Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop
From: Scott M. (s-mar_at_nospam.nospam)
Date: 11/30/04
- Next message: Jim Hughes: "Re: Trouble loading Web forms"
- Previous message: Jim Hubbard: "Got it...."
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Next in thread: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Reply: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:40:02 -0500
> Windows still owns over 80% of the desktops.
If you are going to spout out all this garbage, at least get your facts
straight. Windows owns over 90% of the desktop market.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:ttbs72-i1n.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> 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: Jim Hughes: "Re: Trouble loading Web forms"
- Previous message: Jim Hubbard: "Got it...."
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Next in thread: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Reply: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
