Linux Market: Absolutes / Percentages / Trends 233
vincecate writes "In their 10-K filing, Microsoft says that
Linux server units
rose slightly faster on an absolute basis
than Windows server units in fiscal 2004.
To project the trends it is helpful to
look at the percentages.
Some
Gartner Inc. statistics
report Linux server unit shipments are up 61% giving it 9.5% of the overall market share.
Windows has a much larger base, so it can get
the same absolute unit growth with a much
lower percentage.
Gartner expects Linux to continue growing faster and have
more than 1/2 of the new server shipment market
by the end of 2008."
Wow! (Score:2, Funny)
sales for the quarter crosses $1 billion ! (Score:5, Informative)
running Linux. However, all of those Linux machines added up to a smidgen more than $1 billion
in sales for the quarter.Check more details here [midrangeserver.com]
Re:sales for the quarter crosses $1 billion ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the servers shipped running Linux may be a miniscule fraction of the total Linux servers deployed or being deployed at this point. Presumably one reason for the relative growth of Linux preloads vs Windows preloads will be more competitive prices of Linux preloads and a decline in Windows unloads.
(BTW, when you directly quote an article, it is a good idea to use quotation marks. Otherwise people might think the text was yours.)
Re:sales for the quarter crosses $1 billion ! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that none of the linux boxes that I admin will get counted in any linux survey. Count support contracts from Redhat et al? Nope, I'm the support. I'd wager that any broad count of linux deployment is under by at least 50% and probably 75%.
Re:sales for the quarter crosses $1 billion ! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sales for the quarter crosses $1 billion ! (Score:3, Informative)
definitely overlooked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sales for the quarter crosses $1 billion ! (Score:2)
lies, damn lies and... (Score:5, Insightful)
however it does show continual growth as a general indicater that linux is well accepted in the industry. i know my recent workplace was mostly windows on the desktop but had quite a few linux servers.
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, it's a long way from downloading ISO's from bittorrent. But the business world does things differently (surprise).
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't when you are the one providing the support for the box, then you prefer to install something which is low on maintenance and by this good for profit. As long as all desired functionality is preserved most people who already have taken the step to hire IT muscle don't bother what they run just that it runs.
Ofcourse there is preference for a brand but thats way beaten by good price over performance/functionality.
Heck when was the last
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:3, Interesting)
It all dependes on organisational culture and the attitude of local management.
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're attempting to project the way your company works to the rest of the corporate world... Not every company hires phone operators instead of IT staff.
That's bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simply not true. I've spent the last 8 years working for big multinational banks. They all have internal support organizations. When something breaks, you call the tech support hotline, which is usually to the bank's internal support group. In a few banks, this function is contracted out to a company like EDS, whose people would be on-site. Nobody ever calls the manufacturer or the software publisher. I've watched the tech support guys fix problems, and they don't call the manufacturer or software publisher either, they fix the problem themselves (which might sometimes involve replacing the machine or reinstalling the software).
Geeks and freaks... (Score:2)
Nor would vendors be the ones to install updates to any Linux system my company purchased (you do realize that HP/Dell/Whatever now sell servers with Linux preinstalled, don't you?).
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:2)
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:2)
I know, it's a long way from downloading ISO's from bittorrent. But the business world does things differently (surprise).
Oh crap. We've been downloading ISO's from bittorrent, ins
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:2)
The vast majority of the economy is made up of smaller businesses that for the most part are ignored by these surveys. Many of these businesses hire a geek to support and install their server stuff, and their server stuff is often whatever the geek throws together (maybe new hardware if there is a budget for that). These machines either started their lives as windows or started their live
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:2)
so far EVERY linux server here has been from a single mandrake ISO set. We decided long ago that cince MS support is worthless and we pay through the nose and the answres were found using google anyways, that linux needs inside support only. Plus sticking with an older distro means you have much MUCH fewer problems and the testing servers that all patches get tested at ensure that your deployed patches are safe.
