Interested in crushing Ubuntu?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I think it is very silly to talk about 'crushing' anybody. Really, we would all be much better off if there was more competition when it comes to operating systems.


That was just kinda the nature of the new job title Microsoft is creating. "Crush" was my word, used for levity. "Ubuntu" was used in the title because is has become synonymous with F/LOSS operating systems for many.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
At least at this time Microsoft is probably more concerned with Apple than with Linux. In the USA Apple is now close to 10% market share but Linux desktop (not servers) is less than 1% market share. So why would Microsoft be trying to 'crush' Linux?


It has *way* more to do with servers and embedded systems than desktops, where Linux, *NIX, BSD's et al. are kicking the holy heck outta Microsoft. I don't know why all of you guys think this is about who gets to help grandma send emails. It's about big iron and cell phones and toasters.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I wonder about people who constantly talk about Microsoft being finished in a few years or destroying or 'crushing' Microsoft. When I was thinking about switching to Linux about 5 years ago I used to spend a lot of time at the Linux websites and I still remember people at the Linux websites talking about Microsoft being gone in 5 years. Well, here it is 5 years later.


Yes, the old joke that 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 is Year Of The Linux Desktop never gets old.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
We all benefit in my opinion by there being a choice. Linux can be a good choice for some but not for me because of lack of compatibility with various hardware I need. And Mac OS X runs good but I can buy a Windows computer cheaper.


Again, I think Steve Ballmer could not bring himself to care one way or another whether you're viewing this page on Linux or not. It's about servers and embedded systems. That's *huge* money, and Microsoft is way behind.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Hatred is a self destructive emotion.


Well put. I am unsure how "hatred" became part of this thread. I posted TFA because I thought it was noteworthy that Microsoft is beginning to take an active role in competing with F/LOSS by seeking to hire someone to think about it.

They also posted for a job for a NetBSD developer very recently. Heaven forbid we start a thread on toaster market share!
LOL.gif
 
Linux will see, IMO, a steadily increasing marketshare as time passes. The kids of today aren't scared of computer experimentation like their forebears and as they grow older that spirit won't change. I am convinced that if Linux could support gaming, you'd see a huge influx of users.

However, to say that anything at this point is a sign of Microsoft being nervous or feeling threatened in the slightest is just silly. Microsoft will be dominant in the marketplace for the foreseeable future and there is almost nothing that can stop it. So they're throwing a little cash toward understanding their so-called competition. It's good business to know the enemy no matter how insignificant.

I've had a very high level of proficiency with every MS OS since BASIC, all the DOS versions, all the windows desktop versions, the server versions and some of the specialized s tuff and the way I see it, there's only been two failures: ME and Vista. The rest of their stuff was between decent and excellent. Even the less noteworthy iterations were not bad by any stretch. These people have nothing to fear.

By the way, I run Zenwalk, Ubuntu, CaOS NSA, and BackTrack on different machines at home and work with XP, Server2k3, and Suse Enterprise. Just so you don't think I'm some kind of a Microsoft drone. It's business, not personal.
 
But they're *not* the dominant force in servers and embedded systems. Ironically, that is where they are beginning to encroach on other OS's. Apache (a F/LOSS web server used mostly on F/LOSS OS's) has lost a lost of market share in the last few years to IIS (Microsoft's web server), for example. The minor little ding or dent in market share that Linux is gaining on the desktop (still under 1%) cannot be affecting anyone at Microsoft's sleep.

Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
Linux will see, IMO, a steadily increasing marketshare as time passes. The kids of today aren't scared of computer experimentation like their forebears and as they grow older that spirit won't change. I am convinced that if Linux could support gaming, you'd see a huge influx of users.

However, to say that anything at this point is a sign of Microsoft being nervous or feeling threatened in the slightest is just silly. Microsoft will be dominant in the marketplace for the foreseeable future and there is almost nothing that can stop it. So they're throwing a little cash toward understanding their so-called competition. It's good business to know the enemy no matter how insignificant.

I've had a very high level of proficiency with every MS OS since BASIC, all the DOS versions, all the windows desktop versions, the server versions and some of the specialized s tuff and the way I see it, there's only been two failures: ME and Vista. The rest of their stuff was between decent and excellent. Even the less noteworthy iterations were not bad by any stretch. These people have nothing to fear.

