I think the reason that Linux has not yet excelled beyond Windows(hardware support, popularity, etc.) is because people don't see one strong company backing it up, and hardware companies not taking a few hours to make a few Linux drivers for their products! To someone who has tought themselves how computers work and stuff since they were 5(like me) using windows, it was a HUGE step to do everything the right way with linux because now i had to do all of it and not let windows do the bullshit it never told me that it did.

thats just my oppinion.

also, i hope that one day, APPLE will rule, because it constantly gets ripped off by our enemy MICROSOFT

Well, IBM is spending what like a Billion on Linux in the next few years. Maybe its what Linux needs or not, guess we will find out in the long run.

I don't think that Apple will ever rule again, but I think Microsoft's days are numbered.

There are a number of big names that was starting to pick up on linux. Dell, IBM, Intel, AMD. You have to keep in mind that for these comp. to support linux, in microsofts eyes its almost like a slap in the face. Most of them have been big supporters on microsoft. (if not out of fear of losing rights)

I thought I would jump on this discussion, so hope no one minds.

Apple Computer makes a great computer, but there is one feature of Macs I do not like. Hardware choice. Most of their systems are highly integrated, making my choices for what I want to use drop dramatically. Also, because of their design philosophy, they cost alot more up front than IBM compatibles. Because of these reasons, they will never be big.

What they should do is offer their processor for current PC systems, and just make software. They would save alot of money, and probably make more that way. If Mac OS X is as good as I have heard, they may even help Linux and BSD, since it is based on them.

Now about MicroSoft; I would agree that their days are numbered for their dominance only. Nothing can take out a corporation that huge, and they may wise up and actually make good software that runs on Linux. They may not stay as huge, but they can still make money. And if they did that, guess what? A big corporation would be backing Linux, getting people to actually look at it as an alternative.

Plus, I just want to point out that Linux is not obscure anymore. My friends who are not at all computer literate, and do not really care to much about technology, but when I mentioned that I run Linux, they all knew what it was. Then I slammed with so many questions I had to ask other people for some of the answers. Then they saw my computer do things theirs cant without crashing, and they were in awe.

BTW- They have decided to switch. They all run Linux now, with one of my friends actually keeping Winblows for a few DOS games.

I don't understand why MS has not been writing software for Linux anyway? Yeah, the OS is free, as is most of the software, but I'm really quite supprised that MS has not 'jumped on the bandwagon' and at least ported Office to Linux - They ported it to the Mac!

Surely they have had the ability to port to Linux, and God knows, they would (unfortunately) find a following for Linux based MS software, so why haven't they?

All answers NOT TO BE POSTED TO MS! We don't want to give them any ideas of acceptance withing the Linux world!

I'm brand new to Linux and Microsoft brought me here... Microsoft helped millions of people like myself who weren't raised with computers, I suddenly could manage my business, keep in contact and find old friends etc and finally arrive here. All computers ome with os's and ms hasn't cost me a cent (My ISP on the other hand has done very well over 4 years thank you). Ireally get irratated by the Seve Jobs bitterness brigade, tell it to Xerox who invented the GUI in the first palce.
Linux will thrive because there are millions of people like myself who want a new expewrience and love the idealism and community of Linux. We've been hearing about this system for years and we're all ears (eyes actually lol).

Here's what Dell says.. Think it explains it pretty well..

"Dell Computer says Linux is set to make significant headway into the market for graphics workstations, but also says the dream of a desktop competitor to Windows remains just that--a dream.."
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/2001...desktop_1.html


It even contains an answer to the question above, why MS hasn't ported Office to Linux..

"Linux has less than 2 percent of the desktop market, according to industry analysts"

And since Linux users normally don't like MS, why would they port it??
There's no marked..

[Edited by Q25 on 05-27-2001 at 12:17 PM]

1. Why hasn't Microsoft ported Office to Linux? Because remember Microsoft makes its money out of Windows. Windows is the rock on which Microsoft was built. By supplying Windows to such a high percentage of the desktop market, Microsoft maintains an advantage in the desktop software market. To port Office to Linux would be totally counter to Microsoft's strategy, because it help people switch from Windows to Linux.

2. Windows is not free just because it came with your computer. Microsoft charges your computer manufacturer for each computer they ship with Windows. So you paid for it when you bought your computer.

It is actually quite important to see things this way. I had a discussion with a friend who does a lot of Windows development recently in which my friend argued that Microsoft produced a rather wonderful OS due to there being so many free technologies included with it. Look at the feature list - DirectX, internet support, Windows 2000 includes parts of IIS, XP will ship with Media Player - it seems like a bargain.

However my view is that none of these features is free. Microsoft turns over a revenue. It pays its development teams to write software. It makes a profit. Therefore how can anything it produces be free? It is all paid for, and they make a profit.

Now there is nothing wrong with making a profit. Most good companies do. The issue I have with Microsoft is that which is sometimes called "cross-subsidising". This is where a large company might take profits from one division and use these profits to prop up a loss-making division - and in particular allow that loss-making division to sell its produvts for less than they cost to make. The idea here is to sell the products so cheaply - or give them away for free - so that competition is extinguished. Once this has happened, the loss-maker can turn into a profit maker.

Microsoft relies on its Windows dominance to achieve this. As all of us switching to Linux have found, it is not easy to switch away from Windows. Not because of an inherent technical superiority, but because of application support. It is a "critical mass" scenario. This means that Microsoft can effectively charge what they want for a copy of Windows. Think about it - if they decided to increase the price of Windows 98 by $100 tomorrow, what would be the effect? A mass desertion of users to Linux or BeOS or Apple? A collapse in the Windows PC market? I doubt it. Manufacturers would absorb some of it, PCs might become $50 more expensive, and that's it.

So Microsoft can afford to develop and distribute new technologies - or more often, their version of someone else's - and bundle them "free" with Windows. They are not free. Every dollar of the price of a copy of Windows has effectively gone in to some component of it. If Microsoft didn't bundle IE, DirectX, IIS, Media Player etc. etc. with Windows they could afford to charge less for each copy of Windows.

This is what I find so dangerous about Microsoft. I don't object to them making a profit. I don't even think all their software is so terrible to use (just some of it - like Windows 98). If we're honest, products like Office and IE are quite fast and slick, certainly feature-laden, easy to use and reasonably reliable. And if they competed on these grounds alone, good for them. But the issue of cross-subsidising is too important to ignore. It eliminates competition unfairly, and competition is essential for innovations - whether that competition comes from open or closed source development.

Well put Sir!
I still think time's are achangin' tho', Dell for example ,offers pre-installed (and support) Linux as an O/S and the pute' costs the same as a pre-install as their Windows pre-install, (I guess Dell kept the balance as Linux is free?) I just bought a Dell Dimension pent 111 and took the win98 option (Cos' I know it really quite well and am comfortable with it. It freezes now and again but so does my redhat linux, I don't know a thing about my new linux system (So I have no opinion beyond I LOVE the way Gnome looks and behaves) and I'm sure I'll configure it to perfection eventually LOL.