| 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 |
 |
Linux continues desktop march | |
|
||
| Time: 15:53 EST/20:53 GMT | News Source: ZDNet UK | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The good news for Linux as an operating system for the desktop--as opposed to the server--is that it is set to become No. 2 after Windows in the next year or so. The bad news is that its growth does not look to be as explosive as some advocates might have hoped. The predictions come from IDC and they reflect the fact that in the last few months Linux on the desktop has become a reality. It is now possible, for example, to buy a Linux-based PC (running LindowsOS) from Evesham. In the United States, Wal-Mart sells machines based on Lindows, Mandrake Linux and others. But though Linux may have its foot in the door, taking the next step to becoming a mainstream success is proving a more difficult proposition. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 335 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:29:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/3/2003 4:11:48 PM |
|
#1: exactly.
Actually, the real headline here is that Apple sales are horribly down which has left the 2.2% available for Windows and Linux to gobble up. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/3/2003 4:33:48 PM |
| Yeah, there's a headline out on news.com that Apple's switch campaign has backfired. Fewer people have been buying Macs. |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/3/2003 6:20:59 PM |
| It's good to see the media is still on it's campaign to defeat Microsoft with Linux with sheer will force. I guess they think that if they write enough favorable FUD stories about it, people will buy/use it regardless of all the reasons not to buy/use it. |
| #4 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/3/2003 6:28:44 PM |
|
This reminds me of an old Bill Hicks (RIP) joke... it goes something like:
"Everybody is scared we are getting in over our heads attacking Iraq. After all, it has the world's 4th largest army. Well, guess what people: there is a pretty big f**king drop off after number 3." |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/3/2003 6:37:14 PM |
|
Wait... sorry. The Switch campaign backfiring thing came from Paul.
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=37526 The news.com article is about Apple deciding to charge more for Software updates. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-979129.html Apparently the whole Open Source idea just isn't going over very well at Apple Computer. :) |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/3/2003 7:13:28 PM |
|
"Apparently the whole Open Source idea just isn't going over very well at Apple Computer."
Typical lack of understanding from soda: what about open source software doesn't jive with COMMERCIAL software? Where is the connection between the two issues? Do you know how little logic there is in your supposition? Are you proud of it, or do you think we don't know that's an idiotic statement? |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/3/2003 8:52:13 PM |
|
The iApps (free software) are not open source. Their OS software is free but doesn't change revenue flows. Where's the connection?
The question's for soda, by the way, parker; I've told you before you are boring and dense. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/3/2003 9:49:00 PM |
|
sodajerk - Ahh, as usual you have decided to not understand. The basic point is simple, if Open Source were such a great model Apple would be giving this software away for free instead of charging for it.
Just needling the Mac zealots, that's all. Their OS software is free but doesn't change revenue flows. Is not, it costs $129 for a minor upgrade. |
| #9 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/3/2003 10:22:39 PM |
|
Is not, it costs $129 for a minor upgrade.
While true, I think sodajerk was referring to Apple's other OS, Darwin. |
| #10 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/3/2003 10:49:13 PM |
|
By the way sodablue, I had fun reading your posts on /.
I especially liked this one: Gates: "Good memo, I think this addresses our concerns." Ballmer: "Should I make sure this memo leaks as well?" Gates: "Yes, do it. We could use the free international exposure with our message, besides the nasty responses help insure nobody will ever take the Linux community seriously." :-) |
| #11 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/4/2003 1:50:24 AM |
|
Instead of the title reading...
"Linux continues desktop march" the following would be much more accurate... "Linux continues desktop death march" Again, it is AMAZING that an OS with 0.26% (or was that Mozilla's market share. Hell I forget. I just remember it was some no-chance-in-hell technology) of the market, continues to get media coverage. Desktop linux isn't news, it just easy filler for slow news days. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, January 04, 2003 at 01:51. |
| #12 By 7746 (213.93.165.232) at 1/4/2003 5:53:03 PM |
|
shipments rose from 1.5 to 1.7.. that are NEW desktops. Weak sales last year.
So what is the current marketshare? 0.26% Amazing, if I was Microsoft I run for my live... haha.. what a joke... |
| #13 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/4/2003 6:25:34 PM |
|
#25 - "People won't change because things haven't got bad enough. It is like banking. Sure, the banks are scumbags and they charge bank fee's for charging bank fees, however, most people won't move until they really need as the inconvience of moving and changing is such a hassle, that the thing they're moving to has to be substaintially better.... BSOD's caused by crap hardware, virus's caused by using crap email clients and opening attachments from people you don't know. With this sort of back drop, no matter what OS they move to, their so-called problems are not going to be solved."
