| 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 |
 |
Dell: No More Linux for You! | |
|
||
| Time: 17:11 EST/22:11 GMT | News Source: Windows & .NET Magazine | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
Market leader Dell revealed that it will no longer preinstall Linux on any of its desktop PCs. Dell's Jim Mazzola uttered the words we've known were true for so long: "Not that many customers are using Linux for their desktop systems. We're a customer demand—driven company, so as we see customer demand in certain areas, that's where we opt to sell certain products or services." Anyone who's surprised by this turn of events needs a reality check. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:10:17 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/15/2001 5:47:31 PM |
|
But I thought the only reason people couldn't get Linux on their desktop was because of Microsoft's anti-competitive and unfair exclusive contracts with OEMs?
Guess it just turns out that people don't want to use an OS that's at least 7 years behind Windows in the desktop environment. Go figure. :-) |
| #2 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 11/15/2001 6:20:52 PM |
| Exactly what is the difference between workstation and desktop? |
| #3 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 11/15/2001 6:24:36 PM |
| What's up with the popups from Group Lotto? Really tacky. |
| #4 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 11/15/2001 8:05:35 PM |
|
#10...
One of the big stories I've heard about linux is how techies have put them under some table somewhere and they haven't looked or rebooted it in like 1 year or so and it just keeps working. Well I just passed 1.25 years of uptime with a Win2k box sitting under a table in my office that is an AD controller, DHCP Server, VPN Server, file server and Intranet server on a PII 350 with 256 RAM without a reboot. I have no mouse, keyboard or monitor hooked up and I admin it using Terminal Services which is usually to apply patches. Now... I also have a few linux boxes that I use... they are OK but don't go slamming Windows saying its unstable... its only unstable for those who don't know how to use it, I believe the same is true for Linux and personally I'd go with MSFT at any time. Linux will only get ahead once those using it realize that they need to build it for the "Customers" which happens to be the average Joe or Jane who isn't a computer geek. I like it... my mom would have a heart attack using it. Its great for those who understand what they are doing but it will probably never get to being "User" friendly until the linux community finally gets the clue that they need to build it for their moms and not themselves. I can't say that I know everything about linux but as far as administration is concerned I can admin almost every win2k box on my network from one computer using user/group/computer policies. Linux has soooo far to go before its adopted by companies and normal users. Linux is behind... and is progressing but I wonder if it is going in the right direction. Also, the server market is not the biggest deal in the world... count the servers on a network and then count the desktops. The money is in the desktops and that is why software providers and companies will aren't offering support and services for Linux. There is no money in the licensing or support plans when the numbers are so small. Linux MUST break into the Desktop category to truely win and I'm sorry but at this point I don't think that will happen in the foreseeable future. Remember it comes down to $$$$ when it comes to business. Red Hat is one of the only companies truely making a living off of Linux. My 2 cents |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/16/2001 4:45:33 AM |
|
Linux zealots need to realize that the fight for the desktop is long since over, and they should concentrate their efforts on the server environment - the only place Linux has a chance.
#2 - How exactly is Microsoft 20 years behind in the server environment? Can you provide anything more than nice-sounding rants, or do you actually have a basis for your argument? |
| #6 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 11/16/2001 12:52:06 PM |
| Dell is the #1 PC OEM. It is also the only one currently still producing a profit. Dell is a market leader and their opinion is very important. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/16/2001 6:05:08 PM |
|
The discussion of uptimes as a measure of reliability is something of a joke.
I've been trying to keep track of the uptime on my Win2k server all year. My record is 96 days. But it's not due to Win2k crashing, but rather because I actually do stuff with the machine. It's been through two hardware upgrades this year, and most recently a move from one room to another. The only way to get really high uptimes is to basically not use the box for anything important. So I offloaded all my critical services onto a new server and I'm going to bring this machine back up as nothing more than a testing web server. If I just left the machine alone under a desk and never needed to use it... a 1 year uptime would be trivial. But what's the point of that? If you want to follow my story, check out my website www.sodablue.org. I'm going to update the page this weekend with my most recent plan. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/16/2001 6:09:44 PM |
|
#20. How long has Microsoft been around doing Server Operations Systems?
"Microsoft announces Microsoft Xenix OS, a portable operating system for 16-bit microprocessors. It is an interactive, multiuser, multitasking system that will run on Intel 8086, Zilog Z8000, Motorola M68000, and DEC PDP-11 series. All of Microsoft's existing system software (Cobol, Pascal, Basic, and DBMS) will be adapted to run under the Xenix system, and all existing software written for Unix OS will be compatible as well. " --from a Microsoft press release, 1980 I rest your case for you. |
| #9 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/16/2001 10:08:51 PM |
| Nice site, soda. |
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/17/2001 10:28:02 PM |
|
#20 - Oh, so the amount of time somebody has been making something is directly proportional to the quality of the product?
Talk about an oversimplification. Why not look at a different example? Nintendo has been making... um.... Nintendos for 17 years. Sony came along with absolutely no history in the game market and beat the poopy out of Nintendo with Playstation. How does your premise explain that? The fact is, Microsoft, like Sony, learned from both the successes and failures of their rivals - and therefore was not bound to repeat them. Windows 2000 Server is an excellent OS for everything from small businesses all the way to large enterprises. If you disagree, please explain why. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:10:17 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
