Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Forbes on Linux 263

Posted by michael from the jumping-on-the-bandwagon dept.
mvdwege writes "It appears that Forbes is doing a Linux Special. Lots of nice articles showing off the state of the art in Linux development today. It's nice to see Linux get some good mainstream press without hype or FUD. A very objective treatment that might definitely make some people think."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Forbes on Linux More

Forbes on Linux

Comments Filter:

  • Why is this an unusual occurrence? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by altgrr ( 593057 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:05AM (#3915612)
    IMHO, it was at first unusual for Linux to be given credit in the "real" OS stakes: I remember the first time I saw Linux in the UK, on a Computer Shopper cover CD. I can't remember what the distribution was, but it was incredibly flaky.

    However, what Linux has proved, more than anything else, is not that Linux is a viable OS, but, far more importantly, that Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days.

    It will be interesting to see if, ultimately, businesses do perform a complete about-turn on their strategies and, rather than going for licensed software, with maintence contracts etc., have maintenance in-house for software which, for the most part, has a bug patch written for it before the user finds the bug.
    • that Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these

      How has it showed this?

      I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

      Or maybe I'm just oblivious to all of the open source success stories....
      • Probably in the embedded market. That's one reason you won't hear too much about them. Look at http://www.linuxdevices.com [linuxdevices.com] for a few examples.
      • I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

        In my eagerness to get first non-troll post, ambiguity kicked in. I meant that, for clients, open-source software (commercial or otherwise) is a viable alternative to licensed/paid-for/whatever.
      • "It will be interesting to see if, ultimately, businesses do perform a complete about-turn on their strategies and, rather than going for licensed software, with maintence contracts etc., have maintenance in-house for software which, for the most part, has a bug patch written for it before the user finds the bug."

        I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?
        You're confusing producers for consumers.

        Or maybe I'm just oblivious to all of the open source success stories....
        Most likely. The major gain from open source seems to be about 1 or 2 more 9's of reliability for very little cost. Just look at the mechanics of Microsoft fixing a bothersome bug when you are the only one who encounters it. Even if they were willing.
      • I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

        I interpret the original poster as meaning that OS is viable option for companies to *use*, not *develop* They can save money by using OS software.
        • I interpret the original poster as meaning that OS is viable option for companies to *use*, not *develop* They can save money by using OS software.

          Ahh... yes, I believe I interpreted it as a viable option to develop.

          A viable option to use, definitely.
      • ...Open Source developments are a viable option for companies...

        I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit...

        If you do get flamed it's probably because you chose to read into the post something that wasn't there in order to exercise your predisposed opinion. There's a significant difference between finding open source developments a viable option for your company and creating a company to make money from open source developments. The latter is difficult because we tend to think in terms of production rather than service but the former is clearly evident. ...(and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

        I think you're confusing RedHat with Enron or Worldcom.
        • If you do get flamed it's probably because you chose to read into the post something that wasn't there in order to exercise your predisposed opinion

          Predisposed opinion towards what? I love open source stuff as much as the next guy. The last job I worked at I pushed to allow a lot more of the code for the software to be open to the end-user/consumer, an idea which many of the long time programmers were against, but is also an idea that they end up using. It didn't become a truely open source software package, but it allowed the end-user a lot more control of the package.

          I personally think using open source software is a great idea for a lot of companies, but it is a great idea because it saves them money.
      • I think he meant "a viable option for companies to use". My company is looking at using Linux on the file servers... I don't do IT work for them, at least not officially, but... I run Linux, and I help with networking stuff sometimes. I'm going to walk them through setting up a backup file server with the users, groups, etc. and show them how to connect the NT workstations to it. This is certainly possible. Is it viable? I guess that really depends on how much they want to spend on training for the current IT guys. Would that be cheaper than the next Windows liscense? You bet. That's why they're looking at it. Not stability, not for the good of society, not because it's open source. They're just tired of bleeding money on constant windows upgrades. Please note before you flame: I'm not a Linux zealot. It's just my preference. Something else may work fine for you. And, they asked, I didn't suggest it. How many of you are an engineer of the electrical-mechanical-whatever variety who runs your home machines and sites on something other than windows? Does your IT department know that? If they do, don't be surprised if they have questions. I just hope that your department head is as cool as mine is, and willing to loan you out for a day or two to give them a demo.
      • where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit

        I think that the viable options are for the companies that use the software. For example, the option to use Linux for an OS on a server is cool: no forced upgrades, no unneeded bells and whistles. For PostgreSQL or MySQL: no having to pay more in licenses just because your user base or usage has increased. Etc.