All excellent points. One thing to remember, however, is that while there are, argueably, things that Linux does better than Windows... that vast majority of those things are of little interest to the average consumer. In addition, there are many things that Windows does far better than Linux, such as ease of use, support, application availability, etc. These are the thinks most users care about. So while people may be anoyed by some of the things Windows does poorly, this is vastly out weighed by both the fact that things "haven't got bad enough", and by the fact that Windows is still what consumers want. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/4/2003 6:57:29 PM |
|
"The basic point is simple, if Open Source were such a great model Apple would be giving this software away for free instead of charging for it."
My point, soda, is that's an idiotic and wholly personal belief on your part. First off, the GPL is one of the only true free speech, free beer licenses--almost all other OS (and that's Open Source, not Operating System, dummy) allows for proprietary models--and even GPL software can be "sold". You just want to always confuse yourself and whoever will listen to your crap. Secondly, what idiotic strategy are you saying Apple has? They have embraced some OS software, but they haven't said, "We believe all software should be free and open!"; in fact, their philosophy is largely contrary to this idea. If you want to say they have an OS strategy, I would love to hear what you think it is since it is very different from most others (i.e. RedHat, IBM, Simian, whoever). Thirdly, as I mentioned above: I was refering to their Open Source software (this is only Darwin and QTSS) not Operating Systems. As you point out, their OS does have a fee--THEY ARE A COMMERCIAL COMPANY. Well, I'll be... Fourthly, your idiotic theory is in someway suggesting that Opn Source in any part in their strategy is hurting them. Even though they have been very open about the factors affecting them. Where is this mysterious hurt being put upon them by using OS software? In other words, I repeat that you are deluded with your own idiotic theories that are transparent, held by you alone, and simply a waste of time. This post was edited by sodajerk on Saturday, January 04, 2003 at 19:03. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/4/2003 7:50:53 PM |
|
sodajerk - So basically you agree with me that Apple has not embraced, and will not embrace the whole Open Source model because it is not profitable. Now why you feel the need to throw insults is puzzling. Sometimes I feel like you just want to start arguments.
This post was edited by sodablue on Saturday, January 04, 2003 at 19:54. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/4/2003 8:16:32 PM |
|
"Now why you feel the need to throw insults is puzzling."
Because you have the most idiotic ideas and presumptions; I don't think they are insults--I think they are truths you have to face. "So basically you agree with me that Apple has not embraced, and will not embrace the whole Open Source model because it is not profitable." No, I stated that Apple has adopted a hybrid strategy which provides the benefits of Open Source. Which implies that it aids their profitability in that it reduces their cost. Where the hell did I say: Open Source cannot be profitable; therefore, Apple won't adopt it? As I said, you come to idiotic and irrational conclusions that need to be pointed out as idiotic. And I have told you a million times that OS strategies are many and multiform--so I have no clue what you mean by "the" whole Open Source model. "Sometimes I feel like you just want to start arguments." And I am almost certain that you just wanted to make some ridiculous connection between OS and Apple and slur both of them for no relevent reason which is why I had to refute your inanity. This post was edited by sodajerk on Saturday, January 04, 2003 at 20:42. |
| #17 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/4/2003 9:29:15 PM |
|
sodajerk - Oh quit trying to start arguments already.
Steven123 - Oh the Amiga was interesting. But as for 20 years... Windows 95 was light years ahead of where the Amiga ever was. This is sad to say, but Win95 was more reliable too. |
| #18 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/5/2003 3:15:37 AM |
|
#29 - "First off, the GPL is one of the only true free speech, free beer licenses"
What the HELL does the GPL have to do with free speech? Since when does speech require a license? If I go on a soap box and speak my mind in a public square, does that speech then imply (or enforce) a requirement on those that heard me to then repeat that speech whenever they use the information gleaned from the speech in their day to day lives? Of course not. The GPL has NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH. It has to do with ENFORCING THE MORAL VALUE THAT ALL SOFTWARE SHOULD BE FREE. From this value (which, obviously, I don't agree with) it is implied that software developers should all work for free, and that they need to find another way to make their living... in addition to writing code. If you want to live that lifestyle, fine, but don't try and force me to (via your license), and don't try and pretend it's about the very noble cause of promoting free speech. If free speech was the issue, the BSD license does just fine. Hell, saying "use this as you wish" at the top of your code would do fine. Again, free speech only applies to the person speaking, not all those that listen. It is a completely voluntary act on the part of the person doing the speaking. Using this free speech crap when talking about the GPL is an attempt to play on patriotic notions, and it makes me sick. Just explain your views as they are, not clothed in some jargon that is meant only to misdirect. |
| #19 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/5/2003 11:19:40 AM |
|
#36 - You are completely missing the point.
