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.

[Fact corrector]

Again another linux and unix idiot that does not know a thing about how close
the internet was to collapsing in the 1980's to the world first computer worm
and it stumble all types of server including linux, windows and unix servers
alike yet again nobody has really look at the real facts and blabbed there
face like a druggie,

All software falls over and it is not alway the software vender but some
stupid hardware fault or a hacker using a simple binary code that can bring
any software down when writtern badly any fool can do it it take common sense
not to.

Wake up everybody cause one day your computer will fall over and it does not
matter what operating system you use linux or unix windows 95 or windows
longhorn, firewall or anti-virus software and what every body does not
realises is that most software already contains a viruse like bug upon sales
design by the company to prevent privating of software,

Linux and unix makers do it and virus software creators do it to there own
software this is there way of saying we own it and we can destory it.

Don't be fooled into beleiving your linux or unix servers are protected from
prying eyes the military knows what everyone is doing across the internet in
every country and so too the police forces of every countries it is only a
matter of when police or military acts linux creators are probably already
inside your home servers prying your information to use illegally to bring
ovther server down cause that what linux and unix was design to do,

It is a code breaking software only people don't realise what the full
extent of what all operating system can do and it all comes back to the zero
and ones of the binary code.

There is a old saying you can lead a horse to water but you can make it
drink it well it is the same for operating systems once a person is set in
there ways give them something new and they are relucted to change that why
so many users stay with linuxs or windows it has nothing really to do with
money or crashes.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote:

In comp.os.linux.a dvocacy, John Bailo
<ja*****@earthl ink.net>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:04 GMT
<sr************ *****@newsread3 .news.pas.earth link.net>:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000204050405010 705030903
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****@earthlin k.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[C# Learner]

Fact corrector <Fact co*******@discu ssions.microsof t.com> wrote:

Fact from fiction
"My opinions, whether or not factual," would, to me, more accurately
describe your diatribe.
Unix and Linux is rubbish operating system that falls over on any server
If this were the case, a huge percentage of Internet servers /wouldn't/ be
running on *nix. Google's a big example of a company running on Linux.
and any person who say that you can not get a virus or worm on unix or linux are
full of themselfs,
Of course it's possible, but the chances of such infections are much less
likely on *nix, IMO, due to its secure-from-the-ground-up design.
Unix is was never a desktop operating system and neither was linux until
around 1998,
How did you determine this?
This crap that unix or linux is this wonderful operating system that is
stable has never put it through its paces
I'm pretty sure that's not true (I don't have any data to hand, however)
and the truth of the matter is this
any software can be comprised by a simple binary test
What do you mean by "a simple binary test"?
and all operating
system can crash by a simple power failure or hardware fault.
So first, you say that *nix is "rubbish" and that it "falls over on any
serve", and now you're saying that it doesn't matter anyway because all
OSes can crash. You're contradicting yourself. What, exactly, is your
argument?

Anyway, an analogy: since my house could be broken into by having my door
kicked in with sufficient force, perhaps I shouldn't bother closing and
locking the door when I leave, then?
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,
Well, Linux (an OS kernel) itself is free in terms of payment and in terms
of what you can do with it. Most (all? I don't know...) distributions of
Linux are free in terms of payment, but if you decide to go the paying
route, you might get added support, for example -- and you won't have to
wait for the download.
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.
I can't comment on why they do what they do, since I'm not one of them.
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.
What are you saying here? That you have to go through web pages to find
and update software for *nix? That's not necessarily the case.

Or are you saying that you have to do so to learn how to use some software
that runs on *nix? This isn't necessarily the case either.

It seems that you don't really know much about *nix, but perhaps you had a
bad experience with it, hence your uninformed rant.
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.
Got any evidence of this? I imagine that you just made this up off the top
of your head.

Here's evidence of Microsoft's DNS being handled by Linux:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20..._a_point_.html

Make of that what you will.
most companies will not install linuxs becuase of the long hours of
installing
I'd say that some Linux distros install faster than XP. I can't prove
that, though -- just observations from installing both on the same box.
Add to that, that most Linux distros come with a huge amount of
applications software - which isn't the case with XP - which takes extra
time to install (the default will be to install some applications, though
you'll have a choice with any good distro).