        P.S. I hope you didn't get flamed, it is a good question.

      • thousands of dollars can be saved by implementing a free solution in licences alone, in some cases, ON A SINGLE MACHINE. These costs are recurring -- upgrades can either be free, or they can be expensive. That is real, tangible money which can now be used for something more productive...like advertising on grave stones.

        I'm not going to get into costs of maintinence, because those costs aren't as direct, obvious, and tangible.
      • As several other responders here have stated, it's the companies that use the software that are making profits.

        This straw-man argument keeps getting posted here. I think it is obvious to even the biggest OSS supporter that a company saying "here is some source code to a program that many people (not just you) want, give me $1000, and incidentally the license allows you to give the code to anybody else" is not going to make any money beyond 1 sale.

        It is totally bogus to claim that OSS supporters say that you can make that money that way, and then try to ridicule them because of this false claim.

        There *are* other ways for software to appear:

        1. Ignore making money and make the software because you want to, as a hobby, or because of a philantropic desire to help the world. Admittedly this is the main source of Linux software today.

        2. Sell OSS software that only ONE person wants, ie highly customized solutions. Actually it has been normal to give the source code with such customized solutions throughout computer industry history.

        3. Sell OSS software with a modified license that does not allow the person to give it away.

        4. Or (unbelievable but true) sell software EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO FOR WINDOWS. Anybody claiming this is impossible should check out the special effects industry where I work, where virtually every major piece of commercial software is available for Linux, and (GASP!) people PAY MONEY FOR IT (so none of this crap about people not paying for software on Linux, if it was available people are going to pay!)

    • That's a pretty interesting point. I work for one of many IT groups inside a major financial company, supporting mostly NT servers. About 90% of the applications we run here in-house are custom built.

      They don't rely on outside vendors for supporting software and creating patches; the entire process takes place internally. This would seem to be the ideal situation for application development on Linux...

      Obviously the learning curve for developers used to MS developing environments has to be considered, but next to the potential cost savings of migrating hundreds of servers off of a (relatively) expensive OS to one that is (relatively) free, one could make a pretty good argument that the time and money spent on training for the dev guys would be well spent.

      I wonder if any of the developers have thought about that. Pardon me, I think I need to go drop a clue on someone.

      -Jeff
    • However, what Linux has proved, more than anything else, is not that Linux is a viable OS, but, far more importantly, that Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days.

      I totally agree. In my last project for a large financial services company, I was looking for some third-party libraries for use in our application. After conducting some research, I found an open-source solution which just blew away the alternatives.

      I was a little concerned at the beginning of the project that people would be fearful of my recommendation--that they'd be afraid we'd have to reveal all our sources, or that our code would be more prone to exploits because of the open-source library.

      I did spend extra time making sure that the licenses matched our corporate policies, which they did. And I was very surprised, just yesterday a guy who was reviewing the project was particularly pleased we had used open-source software--not because he was a zealot, but because he understood the drawbacks of black-box software and nasty licenses.

      Linux and Apache are the two best-known systems which have caused people to understand open-source software. Thanks to everyone involved.

      P.S. The libraries we used in the project have worked wonders. Seriously, the commercial 'peers' were completely unreliable and hard to use, all for thousands of dollars more!

      • Another question is also important in some cases:

        "Are Open Source developments profitable for developers?"

        Some developements are profitable, some are just done for the pleasure. The real problem comes when you need to depend on an Open Source package supported by a comercial firm (expects a profit), and that firm is not making a profit.

