By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,446 Members | 3,120 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,446 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop

P: n/a

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.

Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
383 Replies


P: n/a
Can I use that soapbox when you are done with it? Do you feel better now?
"John Bailo" <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

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.

Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Bailo is just upset over being alone and without presents on his birthday.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:eZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Can I use that soapbox when you are done with it? Do you feel better now?
"John Bailo" <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

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.


Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
begin John Bailo wrote:

< snip >

Oh looky looky, what have we got here?

Another JBAilo crosspost to stir up things (commonly defined as "troll")

Now who in his right mind would have suspected that?

Bailo, why are you such a dumb twit? Born that way or worked on it?
--
A NT server can be run by idiots and usually is

Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
John Bailo wrote:

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

<SNIP>

Why is it that people falling over themselves to badmouth microsoft
always use Windows themselves :P
from the header of your post:

"User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)"
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
C-Services Holland b.v. wrote:
John Bailo wrote:

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

<SNIP>

Why is it that people falling over themselves to badmouth microsoft
always use Windows themselves :P
from the header of your post:

"User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)"


Well, he is JBailo. You will have a hard time finding anyone dumber

--
Computers are like air conditioners -
they stop working properly when you open Windows

Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
C-Services Holland b.v. wrote:
John Bailo wrote:

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

<SNIP>

Why is it that people falling over themselves to badmouth microsoft
always use Windows themselves :P


What a load of fucking bollocks. Linuxfux fall over themselves to badmouth
micro$haft too, you fucking dense cunt.
Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
Peter K÷hlmann wrote:
C-Services Holland b.v. wrote:
John Bailo wrote:

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

<SNIP>

Why is it that people falling over themselves to badmouth microsoft
always use Windows themselves :P
from the header of your post:

"User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)"


Well, he is JBailo. You will have a hard time finding anyone dumber


Until you showed up.

BTW. Who wrote those two sentences for you? The regular
shit/bowel/nappy/diaper/anus references are missing.
Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
7
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.


Bailo you total dumbfsck!
Linux has nothing to do with Unix other than its modelled on it.

Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
mlw
7 wrote:
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.


Bailo you total dumbfsck!
Linux has nothing to do with Unix other than its modelled on it.


Which, in itself, means a lot. It is fair to ponder "what is unix?" There is
the official "UNIX(tm)" which has been passed around so much, no one is
really sure who actually *owns* it anymore. SCO and Novell are fighting
over it, an the OpenGroup are said to own the trademark and specs.

Even UNIX isn't really UNIX, as much of the very foundation of what is
currently called "UNIX" came from BSD, and this was made clear in USL vs
BSD. On top of that, it isn't even clear that, under copyright law prior to
1990, that UNIX actually retains any copyright, thus can be owned at all.

Linux is an independant implementation of a unix-like OS, as were efforts
like coherent unix, minux, and others. All of these things can be called
"unix" in a generic sense.

There is "UNIX(tm)" and "unix" which is a sort of a short hand for "Posix"
based OS. Posix was coined by Richard Stallman to describe various
unix-like systems.

I think that it is pretty clear to all that Linux is unix-like, and that
most unix software will run on Linux.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, one is forced to consider
the possibility, no matter how remote or absurd, that the subject just may
be an avian of the family Anatidae.

Jul 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
C-Services Holland b.v. wrote:

John Bailo wrote:
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.


<SNIP>

Why is it that people falling over themselves to badmouth microsoft
always use Windows themselves :P

What a load of fucking bollocks. Linuxfux fall over themselves to badmouth
micro$haft too, you fucking dense cunt.


LOL, take a valium dude. My point was, if you think it's all so bad, why
use it at all? I use both. Linux on my server and Windows for my
workstations.

--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
Jul 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
What planet are you from?
"John Bailo" <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

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.

Jul 21 '05 #12

P: n/a
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<ja*****@earthlink.net>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:04 GMT
<sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000204050405010705030903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Proclaim victory not until victory is achieved. Windows still
owns over 80% of the desktops. Businesses will have to jump
into the fray (and presumably they'd like to, as Linux proves
that it has the capability of saving them money).

