Cnet news have an interesting interview with Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer. A large chunk of the interview covers his opinions on Linux, which appear to be fairly frank and open, and (in my humble opinion) fairly realistic as well.

The Linux world in some sense is a lot like the Unix world. There is not much communality. There is this distribution; there is that distribution. There is this user interface, there is that. Some people might see some advantages to that. On the other hand, in terms of putting a clear, simple proposition in front of the customer, I think we have a leading edge proposition.

The interview also looks at a few other issues, such a piracy, Windows 2003 Server, the Xbox, and a brief look at their possible upcoming foray into search engines.

i'm a fan of windows OS's, and i will always will be :D(hopefully)

True about the MS Office... I don't want to spend that much on applications.

Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition

Last I checked, every single release of Windows, still runs on a DOS base. DOS, is also a 20 year old OS.

Arent linux/unix just about the same age?

Unix is the older of the two

Unix was created in the late 60s, whereas linux was created in the early 90s. Big time difference there :) Especially in the computer age.

Firstly, Linux was first released in 1991 (iirc). Secondly, from what I know, it's not DERIVED from Unix; rather it's just modelled on its concepts and ideals. As the story goes, Linus couldn't afford to buy any of the Unices available at the time, so he did what anyone would normally do: write their own version.

I thought they dumped that with XP?

Nope.

according to many sources it still has 16 bit code, derived from DOS origins.

Also, the base that they used for WindowsNT is very old as well, NT is certainly not "New Technology".

The age of it is irrevelant anyway, underneath the hood, Linux is more stable, and more secure than Windows. Windows has the edge in ease of use though, but obviously at a cost.

NT is still based on DOS. You can still run cmd (does command work in NT?) and get a dos-prompt.

XP is based on NT/2000 (as well as features from 98), and is still DOS based as well.

Morax, that command prompt is emulated DOS.

'cmd' in NT is noticebly faster than 'command'

try it. now.

natch, because when you run command its running emulated dos, when you run cmd, its just opening the winnt command prompt.

my work machine is an NT box
i dont hate it as much as i used to

according to many sources it still has 16 bit code, derived from DOS origins.

Exactly.

cmd isn't emulated dos.. its very much NT

stuff that needs dos emulation runs in a dos virtual machine

I thought they dumped that with XP?

They did.

cmd isn't emulated dos.. its very much NT

stuff that needs dos emulation runs in a dos virtual machine

How about you read what I said? Command.com is included within XP, and its a 16 bit dos program, which is emulated.

heh, I just installed slackware on my athlon for something to do. Win2k keeps crashing after about 4 - 6 hours. If linux crashes too I'll be selling this POS. anyone want a motherboard cpu & ram?

I give it a week before I'm back to win2k :D

If it's crashing, it's more than likely a driver problem, not hardware...

NT was shocking with driver compatability... just look at the brother printer drivers on termserv/citrix... shheeesh...

NT is still based on DOS. You can still run cmd (does command work in NT?) and get a dos-prompt.

That doesn't mean it is based on DOS - it just has a command prompt mode.

Hunter, as usual your one-word replies demonstrate a complete lack of proof; if you can find anywhere that indicates Windows 2000 or greater has any 16 bit components I will be mightily impressed. The Windows 2000 feature page states quite clearly that it is a "Full 32-bit Operating System". It has a 16-bit subsystem that allows people to run legacy applications if they need to do so.

Ahaha, Steve Ballmer. Nothing quite does it for me as much as watching an obese, bald sloth singing and dancing the praises of the monopolistic corporation he is slave to.
Watch this vid, and see if you can take anything this man says seriously again.
Stevey WOnder

trog, I remember going to a website which heavily examined many of the windows OSes, and said that underneath the 32bit hood still lied 16bit code. Its a rumor, but its not too far fetched.

But even if that isnt true, the fact remains that NT isn't new at all, it was bought by microsoft from another company.

It is a well known fact that Microsoft don't innovate, they either buy up or steal.

It is a well known fact that Microsoft don't innovate, they either buy up or steal.

heh, sure it is

OS/2 is a good example.

Of what?

Quick, make another unsubstantiated post before you lose your momentum

OS/2 was developed as a collaboration between IBM and microsoft. Microsoft pulled out near completion to develop Windows 95.

The two OSes are so similar that at one point someone managed to get Windows 95 Direct X games to run on OS/2, without using any microsoft code.

Here's a better, more accurate history of OS/2. Also, the latest version of OS/2 (Warp 4) has a Windows subsystem which allows it to run Windows applications anyway, so getting Windows stuff working on OS/2 isn't a massive challenge!

Linux sux. Windows roolz

CPU runs in protected 32-bit in win2k and above, hence the performance increase. 16-bit is emulated if need to be used.

As for the whole Linux vs. Windows thing, Linux kicks the s*** outta windows for certain uses, and Windows kicks the whit outta Linux in others. This whole "Linux vs. Windows" thing is sooooo 2001... get over it people....

It is a well known fact that Microsoft don't innovate, they either buy up or steal.

hence NT...

isn't NT Open VMS?

gawd it's been awhile since I've even uttered the name OS/2, but I'm pretty sure that MS have never ever put together their own OS.



then again - it's the great capitalist ideal: take a good idea, and make it a great idea

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dec+open+vms&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=


meh

My prediction:

3-5 years from now when the longhorn series of products are out.

Microsoft:

1) Casual (and not so casual) copying will be too damn hard or impossible

2) Palladium will be a reality on the windows platform. kiss good bye to copied mp3's and Avi's etc. You want songs and video? you pay

3) Change Motherboard and you pay for new licence of OS. (actually introduced recently)

4) legal/moral arguments aside, the user will pay and pay and pay


LINUX:

1) Still lags behind Windows in Slickness, User friendlyness and consistancy in user interface elements and design.

2) But will be margianally more user friendly and mature than it is today.