        I could name some examples (but you could imagine what could happen if your favorite app developer closes or drops the towel).

        You are still better than with closed source. But many companies use Microsoft stuff because they can be SURE they won't close (at least not this century!).

  • Lots of nice articles showing off the state of the art in Linux development today.

    I don't think that the target market for _Forbes_ is too interested in the development of software. They're probably more interested in the fact that "Open Source" based companies are dropping like flies these days.

    I wonder how much longer VA Pastries and Sundries has left.

    --saint

    • Re:Development? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tanveer1979 ( 530624 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:25AM (#3915691) Homepage Journal
      well you are worng in a way. The forbes market wants to make money, and they will go to any extent to do it.

      I work in a company that does not have anything to do with OS's etc and many sections were using proprietry software.. but in current scenario, though we are till pretty comfortable, managers are looking at linux farms for computing needs and servers, and 3 years from now this would have been unthinkable.

      Another misconception is that business houses run away from open source. This is not entierly true. Of course most of staff in such companies breaths on proprietry office solutions, and this will remain the case for a long time to come.

      but look at the brighter side.. server share is growing and growing. And if you want to check what is forbes running on here [w3.org] it is... and yes its apache :-)

    • You're wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Subcarrier ( 262294 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:31AM (#3915720)
      The Forbes target audience will be very interested in anything that can cut costs for companies.
      • The Forbes target audience will be very interested in anything that can cut costs for companies.

        You mean like a software and support package from TurboLinux? Or maybe Progeny?

        See my point now?

        --saint

        • Re:You're wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Subcarrier ( 262294 )
          See my point now?

          Not really. People are finding it exceedingly difficult to make money off OSS and its not a surprise that companies like TurboLinux are facing difficulties.

          Ironically, companies with commercial Linux offerings face the same kind of troubles that M$ does in trying to compete with Linux. They cannot be cheaper than a free download, so they will have to offer better added value in their service offering and packaging than anybody else in order to survive. And they will have to offer attractive prices.

          The other side of the coin is the cost of using Linux. Linux can be a very cost effective solution and that, if anything, has the potential to convince large companies to adopt Linux as part of their IT infrastructure. That's why I'm happy to see such well written articles about Linux in a major business publication like Forbes.

          If you can convince IT managers that Linux is a viable alternative (and many are beginning to see it as such), this can only benefit Linux and the currently ailing Linux companies. Now that the dot com bubble is over and done with it is time to evaluate things calmly and realistically. And Linux is still looking pretty darn good.
          • People are finding it exceedingly difficult to make money off OSS

            Correction: people are finding it hard to make money selling products based on OSS. They aren't having many problems SAVING money based on OSS products.

  • Good series - what motive? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:12AM (#3915643)

    I've been following the Forbes series for the last few days. It's nice to read some rational, non-baised information about Linux in a respected publication like Forbes.

    But since Forbes is an US publication, and there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda, I have to wonder if Forbes has a alerior motive for publishing this? Is Forbes owned by someone who doesn't like Bill Gates, for instance? Or who has shares in Red Hat? It is so uncommon to come across truly unbiased factual information in the US press these days I find it hard to believe that there isn't something behind this...

    • Re:Good series - what motive? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oever ( 233119 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:26AM (#3915698) Homepage
      Don't be so paranoid!

      This series is very good. It takes away part of the fears that executives have of Linux. Especially the article on the retailer going Linux.

      The readers will get mixed feeling from this article though: "These programmers are weird, they can't make money from this. But it is free software and it seems to work."

      I'm not sure reading about Linux is healthy for executives.
      • Don't be so paranoid!

        But if Forbes ran a big series about why MS is great, everyone on Slashdot would be saying "They must have paid for it."
        • But if Forbes ran a big series about why MS is great, everyone on Slashdot would be saying "They must have paid for it."

          We wouldn't have much to complain about if the article was factual and fair. I think most of the reaction to previous MS shills has been that the analysis has been somehow incomplete, exaggerated or biased.

