Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Linux no threat to Windows

  • Subject: Re: Linux no threat to Windows
  • From: "Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 11 Aug 2006 22:16:37 -0700
  • Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
  • In-reply-to: <yWbDg.67245$Uy1.61889@read1.cgocable.net>
  • Injection-info: m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.80.98.116; posting-account=W7I-5gwAAACdjXtgBZS0v1SA93ztSMgH
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: http://groups.google.com
  • References: <yWbDg.67245$Uy1.61889@read1.cgocable.net>
  • User-agent: G2/0.2
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1139427
news.cogeco.ca wrote:
> ===Linux is no threat to Microsoft===
> * - Scott Nudds - August 10, 2006 -*
>
> It's been about 15 years since the original version of the Linux kernel was
> produced by Linus Torvalds, and over those 15 years, Linux has grown from a
> toy into a functional OS with some potential.  My congratulations to all
> involved.

Can't help but wonder how much more it would have done if Microsoft
hadn't spent $billions trying to keep it off the retailer shelves and
out of the press.  I was listening to NPR about 2 weeks ago and they
were talking about a journalist who was offering to keep the scandals
of rich and famous people out of the papers, in exchange for a
substantial contribution.

Microsoft essentially paid for good coverage and negative coverage of
Linux and other competitors.  What would have happened if Microsoft
hadn't come up with nearly $4 billion from 1992 to 1995.  This was the
period when Microsoft was threatened by UNIX on a number of fronts, and
Windows NT was not going very well.

Sun Microsystems had almost 15% of the corporate desktop market, and
costs for Sun based systems were falling.  OS/2 had adopted the UNIX
and X11 APIs.  Dell was starting to sell machines with SCO Linux
preinstalled.  Interactive UNIX was expensive, but made it possible to
convert a Windows 3.1 machine into a UNIX client or server.  Novell
bought the rights to UNIX in 1994, and released critical code needed by
BSD under the terms of a BSD license.  By 1993 Linux had more features
than Sun, and when installed on the compatible equipment listed on the
box or in the book, would run flawlessly for weeks or even months at a
time.  (One person thought his machine had crashed after 400 some odd
days, and it turned out that the "Crash" was just the jiffy counter
rolling over.

By the time Windows NT 3.1 was released, UNIX was ready to pounce.
Solaris, UnixWare, SCO Unix, and Linux were all poised and prepared to
be installed on machines that had been designed for NT.  When NT turned
out to be horribly buggy, terribly slow, and wouldn't run most third
party Windows applications, Microsoft used Vaporware of "Chicago"
couple with massive advertising which included total control of the
placement of all ads placed by any OEM using the Microsoft trademark
and logos.

Ironically, the failure of NT actually improved the control of
Micrcosoft over the OEMs.  When NT failed, less than 10% of the
expected number of machines were sold.  Most OEMs continued to sell
Windows 3.1 on their machines, but sales were terrible.  The OEMs were
acutely aware that without Microsoft, they could not sell their
computers (at that time).

Windows 95 redeemed Microsoft.  The sales were spectacular.  Before
long, the OEMs were completely under Microsoft's total control.
Windows 95 even trashed users hard drives, but Microsoft maintained
control through extraordinary EULA terms.

> The maturation of Linux has been reasonably swift - due essentially to the
> duplication through the direct copying or reverse engineering of all manner
> of features/tools/utilities found in the Unix environment.

Be very careful of how you word that.  Yes, there are hundreds of
applications and libraries that were originally written for BSD UNIX
and released under the BSD license, and even some that were originally
written for AT&T that were later released under Open Source licenses,
including Sockets, communcations, most of X11, and most of the
performance enhancements to the kernel.  There is actually very little
UNIX in UNIX.

Ironically, Linus has been very fussy about what goes into the kernel,
and each contributor is required to attest that his contribution is
original, that he owns the copyright, and that he is willing to release
the software under the teams of the GNU public license.

Linus and his team also keep historical records of all contributions.
As a result, Linux has a pedigree that is more pristine than most
commercial software.

