| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
How Microsoft Can Embrace Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 01:54 EST/06:54 GMT | News Source: Business Week Online | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Here's a solution, a tad radical, perhaps, but one that Microsoft really ought to consider: How about selling a proprietary, low-cost version of Office designed for computers running the Linux operating system? As open-source software, Linux is free to anyone who wants to can download its source code and run it. While prepackaged versions sold by Red Hat (RHAT ) and others that are easy to use and offer support cost extra, in the realm of PC operating systems and desktop applications, Linux-based products cost much less than their Windows counterparts. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:46:39 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3465 (65.222.179.221) at 7/26/2004 8:33:04 AM |
| Yea, what he said! |
| #2 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 7/26/2004 9:57:16 AM |
| thank you halcyon for tightly grouping your hot air in nice paragraphs. That makes it much easier to just scroll past them. |
| #3 By 9589 (66.57.153.60) at 7/26/2004 10:38:28 AM |
|
Same crap, different day . . .
Obviously, someone on this site decided to post this article yet again. Was it they didn't get enough of Halcyon's BS? lol |
| #4 By 8556 (12.217.173.227) at 7/26/2004 11:54:37 AM |
| MS's profit was up 81% last quarter. Linux isn’t causing a dent in MS in spite of the love many have for it. I build custom PC's for small businesses and consumers. 9 out of 10 people when asked if they want Linux either say NO! or "What's Linux?" After explaining that it saves them money and will do everything they want (typically get on the web, "do" e-mail, write letters, burn CD's, send faxes) then ask: "Can my grandchildren play their games on it?" Windows based games, of course. Even if MS made Office for Linux only a few people or businesses would care as Open Office already exists and works just fine. Plus, you can bet that the hypothetical MS Office for Linux sell for the cost of Office and Windows combined, much like Office for the Mac. |
| #5 By 13797 (206.194.127.111) at 7/26/2004 7:11:13 PM |
|
A better example is Red Hat, who has promised a minimum of five years of support for each Enterprise Linux release, and who provides support for a fairly wide variety of packages. They also have remote installation, upgrade, and management features, and a fairly knowledgeable support group.
Every OS has its niche. I use Windows for most of my desktops and servers, but I have Linux running a few servers and a couple of desktops, and I have FreeBSD installations running some of my security architecture (I'd like it to be OpenBSD, but the company doesn't support it). For a while, I was even considering running Plan9 for a mail server. No OS is perfect for everything. |
| #6 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 7/27/2004 1:07:50 PM |
|
Actually, when Microsoft drops support, you can do something about it: You can keep running it.
It's arguably at least as secure as any comparable Linux distribution. Whatever may not be secure also has a process to make it secure. |
| #7 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 7/27/2004 4:37:26 PM |
|
Why even use Linux, if you just advocated the kernel is the only thing supported and you just install or upgrade applications?
It seems that your own argument works against you. Oh, except that Windows is supported for 10 years. |
| #8 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 7/27/2004 5:27:07 PM |
|
No... and quit trying to mask it. You're saying that Linux is better than Microsoft; at least the Linux kernel is better than the Microsoft infrastructure.
I would argue that you're wrong. Customization isn't valuable at a kernel level. Simple driver support alone would dictate otherwise. We're not talking about Windows 95 here, we're talking about 2000 or XP ... products that will be around to 2010 and 2012 easily. So will the Linux kernel. The difference? The hardware I want to get will work with vendor support and drivers for Windows, with a unified driver engine. This has stopped being about open source development again. |
| #9 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 7/27/2004 5:32:43 PM |
|
As I mentioned in my previous comment, Windows may not even be useful for 10 years, because of the differences and incompatibiltities beween versions. Longhorn will have Avalon-enabled applications, a new driver model, a new IE version, and a new security model that will make software and drivers written for Longhorn incompatible with previous versions. If you switch to OSS on Windows instead of relying on MS software, this solves only part of your problem, but any advantages of using Windows are gone.
That's what was said about 95->98->2000->XP too but gee, we're coming on 10 years now and I can still run applications designed for windows 95... |
| #10 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 7/27/2004 8:46:17 PM |
|
Some prefer Linux, some use MS.
Correction! Some prefer Microsoft. The rest of your answers are cleverly worded FUD and outright errors. I can't even debate this with you as you really have no basis in the real world. |
| #11 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 7/29/2004 1:42:33 AM |
|
Halcyon would have us answer for every article that he can search for, disregarding the "intelligence" of the authors.... or the referencing poster.
Seriously, I could explain every single one of those articles referenced. But it'd be just like swimming against the current... and for every answer I gave there'd just be 10 more stupid articles. For example: Incompatabilities between dotnet versions. They're not incompatible. They're designed for a .NET framework. They can coexist. That's the whole point. I believe that's true in the major release versions, bugfix updates may of course have changes and incompatabilities as referenced. This is true of any application out there. If you design for Sendmail, that program is a living entity, and as versions get upgraded you may have to change your code. This is not a fault of the underlying OS, which is what you're trying to substantiate. If you design for the .NET framework 1.x you may have to deal with service packs/updates, but that framework will still be there, still install on the OS that it could install on at release time, for a long time. That was the original point. So your NET Framework reference from 1.x to 2.x is bunk. That's just the 2.x way of doing things. Of course some developers want to migrate their code to that. They don't have to. It may be the only framework available in Longhorn. So what ... 1.x is out now, it's only for XP/2000, so why should it be future compatible? It probably will be but that also wasn't the original point. If you write something for 1.x now it'll work on the same OS and the same codebase that it always had. My suspicion however will be that the 1.x framework will work just fine in Longhorn. I'll leave it to you to datamine Google to prove me wrong, if you can. Concerning drivers: Did I ever say drivers will be future compatible? Are they future compatible in linux? No; at least it would be highly comparible. SP2 breaking compatibility: Highly questionable, mostly suspect articles. The author of the program writing supported products for XP is responsible anyway. Look at my reference on the NET framework 1.x. Kernel tuning: A stretch at best. I don't need an education on how it works. Besides the MS kernels are already tuned for applications and processor loads, as I said. The difference is that in Linux you have to recode and recompile, in Windows it's handled differently via registry entries. Shoddy USB support: It was a shoddy standard, and noone supported it well. I'm sure you'll be the guy to come back years from now and say there was shoddy firewire support. No on that too. 64 bit windows: It's a new version. Do you want me to tell you what software isn't supported in Mandrake vs Suse? Get real. IE7 not happening: Conjecture. Disproved by the reformation of the IE team. Updates are pending, as seen in SP2, and who knows beyond that. Get some REAL facts. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:46:39 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