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Unix and Linux have little to do with each other beyond general
design issues (e.g., fork()). Or did SCO win an actual legal
lawsuit when no one was looking? :-)

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.
I will agree that Windows lost the war in the server arena;
the classical Unix systems have more to fear from Linux
than Windows NT derivatives. However, this doesn't give
Linux an automatic "gimme" on the desktops; Linux will have
to earn it, and that earning may be hard-fought, as Windows
has an edge on convenience. (A slim edge, and getting slimmer
all the time. With the viruses, the landscape may be mutating
as well; there's no point in being convenient if it means having
to coexist with Netsky as well.)

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.


But it has not yet fallen, and efforts such as Samba may very well
stymie the effort -- or at least confuse it. If Samba on the
Linux server allows businesses to continue using their Windows
desktops out of comfort, they may very well do so. Firewalls,
screeners, and cleaners may also butress a sagging market.

It's an interesting mess. :-)

[.sigsnip]

--
#191, ew****@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Jul 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
John Bailo <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net>...
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.


You must be smoking some potent stuff, or maybe you live on antohre
planet. On planet earth, Windows rules! Leenouchs Who?
Jul 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
begin Peter Bilt (Kerke) wrote:

< snip >
You must be smoking some potent stuff, or maybe you live on antohre
planet. On planet earth, Windows rules! Leenouchs Who?


Another idiocy brought to you by Kerke, the cola_masturbator
--
Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse
detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress
to*remove*offending*incompatible*products.**Reacti vate*your*MS*software

Jul 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
"John Bailo" <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.


I really hope so. For commercial use it's maybe flakey due to the lack of
network admins who really are familiar with it to the extent they could
implement it flawlessly & seamlessly into their network; however for areas
such as colleges and universities, it should certainly be in the testing
stage at the moment. It isn't where I come from though, which is quite
disappointing. It's the whole 'shall we try and save money or go for the
gauranteed working solution that we're all used to?'

It's not gauranteed, but because of the options it appears that way.
Jul 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Kadaitcha Man" <no****@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:10*************@news20.forteinc.com...
Until you showed up.

BTW. Who wrote those two sentences for you? The regular
shit/bowel/nappy/diaper/anus references are missing.


Yeah, he is an angry young man, isn't he. Not getting his hole i thinky
Jul 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew***@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:tt************@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
Proclaim victory not until victory is achieved. Windows still
owns over 80% of the desktops. Businesses will have to jump
into the fray (and presumably they'd like to, as Linux proves
that it has the capability of saving them money).


That's because it's shipped with most desktops, except those which are
custom built, or do not come with an o/s to save the user money. Duhr
Jul 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
begin JamesB wrote:
It isn't where I come from though, which is quite
disappointing. It's the whole 'shall we try and save money or go for the
gauranteed working solution that we're all used to?'

It's not gauranteed, but because of the options it appears that way.


What "gauranteed working solution that we're all used to"?

You certainly don't blather about something where windows has even a small
part in it, are you?
--
This problem was sponsored by Microsoft

Jul 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JamesB
<bj****@james.net>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:48:22 GMT
<az**************@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew***@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:tt************@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
Proclaim victory not until victory is achieved. Windows still
owns over 80% of the desktops. Businesses will have to jump
into the fray (and presumably they'd like to, as Linux proves
that it has the capability of saving them money).


That's because it's shipped with most desktops, except those which are
custom built, or do not come with an o/s to save the user money. Duhr


It's a problem, and a bit of a vicious cycle. Because Windows is
shipped with most PC's, people get it by default. Because people
get it by default, they assume it's the one to use. Because people
assume it's the one to use, they ask for Windows on their next PC.
And then there are the software developers and device manufacturers
who also have to play on this merry-go-round, and guess right if
they're to make money.

Or something like that. But that notion is showing some wear,
though it's not quite showing holes yet. (The main problem: systems
offering Linux tend to be the higher-end units, suitable for
workstation use, or outright servers. Low-end crud, with the
notable exception of Wal-Mart, tends to have WinXP and some
bundled stuff slapped on by default.)

It's nice to see Doom3 and UT2004 for Linux/x86, though. Heck,
I should have bought QuakeIII for Linux, when I saw it. :-)

--
#191, ew****@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Jul 21 '05 #20

P: n/a
> Windows still owns over 80% of the desktops.

If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your facts
straight. Windows owns over 90% of the desktop market.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew***@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:tt************@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<ja*****@earthlink.net>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:04 GMT
<sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000204050405010705030903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.


