Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop
From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: Alvertz: "FTP and dotnet"
- Previous message: David Londeck: "Attempting to copy multiple Columns and rows in RichTextBox"
- In reply to: John Bailo: "Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Next in thread: JamesB: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Reply: JamesB: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Reply: Scott M.: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:00:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<jabailo@earthlink.net>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:04 GMT
<srvqd.2940$u81.2352@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------000204050405010705030903
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
> The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Proclaim victory not until victory is achieved. Windows still
owns over 80% of the desktops. Businesses will have to jump
into the fray (and presumably they'd like to, as Linux proves
that it has the capability of saving them money).
>
> Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
> of Linux.
Unix and Linux have little to do with each other beyond general
design issues (e.g., fork()). Or did SCO win an actual legal
lawsuit when no one was looking? :-)
>
> Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
> DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
> try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
I will agree that Windows lost the war in the server arena;
the classical Unix systems have more to fear from Linux
than Windows NT derivatives. However, this doesn't give
Linux an automatic "gimme" on the desktops; Linux will have
to earn it, and that earning may be hard-fought, as Windows
has an edge on convenience. (A slim edge, and getting slimmer
all the time. With the viruses, the landscape may be mutating
as well; there's no point in being convenient if it means having
to coexist with Netsky as well.)
>
> In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
> install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
> Linux market is testament to that.
>
> But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
> wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
> applications market.
>
> Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
> desktop will fall.
>
> And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.
But it has not yet fallen, and efforts such as Samba may very well
stymie the effort -- or at least confuse it. If Samba on the
Linux server allows businesses to continue using their Windows
desktops out of comfort, they may very well do so. Firewalls,
screeners, and cleaners may also butress a sagging market.
It's an interesting mess. :-)
[.sigsnip]
-- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: Alvertz: "FTP and dotnet"
- Previous message: David Londeck: "Attempting to copy multiple Columns and rows in RichTextBox"
- In reply to: John Bailo: "Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Next in thread: JamesB: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Reply: JamesB: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Reply: Scott M.: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