"No one is forcing anyone to use the GPL." Correct, but if I choose to "listen" to the free speech that is GPL, I am FORCED (via the potential physical enforcement of a license by the government) to open MY source code. In other words, I am forced to "speak". "Every piece of GPL'ed software is licenced because the code's rightful owner made a concious and unforced decision to do so." Wrong. Every piece of source code originally licensed under the GPL is done so willingly. Code that then uses that code is forced to be also licensed under the GPL via government enforcement of a contract. There is a difference. "I don't get it - can you explain how the GPL might force you into slavery?" The eventual goal of the GPL is to have all software free. If all software was free, how exactly could a developer make a living simply by writing code? Is this slavery? No. But then, I never said it was slavery... I said a developer could NOT survive on writing code alone... they would have to also do something else. "If the GPL is unsustainable because no one's getting paid, no one's making money, etc., then you can relax. Sooner or later it will just fall apart and die, all the big Linux backers (IBM, etc) will switch back to proprietary OS's and you have nothing to worry about." Agreed. Eventually, it will die. But before it does, I think it will do substantial damage to the industry. Also, I love how you said "(IBM, etc)". IBM is only interested in Linux because it is currently an industry buzz word. Notice they don't expect to make money of Linux itself, but instead off the proprietary solutions that they offer on top of Linux. In other words, they make money off non-GPL software that sits on top of Linux. What would happen if all software (including theirs) was forced to be open? They wouldn't make money. Wow... what an idea. "If, on the other hand, the future plays out differently, and you find that your non-GPL'ed code business model can't compete against the GPL model, I'm sorry, but whose fault is that? That's like blaming MS for putting company X out of business because company X couldn't compete with MS." Won't happen because the economics make no sense whatsoever. I can ALWAYS make more money selling my code directly then having to sell support for that code, or having to sell end-to-end solutions for that code. Few companies in their right minds would ever give up their intellectual property like the GPL requires. This gives me hope that the damage done by the GPL will be minimal... but who knows, companies can be stupid. Continued on next post... This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, January 05, 2003 at 11:23. |
| #20 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/5/2003 11:19:59 AM |
|
Continued from previous post...
"As far as free speech goes, the GPL allows me to ensure that my speech (speech being code in this case) is free for you to listen to..." Baloney. You have no right under the idea of free speech as enumerated in the 1st Amendment to FORCE other people to reiterate what you say. That is NOT free speech, it's forced speech... and that is a violation of the very idea of free speech. "... and (here is where it goes beyond the person speaking) free for you to in turn, share and modify and give to someone else, and that no one can ever take away either your or my freedom to do that." How does this apply to the idea of free speech? This is a completely separate and unrelated ideal... one which I do not share, and one that was certainly not intended by the 1st Amendment. While you may have the "freedom" to do that, it has nothing to do with free speech. Do you have the right to ensure that the information gleaned from your public speech is used exactly the way you intended, or that that information is reiterated exactly as you wanted? Nope! "Call me selfish, but if I share my thoughts with you, and you improve them, I want to get the benefit of your improvements." Fine, but that has NOTHING to do with free speech... it has to do with FORCING YOUR MORAL VALUE ON ME. Of course, you have the right to do this via licensing... but it is very low to attribute this value in some way to the 1st Amendment. The GPL is, in many ways, like the tactics IBM used with their first PC. It was somewhat difficult for Compaq (the first IBM PC-clone maker) to find "virgin" engineers who had not looked at the IBM BIOS. See, all of IBM's parts were off the shelf, and therefore it was quite easy to duplicate everything... everything except for the BIOS. IBM had full control an IP rights over the BIOS, so if you copied it via the fully published source (a brilliant move), you had to answer to IBM. Similarly, the GPL'd code is sitting out there... just waiting for you to look at it. If you use that "speech", and somebody catches you, you can be FORCE to open up that code to everybody. If GPL'd code gets pervasive enough, it is possible that eventually there will be so few "virgin" developers that it is nearly impossible to develop non-GPL tied code, and slowly the industry will collapse. This was IBM's hope with their BIOS, but thankfully people decided to copy it early on enough (via reverse engineering) that it was still possible to find "virgin" engineers. If this GPL/OSS movement continues as it is, I'm not sure a similar tactic will be possible for developers. This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, January 05, 2003 at 11:21. |
| #21 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/5/2003 10:38:09 PM |
|
#39 - "I think you are wrong here RMD. You're thinking of patents, but GPL is a copyright protection."