    • Re:Good series - what motive? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Beautyon ( 214567 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:54AM (#3915819) Homepage
      Is Forbes owned by someone who doesn't like Bill Gates, for instance? Or who has shares in Red Hat?...It is so uncommon to come across truly unbiased factual information in the US press these days I find it hard to believe that there isn't something behind this.

      You are in shock; It will pass.

      Even if the articles do have an agenda, it doesnt matter as long as they are factual, and even if they were not factual, its par for the course with much journalism today.

      When ideas are at war, lies are as the sharpest of swords.

    • But since Forbes is an US publication, and there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda, I have to wonder if Forbes has a alerior motive for publishing this?

      Oh come now this is ridiculous. You've clearly never actually been to the US or done more research than listening to slashdot trolls rant and leftist news sources. There's America bashing (hey, I understand that it's chic in Europe now, it doesn't matter to me, you can have your fun, and soon enough if the rise of Right Wingers in Europe continues, maybe we Americans can return the favor in due kind ;) and then there's just plain stupid--this is the stupid variety.

      • Oh come now this is ridiculous. You've clearly never actually been to the US or done more research than listening to slashdot trolls rant and leftist news sources.

        I have been to the USA - it is partly that experience that colours my opinions.

        I read news sources that represent both left and right viewpoints. I didn't say anywhere in my post that I thought Europe was better than the USA. Nor do I think it ridiculous that Forbes might have an alterior motive for publishing this extensive series on Linux.

        Why is it that when there is extensive positive coverage of Microsoft people speculate that they have somehow infulenced it, but when Linux receives positive courage it is 'ridiculous' to suggest that?

        I am sure if Forbes ran a week long generally very positive series looking at Microsoft technologies then the opinions on this thread would be really different.

        • Ok sure, I can buy that--(Nor do I think it ridiculous that Forbes might have an alterior motive for publishing this extensive series on Linux.), however when you say:

          there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda

          That statement just seems a bit silly.

          Out of curiosity, in your travels here, where did you go and what as you say coloured your opinions? I'm always interested in how peoples opinions form. For instance, in the experience of a friend who lived in Pakistan for awhile, he said that talking to many Pakistanis who had been to America and back, they thought America was debuached and immoral and full of loose women--of course what did they do when they were in America? Visit a stripclub, see a porno theater, etc--all kinds of things not available in Pakistan, yet hardly representative of the average in America either.

    • I've watched Forbes for years, so I can see two things in this: one, a certain contingent of Forbes editors and reporters have always been in love with cool tech toys--read Forbes ASAP some time. They've been watching and occasionally commenting on Linux for years now.

      Two, Forbes editors and senior reporters seem to have a certain disdain for dodgy practices in business--they seem to have the attitude that companies that do dodgy stuff may not be the greatest long-term investments out there. After all, they might be dodgy in their bookkeeping, too. I will note that Forbes magazine was saying rude things about the "non-profit" business plans of the dot.bombs back when they were still the darlings of Wall Street, and that Forbes magazine has been commenting on the dodgy accounting at Enron and other companies for some time now--before it made the mainstream press.

      Where am I going with this? Microsoft is notorious for its dodgy anti-competitive practices. Linux and Open Source is generally anything but dodgy. Draw your own conclusions.
  • The title on that page says "Forbes: The Cult of Linux (2 of 6)" What does that say about it?

  • somebody woke up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tanveer1979 ( 530624 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:14AM (#3915649) Homepage Journal
    well so t seems. Though till now it was a geek geek thing, linux users were a bunchof social outcasts and what not.. finally we have THE FORBES taking interest. This had to happen someday. After all the business community wants to mae money, and in a slowdown scenario like now linux makes sense. To some extent slowdown has been a blessing in disguise with cash strapped managers wanting to take the buck an extra mile.

    This is definately a first and really a great achievement... and the goal now is to sustain linux rather that develop!

  • The articles were interesting... Linux is becoming a more commmerialized OS. This is a good thing (TM), since I can go to my boss and argue a good case to use linux; since I can get commerial support.
    For all those who think its a bad thing (TM), the beauty of open source is that you can create your own homebrew (TM) distro.