Exactly the same proceedures we used when we were 100% windows shop. Nothing changed
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:2)
Bullshit.
I've been admin for a 1 billion euro company and their main servers were Suse Linux systems installed and customized by their own people.
A friend of me has been messing with the internal systems of a major bank. On the outside it's all "enterprise level" blabla. Inside, the admins make sure things work, and work their way.
Business cares for one thing: It's gotta work. If you
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:3)
Yes, or the machines will be boot from one network image.
But if you run Redhat og Suse enterprise products they would probably all be counted in statistics like this.
>or just downloaded for free.
Even if you buy 100 machines from Dell, and plan for format the drives and put Debian/Fedora/Gentoo on them, you might still order them with Linux just to make sure the hardware is compatible.
Actually some of the 61% increase might be that Dell machines bo
Re:lies, damn lies and... (Score:2, Insightful)
OTOH small bussines/Home offices ans some brave people use downloaded Linux. The question is which side is bigger than the other.....
Any way, it's a good news for the community (e.g. Linux, FOSS, GNU).
Unix replaced on large scale (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unix replaced on large scale (Score:3, Interesting)
Surprised? No (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of whether or not you love or hate Microsoft/ Linux, the fact remains that both serve a different purpose at the corporate level. While Linux still leads as the most popular platform for hosting websites, Microsoft's IIS leads in intranet sites for most major companies.
There is a place in the market for both Microsoft and Linux -- Microsoft's biggest problem is IBM and others push of Linux to the masses. Without heavy licensing fees, and with IBM's focus on small business consulting, they can easily modify Linux to suit individual companies wants and desires. This customization, currently, is not a key part of the Windows system. That is what direction, IMO, Microsoft should look in taking itself to compete.
(For the record, the offering of the new stripped down version of XP to many developing nations is one example of truely targetting your market).
Re:Surprised? No (Score:2)
Linux's major forte: server machines. (Score:2)
Alas, Linux is not quite there with desktop machines, especially for home users who want to connect scanners, digital still cameras and
GNU/Linux Shines (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, come on, not that discussion again... (Score:2)
No, I'm not a GNU/Linux naming Nazi, but when people start doing this BSD/X/GNU/Linux extrapolation I can't help but think that it's silly. BSD and X are licenses in that context, GNU is not - and nobody suggested naming it GPL/Linux - the idiocy in the licensing argument against the GNU/Linux name should be pretty obvious, but for some reason it's not.
It makes sense to write GNU/Linux, not because of licensing, but because of hist
Re:[OT] Don't you mean the GNU/BSDs? (Score:2)
Of course he could have created an updated version of the GPL which allows this type of restriction, however he decided not to. Now that is funny, given that he actually put the sa
GNU Licensinc Inconsistency (Score:2)
The GPL (in section 6) disallows posing additional restrictions on
redistribution etc. of GPLed software (including combined works consisting of some GPLed and some non-GPLed software). This means that software under a license that poses restrictions that are not in the GPL can be combined with GPLed software, but the result may not be redistributed.
Now consider, the Artistic License, Vers [perl.org]
Re:GNU/Linux Shines (Score:2)
Besides, I do not write GNU/Linux because RMS wants me to, but because it indicates that I am not talking about Linux, the kernel, but about the GNU system running on top of Linux. Such a system is similar to a BSD system, or a GNU/Hurd system, or a Windows system with Cygwin, but not, for example, to a Linux system specifically adapted to an embedded device which does not have the GNU userland.
All ideology asid
Hmm.... time for long-term investing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can anyone track down the original Gartner report that indicated 50% of server sales would be Linux by 2008? The linked article just mentions the Gartner report (and all-important statistic) in passing, but doesn't provide a proper reference for fact-checkers. Google [google.com] didn't do the trick for me, it did turn up an article about an IDC report released in June 2004 that predicted Linux server shipments would rise to 29% in 2004 [computerweekly.com], a fairly significant difference.
