| 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 |
 |
Can Linux Push Microsoft to Free Windows? | |
|
||
| Time: 16:09 EST/21:09 GMT | News Source: NewsFactor | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
In its slow -- some would say inexorable -- march into the hearts and minds of computer users, the open source Linux operating system (OS) has made its way onto an estimated 18 million desktops around the world. The ever-increasing popularity of Linux, which is essentially free, prompts the question: Could Microsoft eventually be forced to release a free version of Windows in order to maintain its apparent stranglehold on the planet's desktop operating systems? "It is a pretty interesting [idea], but 'free' and 'Microsoft' don't go together," Gartner analyst Dave Smith told NewsFactor. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:35:15 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (216.76.209.67) at 3/6/2002 5:07:43 PM |
| The idea that 'free' and 'Microsoft' don't go together," is wrong and misleading and I am surprised that an "analyst made a statement like this. You get your salary because the company you work for is charging customers for whatever goods the company sell. Software programs are like hardware, someone invest money in R&D, come out with a product, put it on the market and if, repeat if, customers like it they bought it and the company get its investments back plus a profit. How much is the profit? It depends by how smart and clever the management of the company is. Nothing is free, you can have free access to a museum but the expenses to run it has been paid by tax payer therefore by you too. I can give a free advice to a friend but when I am in my office people pay to get my advice and the same is for everybody. IMO the bottom line is: if tomorrow I stand in the middle of Time Square and distribute 1000 free tickets for a movie, I bet I would run out of tickets in ten minutes, Linus is out there and free too, why just few people get and use it? Because something better is a vailable; yes it is available for a price but for the majority of the computers users the advantages are worth the price. This is the base of a free economy, all these State Attorneys are not only wasting our money to give an unfair advantage to companies managed by incompetent manager, they are going to open a can of warms that will affect all of us for years and I am not sure if they are too ignorant to realise it or just to greedy to care. |
| #2 By 10 (12.221.49.44) at 3/6/2002 7:33:27 PM |
| #8, youre point is correct, but u need 2 remember why M$ made that choice n the first place....n the late '90's Netscape dominated the browser market. M$ released IE as a free product ONLY because they wanted 2 flood the market and become the dominating player, which is n fact what happened. Currently, M$ already dominates the desktop market, and will for some time 2 come, so they have no reason 2 let it b free, even tho the masses think it would b sweet, it's their bread and butter @ the moment and would'nt b the best option 4 their business. Remember the .com's? Free doesnt work, when u need a profit. If .Net and web services take off 4 them down the road, it might become more feasible 2 have a free OS...then they can dish out the services and make their $. 'nuff said :) |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/6/2002 7:50:01 PM |
|
You're also forgetting to tie the Free and Open concepts together. There are many, many Open Source advocates who are NOT Free Software advocates, but every Free Software advocate is also an Open Source advocate. Hence, the "apparent" but nonexistent dilemna you propose.
The idea that OS only exists to hurt MS is ridiculous; it exists to provide an alternative to proprietary development. IF Microosft didn't exist, open source still would. I can't believe Gates actually claimed to create the OS movement for exactly this reason--what grand delusions! |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/6/2002 8:06:29 PM |
|
#13, of course they would; people DON'T understand Open Source BECAUSE of MS. MS is the one source of OS FUD--after all, who is more viral -- finding their way into more and more pieces of software and destroying viable businesses, MS or GNOME? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, March 06, 2002 at 20:07. |
| #5 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/6/2002 8:34:01 PM |
| Not all Free Sourcers are Open Sourcers SodaJerk. I have no problem with open source people. I have huge problems with Free Software peoples (specifically the GPL). Its a contradiction in terms isn't it. If you put restrictions on me in your license then its not exactly free is it? |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/6/2002 8:40:23 PM |
|
Right, Red, but how is it that the GPL is not Open Source? I can believe what you are saying, but can you name one Free Source advocate, group, or license which isn't OS?
