| 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 |
 |
Eric Raymond: Linux will rule the desktop | |
|
||
| Time: 14:27 EST/19:27 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Q: Red Hat's Bob Young argues that Linux (news - web sites) will never take over the desktop, but that it will make the desktop largely irrelevant by controlling the Internet back-end. What are your views on the desktop debate? A: I think Linux will take over the desktop, and I think the reason it will doesn't have much to do with whether we clean up and polish our interfaces or not. Linux will take over the desktop because as the price of desktop machines drops, the Microsoft tax represents a larger and larger piece of OEM margin. There's going to come a point at which that's not sustainable, and at which OEMs have to bail out of the Microsoft camp in order to continue making any money at all. At that point, Linux wins even if the UI sucks. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:13:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1401 (24.74.52.178) at 3/30/2002 3:09:11 PM |
| nonsense... |
| #2 By 1310 (209.136.78.9) at 3/30/2002 4:15:43 PM |
| Give me a break! |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/30/2002 4:36:00 PM |
|
It's sad to see people like this holding on to a goal that is completely futile.
All it's doing is taking away resources from the Linux server efforts, which are far more likely (read: possible) to succeed. Give it up... Linux has about as much chance at ruling the desktop as trash-80's have of becoming the leading server platform. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/30/2002 5:20:14 PM |
|
Ahh. Remember the TRS-80 Model 16 running Xenix? Now that was a *REAL* computer!
Anyway, this is all more wishful thinking, and reflects the problem with those who advocate Linux. The world is no longer Apple IIe's and Commodore 64's. The people buying computers today are not interested in picking up a copy of Compute and typing in 4 pages of BASIC source so that they can play backgammon on their machine. It's time to start realizing the computer market is maturing, and the hacker mentality does not exist with the vast majority of computer users. People just want computers that work, like appliances. Every time I think we're getting there, some Linux user comes along advocating the use of old crappy 486 computers. This post was edited by sodablue on Saturday, March 30, 2002 at 17:21. |
| #5 By 1401 (24.74.52.178) at 3/30/2002 5:34:06 PM |
| Maybe AOL will take over the desktop!!! |
| #6 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 3/30/2002 5:53:41 PM |
|
I have to give it to Eric Raymond for boosting Linux.
What he failed to realized that there are too many versions of Linux out there for the desktop. Sure all of us here that post in ActiveWin can work with it and suppot our own troubles, but how about other people out there that doesn't know much about computers. Keyword here is "Common Support". Without common Linux O/S on the desktop, it will fail to conquer MS. # 4 ... "I don't know about you, but if one of my users was completely happy with a machine that only cost $350, then I think they would be completely happy with a free OS that had the basic *Application Set* (Productivity Suite, Internet tools, etc)" Define "BASIC APPLICATION SET". Your BASIC APPLICATION SET is in Windows not Linux. I have a feeling that you're user will be switching to Windows because that user would want answers from anyone that he can ask questions about a computer ...let alone the OS. Linux OS might be free, but are you willing to give all of your time supporting your ONE user. I think NOT. This post was edited by rommels on Saturday, March 30, 2002 at 17:57. |
| #7 By 143 (172.135.212.81) at 3/30/2002 10:41:10 PM |
| As long as people want capabilities Microsoft will be #1 period |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/31/2002 12:38:50 AM |
|
#24 - The cost of licensing WinXP for a desktop is what? Maybe $100-150. Now factor in the amount of time the technician and user would spend twiddling with Linux and Wine to make it work at $50/hour.
Maybe you save licensing fees, but you make it up in labor. |
| #9 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/31/2002 1:46:19 AM |
| The cost to OEMs to include XP Home with their machines is about $40 per machine, $70 for Pro. |
| #10 By 3653 (68.53.80.99) at 3/31/2002 1:47:38 AM |
|
Red Hat has just officially given up on the desktop market. Rather than admit defeat, they are actually pretending like this is their plan.
Was it their plan to have such poor desktop sales through Dell? Hell no. Was it their plan that the other desktop pc makers wouldn't even waste their time with Linux on the desktop? Hell no. Red Hat entered the desktop market... and the market told them "No Thanks". End of story. And the author's logic that Microsoft can't make money once a pc reaches $350 is ridiculous. And he basis that on the higher price of PocketPCs? Give me a break. The PocketPCs are higher priced because they have some kick ass hardware with them. The PDAs that run off WinCE, not PocketPC... are under $200... and somehow Microsoft makes enough money to keep selling them. The author is biased and isn't seeing reality... and that fantasy-land reminds me of the distorted view taken by many a Microsoft foe. They refuse to see reality, and that hastens their death. I'm sorry Red Hat stockholders! And everyone else... have you checked out RHAT's stock price lately? LOL. |
| #11 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/31/2002 3:40:26 PM |
|
#35 - A new *top of the line* PC might cost you $2000, but you can build a very capable machine for well under $1000.
In addition, most major OEMs offer nicely equiped PC's for about $600, and one could easily build their own for slightly less. Oh, and remember that E-Machine company? They offered PCs in the $400 range. This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, March 31, 2002 at 17:22. |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/31/2002 5:34:32 PM |
|
#38 - But then Microsoft would be accused of dumping.
Doesn't matter that Redhat already does dumping, if MS did it then it wouldn't be fair. |
| #13 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/1/2002 1:00:07 AM |
|
#42 - I can consistently build a cheaper PC with the exact same components (but not software) as Dell, Gateway, or Compaq.
The only value I see in purchasing an OEM machine is in the software and support. If you don't need either, it's an obvious choice. :-) But your point is well taken. I agree, it is getting more difficult to build a PC for cheaper than you can buy it from an OEM... but I have very particular tastes when I build my machines. I want everything *just* so... down to the manufacturer of the chips on the DIMMs I select, and the fans, heat sinks, and thermal paste. I'm even a stickler for cases. Lian-Li all the way baby. :-) |
| #14 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/1/2002 8:48:52 PM |
|
#46 - It's not a question of what a Windows machine can *do* that a Linux machine can't (very few things, if anything), it's what a Windows machine can do *easily* that a Linux machine can only do with difficulty.
I know of no reasonable person who insists that a Linux machine running even the newest, most spiffy window manager can both do everything with the ease that Windows or a Mac does it, and at the same time offers compatibility with the 95% of the rest of the world that's using Windows. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:13:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