Proclaim victory not until victory is achieved. Windows still
owns over 80% of the desktops. Businesses will have to jump
into the fray (and presumably they'd like to, as Linux proves
that it has the capability of saving them money).

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


Unix and Linux have little to do with each other beyond general
design issues (e.g., fork()). Or did SCO win an actual legal
lawsuit when no one was looking? :-)

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.


I will agree that Windows lost the war in the server arena;
the classical Unix systems have more to fear from Linux
than Windows NT derivatives. However, this doesn't give
Linux an automatic "gimme" on the desktops; Linux will have
to earn it, and that earning may be hard-fought, as Windows
has an edge on convenience. (A slim edge, and getting slimmer
all the time. With the viruses, the landscape may be mutating
as well; there's no point in being convenient if it means having
to coexist with Netsky as well.)

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.


But it has not yet fallen, and efforts such as Samba may very well
stymie the effort -- or at least confuse it. If Samba on the
Linux server allows businesses to continue using their Windows
desktops out of comfort, they may very well do so. Firewalls,
screeners, and cleaners may also butress a sagging market.

It's an interesting mess. :-)

[.sigsnip]

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

Jul 21 '05 #21

P: n/a
In article <OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl> (Mon, 29 Nov 2004
21:40:02 -0500), Scott M. wrote:
If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your facts
straight.
The fact is that Outhouse Excess is garbage, as the facts make straight.
Windows owns over 90% of the desktop market.


Microsoft has dropped below 90% with no relief in sight.

--
"Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows with
legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an environment in which
Microsoft's programs interoperate efficiently only with Internet viruses."
-- Daniel Geer.
Jul 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
In article <sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
John Bailo <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote:
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.


It worked. As soon as Windows NT passed its POSIX compliance, that was
the end of the original "Open Systems" movement. From then on, it was
downhill for the UNIXes. (This was in the days before most people had
heard of Linux, when the Internet was still more of a curiosity than
anything else.)

Some of them (particularly Solaris) won a brief respite with the dot-com
boom. But at that point, Linux was already making inroads. So when boom
turned to bust, the downward slide resumed. But funnily enough, by this
time Linux was unstoppable.
Jul 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
Scott M. wrote:
Windows still owns over 80% of the desktops.


If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your
facts straight.┬*┬*Windows┬*owns┬*over┬*90%┬*of┬*the┬*de sktop┬*market.


So Windows owns over 20% of the desktop market, yes?

Seriously, I really would appreciate some indication of how these
figures are derived. I can understand how it's being done with
browsers, but how are the figures derived for desktops?
In short, where are you getting your numbers from?

Bill
Jul 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
begin Scott M. top-posted:
Windows still owns over 80% of the desktops.


If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your facts
straight. Windows owns over 90% of the desktop market.


No longer

< snip >
--
Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse
detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress
to*remove*offending*incompatible*products.**Reacti vate*your*MS*software

Jul 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
> Microsoft has dropped below 90% with no relief in sight.

That's flat out not true. Windows is on almost 95% of the desktops
worldwide.
Jul 21 '05 #26

P: n/a
The numbers come from various sources (IT analyst groups like Gartner,
hardware & software retailers, etc.). Many people rely on hardware
retailers and MS sales figures. Dell, Gateway, HP and others report on how
many of their desktop units were sold with which OS pre-installed. These
numbers can be reconciled with what MS reports for sales of Windows to come
up with a fairly accurate number. But you must remember that we are talking
about world-wide figures. That's a lot of PC's and it would take a HUGE
MASS shift away from Windows to swing that number significantly. Despite
the claims of the Windows haters, the number hasn't changed more than 1% in
the last several years. Also, the figure is not in dispute among vendors or
MS, only the MS haters.

"B Gruff" <bb*****@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31*************@uni-berlin.de...
Scott M. wrote:
Windows still owns over 80% of the desktops.


If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your
facts straight. Windows owns over 90% of the desktop market.


So Windows owns over 20% of the desktop market, yes?

Seriously, I really would appreciate some indication of how these
figures are derived. I can understand how it's being done with
browsers, but how are the figures derived for desktops?
In short, where are you getting your numbers from?

Bill

Jul 21 '05 #27

P: n/a
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Scott M.
<s-***@nospam.nospam>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:40:02 -0500
<OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>:
Windows still owns over 80% of the desktops.


If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your facts
straight. Windows owns over 90% of the desktop market.