3) With "copying" no longer available, the grass roots flat broke user base (thats most of us) will simply refuse the frightening prices and legal terms layed down by MS and actually give Linux a bash.

4) Many of "us" will refuse to give up use of "free" MP3's and copied AVI's due to palladium, and give Linux a good try

Conclusion:

1) The software world starting to schism between the "safe" licenced user pays world and the free (in more ways than one) "wild west" kind of software world.

2) I'm not argueing right or wrong here, just simply what is. The fact of the matter is, mr joe user will begin to defualt to Linux in the home. because of that, eventually those who make decisions at work will chose it for small business and slowly upwards. This is how MS got windows in the door and forgotton it was "casually copied" use of windows at home that allowed decision makers to simply adopt it by default at their work place.

In the early eighties IBM took a dive ignoring the "toy" computer. I can see MS making the same arrogant mistake. We will be living in interesting times indeed

I use linux at work, and I have linux on my hard drive (but don't use it since I upgraded as I haven't reinstalled the drivers). I use XP.

I find Linux just like windows minus the .exe's

Re the hardware rights management crap - I seriously doubt manufacturers would allow Microsoft to do anything like what it plans. I hardly EVER see MS certified drivers from any manufacturer - mostly because driver certification costs a fortune and most companies don't see any justification for it.

It would never work. A computer world free of 'free-trade'. 'Nature finds a way' and all that.

A computer world free of 'free-trade'. 'Nature finds a way' and all that.

Me suspects at this point that humble Linux may well end up being that way.

oh well, time will tell.

I'd prefer to see a distribution of linux that is aimed directly at new users (like lindows i guess). No necessarily by duplicating windows though. Like QNX or something. Because there is so much wrong with the linux/unix way of doing things from a desktop point of view. X-windows, the way it does library dependencies, the complete lack of a kernel independent driver architecture...

Isn't palladium or whatever meant to be hardware as well if all is implemented? meaning that linux as we know it now will no longer work on palladium based hardware, only palladium signed code, ie windows. So, if linux wants in on future tech, it's gonna have to conform to palladium as well. I suspect it will probably become almost illegal if not impossible to buy non palladium equipment in the not too distant future. I say we all pack up our computers, and move into underground tunnels and start a rebellion against the empire muhaha :D

I was wrong about the week to live thing, I want windows back already. Linux just seems so boring, I dunno what it is I mean I know there's lots of stuff to investigate but the interface just doesn't make me want to go looking for it somehow. Maybe it's that gnome/kde thing, I kinda miss next step I think.

Here's one for you all, install linux and take a good look at it. Now, do you feel the same way you did when you first saw windows? The first time I saw windows I didn't have anyone there to show me how it worked, not really anyway I'd seen people clicking on stuff on their computers but never really used it myself. When we got our first computer it was a mad house trying to figure out where stuff went, what this "start menu" thing was, and to top it all off it was a s*** system built with s*** parts and it bluescreened and died in the first few days. windows had to be re-installed.

When I first installed linux I was like wtf? where's my windows gone what's this dos s***? I kinda feel the same now actually. I dunno where to find things to mess around with it. Hell I don't even know WHAT I want to mess with in linux right now.

MS, Intel and probably US congress believe that if they go Palladium, the rest of the world will tow the line.

The sixty four dollar question is, will currently struggling corporate competitors and indifferent governments say "yes sir, three bags full sir" or will they utilise Linux as a foundation for some kind of "free world" alternative?

An interesting side note: Lets just look at the issue of national Secuty in isolation.

Even if only imagined, the risk of Palladium based products to non-us govenments is that a US corporation will obstensibly have CONTROL of non US computers. Imagine how the US would feel if an Arab Corporation had serious direct potential influence over every American PC?

Whether true or only percieved, MS has betrayed trust so many times that many parts of the world will not lay it's national interest on the line at the word of some Microsoft lawer. The Chinese governments heavy backing of Linux development and it's home grown CPU manufacturing Industry is actually due to this very subject.


And lastly, will Linux be ready? Who knows, I had a stab at it in 2000 and it sucked huge, in 2003 it didn't quite suck so much. In 2006 or 2008? anyone got a good crystal ball?

The Chinese governments heavy backing of Linux development and it's home grown CPU manufacturing Industry is actually due to this very subject.

Exactly. The Asian companies currently producing computer hardware have a massive marketshare and could quite easily branch off with their own standards should a situation involving 'rights management' crap arise. The non-bigbro'd hardware would then flood the rest of world (people trying to avoid stupid Microsoft taxes, dumb standards, etc). As a result of this, the mighty US of A and its "coalition of the willing" would probably end up implementing trade embargos against these other countries (they have actually done with this to a memory chip company for another reason) and thus forcing us to buy hardware equipped with their bulls***.

Palladium will HAVE to be hardware, there just isn't any way it could be software only. There'd be cracks available in 20 minutes. Having said that, it's still probable that hardware could/would be modified to accomodate people who don't want to pay. Look at PS and PS2 modifications.

Simple point to all of this FUD, I have worked in the industry from nearly 20 years now, and I have worked for large commercial organistaions such as QANTAS, Fosters, TNT and several large financial organisations, and they all run their 24x7 critical apps on UNIX. WHY? Simple awnser reliability and stability, this is not Linux this is UNIX I talk about OS's like Tru64, NRC svr5 and the likes, all propriority systems with a propriority OS.

Re the hardware rights management crap - I seriously doubt manufacturers would allow Microsoft to do anything like what it plans.

Hunter, do us all a favour and for once read before opening your mouth. Start at the TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance) and take a look at its members.

Let's see... Intel, AMD, Transmeta and Creative are four hardware manufacturers I can think of who have either publicly stated that they will be incorporating rights management into their products, or have already (in the case of Creative).

The fact that Torvalds concedes that he believes Linux should get on board with DRM demonstrates that it's an (unfortunate) reality, regardless of which you'd prefer.