By the way, I run Zenwalk, Ubuntu, CaOS NSA, and BackTrack on different machines at home and work with XP, Server2k3, and Suse Enterprise. Just so you don't think I'm some kind of a Microsoft drone. It's business, not personal.
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more


Originally Posted By: Mystic
I wonder about people who constantly talk about Microsoft being finished in a few years or destroying or 'crushing' Microsoft. When I was thinking about switching to Linux about 5 years ago I used to spend a lot of time at the Linux websites and I still remember people at the Linux websites talking about Microsoft being gone in 5 years. Well, here it is 5 years later.


Yes, the old joke that 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 is Year Of The Linux Desktop never gets old.


The year of Linux is the same year that the Chicago Cubs win the world series.

In other words...
Don't bet on it.
 
Quote:
Yes, the old joke that 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 is Year Of The Linux Desktop never gets old.


I wouldn't say this is the year of the Linux desktop, but it is beginning to give more Microsoft fits.

What is causing it is the low end laptops, and more recently netbooks. They've started a race to the bottom. Low end laptops are barely functional with Vista, but plenty fast for XP or Linux.

IMHO, the reason windows does so well is that its "free". Not free as in freedom, and not truly free of financial cost. But it is effectively free of financial cost. It is very hard for an average consumer to get a PC without it including windows. So when they buy a new PC, it includes windows for "free". They never know it cost them $34.

That's why I used windows until around a year ago. Then I decided free wasn't enough for me anymore. When vista shipped it was junk. Annoying popups, slow on anything other than high end hardware, etc. Free or not, I loaded Linux (for the first time outside of school work back in college).

I'm typing this on a $420 laptop that was the cheapest I could find when I got it 6 months ago. Its running Ubuntu. And its a very fast machine with Ubuntu.

The race to the bottom in hardware is real, and Microsoft is taking it seriously. They're still selling xp on low end stuff, even though Microsoft tries not to talk about it. Vista just isn't viable in that space. 7 is supposed to fix that. Until then, they make you buy a vista license to get xp on your netbook.
 
Well, uc50ic4more, you bring up a lot of good points. Microsoft is the big dog when it comes to desktop computer operating systems but there is much more competition in the server market. There are quite a few Linux servers and frankly I kind of like Linux servers. Whenever I had an ISP that used Linux everything seemed to run fine. As long as there are people who know how to set up the Linux servers I have no problem with these servers at all. I came across some information fairly recently that Sun Microsystems is laying off a lot of workers and apparently looking more and more to open source (Linux).

It really is a joke about how desktop Linux is going to replace Windows anytime now. I gave up on desktop Linux a long time ago. It makes me laugh when I read an article somewhere where Linux is going to replace Windows someday. It has not happened yet in what in computer technology terms is centuries.

But I am not married to Microsoft either. It surprises me that people in other countries have not developed their own operating systems. If the Germans, Chinese, or Japanese developed an operating system that was superior to Windows and competitive in price, and with equal compatibility with Windows with software and hardware, I certainly would be interested. I would of course prefer to buy American but in the end I have to care about myself.

I was a fairly diehard Apple user for a long time. Mac OS X does run nice although I think 'Tiger' (Mac OS 10.4) was superior to 'Leopard' (Mac OS 10.5). But Apple computers are expensive and when Apple starting doing stuff like dropping the 'Computer' word out of the company name I got worried. For a while I thought that Apple was going to become a consumer electronics company.

And now that Steve Jobs is on extended medical leave and perhaps will not come back to Apple, I wonder what is going to happen. A CEO can of course be replaced but it might be hard replacing Steve Jobs.

The things I know for sure are that Windows can let me do the things I need to do with the software and hardware compatibility that I need. It is not that I love Microsoft.

In fact according to what I have read Steve Jobs said in something like 1998 (for 'Fortune Magazine') that the desktop operating system wars were over and that Microsoft Windows had won.

There is much more competition in the server wars. There are various operating systems that make good servers including Unix, Linux, and Windows. It may be to everybodys benefit if there is no clear winner in that war. The competition is good. Linux makes for a much better server than a desktop operating system in my opinion.
 