  • This is a far cry from what MSNBC reported not too long ago about Linux failing as an OS. It's nice to see a *credible* news source fill in an objective series of articles, and not just print anything that Redmond dictates.

  • I don't know how an article called Cult of Linux at Frobes rates unbiased coveraged and even reporting..

    Maybe the orginal poster has eye sight problems..

  • This should confirm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vanders ( 110092 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:22AM (#3915677) Homepage
    Actually reading through the articles (Shock!) gives a very positive image of Linux and the various Linux projects overall. Galeon, Gaim, even Pine, have all got nice, positive reviews. KDE take a bit of a kicking, but then its a review, and someone has be the winner!

    Some hackers out there might want to take note of the sorts of things the Forbes reviewers found important; things like a clear user interface that doesn't shove big, glossy, eye-candy in your face, basically. They all rate intuitive, uncluttered user interfaces as a priority.

    Oh, and before anyone starts flaming about "Point and drool" or some other nonsense along those lines; remember that they liked Pine.

  • Oh God! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mike Connell ( 81274 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:23AM (#3915682) Homepage
    Forbes gets their info from /.? I quote:

    "(Full disclosure: VA Software owns OSDN, whose Slashdot Web site provides tech news to Forbes.com.)"

    In the next issue, "Exploring hostile takeovers and hot grits"...

  • Tastefully done (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:25AM (#3915693)
    Everybody read the part about cost and aggravation savings. Now read it again. Memorize it. Got it? Good. THAT is the angle to use with management. Not "freedom", not "evil empire", not "Windoze sucks". UPTIME + COST SAVINGS = MORE PROFITS. Show 'em the numbers (in Excel if necessary).

  • Hmm (Score:1)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 )
    People seem surprised that Forbes would run a series such as this...

    "(Full disclosure: VA Software owns OSDN, whose Slashdot Web site provides tech news to Forbes.com.) "

    So this story is really more like some strange circle jerk, Slashdot provides the news to forbes.com, then links to forbes.com as if it is an independant source.

  • About LinuxToday's coverage... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:27AM (#3915701) Homepage
    Linux Today has covered these pieces over the week. Interestingly, the piece about browsers on Linux was inexplicably missed. I refuse to think it's because Galeon came first, and Konqueror next to last in the comparison. A couple of attempts by me to alert the editors to the missing article have gone unheeded for _some_ reason, however.

  • Write good software, adoption will follow (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Write more good software instead, adoption by the mainstream and the industry will follow automatically.

    Allow me to rant for a while.

    For example, if I were to make music, I'm stuck with Microsoft or Apple. Yeah yeah now people will say, there is software X and software Y which you should use. But guess what! The user interfaces generally suck, or the program is some 0.0.5 beta. So with a crashing beta you're better off using the other solutions explained earlier.

    Something like Buzz for linux would be the ultimate bomb. Unfortunately GNU Octal [gnu.org] seems to have died, at least the web site hasn't been updated for ages. CheeseTracker is good, but there aren't enough effects available. Also, it is mono.

    So, for example those software look promising. But they really don't help you if you need the solution TODAY and not next year.

  • Umm as I was going to read the article, thinking oh wow let's see some unbiased reporting, I read the title: The Cult of Linux!

    I guess then I am a follower of RMS High Templar. So fear my wrath!

  • The screenshot and description of Pine amused me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jack Hughes ( 5351 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:33AM (#3915725)
    In the article about email they say that "pine is the most linux specific" coupled with a screen shot of pine on Windows 2000!

    Of course, we all know that pine is the least linux specific.

    And all the apps featured run on at least UNIX....

    Moral: Whatever Forbes does, it shouldn't do software reviews.

  • A revered teacher and researcher (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jsse ( 254124 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:33AM (#3915728) Homepage Journal
    According to Linux legend, a revered teacher and researcher told Linus Torvalds that he "would not get a high grade" for his creation.

    The "revered teacher and researcher" in question is Professor Andy Tanenbaum [www.dina.dk].

