On May 13, 11:45 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Linux - the other OS
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I’m a Mac user. I gave up on Windows a while ago. The term “gave up” should
> | say it all. From time to time I still use Windows and I’m still amazed it’s
> | not better than it is. I don’t want to make this about Windows but about
> | options.
> | For some, jumping to Mac is not an option. It’s not like switching from an
> | incandescent to compact fluorescent bulb. It’s not inexpensive - you have to
> | buy a new computer and new software.
The point is that Apple has done a brilliant job of making UNIX a
viable competitor to Microsoft. They have but out great ads, great
showrooms in most major shopping malls, and well trained sales-people
who really knew how to present and demonstrate Mac OS/X capabilities.
The result is that Apple is now #2 in Revenue, and #3 by unit volume,
and #1 in Profit margins, compared to Windows-only PC OEMs.
Debates continue as to what percent of the total market has
transitioned to Mac, but Apple has done a great job of handling the
obstacles, and yet the WinTel OEMs, including Dell, HP, Acer, and
Lenovo, all of whom have recently had very strained relationships with
Microsoft, will not stand up to Microsoft and offer and PROMOTE Linux
or Linux/Windows enabled PCs.
On the other hand, they have made it as easy as they possibly can, for
users to install Linux themselves. Tools like parted have made it
possible to shrink the windows partition, install Linux, then use Xen
or other virtualization tools to run Linux and Windows concurrently.
Of course, this really messes up the statistics for Linux. How to do
count the same PC running both Linux and Windows. Even most surveys
use a radio-button allowing only one OS to be selected, rather than
letting respondants respond with primary and secondary systems. over
1/2 the windows the machine I'm typing on now are running Linux
> | Linux is an option. In fact it is “the” option and a fine one. I’ve explored
> | Ubuntu and OpenSUSE on an old, underpowered, past-it Windows laptop. This old
> | thing was a horror on XP but runs very nicely on either Linux. Cost = zero.
> | Not one function was given up in the transition from one OS to the other. It
> | did all the same things running Linux that it did running XP, just faster. It
> | booted up faster, it shut down faster, apps launched faster, etc.
This is very much what many people are looking at. They need Windows,
but they can't afford Mac, or the company won't pay for Macs, or they
can't afford enough Macs for everybody. Apple gets a very healthy
margin on Macs because OS/X can only legally be run on Apple hardware.
Linux provides the reliability, security, smooth performance, no
hangs, and flexibility of OS/X but without the artistic interface.
The trade-off is more flexibility and functionality in terms of both
applications and hardware options, and lower cost. Unfortunately, the
OEMs are still ham-strung and unable to do much of anything to support
any kind of Linux offering. In spite of a DOJ settlement where
Microsoft agreed not to interfere with OEM attempts to offer Linux,
Microsoft has demanded that OEMs get prior written permission prior to
publishing any benchmark, prior to changing any advertizing content,
and prior to making any configuration changes. Most requests get
approved immediately, but the ones that involve Linux seem to take
MUCH Longer, usually so long that the market window is closed before
Corporations are beginning to realize that if they don't adopt Linux
now, they will be committed to paying Microsoft as much as 1/2 their
profits for the next 20 years. They are seriously looking at Linux
for servers and desktops, but not without Windows XP. Many are going
to Vista kicking and screaming the whole way, and only accepting it
because they don't have a corporate XP image for new hardware, and the
OEM only supports Vista.