The figures are a little hard to come by, especially with dual-boots.
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).

Of course, that's only because the system is installed; the usage
is closer to 5%, if that -- though I've done some mildly interesting
stuff with cross-development. My main problem: my Win98 system
is not GL-capable, and it doesn't have an AGP slot.

[rest snipped]

--
#191, ew****@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Jul 21 '05 #28

P: n/a

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew***@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:34************@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Scott M.
<s-***@nospam.nospam>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:40:02 -0500
<OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>:
Windows still owns over 80% of the desktops.


If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your facts
straight. Windows owns over 90% of the desktop market.


The figures are a little hard to come by, especially with dual-boots.
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).

Of course, that's only because the system is installed; the usage
is closer to 5%, if that -- though I've done some mildly interesting
stuff with cross-development. My main problem: my Win98 system
is not GL-capable, and it doesn't have an AGP slot.

We Windows fans would count a dual-boot machine as a Windows machine since
the user either paid or still owes Mr. Bill for a licenses to run Windows.
What someone does beyond that with the rest of their cash, say spends $50 on
a boxed linux set or takes their wife to Outback for a $50 steak dinner with
drinks, doesn't enter into our calculations. We're easy that way!
Jul 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
> 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.
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?

Of course, that's only because the system is installed; the usage
is closer to 5%, if that -- though I've done some mildly interesting
stuff with cross-development. My main problem: my Win98 system
is not GL-capable, and it doesn't have an AGP slot.


How is this relevant to what we're talking about?
Jul 21 '05 #30

P: n/a
begin Scott M. wrote:
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.


Oh, what reliable sources. Why not quote Steve Blammer or His Billness
directly?
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?


Well, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
And then there are claims from windows users

< snip >
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
**--*Tom*Christiansen

Jul 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
Peter, I've seen many replies from you and every one of them has nothing
written in it. They all have attachments on them, but since most of us
don't open foreign attachments, we don't have the slightest clue as to what
you are saying.

Please learn how to post replies without using attachments.

"Peter K÷hlmann" <Pe*************@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:co*************@news.t-online.com...
Jul 21 '05 #32

P: n/a
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
Peter, I've seen many replies from you and every one of them has nothing
written in it. They all have attachments on them, but since most of us
don't open foreign attachments, we don't have the slightest clue as to what
you are saying.

Please learn how to post replies without using attachments.


It's a problem with your newsreader (Outlook Express):
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=265230
Jul 21 '05 #33

P: n/a
No it's not. The article you sent does not describe Peter's posts.

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner.here> wrote in message
news:1u***************@csharp.learner...
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
Peter, I've seen many replies from you and every one of them has nothing
written in it. They all have attachments on them, but since most of us
don't open foreign attachments, we don't have the slightest clue as to
what
you are saying.

Please learn how to post replies without using attachments.


It's a problem with your newsreader (Outlook Express):
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=265230

Jul 21 '05 #34

P: n/a
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
No it's not. The article you sent does not describe Peter's posts.


Peter's post contained a line which started with "begin" followed by two
spaces, causing the abnormality on your end.
Jul 21 '05 #35

P: n/a
Do ALL of Peter's posts START with "begin "? This is what the article says
causes the problem. It also says that the attachment will have no data.
Peter's attachments have been 348 bytes and 746 bytes in size.

It doesn't sound like what MS says the cause and symptoms are, are what
Peter's posts have been.
"C# Learner" <cs****@learner.here> wrote in message
news:wd***************@csharp.learner...
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
No it's not. The article you sent does not describe Peter's posts.


Peter's post contained a line which started with "begin" followed by two
spaces, causing the abnormality on your end.

Jul 21 '05 #36

P: n/a
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
Do ALL of Peter's posts START with "begin "?


Yes. It's used in order to cause inconvenience to OE users. (I know this
from reading the group to which he often posts.)

I'll send a reply to this that starts with that particular text and you'll
see what I mean.
Jul 21 '05 #37

P: n/a
begin this is a test of the OE begin bug.
Jul 21 '05 #38

P: n/a
John Bailo <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net>...
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.

The key for Linux to be a OS of choice is to make the kernel much
smaller and the user interface robust and be able to run MS games to
attract younger people while retaining some UNIX advantages (security,
agility and power.) Using current Linux environment at home is like
driving a Hummer when a small Geo would do for the same task for most
PC users. Many Linuxers are intimidated by its complexity while they
scratch a samll portion of Linux capacity.