By the way where I work (for a governmental agency) we have Unix and Windows servers and Windows desktops. I think they really would like to replace the Unix servers completely with Windows servers but there is still some important software we use that needs Unix.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
By the way where I work (for a governmental agency) we have Unix and Windows servers and Windows desktops. I think they really would like to replace the Unix servers completely with Windows servers but there is still some important software we use that needs Unix.


I've used both, but for a server environment I feel Unix is the way to go if you're willing to set it up properly.
 
I'm biased since I work for Sun (and nervous about the announced layoffs like everyone else)

I think Solaris scales better as a server O/S, but it's not a desktop for everyone.

The question surrounding Sun is how do we leverage the technologies we've created?

Is the value in SPARC, or does it make sense to just go to Intel or AMD for uProcessors and let RISC/SPARC die?

Are we doomed to become the next DEC or SGI, etc? Or can we find our niche in the market place, doing things better, faster, and maybe cheaper than others?

Being old school Unix, since the early 1980's, I see Window's Certified paper tigers who really don't know how this stuff works.

The good and the bad is that Windows hides a lot of the detail from the admin and user.

The good and the bad about Unix/Solaris/Linux is that the O/S exposes a lot of the detail about those very same things, and lets you act on that. Sometimes good, sometimes very bad.

The general public wants their computer to be like a light switch, 99.44% of the time it works without any major configuration hassles. When it doesn't work, it's pretty rare and usually pretty easy to fix if the problem is local. If the power is out, which is also rare, folks excuse that as long as the outage is short and infrequent.

Right now, NO computer technology offers this type of availability unless you are willing to spend for something like a Tandem, or a clustered system.
 
RISC/SPARC is a fine architecture that has it's place. It would be a shame to see that die out. I have an old Sun UltraSPARC box at the house that I enjoy messing around with. I wish I had one of the 64bit boxes, I'd run it as my home server. Solaris is a fine OS for certain things and I could see it nestling into a niche. I don't think Sun is the next SGI by any means.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Does it ever become tiring hating Microsoft? I don't hate Linux. It just does not work for me.


You're not familiar with Linux fanboys, are you?
 
Actually, I have met a few Linux fanatics. A couple of the Windows computers I have owned over the years were custom built. Some of the guys who built the custom computers were totally nuts about Linux. One guy told me how Linux could be put on the computer I was having built rather than Windows (Windows XP back in those days). I knew more about Linux than he thought because I had considered switching to Linux. I knew the problems the typical Linux system has with scanner and photo printer support. This support is important to me. When I told the guy I was going with Windows because I needed to scan and print out photographs he could not seem to understand (Linux geniuses are above potential customers and cannot understand customer needs)and he explained that printing was rarely needed today, we lived in a paperless world, and everybody just sent PDFs today. I can't have a PDF framed and hung on a wall. The guy literally, inspite of his IQ, could not understand I might want to print out a photograph and get it framed and hung on a wall.

Now Mac people would instantly understand what I was talking about. They know that scanner and printer support is important. And there are a lot of Windows people who understand also, even though some Windows people are just into computer games. And most of the truly powerful Windows computers I have seen were gaming computers.

I think this is a primary problem with the Linux people. They are just too advanced for their potential customer base and are incapable of understanding the needs of potential customers. Hence, a 1% market share.

But do not tell this to the Linux people. It might upset the advanced math going on in their brains. Most people just do not deserve Linux. Linux is for the elite and the brilliant. And for servers (although probably not really as good as Unix for servers). Hey, we still use Unix at work with special GUI software support. We literally use Unix everyday along with Windows.

I think we were probably better off in the times with Unix servers and Windows and Mac desktops. Unix is a natural server. And Microsoft and Apple have some clue about customer support and that a customer just might want to scan a positive or a negative and print out a photograph. A quality photograph-not something printed out on a piece of garbage laser office printer.

But whatever you do please do not tell the Linux people. If they actually developed a Linux operating system that was simple to use and that had good software and hardware support, in addition to being inexpensive and able to run on cheap computers, it might endanger Microsoft! It might endanger Apple! We can't have inexpensive software running on cheap computers with good software and hardware support! It might make too much sense and it might threaten the tiny Linux desktop community! You would have millions of ordinary people running Linux! Linux desktop is an exclusive club. We can't let just anybody in.
 
