Replies

A different take on the IDC study about the "total cost of ownership" of Linux vs. Windows 2000: one that isn't quite as flattering to Micro$oft...

bump

Linux=job security for computer geeks.

If I owned a small business (or even a not so small one, there is no way I would allow any of the PC's in my company to run windows or any MS apps. Why?...because you can no longer "own" any software bought from them. In the business world, you have to rent their OS and apps. When your lease is up, they force you to upgrade.

I have a small LAN at home that runs on wimdows...two desktops and a laptop. When MS starts shoving this down the home users' throats, I'm gone, and they will never get me back.

I tollerated (barely) the product activation with XP on the laptop I bought this year. I was going to buy an upgrade to XP for one of my desktops, but I constantly swap out hardware in that system, and Steve Balmer be damned if he and the rest of MS thinks I'm going to go to them on bended knee to "re-activate" my computer whenever their OS thinks that I've changed my system too much. At first I was going to buy the upgrade and just install the hacked "devilsown" version of XP off of gnutella since it does not have that big-brother activation scheme, or just find a way to strip it out of the shrink-wrapped copy from the store, but according to MS, that would be illegal too. So since I was damned as a theif either way, I just used the hacked version and kept the money I was going to spend on XP. When they get out of the assimilation business, I'll come back onto the reservation. Until then...well, I'm not worried about how Gates and Balmer (the richest and 4th richest men in the world) are going to eat next week.

The problem for LINUX or BSD UNIX is not the current generation of MS operating systems, or even the Dot Net servers which are really NT with a few new bells and whistles.

The problem is the Microsoft generation that follows these severs. It is a new operating system, rewritten from scratch all in the object oriented language of C#.

UNIX, BSD-UNIX, LINUX, and Windows 200 are all bound by the old programming models created by Kerrigan, Ritchee, and Wirth over 30 years ago. Structured function based operating systems are not going to hack it in the oject oriented world. And C++ is not going to hack it either.

If we compare operating systems to air planes all of todays operating systems are prop planes. UNIX is by far the better plane. But MS is working on a Jet plane... and the free software people are improving the world's best prop plane. If UNIX does not address the programming model and the programming tools, they will be stuck in an old outdated technology.

Look at the last 20 years. UNIX was a fantasic operating system and DOS was a tinker toy. UNIX was a fantasic operating system and Windows 3.1 was complex and buggy operating system. UNIX was a fantasic operating system and Windows NT was a sorta good operating sytem. UNIX was a fantasic operating system and Windows 2000 is its equal except for cost. NOTE the debate is not over better, it is over which costs less. The "mines better than yours" arguments are subjective arguments. We are no at who costs less.

See a pattern there? Every few years MS gets a little better and closes more of the gap. It now for all practical purposes closed. At one time the new developements like UNIX were in non commercial hands .... Bell labs and Berkley. The information was public domain. The open source guys need to get with the new program... get with the next generation. The open source guys are behind the development curve, largely because Gates' billions have bought the best operating system talent in the world.

The problem for UNIX is were do they get the super talent required to create the millions of lines of code for the next generation. They need to get it for free or they will have to charge a Microsoft price. The problem is every time some guy shows up with the talent and starts doing stuff for free, Gates has someone contact the talent. Microsoft asks how would you like to be paid millions for doing what you are now doing for free. It is amazing how many prefer being paid millions rather than doing it for free.

The people in favor of open source are the people that use the progams, not the people that write them.

Programmers write free open source as a way to gain experience, knowledge, and exposure. They use all three to get paying jobs. Once they have the paying job, they stop writing open sourse.

That is the Microsoft advantage and there is no way free ware can compete.

Linux will dominate the desktop when Habitat for Humanity dominates home construction.

Sounds like another never-ending argument: Ford is definitely better than Chevy.......

bump

ABMers are pathetically hypocritical. Microsoft commissions a Linux study. You slime it as biased. IBM commissions a Linux study. You hold it up as Gospel. How very innnnnnnnnnnnnnterrrrrresting... NOT!