As for China, they may be increasing their uptake of Linux but the fact is that the country is still using MS stuff in overwhelming quantities. And Microsoft aren't dumb, they'll be doing all they can to continue that.

As for China, they may be increasing their uptake of Linux but the fact is that the country is still using MS stuff in overwhelming quantities.

Yes but how many of those are actually legal copies? :). But seriously though, you're right Chinese market is huge and MS is trying to fight pretty hard to corner the market.

And I also agreed with the other things that you said regarding hardware DRM, it is inevitable that it will happen. Unfortunately if Linux doesn't support this, it will never break into the Desktop market.

Simple point to all of this FUD, I have worked in the industry from nearly 20 years now, and I have worked for large commercial organistaions such as QANTAS, Fosters, TNT and several large financial organisations, and they all run their 24x7 critical apps on UNIX. WHY? Simple awnser reliability and stability, this is not Linux this is UNIX I talk about OS's like Tru64, NRC svr5 and the likes, all propriority systems with a propriority OS.

Well.. I'll have to say yes and no to that really.

I think the other reasons, apart from what you said, why those companies ran what they do (i.e. proprietary Unix platform) are:

1) Software that was written for them might have been a legacy software which means they will have to continue to use it. Porting it to other platforms e.g. Linux or *BSD might be far too costly or sometimes next to impossible due to the software designs. This is why we still have some legacy mainframe stuff in the bank and finances sectors -- it's not necessarily a bad thing it's, just the way it is.

2) Support. Obviously you have someone to point the finger to when you have problems 27/7 and 365 days/year. IBM/Redhat are providing this for Linux now which is why IBM make some profit from thier Linux investment.

3) Marketing and Familiarity. Not much I can say here but, people will buy things that know and used before.

As for the question of stability, well AFAIK Linux is pretty stable now sure some *very, very* highend features i.e. very very large memory support, very large SMP support (althogh these can be overcome by distributed processing) may be still missing from it but, it's getting there. Don't forget those other *nix are a lot older than Linux and they have a lot more funding behind them.

Bahaha tref - good call with that video (*what a wanker*).

IMHO, Linux is becoming more user friendly with each release but is still far away from windows. I'm after Linux-like stability with a nice gui front-end... A lot of hardcore *nix guys despise guis, but I can't stand consoles for too long.

Sif linux is any more stable than Win2k.

^
Mate - I dual boot win2K Pro & RH 8.0
Linux is *more* stable (leave your box on 24/7 for a few weeks and you'll see what I mean).

Well.. I'll have to say yes and no to that really.

I think the other reasons, apart from what you saud, why those companies ran what they do (i.e. proprietary Unix platform) are:

1) Software that was written for them might have been a legacy software which means they will have to continue to use it.

Not true, most of this stuff will run on a Linux or Windows platform these days, there is very little "Big Iron" only DB's, as most have been ported to other platforms and OS's

2) Support. Obviously you have someone to point the finger to when you have problems. IBM/Redhat are providing this for Linux now which is why IBM make some profit from thier Linux investment.

Absolutely, support is the key issue in these situations, and I have found that Compaq/Microsoft Corporate Support to be lacking in comparison to IBM/Linux support but both pale in comparison to the likes of Compaq/Tru64 or even HP/HPUX support, and all cost an arm and a leg. These situations require a total support platform of Hardware/Software where the vendor requires total control over all aspects.

3) Marketing and Familiarity. Not much I can say here but, people will buy things that know and used before.

Why fix what is broken, after all we are talking in Billions.

As for the question of stability, well Linux is pretty stable now sure some *very, very* highend features may be still missing from it but, it's getting there. Don't forget those other *nix are a lot older than Linux and they have a lot more funding behind them.

As a server in text mode I have no complaints with Linux, we use Linux fairly extensively for print/file sharing servers as well as firewalls/proxies. Funding has nothing to do with the development of Linux as this is not the GNU model, participation is the awnser, there are some extremely successful GNU software TCP/IP, Sendmail, Apache, Bash, Korn etc etc etc. Hell even MS uses some of these.

As a server in text mode I have no complaints with Linux, we use Linux fairly extensively for print/file sharing servers as well as firewalls/proxies. Funding has nothing to do with the development of Linux as this is not the GNU model, participation is the awnser, there are some extremely successful GNU software TCP/IP, Sendmail, Apache, Bash, Korn etc etc etc. Hell even MS uses some of these.

That's just it though, most companies (SMEs) will use Linux for these purposes i.e. lowcost print file server or a router. Unfortunately, the high end markets i.e. Banking/Finances still do not trust it enough to replace all thier backend stuff with Linux. As I say their reasons are fairly ligitimate after all one stuff up willl cost them an absolute fortune.

But it is a catch 22, if you are to move forward you will need to take some calculated risk. However, most large companies won't take that chances, so this is the problem for Linux to break into these market. So it'll only be trapped between an SME market and a very, very small Desktop market.

As for Desktop, I really think it has a long way to catch up with Windows and Mac OSX in terms of usabilities.

The reasons people put up with Windows are the range of off-the-self Software and Hardware support available on it are absolutely phenominal (less so for Mac OSX but it's still more than Linux). This will be the biggest hump for Linux to get over.

I seriously doubt that it will ever will get over it though as Software/Hardware vendors can not justify cost of porting thier stuff to a relatively low distribution OS such as Linux.

And if Linus decided not to be part of the whole Palladium movement, well I think they can pretty much forget the Desktop market because, it will be owned by MS and small section will be owned by Mac OSX. It will basically be trapped in only the SMEs market in which case it will be in a pretty tough place.

Especially for those companies that provide support for Linux, there won't be enough money going around as SMEs aren't known for providing lots of $$$, that market is exclusively reserved for consumer market and large corporations -- part of the reason behind why MS is one of the richest companies in the world - there are a lot of consumers, of which they owned 90% :).

