 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Linux/Microsoft Ping!
PArt of the issue - which IS changing is the number of legacy apps still running. I work in healthcare IT and so many new applications coming out are running Linux that it is not funny - often from developers experience in ecommerce that requires systems to be cheap and bulletproof.
"Paul Thurrott" - Bill Gates' latest pen name(?)
I'd say that this author is a wee bit biased (of course, I am too). But I don't think he is being entirely honest here. He talks of the perceived benefits of Linux vs what he describes as the actual benefits of Windows. Howsoever, he does have a point on the amount of units sold. Given that, it is easy to assume that windows rules on the Internet, when that (from what I've read) is just plain not the case.
Linux is primarily used in environments where high data output are necessary such as supercomputing environments and in trafficking of Internet data.
In 1995 I was just learning Novell Netware. Netware ruled. Novell had the world by the donkey. Everyone was wanting to run Netware. CNEs were commanding bigtime money. Novell amassed millions in cash reserves, had no debt, and was the darling of Wall Street. Novell became ARROGANT.
At the time, Microsoft was just releasing Windows 95, and oh yeah, they had some glorified peer to peer solution called NT 3.51. It wasn't much, and nothing really ran on it, and it crashed a lot, and there weren't many administrative tools for it.
Now it's 2005. Windows servers have huge amounts of market share. The MCSE is a common credential. Everyone runs M$ products. M$ has, at last count, $500 billion in the bank. While no longer the darling of Wall Street, they are paying dividends now.
The Buzz, momentum, and hype has gone to Linux. Linux in many ways still can't compete with XP on the desktop, but it now runs servers as well as anything M$ produces. Hundreds of thousands of people keep working on Linux every day, and major competitors to M$ have dumped massive amounts of their code into the project.
By comparison, Microsoft hasn't released a significant upgrade (ie, DOS to Win95) in years to its server software, or its Office suite, or its desktop. Worse yet, they've lost all credibility due to missed deadlines, dropped features, security concerns, and not a small amount of fear among its partners. They are ARROGANT.
And so the globe spins, and the "goes around, comes around" thing happens.
I think he may be right about the server/database/back office type stuff, but if Microsoft cannot get the spam and virus and spyware situation under control, they are going to lose significant desktop share to Linux and Mac.
Most of the Windows computers I've used at other people's houses in the last year run like a ten-year-old Pentium II because of all the spyware infestation.
-ccm
Sure doesn't square with my experience. In 2004 about 2/3 of the six or so organizations whose operations I know initiated or added to Linux servers.
Note that revenue is not a reasonable way of describing Linux growth. Of these same organizations only one has paid for all its copies of Linux. More typical is to buy one copy, clone the rest. That is perfectly legal (and for that matter is the practice I recommend).
Lol if you set it up wrong its just as insecure as windows... Wow
While I do not use Windows myself for a desktop OS, I can at least understand the reason why people do use it.
What I cannot fathom is why anyone uses it as a server OS. It is truly awful as a server OS.
What "market share"? The number of units sold? Annual revenue? The author seems to use the latter measurement. That could simply mean that Microsoft products are more expensive, or have to be replaced more often, or both.
Market share does not accurately reflect the size of the installed base. That's the measurement I'm more interested in.
Linux has steadily been gaining in any aspect you want to measure. For example, I'm typing this on a Fedora Core 2 system which is very nice.
Having said that, the problem that I see is that Linux users are used to getting their software for free. This works OK for so called "killer apps" like web browsers, email clients, mp3 players etc. But there are other apps which don't fall into that category but are "killer apps" for individuals. Maybe it's a particular accounting package you're used to working with and you've got years of legacy data on. Or maybe it's a particular game that you enjoy playing. Or whatever.
I guess what it comes down to is that there are free replacments for a lot of apps but there aren't free replacements for all possible apps.
At some point, the for-profit software business model does make some sense. And up to this point, you don't see the for-profit companies rushing in to make either free or not-free versions of their software for linux.
They don't see a large enough installed base, they don't want to give away their products, and they don't think the linux community will cotton to the idea of paying for software since they got their OS and most of their apps for free.
For linux to hit the bigtime, I think this Rubicon will have to be crossed. It should be interesting to watch.
a largely untested solution such as Linux
What orifice did he pull this out of?
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|