__/ [ Michael B. Trausch ] on Thursday 08 June 2006 19:59 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote in <5022388.HzG7fibN6V@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Thu, June
> 8 2006 11:42:
>
>> __/ [ Michael B. Trausch ] on Thursday 08 June 2006 16:38 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote in <1589304.OJMO23txNe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Wed,
>>> June 7 2006 23:21:
>>>>
>>>> Not encouraging. Down again yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> I think this properly reflects on a state where distributions such as
>>>> _Ubuntu Linux_ (don't use RHAT and NOVL as a counter-argument) are being
>>>> embraced at the expense of Windows. Meanwhile, Linux reaches more server
>>>> rooms and OpenOffice /et al/ (even Google's spreadsheets and Writely)
>>>> are making the cash cow obsolete.
>>
>> There are more, which I omitted for brevity. It's the Google label that
>> sells the Web-based alternatives. People still trust Google blindly and
>> you often see ladies and gentlemen rave about how much they love Google,
>> because of their search engine technology. This admiration brings trust
>> and desire to connect with the hype.
>>
>
> I think that over time, the Microsoft install base will be dropping.
> Eventually, they will be forced to compete in a healthy fashion, or at
> least, that is my hope.
You hope shall become a reality, in due time. The install is in fact dropping
/already/. How hard was it to find machines without an O/S or even with
Linux 5 years ago? How hard was it to install Linux, either on a second (or
third, or whatever) partition? People can more easily 'taste' Linux. It is
only a matter of time before a _large_ number of people say "hey! I don't
really need Windows, so why pay for it?" or "Tony is doing all right with
nothing but Linux; therefore, so can I."
>> < snip />
>>
>>> Seriously, though, I think that as (K)ubuntu spreads more, people will
>>> start realizing (think, light bulbs over heads) that Microsoft is not the
>>> One Only Way to Computer(tm).
>>
>> Some think that the Mac is the other way to computing, but the Macs are
>> rather pricey and, from an idealogical point-of-view, they are merely a
>> lateral universe to that of Microsoft. People ought to understand that
>> software can be modified, data can be made portable, and costs are not
>> indicative of quality (among many other things).
>>
>
> The Macintosh is good for people that do not want to adopt Linux, or have
> other reasons to use it. What I really do not get, is why Apple isn't
> opening OS X up to the general Intel world? After all, it is a UNIX-like
> system, with an excellent interface on top of it. You can use it like
> UNIX. You can run X apps on it. You can do a lot with it. What's the
> point of restricting it? Bring more competition!
Their rationale is the possible departure from their pricey hardware. They
have had enough observing how OS X gets installed on 'third-party'
equipment, with great success rates even. As Jobs declined and dropped an OS
X request from Dell (like hot potatoes, I might add), Apple truly want to
capitalise on the appliances, not the O/S.
I can recall the point of time when Jobs offered Mac OS X for _free_, for the
$100 laptop initiative. His 'kind gesture' was thrown out the window as
Linux was better and _also_ Open Source. Both OS X and Windows were bashed
on that same occasions.
> Really, if the conditions of the "market" -- as so many like to continue
> calling it -- were such that competition were something that forced the
> individual vendors to come up with more innovative ways to compete, and
> more market pressure, I think things would be a *lot* better.
It'll happen. I have no doubt whatsoever. Those who deny it simply fear it.
Their skills have not yet evolved to accommodate the change. And nobody
likes change...
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | (S)oftware (U)nd (S)ystem(E)ntwicklung
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:15am up 42 days 12:48, 10 users, load average: 0.43, 0.85, 0.96
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
