Linux vs MS Windows
I think enough discussion is made about who is the best: the opensource Linux or the Windows, son of powerfull and trustworth(?!) Microsoft. So, this topic is not to discuss which one is best, but what's the future of Linux and how Microsoft is going to face her newcoming opensource enemy, which seems to gaining ground day by day.
To be honest the title of this topic should be Microsoft vs Linux. The question is what Microsoft intends to do in order to hit Linux growth and reclaim the exclussiveness in business's servers.
What would you say about MS Linux? Sounds crazy to you? To me not. A Linux version with support from the biggest software company. A version that makes all configurations easy to the amateur. Well, of course, it won't be as strong as Win 2000 Server, but... it's a start. 'Hey boys, come to experiment, learn about networks and, well, when you grow up and wanna learn using a proffessional OS then you may learn Win 2000 Server'. The best way to destroy your enemy is to invade (sth like a trojan horse) to his ground and give him sth that will make him weak, make him forget what he had learned till now.
If you have tools that configures everything (like Device Manager, Add/Remove Programs, etc) then more and more people will stop messing with 'how do I patch the kernel' and start asking 'How do I make Quake running faster on my Linux?', 'How do I add animated components on my KDE Desktop? (or MS Window Manager!!)' and other silly questions. Bye bye hacking, deep search of OS configuration, programming of little tools that make our life easier (MS Linux Configurator will do anything for you with a simpple click). Because, Microsoft doesn't get any money from Windows 9x and simpe home users, but from big companies that own servers running MS Win NT Server, MS Exchange, MS Proxy, MS IIS, MS whatever. Linux (MS Linux to be accurate) will become the joy machine for little kids playing (Quake) at home and Windows will become the absolute professional tool! Have in mind that we live in capitalism and money is what counts. If Microsoft invade in Linux distribution market then RedHat will be unable to keep up with the Microsoft's frequency and quality of new distributions. And for those who will hurry to say that Microsoft lucks Linux experience I would say: Remeber what happened with Borland. Microsoft hired half of her personel offering better salaries and so she builded MS Access wich is now #1 database (today, who remembers dBase?). Remember what happened with Stacker and MS DOS 6.20? Where is now Stacker (the company). I would say closed!
OK, I don't claim that Microsoft will surely manage to do all the above, although sure that she will try. That's for sure. It's the on;y way that such a company in capitalism can survive and these people know this better than anyone. The point is what is gonna be with Microsoft's maneuvers against Linux's growth? What will they be? Will they do the trick or Linux's society is sure about itself and they will face successfully suck an attack?
It doesn't really matter what MS will do. This competition thing is good for us. It offers choices and more freedom to the end consumer.
I would be more interested to see whet Redhat does. THEY have to defend their product, not MS. Believe me, it is easy to attrack one million people and convince them to use Linux. It is MUCH harder to convince the world to switch from Windows to Linux. They have to work hard on it. They have a better OS, but remember, Linux is not meant to be commercial. They are on a tricky balance the Linux producers. And as I previously said, MANY (if not all) TRUE Linux fans are very unhappy with the behavior of the companies who try to promote and make money out of this "new" OS.
Except of course if you think that Redhat is producing Linux for...the "general welfare" and not for the money. Like you said, it is all about money...
That would be nice, although Microsoft used to have its own version of UNIX (Minix or something), yet they lost interest in it.
BTW, Linux has add/remove hardware and software capabilites (Kudzu/gnorpm/kpackage). IMHO, better than Windows's versions. They never miss a thing.
I didn't say RedHat does it for the general welfare. She does it for the money; just like Mandrake, which is at the top of the sells (I disagree that Linux users dislike companies). Also, Microsoft has the right to sell Linux programs, configuration tools and any other scrap she makes for this OS. She cannot sell the kernel and the freeware software for Linux but take example of RedHat. In the packet's price the linuxconf's price is included. That's what MS can sell, and even at lower prices because she doesn't need money as RedHat. As I said Microsoft get money from server apps and OS not from the common user!
Also, who told Microsoft would like to make users go away from Windows? I just said that she will try to downgrade Linux to a lower specifications OS. Make it a joke or a game. A few months ago a research took place about the OSs that servers on the net use. It ended that Linux had taken some (small) percentage from Win NT. Microsoft pretended that nothing was going on and she wasn't refering the word Linux in her documents. After a week or two, Microsoft published a huge topic on the net: Why MS Windows NT is better than Linux. Whoah! That was a surprise! Microsoft started to get annoyed by Linux's presence. Now, more and more Microsoft tries to protect her products against Linux's zero price: 'The extra money you give to buy Windows 2000 Pro will be returned to you through the increasement of the productivity' and other silly excuses for Windows' high price.
OK, I don't claim to be a prophet but I really can't imaging what else Microsoft could come up with. And I 'm convinced that she is really annoyed by Linux.
Any other opinions?
Linux has Add/Remove programs (btw only RedHat, not Susie) and kudzu and linuxconf and yast and pnptools and anything someone may wants, but still 2 things missing:
1. Not a complete system whose components are in harmony between them. Windows has Registry and that it is. Nothing more. While in Linux RedHat uses different conf files than Susie and the standards are more than one; and each company in order to become a standard (see RedHat's RPM) makes her own configurations.
2. Ease of use! I know a lot about PCs (more than 10 years experience) and I hardly managed to configure my external modem at COM1 (ttyS0). Call me dumb, stupid, whatever you like, but someone without extended knowledge on computers (and programing some times) will not manage to have a system fully operational.
That's Linux's magic and that's why I loved it from the very first time but if Microsoft does what I imagine it will all disapear.