The whole DRM thing doesn't really worry me, what worries me is that there'll be no alternatives to use it apart from MS Windows. Now that's a pretty scary thought.

Linus Torvalds wrote the original Linux (Freix, cross between Free Unix and Phreaks) because Unix was expensive, and so was the hardware required to run it in those days. and the closest operating systems DOS, which we all know is quite pathetic, and a unix replacement called Minix teaching tool. although minix lacked stuff linus wanted so he wrote his own and in 1991 he has a very basic stable kernel which he called Freix. and he posted this on comp.os.minix: do you pine for the days of minix 1.1, where men were men and wrote their own device drivers? are you without a nice project and just dyeing to cut your teeth on an os that you can modify for you needs?

so it was based more on minix then unix, but pretty much no-one knows about minix and they just say unix, probably because it sounds like it.

It was never meant to be user friendly, X was just a program developed as a front end for it. the real linux is all command line.

poeple who are stupid prefer windows because they dont know jack about computers :P

also, linux is *Free* as in free speech not free beer. there is nothing stopping anyone putting a price on it or not putting a price on it.

so it was based more on minix then unix, but pretty much no-one knows about minix and they just say unix, probably because it sounds like it.

The term UNIX is used the same way that Linux is used to refer to all the bundled GNU software that makes a complete distribution. UNIX is actually a trademark of SCO, which obtained the trademark due to the lack of interest in fighting them at the time.

Another titbit for you historians was that microsoft actually started the x86 Unix clones with Zenix not long after DOS, they also licensed a version of CP/M for the x86 as well.

and that microsoft stole some of its underlying gui from steve jobs & apple

The term UNIX is used the same way that Linux is used to refer to all the bundled GNU software that makes a complete distribution. UNIX is actually a trademark of SCO, which obtained the trademark due to the lack of interest in fighting them at the time.

And this is precisely the problem at the moment. SCO is now sueing IBM for patent infringement in Linux. They've said depending on the outcome i.e. if they win, they will come after Redhat and SuSE. The alleged breached is in System V stuff in Linux, particularly in Redhat distro. I personally never been a big fan of Sys V setup as it makes thing pretty complicated, I preferred the BSD style setup like the one used in Slackware distro (I don't know if they still do in the current version but I sure as hell hope so).

Here's the article about it

This is why I don't understand why FreeBSD user base hasn't been widen and why IBM has given its support to Linux, since it suffers no such tainted OS licensing issues as Linux do and nearly all the Linux apps can be either emulated or re-complied to run under *BSD. People often forget that "Linux" is only a Kernel, the rest of its attractions are just applications, which mostly GNU based and available on other *nix/BSD platforms.

Well acutally that's not really true they did battled it out with AT&T a loooong time ago, but since then they've rewritten the whole lot from the scratched. It does not contain any patented technologies now.

I don't want to start the Linux vs BSD flame war as it is pointless but, to me it is rather ironical that Linux won the market over BSD becase of the hype and the so called cool factor, not because of any technological advances. The very same tactic it is accusing its arch enemy Microsoft is guilty of.

and that microsoft stole some of its underlying gui from steve jobs & apple

And Job & Co stolen thier ideas from AT&T.

I thought it was Xerox?

well, its just one big happy stealfest then isnt it?

"The best way to accelerate a Mac is at 9.8 m / sec^2"

and that microsoft stole some of its underlying gui from steve jobs & apple

Another myth, it was actually the Xerox PARC which defined the way that all modern GUI interfaces work.

http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~sjr/origins.html

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/511/2

ineffable, yes my mistake. Gumby is right it was Xerox PARC. Sorry :(

Hunter, do us all a favour and for once read before opening your mouth. Start at the TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance) and take a look at its members.

Let's see... Intel, AMD, Transmeta and Creative are four hardware manufacturers I can think of who have either publicly stated that they will be incorporating rights management into their products, or have already (in the case of Creative).

Actually, Gobo, I wasn't referring to them. I was in fact referring to the huge Asian companies which produce hardware such as motherboards, video cards, etc. Furthermore, there are many many many different, and clearly viable products (eg Via's and Cyrix's CPU lineups) if they were given more funding.

Yeh, eat THAT, Gobo

Just some more to rehash the debate http://www.kde.org/screenshots/kde310shots.php KDE looks pretty sweet and I find it had to believe that a MS user would be too lost with the interface provided and the learning curve would be mo less than that of moving over to Mac OSX. The limited number of applications for the desktop may be an advantage as users would be less likely to load a background changer onto the corporate desktop.

I am embarking on a linux corporate desktop crusade with a personal friend who owns a small business and is not afraid of change, as he no longer uses MS servers anywhere within his organisation is extremely pleased with the zero down time it has caused his organisation, once it overcame the inital learning curve. I'm not fully confident yet but thing are looking pretty damned good.

The limited number of applications for the desktop may be an advantage as users would be less likely to load a background changer onto the corporate desktop.

I think what you have to worry about it not your internal system but the external situations that are outside of your control

The sad reality is 90% of people still use MS Application such as MS Office. If you own a business you might run into Document compatibility issues, especially if you're dealing macro etc in the Excel spreadsheet. I don't think Star Office is 100% compatible with MS Office just yet. And you can't exactly tell your client to resend a "Star Office" compatible format now can you :).

This is a real problem because MS products have very wide user base. Unless you're running MS product in an emulation or Wine there is no guaratee that you will be able to read your client's Documents. This is obviously a pretty pointless excercise from the view of many businesses since you're:

1) Still have to run MS office
2) Re-trainning of staff is required for the KDE interface.

That is why Linux "Desktop" isn't really widely used at Home or in SMEs desktops.

The joy of owning 90% of the market I suppose :).

Good luck with your venture though, it's good to see someone who have the guts and determinations to stick to his principles and follow through with it.