Even so, OS installation time isn't very important to me. I rarely install
OSes. Not sure how important it is to people in general.
and the complex training involved which cost money and profits and
time learning
Of course it takes all that -- just like it would if you were to switch to
Macs, for example. Or if you were running on *nix right now and you were
to switch to Windows (not knowing anything about Windows yet). Though I
feel Windows may take less time to learn in general due to less complexity
and more consistency between applications.
the language while the alterative is windows which is easy to
install
Mandrake, for example, is just as easy, or perhaps even easier, to install,
IMO.
managable
*nix is managable unless you haven't taken the time to learn it. Windows
wouldn't be managable if you hadn't taken the time to learn it, all the
same. Though I agree that Linux might take slighter more effort and time
to learn. But I feel that extra effort will pay off in the end -- you'll
be more knowledgable about computer OSes.
easy to fix
Same as above.
and widely available information on how to use it and updates,
I could say the same about Linux.
[...] also most windows only involves one cd disk
instead of the linux two to three disk installation.
That, of course, depends on the distro.

However, that's not important to me. I doubt that would be a sufficiently
important issue to people in general considering Linux.
Microsoft may not be the favour of people because of the cost
They have a bad reputation for releasing exploitable software and for dodgy
business practices, in particular.
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,
Got any data on this? Curious...
[...]

*nix ain't the be-all and end-all of OSes, but I don't feel it's as bad as
you try to make it out to look. I'd bet that you've been burned with it
after trying it and expecting it to be just like Windows, hence your rant.

Truth of the matter is: it's not very Windows-like. It's unique. Expect
it to be another Windows and you'll be surprised. Don't take the time to
learn it and you'll get burnt.

[Scott M.]

"Fact corrector" <Fa***********@ discussions.mic rosoft.com> wrote in message
news:7B******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

Again another linux and unix idiot that does not know a thing about how
close
the internet was to collapsing in the 1980's to the world first computer
worm
and it stumble all types of server including linux, windows and unix
servers
alike yet again nobody has really look at the real facts and blabbed there
face like a druggie,

That's very interesting seeing that the "Internet" didn't come into being
until 1990-91, when Tim Bereners-Lee created the WWW (HTML, web server, web
browser) and congress de-regulated use of DARPA Net infrastructure. DARPA
Net (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) was private to the millitary
until the 80's when the stewardship of it was given to the NSF (National
Science Foundation) so that parts (not all) of the acedemic world could use
it. It still, however was off limits to the general public before 1990.

Also, while viruses have been around since 1986 (the first was "The Brain
Virus"), they were not distributed via the Internet (it didn't exist yet),
they were distributed via physical media (diskettes). One of the first
Internet viruses was "Micaelange lo" and that was in 1992.
(http://www.exn.ca/nerds/20000504-55.cfm)

Also, in the 80's the concept of a "server" was just that, a concept.
"Servers", in those days were called main-frames. There were no such things
as mainstream Windows and Linux servers. WFW (Windows For Workgroups) 3.1
wasn't even released until 1992.

You clearly don't have your facts straight on this.

[John Bailo]

Scott M. wrote:

Also, in the 80's the concept of a "server" was just that, a concept.
"Servers", in those days were called main-frames. There were no such
things as mainstream Windows and Linux servers. WFW (Windows For
Workgroups) 3.1 wasn't even released until 1992.
Well...that's not quite right. There were file servers. The idea of
client-server architecture was Microsoft's mainstay during the 1980's.
That was a connected client server.

The web, and http, drove us into connectionless architectures.

You see this in web services today, when, rather than holding open a port to
SQL server to make TDS calls, we send and receive SOAP messages.

You clearly don't have your facts straight on this.

--
http://www.texeme.com

[Scott M.]

"John Bailo" <ja*****@earthl ink.net> wrote in message
news:tY******** *******@newsrea d1.news.pas.ear thlink.net...

Scott M. wrote:

Also, in the 80's the concept of a "server" was just that, a concept.
"Servers", in those days were called main-frames. There were no such
things as mainstream Windows and Linux servers. WFW (Windows For
Workgroups) 3.1 wasn't even released until 1992.
Well...that's not quite right. There were file servers.
The idea of client-server architecture was Microsoft's mainstay during
the 1980's.
That was a connected client server.

We are talking about web and domain type servers here (notice I said
"mainstream Windows and Linux servers"). Hooking up a box and connecting to
it for file sharing access was not really what I was talking about. MS had
not even introduced WFW until. 1992, so I can't agree that client/server was
MS's mainstay during the 80's. MS's mainstay during the 80's was most
definately the OS and Office. At any rate, this is all besides the point.
The point was that there was no Internet in the 80's and it most certainly
didn't almost collapse because of a virus then.
The web, and http, drove us into connectionless architectures.

