On 7 May 2007 08:20:46 -0700, Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On May 7, 9:06 am, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2338745.OZhKn7sOZd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> > Linux is Poised to Take Over the World
>>
>> > | the same things. Linux, because of so many varieties, can be made
>> > | into a perfect fit for almost any computer, no matter how old.
>> > `----
>>
>> >http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/230070/linux_is_poised_to_ta...
>>
>> It is curious that the Linux advocates spend so much time giving one another
>> articles on how easy Linux is to use or how wonderfully it works or some
>> other laudatory element. They preach to the choir and wonder why the
>> heathens remain in their ways.
>
>Keep in mind that Microsoft has contracts with the major OEMs which
>pretty much force them to install Windows, and only Windows, into
>almost every PC they make. Microsoft quite proudly boasted that 99.5%
>of all PCs sold last year were sold with Windows (preinstalled by the
>OEM). The survey covered only PCs made by the major PC Manufacturers
>such as Dell, HP, Lennovo, Gateway, Toshiba, and Sony - and excluded
>all "Non-PC" and "White-Box" markets.
>
>On the other hand, during that same year, over 30% of the machines
>featured 64 bit architecture capability, and in the last quarter,
>almost 70% of all PCs featured this capability. A similar percentage
>supported dual-core processors. Almost 70% featuered OpenGL friendly
>Video cards. There are all "Linux friendly" systems that can be
>configured with Linux, by an end user, in about 30 minutes. Systems
>can be configured with XP as dual-boot, virtual Linux on XP, or XP on
>Linux systems.
>
>The OEMs are getting closer and closer to demanding the ability to
>install co-resident systems. Most likely, these would be Windows
>(XP), and some version of Linux. The Linux vendors are quite willing
>to give the OEMs very generous terms, in some cases, offering a share
>in certain revenue opportunities, as well as providing the level 2+
>support at a much lower threshold (after "is it plugged in?").
>
>Microsoft bet the farm on Vista, and it seems to be losing the bet.
>OEMs see every order of a machine with XP, especially if there is no
>order for MS-Office, as a likely Linux and/or OSS customer. Even when
>Linux is offered as an option, most customers still want a lightweight
>version of Windows to go with it. Vista isn't lightweight, it's Linux
>"hostile", and a great deal of 3rd party software isn't working very
>well on it. In addition, drivers are still hard to get. In fact,
>it's getting easier to get drivers for Linux, than it is to get
>drivers for Vista, especially 64 bit Vista.
>
>The average laptop today is faster than the supercomputers of even 2
>years ago, and in many cases, based on the same hardware technology.
>Modern supercomputers are now mainly based on clusters of single-board
>"Blade" computers running Linux. 400 of the 500 fastest computer in
>the world are based on Linux clusters.
>
>Laptops now have enough memory, CPU, and high-speed disk drive to very
>comfortably run virtual machines almost as fast as the operating
>systems will allow. In some cases, an XP client running as a VM
>client under Linux - runs faster than it does on the "Native" PC.
>
>Microsoft is getting an ugly wake-up call. People still want Windows,
>but they don't want a big fat memory pig that tries to gobble up all
>of the available resources and lock out major enhancements - just for
>the sake of maintaining exclusive control of the machine.
>
>Nearly all of the reviewers of Vista have said "I'd rather have a
>Mac".
>
>Most Linux reviews start with as much as 30% of the article relating
>the experience of installing Linux, usually with little or no
>assistance from anyone else, numerous comparisons to Vista or Mac, and
>perhaps a brief section discussing their 10-30 hours of actual USER
>Experience. Most of this seem focused on how "it's not like Windows".
>
>The irony is that Linux and OSS has had what Microsoft calls "Ribbons"
>for years. Even the Gnome desktop has multiple panels which can be
>organized independently of each other. Most reviewers don't even seem
>to cover virtual desktops, the 3D GUI interface (GLX or Beryl), they
>don't even attempt to describe the better applications INCLUDED at NO
>EXTRA COST.
>
>Even stranger, the "product" they are reviewing, isn't even a
>commercial product. In moste cases, they are reviewing unsupported
>"free" (as in beer) downloaded versions which aren't even for sale as
>products.
>
>They will review "Fedora Core" instead of Red Hat Enterpise Linux.
>They will review OpenSUSE instead of SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop.
>They will review Ubuntu "feisty fawn" instead of the commercially
>supported versions.
>
>But these reviewers are more than eager to give their "expert opinion"
>on how Linux is "unfit for human consumption".
>
>All based on a comparison of their 15-20 years of experience with
>Microsoft at 2000 hours or more, per year, against a
>10-20 hour "trial" of a "freebie" version of Linux that they
>downloaded from "some site somewhere".
>
>We've seen this in COLA, we've seen it in numerous formal articles,
>and we've seen it on numerous columns and blogs.
>Usually, when there is an opportunity to provide feedback, the flaws
>of the "review" along with quoting sections of blatant ignorance and/
>or bias are quoted, along with corrected information. In some cases,
>the reviewer is even sent pointers to where to find the desired
>drivers, 3rd party applications, and other tools to make Linux more
>like what he is used to seeing.
>
Nice write up. Ultimately it will be the consumers who determine what
the major OEM's install. Dell is the first example of what customer
pressure can accomplish. Makes it even more important that we
spread the word, hand out live CDs and demo Linux to our
friends and relatives or to whomever will make time to take a look.
|
|