Agreeded, I understand that Powerpoint and Excel Macro are the only thing that Open Office has problems with, and wine will run the version of office that they use (but we wish to not do that), I thought about using the free viewers from MS under wine for those files that don't work.

Additionally the main application is a warehouse/inventory system that is green screen technology so terminal emulators are abundant.

The idea was only batted around over a few beers last night as we remove a klez type virus from his system (again), as user (not to named) doesn't like having the virus software running when reading mail as it "slows down the system" (not surprising as they are only celeron 366 with 64meg running win98 IBM Netvista) and I haven't had an opertunity to install virus software on the server yet. So the idea of using the X environment in a thin client mode seemed a nice idea after a few more beers. :)

Funny you should say X Terminals. When I was working for QLD Government back in 97 they were getting rid of X Term machines, they were quite nice to use and VERY low administrative costs and they were replacing them with a Gateway Windows Desktop.

But the irony was that they were also testing what was pitched as being a brand "NEW innovation" by Micsoft... you gussed it, "Windows thin client" AKA ripped off from X Terms :) Except the Windows thin client project failed dismally as the Server could not handle the loads etc.

It might be better now with the Citrix clients though.

It gives me a chuckle or two evertime I heard to word Network PC or Thin client being a "new innovation". =D.

Funny how technology sometimes go a full circle if you stick around long enough. :)

Actually, Gobo, I wasn't referring to them. I was in fact referring to the huge Asian companies which produce hardware such as motherboards, video cards, etc. Furthermore, there are many many many different, and clearly viable products (eg Via's and Cyrix's CPU lineups) if they were given more funding.

Gee, how many people are looking to upgrade to a Cyrix platform?

Those "huge asian companies" typically manufacture Intel or AMD compliant mobos, don't they? Do you think they'll just chop any DRM chips on them they find? That'd work - after all I'm sure Intel and AMD wouldn't bother integrating their integrated hardware DRM.

Gee, how many people are looking to upgrade to a Cyrix platform?

I'm considering one in iTX form with one of those swanky cases that make it look like part of my stereo/home entertainment unit and running http://www.mythtv.org/modules.php?name=MythFeatures mythTV or some other PVR software.

Why? Cause its fanless and quite, plus they now have AGP slots so I can use a 8500se or the likes nice cheap settop box. :)

Opec: A software company recently released a product which enables MS Office to work under Linux. If it works well, then this could very well be the "killer app" needed to convince corporations to accelerate their Linux uptake and consequently result in more capital being injected into Linux distributions. This would eventually filter through to the home user. And hey presto you have a Windows slayer.

Gee, how many people are looking to upgrade to a Cyrix platform?

If it runs an office suite, email software and allows the viewing of pornography on teh intarnet, it will be a hit with business.

Those "huge asian companies" typically manufacture Intel or AMD compliant mobos, don't they? Do you think they'll just chop any DRM chips on them they find? That'd work - after all I'm sure Intel and AMD wouldn't bother integrating their integrated hardware DRM.

No, they could quite conceivably splinter off and use their OWN Intel/AMD-compatible hardware types. China could care less what the US says most of the time so I doubt Intel lawyers would have much leverage over there (Microsoft has pretty much given up fighting piracy in China).

why cant they make the kernal on a pci card or something, but install the rest on hdd. 128 of ram is cheap enough.

Err they already have embedded OS...

sifnt Zenix :)

Opec: A software company recently released a product which enables MS Office to work under Linux. If it works well, then this could very well be the "killer app" needed to convince corporations to accelerate their Linux uptake and consequently result in more capital being injected into Linux distributions. This would eventually filter through to the home user. And hey presto you have a Windows slayer

Hunter, I think you've missed my point. I know those software exists, i.e. Wine and CrossOver office. What I'm saying is that if you're going to have to *pay* for MS Office or other applications anyway so the cost saving benefit is virtually diminished. Given that’s the case how do you convince Businesses to convert to Linux?

Apart from telling them that Linux is far less prone to Virus etc to _them_ there is no perceivable benefits because all the benefits that Star Office have is the cost i.e. being only a fraction of MS Office. And stability? Well that contentious issue and I won't get in to that I've heard mixed reports of Star Office being slow and unstable but I can't substantiate this.

Sure to you and I there is a world of benefits to be able to do this cool trick on Linux. But to _most business people_ this is irrelevant, since they're virtually getting the Windows OS for free anyway and they *still have to pay* excessive amount of money for the MS Office licences even if they use it on a Linux machine. Yes I know that you maybe able to get a bare system with slightly cheaper price but that hardly be any good to them but from what I’ve heard getting a refund is like squeezing blood from a stone.

This is why I don’t see how this emulator or abstraction application that allows Windows apps to run on Linux to give it any advantage edge over running it natively on Windows. Historically, each new version of the application will not run properly on the Linux emulator. This will in fact add even more administrative costs on top of running it with emulator than Windows.

So in conclusion no, I don’t see how it will ever be a killer app for Linux. The only way for Linux to ever topple Microsoft on a desktop (I hardly think this will ever happen, unless MS really screwed up), is to make the Star Office 100% compatible to MS Office, this in itself a very difficult and probably near impossible to achieve.

The irony is even if the Star Office guys could achieve this Holy Grail, in the end, Linux *will not* be the innovator, it will simply be a Windows Copy Cat. I do not agree with most of what Steve Ballmer said, but if you’re looking at it this way, I can see where he’s (or MS guys) are coming from.

I don't mean Wine or any emulator - I'm talking something entirely different. That said, they could easily just use their existing licenses...

Also, in regards to the so-called "innovation" Microsoft prides itself on: 90% of its "features" are useless bloat. You know, I still use Word 97 and it does everything I need, plus a whole lot of other useless s***.

I don't mean Wine or any emulator - I'm talking something entirely different. That said, they could easily just use their existing licenses...

