Linux is an OS, not an application suite
Yes, and no. To begin with, let's look at the modern definition of an operating system.
The kernel - this is the "True" Linux. Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel, which is maintained by Linus, Alan Cox, and a rather large team of developers who really do a great job of keeping the kernel functional, flexible, and reliable.
Of course, if you only consider a kernel to be the true operating system, then Windows would be a jazzy 32 bit version of MS-DOS.
We add to this kernel:
display system - X11 for Linux, GDI for Windows Window-Desktop manager- Gnome and-or KDE for Linux, Windows for Windows Device Drivers - both Windows and Linux use modular drivers Configuration Tools - GUI and CLI for Linux, GUI only for Window (labor $$) App start tools - shells and launcher for Linux, com-bat and launcher for Windows. Text editors - vi,emacs,ed,nano,pico,... for Linux, notepad for Windows Web Browsers - firefox,mozilla,kommander,... for Linux, IE for Windows E-mail - k-mail, thunderbird,... for Linux, Outlook Express for Windows Paint-Photo - gimp, xv, xfig,... for Linux, paint and photo editor for Windows
And the list goes on.
Trolls' Purpose 13464
Thomas Wootten Absolutely! Here is my 17th attempt at draft legislation.... The Engines of Democracy Astro Turfing Rights Bill -------------------------------------------------- 1. All astro turfers must register for employment and obtain...
You may begin to notice a pattern. For any given catagory, Linux typically includes 3-5 competing technologies, Microsoft includes only their own monopoly shovelware.
Linux encourages compebreastion in all genres, Microsoft kills off compebreastion in any market in which they can extend their monopoly.
Linux Day proof Linux is a cult
The racist, liar and thief Rich (flatfish) nymshifted: You lately posted as Aftab Singh, allisonhunt1968 plus 1, Anna...
I wrote a post a while ago wondering what the purpose of the trolls might be. * Fill the Web with anti-Linux...
This is a bit like complaining because you can't get a trailer hitch for a Porche. The reality is that different vendors form different alliances. There are many applications which are ONLY available for Windows (or Windows emulation), and many which are ONLY available for Linux (or Linux emulation), and there are many applications which function extremely well on both Linux AND Windows because they are written using cross-platform tools like Java2, Qt, and Gtk.
Fortunately, the world isn't as "black and white" as Microsoft would like us to believe. Linux emulation is available for Windows, and Windows emulation is available for Linux, so long as the machine is licensed for Windows.
The vendor may have a number of reasons for supporting Linux. Microsoft may have funded the hardware development, it may use intellectual property controlled by Microsoft, or it may simply fear reprisals from Microsoft.
Ironically, it may be one of the advantages of Linux. Because Linux encourages compebreastion, and has fewer barriers to market entry, there are more applications and many of those applications can be better customized to the specific needs of the end-user or corporate customer.
Typically, entry into the Windows software market requires a minimum outlay of about $10 million, before the first box is sold. This is the cost to create an inventory, get it to retailers, finance the flooring (something like paying rent for shelf-space until product sales exceed a quota), advertizing, and customer support. More often than not, this minimum is only sufficient to launch a product which is self-perpetuating. It usually requires more like around $50 million to launch a SUCCESSFUL product. And if the product generates sales sufficient to generate that level of revenue, it becomes a target market for Microsoft, who can easily launch a cheap clone from some third-rate company in which it holds a controlling intrest, and in a few years, the third-rate company is simply drained of it's intellectual capital.
Competing in the Linux market on the other hand, is much easier. A good web site, a very good product, and a good support team are the key factors, most of which can be started on a shoestring budget which can increase as demand increases. Many Linux vendors don't go public because they don't need to go public. It's not hard to maintain a reasonable profit by providing good software in conjunction with a useful service.
No, but Microsoft does FUND many applications and drivers. In addition, they can use their viral NDAs to take control of most applications NOT based on Open Source technology.
The irony is that more and more developers and manufacturers ARE now supporting Linux. OEMs who want to sell AMD-64 technology are very dependent of Linux, since Linux has a fully functional 64 bit implementation which can run 32-bit Windows as a CLIENT. Linux gives you the bang from the 64 bit chip, but without sacrificing features, functions, and compatibility.
don't write exclusively for Linux, they often write software that is designed to run on Both Linux and Windows, or designed to run under Windows emulation tools like WINE and Xen.