The system registry is a great idea. I admit it. Maybe the best thing Windows have. But it's too complicated and doesn't always work as it should be. How many times have you uninstalled a program, yet lots of its configuration remained in it? You don't need to have a registry though to make things work.
ALL Linux vendors use the same configuration files for their systems. It's just that different companies support them with different programs. RPMs, they work in more systems than you can imagine. Take a look at http://www.rpm.org/platforms.html. Some people are even working to make them available to Windows. I've never seen Suse, but I'm certain they have something equivalent to RPMs, just as Debian has. Windows are so "uniform" as you describe, simply because it's just Microsoft that works on it!
As for the modem... Using a modem, especially internal, can give as hard time as yours gave you in Linux. Just because you had a problem, doesn't that eveyone has.
[This message has been edited by scmgk (edited 06-27-2000).]
Thanks for replying,
I 'm looking forward for other opinions.
scmgk I would say Windows' Registry suck! It makes Windows crashes all the time and if you loose it... bye bye Windows. Also, RPMs is an example of the effort made by companies to pass their own standards and not an example of different standards between different didtributions. And EXACTLY this is what is bad! RPMs were lucky enough to not only survive but to become also a standard. You said "I've never seen Suse, but I'm certain they have something equivalent to RPMs, just as Debian has". Doesn't this strengthen what I said? That each company has its own standards in Linux?
'Uniform' was the word I was looking for, thanks (**** my knowledge in English language). Uniform is something bad for the one who wants to have alternatives but if Linux cannot be uniform it will fail to approach the average user who is been used (or adicted ;-) ) to Windows' simplicity. If Microsoft gives it to the Linux's community then it will make Linux a game (something like Windows 9x) and not the most serious and biggest project ever in computer's history.
OK, maybe I exagerate a little, but Linux is what it is because of its people. People who take computers serious, love (not just like) what they do. And exactly that 'uniformity' and simplification of Linux is what I 'm afraid of.
Just reminding, the topic is not to compare the two OSs but to say opinions about Microsoft's movements against Linux. Any opinions?
[This message has been edited by mourikise (edited 06-27-2000).]
Well, Microsoft is already reacting...
They try to "unite" business and home computer worlds. Future releases are going to be based on Win2k. Since Win2k has copied many of the potential of Linux (or at least has tried to), I believe that Linux's most "popular" pros are going to be included in the future. Already Win2k is more stable and more secure. Microsoft has seen the need to work on that. Don't forget that the basic reason Linux has made surface is just that: reliability and security.
Also, Microsoft has learned well from the "Netscape case". They cannot afford to play the software "Gods" and expect everyone to agree. The case has clearly proven that consumers have the right of choice, clearly meaning that Microsoft has to work on its products.
On the other hand, I don't see the company creating an MS Linux. Who would buy this? Everyone would go for the "original" stuff.
I must admit that this question is of extreme interest. Nice topic in other words!
That's what I said about the registry. As an idea, it's great. But it doesn't work as it should.
As for Linux not being uniform... That's one of the ideas behind open source!!!
Anyway, I'll stop here cuz we're waaaaay off topic.
You know what I like most here?
That we all still speak english!
lol! (oloi ellnves eiuaste!)
[This message has been edited by otheos (edited 06-27-2000).]
Yeah... this is coolato. We practice a foreign language
Isn't it weird? I thought too that this would be a very interest topic to discuss on, but only people from Greece answered? Can't imagine that it is out of the interest of all the other people!
Mhpws diabazoume poly RAM kai exoume ephreastei?
It isn't THAT weird....
You know what they say...
"They have the technology, Greeks have the talent, creativity and potential"
hehehe, just joking here
To RAM nomizw pws den einai kai poly fan tou Linux. 8ymamai eixa diavasei mia ekdosh pou elege kati perierga...An thn vrw 8a kanw post.
I'm really excited that I found here so many Greek fellows. If anyone of you want to, he can contact me with ICQ (check my profile for the #).
But let's not make SysOpt another IRC channel! This site is really neat and we 'd better respect its policy. One subject at a time.
I 'm just too curious to read opinions about the topic from friends from other countries. How Microsoft will counterattack Linux's growth? And, why not, what RedHat's reaction would be?
[This message has been edited by mourikise (edited 06-28-2000).]
You know what troubles me most?
The topic is "Linux vs. Windows" (or Microsoft).
In other words we are comparing the growth of a company with the growth of a operating system.
Micosoft cannot compete against a product that is produced by different manufacturers in the proper sense of the word. I think it is clear that if Linux was manufactured by only one company Microsoft wouldn't be in trouble. However the problem is that Microsoft is (in my opinion) waiting to see who will become the "flag" of Linux, who will be the "number one" competitor. Then it will strike the "big" company.
For the moment, there isn't much reason for reaction, since Linux companies are competing against themselves too. I think that Redhat is more preoccupied with what Mandrake does rather than with Microsoft. Once one Linux producer becomes the "standard" of quality, then Microsoft will probably turn to a more aggressive strategy. I think that for the time being Gates is rather enjoying how Mandrake, Redhat and others are trying to compete. Microsoft has a BIG advantage. It is selling a "unique" product. Linux is not "unique", so it is based more on product differentiation. I believe that the "final" and trully commercial version of Linux will not be out until a couple of years from now.
What do you think?
New Security Features Planned for Firefox 4
Another Laptop Theft Exposes 21K Patients' Data
Oracle Hits to Road to Pitch Data Center Plans
Microsoft Preps Array of Windows Patches
Microsoft Nears IE9 Beta With Final Preview
Simplified Analytics Improve CRM, BI Tools
Android Passes RIM as Top Mobile OS in 2Q
VMware Updates Hyperic System Management
File Monitoring Key to Enterprise Security
LinkedIn Snaps Up SaaS Player mSpoke