I believe Linux distribution should be available at a fraction of MS
windows cost but not free. One common denominator between Linux
environment and Microsoft, Inc. is that they are too powerful for
their own good. Commercial Linux distribution, IMHO, should offer
popular programs that work well for most PC users needs and are
compatible with MS programs while Linux distribution source code is in
public domain. I also believe MS dominance is not good for consumers
and competition, thus, i belong to a minority group who prefers AMD
processors and WordPerfect to Pentium and MS Word.
Jul 21 '05 #39

P: n/a
Ok, thanks for the info. If Peter knows about this and is doing it on
purpose, it's not really an inconvenience to me, it is an indication of what
type of person he is.

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner.here> wrote in message
news:8f***************@csharp.learner...
Jul 21 '05 #40

P: n/a
I'm sorry... But your completely wrong, (imo) about how Linux will be the
desktop choice for users. Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compaired to Linux, or for a better comparison
FreeBSD/OpenBSD. But Linux is FAR from being dominate on the desktop. If you
really want to poke an opioun on which OS will be the next best desktop..
Take a look over at MacOS X or MacOS tiger. I think MacOS has always been
better.

Users don't want to have to know what ls -F or for the *BSD's, pkg_add
some_really_long_name-1.2.343.534.322 is. Users don't want to sit down and
actually read a manual on how to use the OS. So... Linux is pretty much out
of the question.

MacOS on the other hand.. it just works, with a song playing for you in the
background while installing.. AND it's got the best GUI out there. It's
flashy (which EVERYONE wants) and its stable. The main reason why MacOS isn't
as successfull is because it's not on the x86 platform. Many people believe
that Apple should consider porting OSX over .. I strongly disagree. Users are
now seeing Mac as being the better choice of the two. Speed, Mulimedia, and
recently more business apps are starting to catch peoples eyes. We live in a
tech savy society now. This means people are more aware of what's good, and
what's not. Linux, crashed more times on my machine than Windows ever has. I
can tell you though, OSX has never crashed yet. OSX is a UNIX, so your right
that some form of UNIX will be the next desktop choice. However, i find it
difficult to declair linux as a sort of unix.

Don't get me wrong, Linux is ok.. I used it frequently until i found FreeBSD
to be more suitable for server side stuff. I just think MacOS is really
starting to take off with convincing speed.

Another OS to look forward to is HaikuOS (OpenBeOS/BeOS).

"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

Jul 21 '05 #41

P: n/a
Hold on a sec. You said: "Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compared to Linux..."

Now, on what basis do you say that? A common misconception is that MS
software is somehow "less secure" than most other software. People believe
that because you are always hearing about a security flaw in IE or in
Windows and you don't hear that about other OS's. Or, how this company is
thinking about switching from Windows because of security vulnerabilities.
You never hear of someone leaving Linux for Windows because of security
vulnerabilities right?

The reason for the *misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than
other software is that hackers don't spend any time trying to crack the
MacOS since 95% of the worlds PCs run Windows. If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted, that's
all.


"10wattmindtrip" <10************@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C**********************************@microsof t.com...
I'm sorry... But your completely wrong, (imo) about how Linux will be the
desktop choice for users. Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compaired to Linux, or for a better comparison
FreeBSD/OpenBSD. But Linux is FAR from being dominate on the desktop. If
you
really want to poke an opioun on which OS will be the next best desktop..
Take a look over at MacOS X or MacOS tiger. I think MacOS has always been
better.

Users don't want to have to know what ls -F or for the *BSD's, pkg_add
some_really_long_name-1.2.343.534.322 is. Users don't want to sit down and
actually read a manual on how to use the OS. So... Linux is pretty much
out
of the question.

MacOS on the other hand.. it just works, with a song playing for you in
the
background while installing.. AND it's got the best GUI out there. It's
flashy (which EVERYONE wants) and its stable. The main reason why MacOS
isn't
as successfull is because it's not on the x86 platform. Many people
believe
that Apple should consider porting OSX over .. I strongly disagree. Users
are
now seeing Mac as being the better choice of the two. Speed, Mulimedia,
and
recently more business apps are starting to catch peoples eyes. We live in
a
tech savy society now. This means people are more aware of what's good,
and
what's not. Linux, crashed more times on my machine than Windows ever has.
I
can tell you though, OSX has never crashed yet. OSX is a UNIX, so your
right
that some form of UNIX will be the next desktop choice. However, i find it
difficult to declair linux as a sort of unix.