    His book "Computer Network" is a bible in networking for many people. Yes, what he thought about Linux is proven wrong but we still respect him.

    Btw, my favourite quote of the above conversation is:
    "As an aside, for those folks who don't read news headers, Linus is in Finland and I am in The Netherlands. Are we reaching a situation where another critical industry, free software, that had been totally dominated by the U.S. is being taken over by the foreign competition? Will we soon see President Bush coming to Europe with Richard Stallman and Rick Rashid in tow, demanding that Europe import more American free software?"

    It has already proven that there's an free OS(a software) that has not been totally dominated by U.S., we yet to see Bush(well, if not old Bush. :) coming to Europe with Richard Stallman and Rick Rashid. :)

    • Re:A revered teacher and researcher (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I seriously doubt that Richard Rachid [microsoft.com] would be allowed by his boss Bill Gates to promote Free Software with Bush! Now that his is head of Microsoft Research I think he tows the party line.

      You can say what you will about Microsoft but they are decent business men. They hired 3 out of the original 6 MACH kernel people (Bolosky and another one that escapes me). So whereever the OSes are going Microsoft should be decently clued in.

      BTW I did see Rachid at the last PDC and he was by far the best KeyNote speaker. Don't miss him if you have a chance to see him. He didn't peddle anything so his talk actually had nice substance.

      Oh and in case you hadn't heard, Microsoft also just hired Stan Lippman C++ guru. Also somthing to see at a talk.
    • told Linus Torvalds that he "would not get a high grade" for his creation.

      Smart professors often make mistakes when it comes to real-world possibilities. The classic example here is that the business plan for Federal Express got a C [google.com] as an Economics term paper.

  • excellent article (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:42AM (#3915773) Homepage Journal
    I really enjoyed this article. Although I consider myself somewhat of a Linux "guru," I actually learned a lot, if not about how Linux works, then about how it is perceived by those outside the community.

    One thing that particularly struck me is Forbes' recommendation that "Linux not be depended on for mission-critical applications." In my business, I've always been willing to bet a lot on Linux's performance, and never (yet) been disappointed. After reading this article I may look into the offerings of Sun and HP, just to be on the safe side.

    It goes to show, you can work in an industry for 20 years, and still learn something. I look forward to more informative articles from Forbes.

    • I don't understand why this post is considered a troll. Can someone explain, please?

      Thanks.

    • One thing that particularly struck me is Forbes' recommendation that "Linux not be depended on for mission-critical applications."

      Where did you see that? I didn't see that in any of the articles I read. The closest was the Boscov article, where the guy said he tested Linux on the least critical systems first, but is now moving more critical operations over. I didn't read any of the older articles though, just the 7/02 ones.

  • Relatively unbiased compared to past reports (Score:4, Interesting)

    by f00zbll ( 526151 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:43AM (#3915775)
    Compared to other article on linux in the past by all the news sources out there, this set of articles are reasonably objective. One particular quote from "Retail Therapy" struck me as sign of people's frustration with MS's attempt to extract/extort more money from consumers.

    Microsoft is helping me make the decision to look for alternatives, Roberts says.

    I have no actual proof of the following statement, but is it possible that people view MS differently than pre law suit? Has a significant percentage of the population taken the view that Microsoft is a poster boy of Corporate America gone agro against consumers?

    • Actually, I just set up a brand new POS system on Windows 2000. I love it. I don't know what the fuck this guy quoted in the article is talking about.
      • I just set up a brand new POS system on Windows 2000

        LOL!

    • The lawsuit has little or nothing to do with it. The real problem is that Microsoft, in a desperate attempt to keep their revenues up, has become even more anti-consumer than ever. Instead of giving the consumer what he or she wants Microsoft is spending more and more of its time and efforts on initiatives that actually hurt their users. Microsoft's users did not ask for the new licensing schemes, the new anti-piracy code, built in DRM software, and a whole host of other annoying features.

      Think about it for a moment. Windows XP is essentially Windows 2000 with some anti-piracy measures. While Apple is busy advertising how easy it is to create MP3s with a Macintosh Microsoft is busy trying to replace MP3s with something that the music industry could control. For most of Microsoft's customers Windows XP is less useful than the previous version.