Novell's stock [yahoo.com] is looking pretty attractive at $5.80, given that they're trading close to their 52-week low and now own SuSE, one of Red Hat's only commercial competitors. Mind you, Red Hat is actually earning a profit [yahoo.com] these days, even though their price::earnings ratio is about 100.
So is it time to invest in Linux stocks (again), except this time with an eye for the long-term instead of the wild ride of the late 90's?
Re:Hmm.... time for long-term investing? (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.... time for long-term investing? (Score:4, Interesting)
The main effect of the rise of a competitive OS will be to lower prices to users, as Microsoft loses its ability to charge monopoly rents. In other words, the businesses that will really gain are computer software users, not computer software sellers or distributors.
The best way to profit from this trend in the stock market, therefore, is to bet against high profit growth of companies like Microsoft. Microsoft currently trades at a P/E multiple of 36. The long-term historical average for stock P/E ratios is in the range 14 to 17, so Microsoft's current price builds in the assumption that their profits will continue to grow exponentially, as they have in the past. If (like me) you think it unlikely that Microsoft will be able to double its profits anytime soon, then you could sell MSFT short. I sold at a price of $28.5 and it closed on Friday at $27.11, so the trade is doing OK so far.
If you do this, you need to control your risk, of course. Check the price every day, and if it closes above $29, accept that I was wrong and close the position.
Otherwise, there's a good chance that it will go down to $20 or less, so you're risking $1.89/share for a very good chance of gaining $7/share or more. Those are good odds.
stats (Score:3, Funny)
Re:stats (Score:2)
Re:stats (Score:2)
Re:stats (Score:2)
And the remaining 75.6% don't add up.
a couple of points. (Score:4, Insightful)
2) It's nice to see the SCO lawsuit had such a dramatic effect that the total number of unit of Linux sold has risen. 30+Million dollars of MS^H^H SCO/Venture capital money burnt, with no tangable benefits - other than cementing linux place in the world of IT.
I wonder how worried MS really is about this?
I get an inclining of how the Ewoks/rebels must have felt as the sole destroy, all encompassing, stiffling empire fell apart around them. *sigh* Sometimes life is good...
Jaj
Re:a couple of points. (Score:3, Funny)
Trust me. If I ever, at any stage, start feeling like an Ewok I will not be describing my life as good.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:a couple of points. (Score:2)
Def a good question. But on another angle, I'm also wondering if this counts servers that are shipped with no OS installed or OS software included. Where I work, we just bought a couple of servers from a smaller vendor that did offer linux installs, but only Red Hat or SuSE, neither of which we wanted. And I imagine of lot of business will d
Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:5, Insightful)
The moral of this story is that *most* sys admins are not capable of installing or using Linux (or any other OS) unless it's dumbed-down to the childish level of the current Windows OSes.
Re:Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Incompetent IT Workers (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason incompetents don't get fired is because competent people cost more, at least from a hard-dollar perspective. Incompetence costs a company money, but in ways that are hard to pin down. It's far too easy for someone to shift blame; one of the keystones of Dilbert-esque companies is that it's virtually impossible to point to one person and say, "The buck stops here." Where I work, you can't even volunteer for the position. People think you're trying to make some kind of power-grab. Management wants to pretend the developers are all interchangeable cogs, shuffling us between teams as staffing needs dictate, and then they wonder why the overall result is mediocre.
Re:Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:2)
Re:Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that that level of "competence" is accepted in the market place.
You would never even think about hiring a car mechanic, an architect or even a plumber whose knowledge of the field is equivalent to that displayed by the typical windos admin.
No surprise the IT landscape is as fucked as it is, whether you lo
Re:Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:2)
If a system admin is dumb enough to think that MS Office 2003 is windows 2003 then he is in the wrong line of work. The fact that your neighborhood MSCE can't figure out how this linux thingie works is not Linux's problem. We all know that MSCE is just a name, not something that demonstrates how well they know a system.