And my contention was IE isn't "free" in the sense of this report, that's all. I too have a problem with Free Source people. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, March 06, 2002 at 20:41. |
| #7 By 10 (12.221.49.44) at 3/6/2002 8:52:48 PM |
| #12, plus if u have a broadband connection, irc and the know how, u can get pretty much any software application u want |
| #8 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/6/2002 10:14:24 PM |
|
Most open source licenses are open in the sense that they come with BSD license or the X11 or MIT whatever you want to call it. These licenses are free in the spirit of the word. You can use them as you like. The FSF's GPL restricts what developers can do with GPL'ed code.
If you just meant open source by being able to look at the source code then that is a different point altogether. |
| #9 By 3653 (68.53.80.99) at 3/6/2002 10:48:04 PM |
| Great points #15, and funny how no one dares debate you. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.231.11) at 3/7/2002 7:36:15 PM |
|
You make me laugh #27.
If IBM had such a great OS, why didn't it beat Windows? The hardware of Intel isn't worth much without an operating system. Novell? Nasa? Xerox? Just ask your typical IT professional whether he supports Windows clients. Then ask him how many other clients he supports. Novell servers would be nothing without Windows clients. (Windows does run on around 90% of PC's, remember?) Deming? Hmm, I must admit I don't know who that is. I'll add, though, that if Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office didn't increase the productivity of companies, then companies would replace them with something that did increase productivity. Apple? Um, with 3.8% market share and the majority of that being in education, graphic design, and desktop publishing, I'm not sure how grandma enters in. I don't know about your experience, but most people (grandmothers or not) use Windows NOT an Apple product. Multiple OS's? While it is true that there have been different versions of Windows, for the most part they are just that versions of an OS - not different OS's. I have written and used many apps that worked wonderfully on 95a,95b,95c,98,98se,ME,nt4,2000,ME,XP,and .NET Server. I should point out that none of those apps run on an Linux or Unix flavor. The reason is that they are different OS's, while the Windows OS's are simply different versions. |
| #11 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/7/2002 8:55:17 PM |
|
31,
Xerox, Ethernet, The mouse, The GUI which Apple stole from first. single handedly Xerox created more of the Technology that makes the modern computer useful than any other development labs. (at least on the hardware side) Too bad the Corp Execs were to A*al to recongnize what they had. Novell only penetrated on a Server side. And yes they were good, and are still at points. when the idea of a connected PC become a common ideal Novell was the connection until MS introduced that as part of the OS. We could debate that MS didn't have a right to innovate in that way. But then we get to the IE debate, Which I believe it has done more to improve Windows than it has done to hurt. Competition may complain that it is a monpoly that takes the cake, but every other aspect of Industry is about integration. Soon CPU and GPU will be one unit. The CPU and APU at one time were seperate units they ahve combined when the number of transisiters on a chip get sufficient even a GPU will be integrated. (either that or we go to a 128 bit processor) What an OS was in the mid 90's is completely different from what a OS is in the 2000's. One could argue today that the following should be integrated into the OS. Database File System. Gui based on XML/XHTML/XSL as the module "but then people would say that would be impeading on the Mozilla market) Graphics Handleing , Sound handeling from simple sounds to the ability to handle MP3. CD/CDR/DVD/DVDr and the other multitude standars should be handled directly in the OS. Networking. Security. All the tools to handle System administration. From memory management, to system defrag. el |
| #12 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/7/2002 9:01:18 PM |
|
Bob,
Sorry to disagree, there are significant difference in the Base of Win 9x and win nt/2k/xp that there is sufficient issues you have to account for. Especially in Globalization as the 9x platform is still based on DOS and it code page support. There are other areas where the underlying system differences can get ya also. Although In general if you program to Win 95 it will run on all win9x systems with little trouble. but program to Win ME it may not run on OS's below it, depending on what aspects of Win ME you program to. But in General I do agree you can program to one platform. If you know what to program to that is common accross all the OS versions. The CLR platform will eliminate even this, as the CLR will be common accross all platforms it is implemented to. Unless of course you program down to the API. El |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:35:15 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