>  So although
> reasonably swift, still probably encompassing several hundred thousand man
> of development, the vast bulk of Linux development is a result of the
> million or so of man years of development of the various versions of the
> Unix operating system on which it has piggybacked.

This is again very misleading.  Yes, numerous BSD and Open Source
applications were originally created for UNIX, but the were not
published exclusively under the AT&T UNIX license (or AT&T Successor
licenses).

> The Linux desktop(s), (probably the most impressive feature of the OS), are
> equally dependent on the open source available for X-Windows from which they
> were similarly derived.

Yes.  X11 was developed by a number of schools, and funded by IBM, HP,
and DEC.  Students were used to eliminate many patent issues.  The
programs were released under an MIT license that was very similar to
the LGPL.  Even the Motif wiget set was a joint effort which was
eventually released under both proprietary and OSS licenses.

The irony of this statement is that UNIX owed it's success to OSS
development.  If the college students at MIT, Carnagie Mellon,
Stamford, and UC Berkeley hadn't gotten Linux, and done a boatload of
enhancements, its' highly unlikely that AT&T would have been willing to
give up it's telephone monopoly to get into the Computer business.

> 5 years ago, Microsoft could see Linux over it's shoulder, rapidly
> approaching and in their view a potential competitor on the desktop and
> elsewhere.

Actually, Bill Gates personally got concerned about Linux as early as
1994.  Remember, he had written a version of UNIX called Xenix.  He had
also sold the rights to Xenix in 1989, thinking he could buy his way
back in any time he wanted.  What he didn't count on was that
Microsoft's competitors, who wanted to keep Microsoft OUT of the UNIX
market, would end up buying nearly all the stock.  It wasn't until the
Caldera/SCO merger that there were enough outstanding shares in the new
company for Microsoft to regain control through holding companies and
proxies.  After that, Microsoft was able to repurchase the rights to
UNIX and the UNIX market, appearantly for about $7 million dollars and
some interim funding of the lawsuit through Bay Star.

Bill knew that Linux had become MUCH more sophisticated than Xenix, and
that with no price floors (AT&T required that UNIX vendors charge a
minumum of $700 per machine for UNIX to protect their Minicomputer
customers), UNIX could attack the underbelly of Microsoft the same way
it had successfully beaten VMS, and MVS on the Minicomputer and
SuperComputer/Mainframe market.  In 1991, IBM stock prices crashed
because people were figuring that given the choice of $5 million in
upgrades for a $2 million mainframe vs buying a bunch of $50,000 to
$100,000 for SMP UNIX machines that could run Oracle, UNIX was worth a
shot.

Gates was acutely aware of this problem, since he had used VMS as the
base for Windows NT, and UNIX had driven DEC into virtual bankruptcy.

Microsoft had succeeded in keeping the OEMs from preinstalling Linux,
but in less than 2 years, Linux had learned to configure itself to
almost any machine made at that time.  Plug-n-play Linux was soon
adopted by all of the vendors.  Graphics support was actually better
than that of Windows, and Windows 3.1 (including NT 3.1) had a nasty
habit of hanging due to deadlocks, and crashing due to race conditions.

> At that time, it was said that Linux commanded 2% of the server
> market, and about 2% of the desktop market, and was thought to be growing.
> Today Linux occupies about 25% of the server market but still retains only
> about 2% of the desktop market or perhaps a bit less.

Miccrosoft and it's advocates love to quote these numbers, and they
don't even know what they are quoting.  These are the number of units,
usually by revenue, sold with Windows preinstalled vs Linux
preinstalled.  These studies assume that once a machine is sold with
Windows, it  will ALWAYS be a Windows machine.  Many windows machines
are upgraded to newer faster hardware every year.  The old machine
being rolled out is converted to Linux.  Some estimates put the
deployments of UNIX/Linux as high as 75% and the actual active
deployments of Windows as low as 25%.  The Netcraft web server survey
is a good example of this.