Yes I know the one you're talking about. It basically intercepts all Windows DLL calls and fools the application to think that it's running on Windows.

I agree they can use thier existing licenes as they could also use thier existing operating system :).

Do you see what I'm trying to get at now?. To most businesses they're not really getting any benefit out of it.

It's not like they can reduce the cost anyhow. They would infact have to get a Linux specialist to look after all stuff instead, which could cost more.

The only language people who run business know is money talk. If you can't provide them with clear and _immediate_ financial benefits you're fighting an up hill battle. It's unfortunate but that's just the way it is.

Edit: Just remembered the name of the software you're talking about it's called Win4Lin and it is not free. And it doesn't intercepts Windows DLL call (Wine does that) it's more like VMWare. Maybe the product you're thinking of is CrossOver Office which is based on Wine.

This column by Dvorak says a lot really...

It says "I'm crying because Bill Gates ownz me"

It says "I'm crying because Bill Gates ownz me"

And your new born as well and your wife and your family. Do you think you own that liver? Did you read the Windows EULA??? :)

The way I see it the beauty of the computer industry is its freedom. Sure there are big corporations hogging all the limelight, but if you look through the internet, you can get a free equivelant of any big major program.

e.g. At moment I am using Miranda, OpenOffice, synapse (winamp) the list goes on.

Linux is everywhere, and the world is just great.

Opec:

"Hunter, I think you've missed my point. I know those software exists, i.e. Wine and CrossOver office. What I'm saying is that if you're going to have to *pay* for MS Office or other applications anyway so the cost saving benefit is virtually diminished. Given that’s the case how do you convince Businesses to convert to Linux?

You ever worked in a corporate environment? Any corporation would choose paying 1 license instead of 2. Capital expenditure on IT infrastructure is a continual (and rising in most cases) cost. Any form of cost saving will catch the attention of any Manager, if they were educated enough about what things like Linux and GNU are/mean. And now that they have killed open licensing (unless you are the size of nokia, or xerox!), and upgrade licensing, the cost has virtually doubled.

I know from personal experience, that last year, after a site audit, we were short 15 windows licenses on one of our sites. To get up to date alone was $9,000. That was just 15 machines!!!

Imagine had we purchased 1,000 licenses... ANY financial controller would favour a free OS over paying for one, just in most cases, the M$ promotional machine has corporate decision makers ears.

snuff3r:

You ever worked in a corporate environment? Any corporation would choose paying 1 license instead of 2. Capital expenditure on IT infrastructure is a continual (and rising in most cases) cost. Any form of cost saving will catch the attention of any Manager, if they were educated enough about what things like Linux and GNU are/mean. And now that they have killed open licensing (unless you are the size of nokia, or xerox!), and upgrade licensing, the cost has virtually doubled.

I know from personal experience, that last year, after a site audit, we were short 15 windows licenses on one of our sites. To get up to date alone was $9,000. That was just 15 machines!!!

Imagine had we purchased 1,000 licenses... ANY financial controller would favour a free OS over paying for one, just in most cases, the M$ promotional machine has corporate decision makers ears.

Sure I have worked in a corporate environment and I thought my point is based entirely from the Business' point of view not the tech person.

I think you've just proved my point. Could you tell me how you proposed that running Linux with MS Office on top would save you money in the long run? Especially when you will have to guarantee that *all* of your employees *must* have 100% compatibility with the real world customers i.e. MS Office users?.

If you answer is "oh I can run Cross Over office with MS Office". Then I think you'll find you won't save yourself all that much if at all.

Obviously, you will save money on the OS sure but the extra cost of retraining the staff, reinstalling the machines would that be worth it? And not to maintioned what happened if you need to upgrade your (emulated) Application and it isn't supported by the Emulator etc on Linux? There goes your weekend for the next month spend trying to solve the problem

What it means is you will need to do an extra roll out of Linux, hire Linux expert if you don't already have one, install CrossOver office which *is not FREE* -- no cost saving there I might add, install MS Office on top of that which you'll have to pay.

And if you say "oh no, I won't have to pay, I can use Wine, it's free". Then good luck trying to sell it to your IT manager. Why? Support is the reason why. Ever try to get any real support at a drop of a hat from any OSS project?

You'll find that unless you're willing to pay someone for it, support is something of a luxury item. This is why most Corporations will not use some OSS because they cannot guarentee 24/7 supports. This is a problem which IBM and RedHat is trying to solve -- and it's good that they do.

Sure MS support for their app is poor and expensive but at least they provide 24/7 phone line that you can call. And if you're from a large corporation then they'll definitely help you -- especially if you're from Gov. agency because the amount of $$ they pay in licenses.

And guess what, if you have problem with your Office on Linux, don't bother ringing MS, they don't want to know unless the same bug can be reproduced on Windows. So guess what you're still have to pay licences for Windows to duplicate this error? -- I think this is fair enough too.

The ONLY way for this to work is to have to have Open Office 100% compatible with MS Office. Which it isn't at the moment. I have said this many times in this thread.

Until then I don't think you'll see MS sweat it too much since you'll still be running thier App one way or another on your Linux emulator. And until then Linux & Wine will resided only in the realm of the forward thinker Companies that are willing to risk it or home users.

In closing, are you running Linux with MS Office or Windows’ Application on Linux in your office at the moment? Or are you planning to propose this to idea your IT manager anytime soon? If the answer is no then I guess you’ve proven my point, it is harder to create a plausible and more importantly economically viable business case to meet the requirements to them that it looks. And if your answer is yes then I bid you good luck, as I said to GumbyNoTalent, it’s good to see someone is trying to make a difference.

Gumby: With regard to the "being lost" of windows users. Sure go from windows to KDE is easy. But it still isn't QUITE advanced enough for complete use. You will always run into some space where you'll have to use the command line. I mean it's pretty good, but still not quite there. Example: Mandrake 9.1, changing the rights to an .mp3 the other day. I know how to do it, you know how to do it, but the average windows person is going to say "wtfc)(*@&$#*(& My MP3 WON'T PLAY OMS@#R)(*&)($#@ I'm going to reboot windows now".