      This isn't really anything new. Microsoft has historically used all sorts of tricks to force their customers along the upgrade path. The difference is that in the past Microsoft could afford to act this way because they were the only game in town, but that isn't necessarily the case any more. Everyone else was vastly more expensive. Nowadays, however, there are affordable alternatives.

  • from the web browser article:

    Galeon is the Web browser created by Gnome, a part of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, which is a free variant of Unix. (In a bit of a joke, GNU stands for "Gnu's Not Unix. It is pronounced "Guh-New.")

    Didn't get the joke, did you?

    • It's supposed to be funny to have recursive acronyms.

  • Check this out (Score:3, Funny)

    by kruczkowski ( 160872 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:52AM (#3915815) Homepage
    Scroll you mouse over the "BUSINESS" tab above the article. (Don't click!) It's between the HOME and TECHNOLOGY.

    Notice what ad shows up above Linus' name!
  • For example, Linux will never rival Windows as a mainstream desktop PC operating system, and Linux still has a long way to go before being widely used in "back-end" applications like databases and enterprise resource planning.

    That's what she thinks.

    cue evil laugh.. bwahahahahahaah

  • I just forwarded this on to my boss and my Controller. The Linux community needs more public endorsement like this. It's hard to make a business case for Linux when all that your Controller has ever heard about it is that it's a toy for hackers.

  • "Never" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:57AM (#3915838) Homepage Journal
    The word "never" should never be used in a technology news article. Well, maybe if they're referring to OS/2... ;)

    It's hard to believe the author of this article [forbes.com] has been a technology news writer for at least a decade. "Linux will never be..." "Linux will never gain..." She doesn't mean never. I think she means in the short term (5 yrs maybe), which seems like an eternity in the tech industry. But to say something, especially something new, will never take over a market or will never be used for critical systems is simply rediculous. By this author's writing, some execs, if they're smart enough to read that far into the articles, will think Linux has mostly run its course and found its place in the industry since it'll "never" get beyond certain levels. By her logic, if she wrote an article about Microsoft back in 1985, she'd have said "Windows will never be a serious player in the server market."

    This author's writing is incredibly irresponsible.

  • might definitely (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    might definitely

    What the hell does that mean?

  • Overall, a good read... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7@@@cornell...edu> on Friday July 19, 2002 @08:28AM (#3916003) Homepage
    I even learned a few things from the article... After reading their browser review, I'm going to be giving Moz and Galeon another try. (Previously, they were slower than NS 4.76 on my 64M P133 laptop - And FAR slower than Opera.) If Forbes is to be believed, they've really chopped down on the bloat. (The fact that NS7PR1 is far faster than NS6 could be a sign of these improvements...) Of course, what may be faster on a fast machine with lots of memory could be slower on a low-power machine. Some apps respond better to extra resources than others.

    Seemed their most flawed review was Pine. (The most cross-platform as opposed to the least as they claim, and it IS capable of launching external viewers for attachments.) But I was impressed by their claim that text-only wasn't as bad as one would think and is in fact faster than GUI mailers. What next, Forbes extolling the virtues of bash? :)
    • Perhaps you may want to consider getting a laptop with a CPU more powerful then a pitiful mere 133 MEGAHURTS. I mean really, 133? Do you also whip yourself with a cat of nine tails just for fun or something?
      • All it was used for was SSH, AbiWord, web browsing, and gaim. Oh, and xchat. 133 is plenty for basic day-to-day applications. (Otherwise no one would buy any of the internet appliances that have hit the market and the i-Opener would never have been popular for hackers.)

        If I wanted to play Quake, I'd turn on my desktop.

        I agree, 133 is pitiful for a primary system. But as a secondary system to do stuff "on the go" occasionally, it's just fine.

        If you just want to read email, Pine is wicked fast on even a 386. :)
    • From the tone of the Pine review, I'd *guess* they were impressed by the ability to quickly tackle email through, say, a network connection. (Like a telnet from a windows box to the server).