The GNULinux Cult Phenomenon was: Linux Day proof Linux is a cult
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 18:52, Rich stood up and spoke the following words to the mbuttes incomp.os.linux.advocacy...: Hi again, Flatfish. ;-) The reason...
Look at the number of machines now sold with FireGL and other OpenGL oriented graphics boards. Look at the number of secondary drives and external drives. Look at the number of parbreastion managers. Look at the number of machines that can boot from USB. Look at the number of machines that can pbutt the "Live-CD test". Look at the number of machines that can run current versions of Linux, without hardware changes. Look at the number of people downloading FireFox, OpenOffice, and Linux.
Keep in mind that if 30 million downloads of FireFox in less than 6 months is the "Tip of the Iceberg", there's something really big about to put a huge gash in the SS Microsoft Windows.
The GNULinux Cult Phenomenon was: Linux Day proof Linux is a cult
Aragorn After reading cola for a while, most respect for Linux flies out the Windows(tm). Huh? You think anybody with inclinations toward the technical is automatically going to like Linux? What...
It still makes sense to get an OEM license for Windows with your OEM machine, simply because the OEM has already paid for it, whether they install it in YOUR machine or not. The OEM thinks he might sell 80 million PCs so he purchases 100 million Windows licenses because he can get them for 50% than the discount on the 80 million licenses. In essence, he's getting 30 million licenses free.
You might as well let the OEM give you that free license. Then you can plug in a "one-touch" USB backup hard drive, install Linux, install Xen, VMware, or Bochs, then copy the backup image back to your "Virtual drive".
Then, you can use OpenOffice, but if you need MS-Project, you have that too. You can use FireFox, but if you need IE for a few minutes, you've got it. You can use Gimp, but if you really need photoshop, you can fork over your $600 and do your thing. You can use lots and lots of Linux tools, but if you need Windows to do your time-sheet or expense report, you have it.
Trolls' Purpose 13465
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Thomas Wootten wrote on Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:30:25 +0000 s-campaign on-run on their hardware One could quibble about fairness here, but ideally Linux...
Linux has lots of advantages, including the fact that the most common problems in Windows simply don't exist in Linux. Linux is a better product in terms of overall quality. People often suggest that Linux in inferior to Solaris, or OS-X, or HPUX, or AIX, which are server operating systems used to control power plants, telephone switching systetms, and nearly all other "Mission Critical Environments", and very often, the only time you will see Solaris, AIX, or HPUX in a Workstation is when it's part of a CAD-CAM system which feeds drafting or schematics directly to the tooling equipment, or when it's being used to generate special effects for feature length movies that will be shown on 50 foot wide screens.
Linux does need some aggressive marketing. Keep in mind that Red Hat STILL doesn't really push the Workstation product line. On the other hand, Novell and Linspire are producing some really good products and marketing them aggressively. Ubuntu is providing an incredibly effective combination of outstanding product and excellent marketing to produce some extraordinary results in a very short time.
Cygwin is also making a mbuttive grbutt-roots campaign as a "back door Linux". You still have the problems buttociated with Windows (insecurity, unmanagability, lack of reliable backup-recovery, and potential "DLL Hell"), but you can get most of the best features of Linux, including the ability to access a Linux "Desktop Server" which can serve desktops remotely to several users concurrently.
The bigger campaign seems to be in the broader OpenSource market. FireFox, OpenOffice, StarOffice, Java2, Thunderbird, and numerous "dual-platform" applications are getting very popular, very suddenly.
Many companies are taking a good look at Google, and realize that this is the ultimate example of a company which USED Open Source and Linux as a strategic tool to build a profitable company which only went public to provide some liquidity to some key players who didn't want to leave the company to get paid.
When most of the dot-coms were becoming dot-plants, Google was growing, thriving, generating real value for real advertizers who paid real money, and google didn't have to cripple their offerings because they couldn't afford licenses for thousands of servers that serve millions of users per second.
Linux Advocacy Newsgroups