I envisage a world where, one day, you will never NEED to command line :D. Nuts to being oldsk00l, I'd rather be convenient.

In summary.

KDE: Good, but still not quite good enough.

Gumby: With regard to the "being lost" of windows users. Sure go from windows to KDE is easy. But it still isn't QUITE advanced enough for complete use. You will always run into some space where you'll have to use the command line. I mean it's pretty good, but still not quite there. Example: Mandrake 9.1, changing the rights to an .mp3 the other day. I know how to do it, you know how to do it, but the average windows person is going to say "wtfc)(*@&$#*(& My MP3 WON'T PLAY OMS@#R)(*&)($#@ I'm going to reboot windows now".

Um where talking thin cliient here, and why would we want these guys playing mp3's (even if they are legal, which 99% aren't) instead of working, I'm talking a corporate environment not a home user environment. Additional my skill level has nothing to do with it,but if you must know I have been a commercial programmer for 19 years, and I have also worked as a systems admin/DB admin for (as I said before) QANTAS, TNT, Fosters and some large Financial Organisations in Banking.

Again they user will require a terminal emulator for the legacy accounting/warehouse software some email and office utilities. Done.

In that case then Gumby, Linux is a perfect solution for you. As the users probably never need to use other type of Windows application i.e. Quicken, Photoshop or Solitaire :).

All the other apps are replaceable on Linux platform -- with some training of course. As you know your only problem would be OpenOffice stuff being compatible with MS office. But if the your users are _basic_ users i.e. they don't need to use Macro or advanced features of MS Office etc then I reckon it would be just fine.

This is when the company *will* save a bundle of money, using 99.99% Linux native apps. Running software in a heterogeneous environment == more expensive (generally).

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html

to all you f***sticks who have no f***ing clue what you are talking about, read that article (the whole thing), then come back to this thread with some knowledge on the topic.

^^ as soon as they used the "640k should be enough for any user" they lost all credibility as this is just another urban myth. Before MS and IBM got together there was no PC market as we know it today, only proprietary computing that would lock a user into not only a harware platform but a OS one as well.

I'm not a fan of MS business practices nor do I think they have been as inovative over the last decade (post 95) as they were in the decade that preceeded 95. However they won market share initially by creating a better product, by aquiring or by creating they deserve some credit.

Gumby:

Firstly, true, I was really alluding to home users more than corporate users with that statement.

Secondly, the .mp3 was just an example of a time when I was forced, through lack of another option, to use the command line. Which is a hole in KDE, these holes exist, and, presumably, the KDE development community knows this, and adress them one by one in seubsequent releases. Hence, KDE is good, but still has a ways to go. Also, it's not at all uncommon for mp3 collections to be (at least largely) legal. I know people in the music industry that have massive collections of ripped, purchased CDs because it's easier. The only things they download are unusual tracks that aren't released commercially.

Thirdly, I never questioned your experience and/or ability. Indeed I'm confused as to how you got that idea. Very confused. I'm sure you're very good at what you do.

Fourthly, MS business practice is life. Why should they NOT employ stifling business tactics against other people? They have the power to do so, and, for all peoples whinging about the instability of their OS', they offer a pretty good alternative. I can't recall ever having BSOD'd WinXP, and I only ever saw one on a 2kPro box, which was due to faulty RAM. As to innovations in the last decade, MS have produced features. Features are what are important to the home user. They have a beautiful, simple interface, which they have kept because it's excellent, to which they've added nice features. Features like XPBurn (useless as it may be), Messenger, Easy networking. All of these things keeping up with customer demand for such products. Thus, in many ways, they are indeed customer driven. In short, why should Bill Gates have to stand aside and let some little guy peddle his wares, when he could quite easily stomp it, and is offering a viable alternative anyhow?

SakuraWars
Secondly - MP3 ripping of music is illedgal and has been covered in another thread.

Third - my mistake, misinterpreted

I know how to do it, you know how to do it

Forthly - without being to long winded, a compant that forces OEM distribution to sell a license with evry PC built is a monopoly, this was common practice until only a few years ago thanks to the mainstream knowledge of linux. Additionally BSOD's I've seen a few, especially in the early days of SQL 6.5 and clustering, as time has gone they have become a less frequent event. And finally I stated that they where more inovative building up to and releasing 95 and NT4.0, over the past decade they have dropped off the feverish push, I don't think any of those features you mentioned are innovative, but copies of other products, this is called catch up not innovation.

Secondly, Is it? I wasn't aware, I was under the impression that backups of what you'd bought were legal? Not sure, I'm not a lawyer, I'll take your word for it. But still, even illegal, It's not something that can be morally construed as theft.

Fourthly, Innovation is a lose term, you could be referring to code innovation, or new products. I wouldn't call them catchups so much. They're things that can (and are) be performed, sometimes better, by external software. But when you consider that you can't really whip up a new iteration of an OS in the time you can put together a CD burning program (example only here) it's not really fair to say they're playing catchup. They deliver what many users want, when they want it. The point is, even though they may be nothing terrible new, they almost inevitably deliver a product which is A.Already there, B.Easy to use and C.Does what you want. They may often be clones, but they are also often nicer, EG MSN messenger is essentially (going out on a bit of a limb here) a clone of the concept of ICQ (I know the IM idea has been around a lot longer, but it's a popularity issue). Based on the popularity of ICQ, MS picked it up, and made it something people like to use. Stability wise, it's not incredibly hard to crash a single program under XP or 2K, but it's very difficult to BSOD the thing. There's not alot short of faulty hardware that can actually kill the system. As far as the bundling of OS software goes, I'd say that's SMART business practice, not malicious. It's not as if people aren't being offered a choice, they're just beginning with a nice easy one. Many, many people, from the computer illiterate up to hardline nerds know about Linux. They know it's an alternative OS. They know that if they tried, hell, they could probably research it a bit, and even GET it. But why bother, when you already have a usable product? It's not monopolist, it's smart business practice, it maximises public exposure to the product. A company can't be FORCED to distribute Windows with it's PCs, it can only be coerced.

