about world-wide numbers, right?

Wouldn't surprise me.

Standard Windows Starter Configuration:

[1] One (1) disk drive.
[2] One (1) partition on that drive.
[3] One (1) license to use Microsoft Windows on the system.

This is of course a crap configuration for many reasons (chiefly
because the user's data is on the same disk as the system is;
if one botches the system for some reason the data's gone too).

To do a dual-boot one has to do some work, unless one simply
slips in another disk and modifies the system disk to use GRUB,
which for Win98 is extremely simple. (I've not tried it with
WinNT.)

On Linux, it's actually pretty simple:

[1] Backup existing Linu xsystem somewhere. Ideally,
this would be done *after* rebooting to a spare
system or floppy, though it can be done "hot",
with some care.
[2] Repartition and reformat.
[3] Restore system.
[4] If necessary, adjust GRUB/LILO parameters and /etc/fstab
on the about-to-be-rebooted system. If LILO, rerun
LILO using the -r option. GRUB will read the
/boot/grub/grub.conf file upon startup.
[5] Reboot.

I don't know if Windows is quite that accommodating,
though I've not tried it lately. However, my Kayak
is being very annoying (the second drive wants to play
"spin down and die" after sitting idle for some time) and
I might have to shuffle things a bit, so it might become
a pure Windows system again for awhile. Feh.

[irrelevant stuff snipped]

--
#191, ew****@earthlin k.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Spooky, You mentioned: <<
It's not clear to me whether the header
Content-Type: text/plain; Format=Flowed
parameter is processed properly by SLRN.
( Does it need to be ? It would save me some work... :-) ) >>

I never auto-wrap anything,
Cola.TXT, generated by X.CPP, has no automatically wrapped lines.

Hand wrapping lines is just part of the reading process.

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <OW************ **@TK2MSFTNGP10 .phx.gbl> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005
15:35:57 +0000), Scott M. wrote:

Just a tad sensitive about the name are we?

Not at all. Actually, I think you are making more out of this than anyone
else.

You've already posted three semi-literate corrections, so it's you who is
"making more out of this than anyone else". How hypocritical of you.

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <cs**********@c tb-nnrp2.saix.net> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:00:47
+0200), Sean Hederman wrote:

Fair enough comment. An awful lot of Microsofts security woes have come
from the open security on install.

True. Another problem is Microsoft's seeming inability to repair defects
at an obvious point where security needs to be excellent: Internet Explorer.

--
"We are very much on track for a 2007 delivery [of 'Longhorn']."
-- Bob Muglia. Director, Windows Servers. Microsoft Corporation.
3 January 2004

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <es************ **@TK2MSFTNGP14 .phx.gbl> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005
15:36:01 +0000), Scott M. wrote:

Microsoft is guilty of breaking *some* laws
*Yes*, *it* *certainly* *is*. *It* *has* *also* *been* *breaking*
*anti-trust* *laws* *for* *over* *15* *years* *and* *continues* *to* *do*
*so*.
but it got where it is mainly by doing what is perfectly legal.
It got where it is by criminal actions and it maintains its monopoly
illegally.
that you have somehow mistaken a single person with a company.

Those who participate knowingly, whether directly or indirectly, in
criminal activity are also guilty. This include Microsoft's executives,
employees, and customers.

--
"We think our software is far more secure than open-source software.
It is more secure because we stand behind it, we fixed it, because
we built it."
-- Steve Ballmer. CEO, Microsoft. 11/19/2004

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <uo************ **@TK2MSFTNGP09 .phx.gbl> (Mon, 17 Jan 2005
15:35:55 +0000), Scott M. wrote:

Why would someone who see's you write "Micro-Soft" inherantly think to try

Why would someone who writes "see's" and "inherantly " criticize the
spelling of others? You're quite hypocritical.