Don't get me wrong, Linux is ok.. I used it frequently until i found
FreeBSD
to be more suitable for server side stuff. I just think MacOS is really
starting to take off with convincing speed.

Another OS to look forward to is HaikuOS (OpenBeOS/BeOS).

"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

Jul 21 '05 #42

P: n/a
Another reason you don't seen Linux security issues is because most
forms of Linux are not done by 1 single company. Admittedly there are
companies that do build and support their versions but then they are
actually considered medium sized software companies and are not in the
spotlight. Also you have to look at what gets installed on a windows
system as opposed to a Linux system. By default not much of anything is
installed on a Linux system where as Microsoft makes it easier for the
AVERAGE user to get along from day one without all the hassles of
installing software for hours. Yes this does cause some problems with
vulnerabilities but it also helps save time for the AVERAGE user. MS
doesn't just aim at geeks for their desktop software but instead at the
user. And I have to agree that when you hold the majority of the desktop
software in the world you become the BIG target for hackers. I would
gurantee that if any version of Linux had the share of desktops that
Windows has you would see at least as many if not more vulnerabilites
and patches. It's just a numbers game really. The more you have the more
others want it or want to tear it down.

-Stanley

Scott M. wrote:
Hold on a sec. You said: "Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compared to Linux..."

Now, on what basis do you say that? A common misconception is that MS
software is somehow "less secure" than most other software. People believe
that because you are always hearing about a security flaw in IE or in
Windows and you don't hear that about other OS's. Or, how this company is
thinking about switching from Windows because of security vulnerabilities.
You never hear of someone leaving Linux for Windows because of security
vulnerabilities right?

The reason for the *misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than
other software is that hackers don't spend any time trying to crack the
MacOS since 95% of the worlds PCs run Windows. If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted, that's
all.


"10wattmindtrip" <10************@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C**********************************@microsof t.com...
I'm sorry... But your completely wrong, (imo) about how Linux will be the
desktop choice for users. Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compaired to Linux, or for a better comparison
FreeBSD/OpenBSD. But Linux is FAR from being dominate on the desktop. If
you
really want to poke an opioun on which OS will be the next best desktop..
Take a look over at MacOS X or MacOS tiger. I think MacOS has always been
better.

Users don't want to have to know what ls -F or for the *BSD's, pkg_add
some_really_long_name-1.2.343.534.322 is. Users don't want to sit down and
actually read a manual on how to use the OS. So... Linux is pretty much
out
of the question.

MacOS on the other hand.. it just works, with a song playing for you in
the
background while installing.. AND it's got the best GUI out there. It's
flashy (which EVERYONE wants) and its stable. The main reason why MacOS
isn't
as successfull is because it's not on the x86 platform. Many people
believe
that Apple should consider porting OSX over .. I strongly disagree. Users
are
now seeing Mac as being the better choice of the two. Speed, Mulimedia,
and
recently more business apps are starting to catch peoples eyes. We live in
a
tech savy society now. This means people are more aware of what's good,
and
what's not. Linux, crashed more times on my machine than Windows ever has.
I
can tell you though, OSX has never crashed yet. OSX is a UNIX, so your
right
that some form of UNIX will be the next desktop choice. However, i find it
difficult to declair linux as a sort of unix.

Don't get me wrong, Linux is ok.. I used it frequently until i found
FreeBSD
to be more suitable for server side stuff. I just think MacOS is really
starting to take off with convincing speed.

Another OS to look forward to is HaikuOS (OpenBeOS/BeOS).

"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


Jul 21 '05 #43

P: n/a
> get my DOOM, Heretic, and Hexen off the Win95 disk there).
stuff with cross-development. My main problem: my Win98 system
is not GL-capable, and it doesn't have an AGP slot.


Well no wonder you complain. You are using Windows 95, which was an
earth-shattering change from 3.1, and because of that had its imperfections.
Nothing like that had ever been done, with its level of automation, etc.
Windows 98 was arguably less reliable but again had features never seen
before like Plug 'n' Play, etc. After Windows ME, that whole development
line was scrapped for good reason. Quit griping and spend the $80 on Windows
XP.
Jul 21 '05 #44

P: n/a
> The reason for the *misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than
other software is that hackers don't spend any time trying to crack the
MacOS since 95% of the worlds PCs run Windows. If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted, that's
all.