The OEM license was very restrictive in that all PC's build had to ship with a copy of a MS OS otherwise they would be in breech license, this was the whole basis of the Monopoly case, along with their tactics to remove Netscape from the marketplace by bundling IE with the OS.

The innovative argument was not that they aren't innovative now but they are less innovative then they once where, perhaps this should be considered their consolidation phase.

I have no beef with MS products they function well, as I said before their business practices have been and still appear to be very aggressive (hats off to them) which tend to draw the wraith of the industry. IBM was the wipping boy of the 80's early 90's now its MS's turn.

Opec:

I was more thinking 5 yrs from now, but I understand what you are saying.

There are a few points that I might make here:

1. Training: often needed, no matter what environment the user is on. Relying on staff's previous experience can often cause more problems than good things.
2. Compatability: this is simply a matter of maturation. The apps will get there eventually.
3. The costs involved in installing, etc. are the same as rolling out a new OS from Microsoft. Most Linux packages allow for preconfiguration, just as MS OS's do.
4. I obtain support for MS the same as most people do, google, or from the MS website. Linux can be a pain atm to look for info on, but again, allow it to mature, there are quite a lot of documentation projects that are progressing well.

We have 2 machines here in the head office that run a citrix client, to access one of our termserv/citrix servers, and I have 2 servers running linux, for network services. Apart from that, we run Windows.

As for projects, I do plan on committing us to less expense, by moving into GNU software, but this will not be happening over the next 2 years.

FYI, I started off in this company as the Assistant Accountant, for 3 years, whilst i was studying Accounting, before I was moved over as the IT Manager 2 years ago. All IT expenditure decisions are made by me.

As an accountant, training expenses will always be chosen over Capital Expenditure. As an IT Manager, I would prefer Windows, but I have to answer to Shareholders. All companies run differently from others, but if GNU software were to improve significantly, I think they have a good oppurtunity to take the ball.

Personally, i think MS screwed everything up with the new licensing schemes they introduced a year ago, but they hold the market, so who am I to complain?

Is your company on software assurance snuffer?

snuff3r:

Yes I agree with you on just about everything, particularly on the maturity issue.

Within 2-5 years Linux may be the force to be reckoned with, *especially* (if)when Open Office guys get 100% compatibility with MS Office, that will be a judgement day for MS really.

My points were for the current situation. It is good that you are willing to take calculated risks to improve your financial performance for the company. Not to maintion the fact that if you successfully implemented the full Linux solution your licencing costs, down-time and cost for support will be reduced quite significantly.

Good luck with it, may the force be with you :)

Gobo: Nope. We upgrade rarely, and didn't see the need in paying for a subscription on products that we only upgrade every 2-3 years.

The outlay was unbelievable.

Opec:

Lower costs add to profit :)

It's the name of the game!

I'm just wondering about what will happen to the initial software assurance guinea pigs. You know, the ones who look like they could miss out on getting Office 2003 in their first 2 year period.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000048630,20274082,00.htm

The CAS is the first created by IBM outside North America and, according to the company, is designed to improve the efficiency of the AU$40 million IBM Australia spends on research and development. The deal with NICTA, the organisation running Australia's ICT Centre of Excellence, is the first of what NICTA hopes will be many industry collaborations.

s*** WTF are they doing with 40mil/yr.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000048630,20274066,00.htm

Less than three-quarters of Windows NT4 applications are likely to run on Windows Server 2003, creating a significant barrier to adoption for administrators who still run NT4 -- the very people that Microsoft wants to attract with the new operating system

Gobo:

Software assurance is probably the biggest joke I have seen come from Redmund, and I am surprised that such a small stink was kicked up about it. They know that they aren't going to be making as many versions for the next few decades (major guess there).

They build up a massive lead by releasing new versions every year, get everyone thinking that they can't live without newer versions everytime they are released (like crack addicts!), then bring in software assurance. They release less newer versions, drop the costs involved eg. development costs (along with marketing, etc..), then make people pay a subscription, thinking that they are missing the boat.

The whole thing is a scam.

Anyhows, the whole thing has been covered a billions times and one. My leftwing psych comes out everytime i think of it =)

A company can't be FORCED to distribute Windows with it's PCs, it can only be coerced.

The real question is, at what point does coercing a company into using your products become forcing? As it stands, Microsoft effectively blackmails PC manufacturers into using Windows exclusively.

How? I mean, I'm not exactly informed on the situation, but one assumes that PC manufacturers wouldn't have just said "Yeh! Sure! We'll agree to distribute each and every PC with a copy of windows exclusively! No worries". There would HAVE to be an incentive. The only reason bar incentives that I can see for manufacturers distributing OEM windows with every system is the sheer exposure MS have already received. Which means that Microsoft's huge exposure is driving ITSELF, the ultimate business ++ one could hope for.

As for the bundling of IE with Windows... That's kind of a weak argument, why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to bundle their own product in with their own operating system? Do they really want to say to the end user "Oh yeah, we have a web browser all right, we just thought it would be more annoying for you to have to go buy or download it yourselves. Then you get to CHOOSE one! Jokes on you!".

I say old chaps, this is a jolly good chinwag on operating systems, what ho. Quite scintillating I must say. I might point out that part about the operating system, intriguingly insightful, tally ho.

shutup Jimb0

http://www.xpde.com./shots.php

This was posted on /. so I had a look, now all those destop users will have even less problems with the desktop. :)

haha wow that's really good :)

Way to uber clone windows :p