For desktop users, there are many legal advantange to purchasing a
machine with an OEM Windows license.  First, the OEM is buying in bulk
and gets a huge discount because he purchase far more licenses than he
needs.  The price of Windows is included in the price anyway, you might
as well get the license.  Having the license means that you can access
remote Windows machines (even though the system is running Linux, it's
licensed for Windows, which is the only requirement).  Having the
license means that you can use Microsoft libraries with WINE, or run
Windows VMs under VMWare, Xen, UML, or Bochs.  So of course people buy
the machine with the license.

There is however a pattern evolving recently that indicates that people
are buying new machines for the purpose of immediately converting them
to LInux.  Duo and AMD-64 machines are much faster running Linux, and
Windows XP/64 has no applications, and Windows XP/32 is actually slower
on a 64 bit machine.

> *Why hasn't growth of Linux been equally strong in both the server market
> and in the desktop market?*

Because more and more servers are being purchased AS Linux servers, and
not just "hand-me-downs" from Windows.  As a result, the customers
often ask for assurance that the server will run with Linux.  Many OEMs
even offer Linux installation and support.

Desktop Linux on the other hand, is almost always done by the user.
Linux Friendly machines can now be converted to Linux using DVD
installation media and/or USB drives, in about 30 minutes.  The machine
can be fully configured in less than an hour.

About 40% of all machines sold in the last 12 months were Linux Ready.
Current indicators show that this number will increase to as much as
60%.  Many of these machines are behind firewalls, either corporate or
home firewalls, which makes them invisible as Linux servers in most
browser surveys.  In addition, Linux desktop users don't shut down
their desktops, which means they don't flip DHCP addresses.

For a number of reasons, Desktop Linux has remained under the radar.
It's easier to just ask for a desktop, knowing which one is Linux
Friendly, than to try and get the corporate support desk to give you
one that has been configured with Linux.  Linux gives the user much
more control, and many people prefer NOT to poke their heads too high
because they don't want to draw attention to themselves.

> The answer is simple.  Linux, like Unix, has always been, and remains user
> hostile, and unsuitable for the desktop market.

And this shows your complete and total ignorance of Linux and UNIX.
Keep in mind that a Mac runs UNIX.  Thats why it can do all the things
it does without the problems associated with older Microsoft-style
systems and Finder.  No crashes, no hacks, no viruses.  And keep in
mind that Mac is up to 12% of the market last quarter.

It's probably also worth noting that Linux Friendly/Windows Ugly
machines are also increasing in market share, the most recent quarter
may be as much as 60%.

Nobody wants DirectX cards anymore, they want FireGL and OpenGL
friendly hardware.  It obviously isn't because they want to run Windows
on it.

> The server market is different because the server market is maintained by
> trained experts who largely enjoy the challenge of dealing with complexity.
> The desktop market, on the other hand, consists of people trying to get real
> work done.

This is very true.  Linux provides a lot of bang, including
performance, securitiy, stability, flexibility, functionality,
capability, operationall support, and logistical support, with
relatively little effort (writing a few shell scripts).  This lowers
TCO substantially.

> Now lets be clear, SIGNIFICANT improvements have been made in the way Linux
> operates over the last decade, and the GUI has matured to the point where it
> is almost as good as the GUI provided by Windows 2000 and XP.

That is almost comical it's so ignorant.  Microsoft has been trying
since 1991 to get a system that was as flexible, reliable, secure,
maintanable, and stable, and as functional as SunOS, and even XP
doesn't really cut it.  Maybe Vista will get there, possibly after SP2.

>  Yet Linux
> continues to be rejected by 98% of desktop users and 75% of those
> implementing web servers.
>
> *Why?*

Look at what it took to "test drive" Linux until about 2 years ago.  If
you wanted to install Linux, you had no way of knowing whether your
hardware was compatible or not (unless you checked thecompatibility
list on the SUSE and Red Hat sites), and then you had to install it
yourself, and if you were a real Microsoft biggot, you couldn't
possibly tell anyone or ask for help with LInux or you would have to
give up you "Billy Badge".

It wasn't until Knoppix, about 2 years ago that you could go into a
store and even find out what would happen if you tried to put Linux on
the box.  Booting into a knoppix CD would almost always give you the
complete story in a very short time.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index