You see this in web services today, when, rather than holding open a port
to
SQL server to make TDS calls, we send and receive SOAP messages.

Thanks for the lesson. I think we all know that the web is a stateless
environment, however I find it odd that you include SQL Server in your
description since the use of SQL server is hardly intrinsic to the WWW
architecture. For that matter, neither are web services. I think what you
are trying to describe is TCP/IP, DNS and HTTP request and responses.

You clearly don't have your facts straight on this.

--
http://www.texeme.com

Do you realize that the web site listed above consists of 2 frames, one of
which consists of an oddly positioned piece of text and a second frame that
points to a non-existent file?

[wpw]

Thank you for the history lesson. I ussed to use coherent on a 486sx. Good
OS.

"mlw" wrote:

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.

[C-Services Holland b.v.]

Fact corrector wrote:

Fact from fiction
LOL.. your 'facts' are more your opinion than anything else..

<snip useless dribble>
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.

Have you even use linux? I have a process running that checks for update
regularly and updates when nescesarry. I don't have to do a thing about
it (just check the logs to see if and what got updated). You can do it
manually, but you don't need to. Just like you can go to windows update
and go through 'countless' webpages to update your system manually.

--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.

[Marc Jennings]

I use windows. I use Linux.

I use the tool that allows me to do what I need to with the least
amount of fuss. If anyone from either side feels the need to pull the
other apart, that's fine by me, but (IMHO) the competition element of
this discussion is fairly pointless.

Get over yourselves. It is not the end of the world.

[Harry S.]

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

SNIP<

I hate wars, especially these Jihads between Windows vs Linux vs BSD vs AIX
vs MacOS X vs Tru64 etc... At the end of the day, they are all tools. Each
tool generally has its strengths and its weaknesses as well as being
particularly suited to a specific task.

I am a Linux user. I use it for my servers and for my desktop as it does
everything I need it to while being, on the whole, generally immune from the
nasties that tend to swirl around on the 'net. I get on well with it, it does
what I ask and has the suite of tools I need to do my job.

What did get for my Mum and Dad? MacOS X. Why? Because it's big and
colourful and bouncy and does what it says on the tin without having any
serious worries about internet nasties whilst being able to browse the web,
send e-mail and download and print pictures from their digital camera.

What did I use for the desktops at work? Windows XP. Why? Because the
Microsoft business solution is one of the more scalable and coherent ones
available. Linux desktops are great if you're a mad techie who doesn't mind
delving around with shell scripts from time to time, but at present, as good
as KDE, Gnome etc. are, they're just not as mature or coherent as the
Microsoft one.

Being an engineer, I'm a great believer in using the right tool for the
right job. It's idiotic and self-defeating if you stand on ceremony and end
up being a martyr just to prove a point. Use whatever solution is going to
provide the most cost effective solution to as many of your problems as you
can find. Every camp is going to have their evangelists, martyrs, critics
and, of course, users. At the end of the day, make up your own mind and use
whatever tool best fits the job.

As I said, I hate wars :-)

ATB,
--Harry

[Harry S.]

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

SNIP<

I hate wars, especially these Jihads between Windows vs Linux vs BSD vs AIX
vs MacOS X vs Tru64 etc... At the end of the day, they are all tools. Each
tool generally has its strengths and its weaknesses as well as being
particularly suited to a specific task.

I am a Linux user. I use it for my servers and for my desktop as it does
everything I need it to while being, on the whole, generally immune from the
nasties that tend to swirl around on the 'net. I get on well with it, it does
what I ask and has the suite of tools I need to do my job.

What did get for my Mum and Dad? MacOS X. Why? Because it's big and
colourful and bouncy and does what it says on the tin without having any
serious worries about internet nasties whilst being able to browse the web,
send e-mail and download and print pictures from their digital camera.

What did I use for the desktops at work? Windows XP. Why? Because the
Microsoft business solution is one of the more scalable and coherent ones
available. Linux desktops are great if you're a mad techie who doesn't mind
delving around with shell scripts from time to time, but at present, as good
as KDE, Gnome etc. are, they're just not as mature or coherent as the
Microsoft one.

Being an engineer, I'm a great believer in using the right tool for the
right job. It's idiotic and self-defeating if you stand on ceremony and end
up being a martyr just to prove a point. Use whatever solution is going to
provide the most cost effective solution to as many of your problems as you
can find. Every camp is going to have their evangelists, martyrs, critics
and, of course, users. At the end of the day, make up your own mind and use
whatever tool best fits the job.

As I said, I hate wars :-)

ATB,
--Harry