Not just the target size, but the ways in wich the vulnerabilities are
reported. When a security risk is found in Windows it's broadcast over the
news media instantly and for a long period of time. Why? Because it affects
95% of the people watching the news. Not only is Linux, MacOS not targeted
as often, but honestly, not too many folks care if they are cracked. It's
simply not newsworthy.

Nevermind the anti-Microsoft sentiment that abounds even among Windows
users. People see the success of the company as a threat, or jealousy maybe,
so that results in Windows systems being targeted even MORE by fanatics who
think it will make a difference.
Jul 21 '05 #45

P: n/a
> "Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows with
legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an environment in which
Microsoft's programs interoperate efficiently only with Internet viruses."
-- Daniel Geer.


Hmm, the .NET Framework is a very in-depth effort to allow developers to
write platform independant software. All the Linux folks have to do now is
pick up the ball that's rolling around in their court and write a Linux
version. Or are you suggesting Microsoft should bear this burden as well?
Let's face it, Microsoft has done great things and almost single-handedly
brought PCs from the stone age to at least one in every household. Windows
XP is simple to use for the average consumer yet powerful for people who want
to make use of all its features. DirectX made hardware independant
development easier years ago, and this next logical step has already been
made.
Jul 21 '05 #46

P: n/a
> Hmm, the .NET Framework is a very in-depth effort to allow developers to
write platform independant software.


Um, no it's not. 3rd parties have developed their own implementation of
..NET on various non-MS platforms, but MS does not position .NET development
as multi-platform capable. Are you confusing the ability of a non-Windows
platform to send/receive information to/from a .NET web service with having
that web service (written in .NET) running on a non-Windows platform?
Jul 21 '05 #47

P: n/a
BASIC since TRS-80 wrote:
Hmm, the .NET Framework is a very in-depth effort to allow developers to
write platform independant software. All the Linux folks have to do now
is pick up the ball that's rolling around in their court and write a Linux
version.


http://go-mono.com

--
http://www.texeme.com

Jul 21 '05 #48

P: n/a
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted, that's
all.


There are a huge number of Linux boxen running Apache as web servers.
Consider the reward of 'hacking' a web server -- potential access to
sensitive website-related data. Why aren't we seeing a lot of news of
'hackings' of such Linux boxen?

Pre-SP2, 'hacking' the average Joe's Windows desktop was a walk in the park
for anyone with even the slightest clue about Windows and networking. This
has never been the case with a decent Linux distro. I have yet to evaluate
SP2 so I can't speak about that.

IMO, it's a question of: if you were so inclined, whom would you try to
take candy from -- the big, tough guy sitting in the corner (Linux) or the
neigh on defenseless baby standing right in front or you (Windows)?
Jul 21 '05 #49

P: n/a

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner.here> wrote in message
news:mv***************@csharp.learner...
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted,
that's
all.
There are a huge number of Linux boxen running Apache as web servers.
Consider the reward of 'hacking' a web server -- potential access to
sensitive website-related data. Why aren't we seeing a lot of news of
'hackings' of such Linux boxen?


For the same reason I wrote in my earlier post. Hackers hack MS products
because they are the big boy on the block. Your "huge" number of Linux
boxes running Apache is still a small percentage of the boxes out there.

Pre-SP2, 'hacking' the average Joe's Windows desktop was a walk in the
park
for anyone with even the slightest clue about Windows and networking.
This
has never been the case with a decent Linux distro. I have yet to
evaluate
SP2 so I can't speak about that.

IMO, it's a question of: if you were so inclined, whom would you try to
take candy from -- the big, tough guy sitting in the corner (Linux) or the
neigh on defenseless baby standing right in front or you (Windows)?


What you've said here has no basis in fact, it is simply your experience and
your opinion. There is an awful lot of effort going into exposing the
vulnerabilities in Windows and when a vulnerability is found, it is
immediately shared with millions over the Internet. There aren't "armies"
of hackers out there determined to take Linux down like there are working
against Windows. If there were, we would see that your "tough guy" in the
corner is just as vulnerable as Windows.

Jul 21 '05 #50

383 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.