Support is the missing link when it comes to Linux. Even we sell against Linux (while funding Open Source) citing the support question.

Linux has it's own version of "DLL [censored]" with issues surrounding which kernels and libC's work together and support your application.

What happens to your apps if you upgrade the kernel or the libraries, etc? The support question for Linux is a valid question.
 
Support will improve greatly once vendors see a real market in making, then distributing (perhaps even open sourcing) and supporting a driver for their stuff. It is absurd for any company to write, distribute and support drivers for a less than 1% user base; although thankfully a few do. Changes will be incremental, I am sure.

The same goes for software, I suppose.
 
Yes, but major corps are not going to go wholesale into something with only a "promise" of coming support.

I spend 1/2 my working time on-site at a major telco because they want someone who knows Sun minutes away from the systems, not to mention proactive support, etc.

They've tried/are trying linux, but keep coming back to Sun for Mission Critical application hosting in the Unix space.

Heck, we even support their cell based HP hardware now, because we are known for great service.
 
One thing I have been very pleased with on my Ubuntu box is its native support of my flatbed scanner and HP 4500 laserjet. They were actually simpler to setup in linux than on windows. They've really made some serious improvements in hardware support in recent years. The linux of today is very much different from say 2003, wheras windows has not changed very much. If the improvement in linux continues along what has become a very steep curve of improvement it will be close to on par with windows in a few years. Unfortunately, I don't think that it will change much about their marketshare - but with the recession you never know. My wife (an elementary school teacher and by no means a linux genius) actually prefers to use my Ubuntu box to her Vista machine. Both machines are fast, but the way the linux machine works is, to her, easier and more intuitive.
 
I guess I never really thought much about this before now but actually we had a GUI on top of Unix years before Apple put a GUI on top of FreeBSD. Now, when that GUI software first came out it was far from user friendly and you still had to know all kinds of arcane codes to run it. It has come a long way and while still not exactly Microsoft Windows it is a lot like Windows. A company in another state develops the user interface software for us and out own programming people make it possible to run it along with Windows programs on our Windows desktop computers. I am not going to describe the software any more than this.

I have to say that I really like Unix. You can even put a GUI on top of Unix to make it more user friendly. I think that Unix is excellent for use as a server and for specialized purposes. Unix is very powerful.

Windows and Apple Mac are great as desktop computer operating systems.

I don't think I would want to see Unix disappear. If anything disappeared I would prefer for Linux to disappear. Now Linux makes for a good server but I think Unix is better and more than enough time has come and gone for desktop Linux to come of age. I get tired of even hearing about Linux and I regret I wasted a considerable amount of time researching it and even running a version of Linux from a CD.

Because of the hard economic times Linux might replace Unix to some extent and a lot of good people are losing jobs at Sun Microsystems. But Unix was always a great server.

In an ideal world Unix could probably provide the answer for all of our server needs and specialized operations and Windows and/or Apple Mac could provide the desktop computer operating systems.

I am no expert but I think a top quality Unix server is superior if operated by Unix people who know what they are doing. Goggle supposedly uses 15,000 Linux servers and now there are people starting to wonder about the energy consumption and heat generated by all of that. A comparatively small number of Unix servers could probably do the same job.
 
1) Mac OSX is a long, long, long way from being "a GUI on top of FreeBSD". OSX's kernel is called Darwin, and it's based on... Oh, heck, just look here for some facts:

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/history.html

2) People love Linux primarily because it is free. Free as in beer, free as in freedom. Unix, Mac, Windows are not.

3) Unix is distributed today as things like AIX, HP/UX and Solaris. None of these OS's are suitable for desktop use. Using the UNIX name costs a whole lotta dough, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
14K
MolaKule
S
  • Locked
Kicking the Microsoft Habit
Replies
15
Views
3K
ToyotaNSaturn
V
  • Locked
Hot water freezes faster than cold water?
2
Replies
38
Views
19K
Oldmoparguy1
R
  • Locked
Interesting Article Attached
Replies
7
Views
2K
Spector
B
  • Locked
Snake Oils
Replies
6
Views
7K
ABN_CBT_ENGR
Back
Top