      Hey, fellows, wait till you learn about ssh -X :)

      But I agree that it is good that they understood that sometimes text-based is better that point-and-click.
    • FWIW...

      The Mozilla nighly build of Tuesday on Windows - loads faster than IE6, and displays pages faster than IE6.

      You would thing that web page loading is a solved probelm - that all browsers would grab crap of the internet and display it in the same time, but it apparently isn't. Mozilla is just faster.

  • They liked pine.

    Wow.

    For years everyone has been trying to create the fisherprize OS TM and here the suits favor PINE! Granted I use elm myself since ehm, eh that is the one I grew up with, but the idea is the same.

    I guess this puts to rest all those lamers who keep shouting that linux should be more userfriendly. The suits don't want that, they want functionality like apparently powerfull search over eye candy or even buttons.

    This has really made my day and I will keep trying to get my company to allow my linux elm to connect to its servers. Thanks forbes

    BTW with suits here I mean people who are not technical but who do have a brain, the management who is good at it in other words.

  • poor RMS.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nomad128 ( 579708 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @09:23AM (#3916349)
    hehe....as he fumes about GNU being mentioned in a Linux article only because of Galeon. :-)

    http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/17/0717tentech.html

  • From the article "Retail Therapy" the author writes: Solaris, because it's the most popular Unix OS. By most ways of counting, Mac OS X is now the "most popular Unix."

    By 'most ways of counting' I mean number of machines that have it installed and actively used, or shipped with it installed--according to Jobs at his latest keynote, the former number is 2.5 million users. Apple actually shipped more Unix systems than that number even represents. Honestly, what are the numbers for people using Solaris?
  • Why is it that I assume this supposedly "objective" series of articles about Linux look at Linux very positively ? Could it be that the arbiters here of objectivity here might not themselves be very objective ?

    • Re:"Objective" (Score:3, Informative)

      by mvdwege ( 243851 )

      I specifically submitted the link because some of the articles do mention Linux shortcomings. It's not my fault that overall Linux leaves a positive impression, and I am not surprised as that seems concur with my own experiences. Remember, all software sucks, some just sucks less.

      Perhaps something's wrong with your objectivity? Did you discount your own possible bias when reading the articles?

      mart
  • From one of the articles:
    His firm has changed its name to VA Software, and its media contact person declined an interview request for this story "because we're no longer a Linux company."
    This is news to me....
  • Forbes always seemed more like BSD-ish folks than Linux. The BSD license is much more capitalism friendly, after all.

    I have never had a problem selling clients on FreeBSD:

    "If it's good enough for Yahoo..."

    Hasn't failed yet.
  • We all ask ourselves this question repeatedly: Why is Linux not successful in the business world? I don't mean as a server. I mean as a platform for either server based or client business applications. We often offer our opinions that the Desktop should look better, it should offer games etc. Browsing, Office suites and Mail are now normal and easy on Linux with OpenOffice and Mozilla.

    So what's the problem? Detractors of Linux will say, "It's the software stupid". And they'll be right, I think. Every time I look at Freshmeat or Sourceforge I never see any big action around ERM,CRM or small business accounting packages that are compatible with banks as Quicken is. Navision, one of the larger and more successful ERM,CRM companies (that was bought up by Microsoft recently) has no Linux client. Yet it is applications like these (Tuned, corporate DB's that one can easily script and turn into applications by combining tables with relevant data visually) that would make Linux a real contender in corporations and even small businesses. In other words, where are the visual database apps?

    I don't know if Blender is GPL but the specialist CAD market also has no Linux applications and Blender might make a good basis for one. Likewise in other specialist areas. We are so proud of ourselves and our whizzkid technical knowledge, yet it sometime seems to me that /. people are more interested in wireless gimmicks and games than the specialist markets such as medical or legal or even cash register software. These are apps that make up the backbone of the market. Most companies running specialist software don't even have high hardware requirements, and often still run their customer and accont lists in Access95 on Win95.

    Am I wrong here totally or are there atempts to write for these markets?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close