Actually, copyright applies just the same. Books are copyrighted, not patented, but if I write something that is very similar to that of an existing author's work, I can be sued. It doesn't matter whether or not a copy/pasted... it just to look close enough. This means that it is still very possible (and, imho, likely) that companies will start getting sued for GPL-code-lookalikes. "If you choose an option, that choice "forces" you to do something else sometimes, yes, I agree." That's just it... I'm saying the GPL is dangerous because it may become nearly impossible to avoid GPL code, making it nearly impossible to find "virgin" programmers, thereby making nearly all code susceptible to GPL suits on the basis the code looks too similar. The results of this will either be the inability for the company to sell its software, or the company being forced to make its software worthless by making it open source. Shared Source is a faulty analogy, because unlike GPL/OSS, you must explicitly apply to gain access to shared source... this thereby dramatically limits exposure, and thereby limits the danger involved. "You mention the First Amendment a lot, but the First doesn't define Free Speech;" Your correct, and for very good reason. The Founding Fathers didn't define it because they wanted it to be a vague as possible... this widens to protections of US citizens without having to explicitly enumerate them, thereby avoiding conflicts during the ratifacation process. Do you think the Bill of Rights would have passed in Georgia if it said explictly that free speech protected porn? I think not. :-) "So I don't agree with you that the FSF is trying to "play on patriotic notions"." Come on. The FIRST thing nearly ALL people think of (including you, I suspect) when the term "Free Speech" is mentioned is free speech in the context of the American value of freedom, and that which is protected by the 1st Amendment. Many people have died for this freedom, and so it causes a dramatic emotional reaction in many Americans... including me. GNU/OSS advocates use this term with the FULL knowledge of this, and I find that disgusting. "There will always be a moving niche of non-Free software, which is where you and I as software developers will make a living." Ah, ok... so the goal of GPL is to marginalize paid developers to the point where they are only needed for a very small portion of projects, thereby dramatically cutting the over all job market for developers. Oh, ya... that's much better. "IBM realizes they can commoditize the OS by using Linux and make money from non-Free software *on top* of Linux." Ok, but that is besides the point. It is not that they are using Linux that was the basis of my comment about IBM and Linux. It's that they know they can never make money off free software, so they don't try. |
| #22 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/6/2003 12:24:19 AM |
|
I agree with most of RMD's points on the GPL, it's purpose is "Free developers", not "Free speech". I also find people like linuxhippie claiming that they aren't hurting anyone to be disengenuous.
But as to gg's point on copyright. It's interesting to note that the Linux community is equally confused on this. They claim that look at Microsoft's code under the shared source license will cause you great grief. Of course they claim the same is not true of the GPL, with no logical reason as to the discrepancy in belief. I happen to be of the belief that I can read whatever the hell I want and reinterpret the ideas in my own way, I just can't cut-n-paste. Same thing historians do when they write a book. |
| #23 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/6/2003 12:26:03 AM |
|
#44 - Well, if what you say is true, why is IBM's tactic of copyrighting the PC BIOS (not a patent - a copyright) so widely held as a genius move in an attempt to create a cheap personal computer via using off-the-shelf parts while retaining the sole rights to the BIOS - making it difficult to duplicate?
Why didn't Compaq just hire any programmer, regardless of their experience with the BIOS, and have them use their existing knowledge of IBM's BIOS to create the Compaq BIOS much more quickly and cheaply than was possible via reverse engineering? It seems to me that this is exactly the aim of the GPL... or, at the very least, part of their aim. "It is well known that there are only so many ways to write 'hello world' (for example) ... duplication of functionality does not mean copyright violation." You're absolutely right. This is exactly why reverse engineering is legal, and why Compaq was able to duplicate IBM's BIOS. But I'm not talking about simple functional equivalents. If I, as a programmer, have seen a way to do something in somebody else's code, it would be nearly impossible to prevent that from influencing my coding choices. In many cases, this will result in not only functionally equivalent code, but very similar in nearly all aspects. I would be hard pressed to prove I had not "used" the GPL code... because I did! It "invaded" my brain... call it a meme, or what have you. It is quite feasible that suits would become more common as GPL code becomes more common. Again, I'm speculating. I have no evidence this will occur. I'm sure the fact I make my living as a software engineer doesn't help my objectiveness on this issue, as I see the GPL as a threat to my way of life. I don't dislike free code. I LOVE free code. I just dislike people who mislead others by saying one thing while meaning another. |
| #24 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 1/6/2003 10:30:19 AM |
|
#47 - "Ok. I admit it. I don't care about freedom. I just want to hurt developers like myself. But maybe you can help me understand my motivation. Why do I want to hurt them?"
Many people believe in things that hurt other without knowing the damage they are doing. Religous zealots, for instance, believe they are saving people's souls by attempting to force others to convert or adhere, yet they are doing incredible harm to humanity. I'm certainly not comparing the GPL to religion... I'll take the GPL any day. But, as the cliche goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Pun intended) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 335 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:29:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
