microsoft and linux

[5Gs]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...&intsrc=kc_top

and just not too long ago, microsoft thought linux will never catch on. personally, I don't see why anyone would pay for a windows license when the same stuff could be done on an os that's free and works better.

[Sportymonk]

Well, I personally prefer Apple OS X. Stable and no problems. I would like to try Linux someday, just no time right now.

Edited for spelling

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by 5Gs
and just not too long ago, microsoft thought linux will never catch on. personally, I don't see why anyone would pay for a windows license when the same stuff could be done on an os that's free and works better.

Linux is still a bit player.

Good Linux is not free, and most Linux does not work better for most people.

[krygny]

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

Wouldn't that be a nice place to be? Where the OS or the PC or the browser you use just doesn't matter. It's inevitable and we get closer to it all the time. But the shame of it is that we should have been there 20 years ago. We should have learnt our lessons from the PC wars and never had the OS wars or the browser wars.

For those who remember, we ALMOST had the Internet Wars - competing proprietary networks and on line services. Imagine how damaging (and expensive) THAT would have been and how fast the Web has developed because it didn't happen.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by krygny
It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

Wouldn't that be a nice place to be? =

No!

It sounds like a terrible place to be.

I think it would be the "Information World, as envisioned by Moscow (Circa 1960)"

[krygny]

Originally posted by N_Jay


No!

It sounds like a terrible place to be.

I think it would be the "Information World, as envisioned by Moscow (Circa 1960)"

I'm not familiar with that.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by krygny

I'm not familiar with that.

Well, everyone knows how innefficient the market is in making these decisions for us.

What we need is a committee with central responsibility to help us.

This "Central Committee" could then take care of these mundane issues and deliver us a better world, free of the inequities caused by reliance on the free market.

It's a joke, son, a joke! Get it!

[krygny]

Originally posted by N_Jay
...
It's a joke, son, a joke! Get it!

No, Im stuk in Irak.

[5Gs]

Originally posted by N_Jay


Linux is still a bit player.

Good Linux is not free, and most Linux does not work better for most people.

true, it's still small for the home desktop, but on the server end, it's getting much bigger. I probably should have made it clear earlier, that if the same stuff could be done on any os, why not choose the one that's free and simply works?

as for good linux, I'm not sure how you determined what's good and what's not. are you referring to something such as redhat es/as as good linux, where it does cost money to get the os? just about any other version I've used on servers are free. it's the tech support that costs money (which could get expensive, but that could be true for windows and mac too).

here's a good example. recently I built a vmware server. I had the option of installing windows or fedora as the base os. knowing that vmware server works on both os, why would anyone pay for a windows license? I'm sure you IT people out there would understand.

btw, I got a chance to check out microsoft's next os, vista, and visually it does look nice. very mac like. I thought it was funny how mac has "widgets," and vista has "gadgets."

(btw, in case someone's wondering, I don't dislike windows...I use it quite a bit )

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by 5Gs
true, it's still small for the home desktop, but on the server end, it's getting much bigger. I probably should have made it clear earlier, that if the same stuff could be done on any os, why not choose the one that's free and simply works?

The server argument has been doing on since 1995 also.
Yes there are a lot, I have not checked recently, but I think the Linux share is stable or falling.
On a server, the cost of teh OS is minor, use what works best and ignore the licensing costs.

Originally posted by 5Gs
as for good linux, I'm not sure how you determined what's good and what's not. are you referring to something such as redhat es/as as good linux, where it does cost money to get the os? just about any other version I've used on servers are free. it's the tech support that costs money (which could get expensive, but that could be true for windows and mac too).

As I said, with support costs and other life cycle costs far outweighing initial costs, you argument holds little water. Support on the MS side is better due to the shear number of users.

Originally posted by 5Gs
here's a good example. recently I built a vmware server. I had the option of installing windows or fedora as the base os. knowing that vmware server works on both os, why would anyone pay for a windows license? I'm sure you IT people out there would understand.

Good for you.

I just built a new "play' server. I lost 2 days to setting up multiple versions of Linux unsuccessfully. XP ran right out of the box.
XP even handled a failed video card by operating it in VGA emulation mode. Each linux version I tried crashed during install.

The point is, single experiences are not relevant. The experience of the whole market is reflected in the success of MS products market wide.

Originally posted by 5Gs
btw, I got a chance to check out microsoft's next os, vista, and visually it does look nice. very mac like. I thought it was funny how mac has "widgets," and vista has "gadgets."

I have Vista, but no need to install it yet.

[5Gs]

Originally posted by N_Jay

The server argument has been doing on since 1995 also.
Yes there are a lot, I have not checked recently, but I think the Linux share is stable or falling.

I don't have numbers in front of me, but the linux server market share is increasing.

On a server, the cost of teh OS is minor, use what works best and ignore the licensing costs.

I'm not so sure the licensing costs can be ignored. let's say the cost of a windows license is $300. if I have 100 servers, that's $30,000. of course this is all relative.

As I said, with support costs and other life cycle costs far outweighing initial costs, you argument holds little water. Support on the MS side is better due to the shear number of users.

huh? I already said support costs could be substantial for any os. you're disputing something you repeated of mine.

Good for you.

I just built a new "play' server. I lost 2 days to setting up multiple versions of Linux unsuccessfully. XP ran right out of the box.
XP even handled a failed video card by operating it in VGA emulation mode. Each linux version I tried crashed during install.

The point is, single experiences are not relevant. The experience of the whole market is reflected in the success of MS products market wide.

nope, I'm not disagreeing with microsoft's overall dominance. I was just pointing out that linux is catching up, and microsoft is acknowledging it.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by 5Gs

I don't have numbers in front of me, but the linux server market share is increasing.

Not in the web server market.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html

Not in $$ sold either
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html

http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3594826

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...-servers-slows

[5Gs]

Originally posted by N_Jay


Not in the web server market.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html

Not in $$ sold either
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html

http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3594826

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...-servers-slows

you're confusing unix and linux. I was talking about linux and not unix in general. your links show that linux is increasing in sales, although they weren't clear on market share. let me quote something from your second link.


And in another first, fast-growing Linux took third place, bumping machines with IBM's mainframe operating system, z/OS. Linux server sales grew from $4.3 billion in 2004 to $5.3 billion in 2005, while mainframes dropped from $5.7 billion to $4.8 billion over the same period, Eastwood said.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by 5Gs


you're confusing unix and linux. I was talking about linux and not unix in general. your links show that linux is increasing in sales, although they weren't clear on market share. let me quote something from your second link.


And in another first, fast-growing Linux took third place, bumping machines with IBM's mainframe operating system, z/OS. Linux server sales grew from $4.3 billion in 2004 to $5.3 billion in 2005, while mainframes dropped from $5.7 billion to $4.8 billion over the same period, Eastwood said.

Yep, sorry.

I actually think the web server charts are interesting.

Either way, I doubt Linux is going to be the dominant OS any time soon (or ever), but that is just my opinion.

[krygny]

Originally posted by 5Gs
you're confusing unix and linux.
...[/I]

... and you're both confusing the OS with the web server. Of course, IIS can only run on Windows, while Apache can run on anything. But that Netcraft survey only tracks the server. (You can check what OS an individual site is running, though.) Netcraft stats are becoming less relevant because they include registered domain name parking. You see big swings in past few years as registration services move their parked domains from one hosting service to another based on who's the cheapest this month.

As far as Linux vs. Windows sales is concerned, there's no comparison. I can buy one shrink-wrapped copy of SUSE and load it on thousands of desktops or servers. Can't do that with Windows.