Posted on 02/06/2002 2:49:10 PM PST by Justa
MS had the first affordable desktop unix. The Tandy 16 ran it on a 68000, and several Altos models ran it on 8086 (and IIRC higher) CPUs. Lots of vertical-oriented (VAR channel type stuff) harware manufacturers sold it too. For quite a while, Microsoft was the unix on the desktop and small office system. The younguns seem totally oblivious to this.
That's a two-edged sword -- yes, he can't turn it over to MS, but by the same token, he doesn't have to turn it over to MS, MS could simply take it, the same as any other "distro" house.
The difference, of course, is the instant brand-recognition, credibility (go ahead, laugh -- but remember, 90 percent of the desktops in the world. 90%!), and, an entre with scads and scads of decision-makers.
If the choice becomes one of "which linux", and one of them is "Microsoft Linux" -- you can probably bet the farm on the market making like a big wave in the direction of Redmond WA.
Open source also has many individuals who Make A Difference, like Stallman, Raymond, and Torvalds. Open source is a purer meritocracy than commercial software: in open source your output is the sole determinant of your value, where in the commercial world office politics and the Peter Principle can make merit irrelevant.
Um, just out of curiosity -- do you know anything about Stallman's politics? I'm just wondering if you're aware of the banner under which he's "making a difference". I realise there's no such thing as a "Know Who You Tout!" law, but man, the irony, oh, the irony...
And RMS has shot with Geeks with Guns at least once.
It is all voluntary.
Remember, there is nothing preventing people from selling free software; it is 'free' as in speech; not 'free' as in beer. With some free software, like GPL software, you simply have to grant customers the same rights you have. There's nothing necessarily anti-commercial about that; it's just anti-proprietary.
You are confusing a difference in distribution philosophy with a difference in economic philosophy. There is nothing especially capitalist about the Microsoft philosophy of "Keep the user in the dark, and sell him access to binaries." That's just they way they happen to choose to distribute their software. It's not any more capitalist than someone who includes source code as part of their product.
I suspect you do, although many people do not realize that he is a pro-abortion, anti-gun liberal.
Look who's talking Don--have you the slightest idea how ol' Billy boy thinks/leans politically?
Maybe they'll improve response time on their web site as well.
C'mon Bush2K! That statement of your hinges on demagoguery, don't you think?
You may diss Linux at will, I have no problem there. But you must admit that those complaints against MS are valid. Security is just not a strong point of MS.
At any rate, this "college dorm operating system" of ours is sure turning a lot of heads.
You blew your entire argument with that one statement.
See above. E*TRADE is switching to Linux. Hardly a college dorm operation. You just make yourself look foolish with such childish put-downs.
Geez, Louise! Nobody "owns" Linux. Get it? No one. As far as profits are concerned, Linux distros do not prevent individuals or companies from developing "for profit" apps on the platform. Was the movie Shrek for profit?
You're mixing arguments, big time.
".NET applications no longer run in native machine code or the popular WinTel (Windows and Intel) Platform, having abandoned Intel x86 code in favor of an intermediate language called MSIL(Microsoft Intermediate Language) which runs in a sort of virtual machine called the Common Language Runtime (CLR)....From a strategic point of view, Microsoft has found a way to occupy a position of predominance on the Internet....WebServices is something, which Microsoft is expecting to generate huge revenues, WebService are components running on the server which provide their services through HTTP. WebService make way for the concept of "renting software from the web".....NET will run across all Windows platform, but initially the benefits may only be reaped by OS like Windows XP and Windows 2000."(Source)
My favorite part is the "Microsoft Intermediate Language" which is likely the MS code used on their new .net comm drivers and the non-DOS BIOS hard driver controller many new boards are equipped with nowadays. Who cares what OS people load on a .Net-compatable board, MS's code is running the hardware via a BIOS bridge between the network channel and the hard drive controller. So MS's new code controls both channels. In that sense the OS becomes irrelevant. It's owned.
Like AOL, .Net is a distributed, proprietary network operating environment. Keyword: proprietary. Companies which run a MS OS will be included in the network regardless if they agree to it or even realize it. By running a MS OS they're a node of .Net. 'Nuff said.
As for Linux being restricted to college dorms that characterization is quite out of date. Besides many international companies the government of South Korea has already switched to Linux. For security reasons I imagine. They don't trust those Communists in Redmond, WA.
Don't respond if you're going to pick and choose, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.