Re:Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:5, Insightful)
You (or your boss) may like the warm fuzzy feeling of having someone to hold responsible if things go wrong, but have either of you either tried contacting Microsoft technical support or read the EULA lately?
Unless you're a Super-Gold-Mega-Partner, my experience suggests: forget it.
Which is not the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is your Linux ISO running on noname (but solid) hardware and it craps out, it is your poor management, incompetence and sys admin skill.
It may be *equally* little your fault, equally little you could have done to prevent it, and nowhere to get damages, yet the perception is completely different. That's the problem.
Kjella
Re:Which is not the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sooner or later, a Linux system crapping out will be perceived as being "one of those things", just like you described an MS system on Dell hardware. If/When Linux has reached that level of acceptance, the writing is almost certainly on the wall for traditional proprietary server systems - be it Microsoft, Sun or whatever.
Quite frankly, if it's that business critical you should have a recovery pla
Re:Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:2)
Disagree. I'm firmly in the "hate Microsoft" camp, but my recent experiences with Microsoft Tech Support are VERY GOOD. We had an Exchange Server decide to munch its database, and the MS tech had it up and running via remote support in half an hour.
Now, the system itself continues to munch its database periodically, so I'm still not happy with Microsoft's products, but their tech support is far better than most people give them cre
Re:Linux Must Become Easier to Install & Use (Score:2)
And, somewhat embarrassingly, that's exactly what I just did
But what the person really meant wasn't "vendor support isn't as good" but "I know who to speak to for support and there's plenty of people to choose from".
Having cleared that up, may I venture to make a few suggestions as a fellow
Network appliances (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows OS prices and bloat keeps MS products off these embeded OS items, even though MS markets their embeded Win CE as a capable product for the embeded devices market.
Re:Network appliances (Score:2)
WindowsCE isn't even a viable product for headless network computers, IMO. I mean, a Linksys WRT54G costs just under $60 street price, a little less for wholesale. Even a bulk licence could nearly double the price.
Re:Network appliances (Score:3, Interesting)
My point exactly when I said "Windows OS prices and bloat keeps MS products off these embeded OS items"
It's very hard for MS to tell Linksys or Buffalo that Linux has a higher TCO than Win CE. MS never expected these devices to reach these low prices that open software enables. Routers should still be about $300 and have MS software. A sub $100 router probably cau
Wait for Longhorn (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is almost certainly not going to take this lying down. Their biggest development effort right now is Longhorn. Some of the things that they say about Longhorn (the fact that they need to roll it out on clients and servers at the same time, in particular) makes me think that they will modify the networking protocols enough that Linux servers will no longer be able to play with Microsoft desktops.
Many large companies out there are running Windows on the desktop and connecting them to Linux servers. I think when Longhorn is released they may not have any choice about what server software to use anymore.
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:2)
All joking aside, how many corporations do you know that plan upgrades along the lines of "every single system in the business, desktop & server, must be upgraded simultaneously, there can be no exceptions"? If what you say is true, I can see it acting as a major stumbling block to Longhorn being adopted in business.
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I work 80,000+ employees, we naturally have separate server and desktop teams. Making Longhorn networking incompatible with current networking, will make it impossible for us to migrate to longhorn.
Changing the required number of server and client systems to longhorn in order to have a working system would take at least five full weeks.
What company wants to be out of business for five weeks.
or they might remember.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, the only thing I can see coming with MS is for them to go completely on the offensive with patents and copyright lawsuits and hope to scare and bully and maybe even legislate their way to staying topdog. I don't see them being able to do it on just quality/price and a normal market scene for much longer. The only people left who aren't considering Linux are very casuasl and unsophisticated home users, anyone more technologically savvy above that level is at least thinking about linux now. At some time MS will feel threatened enough to start using their portfolios very agressively, think SCO type action times 1,000. They could carve out a few billion just to start the lawsuits and not break sweat. Then they could start lobbying. We have the easiest bribed legislature and executive branch and probably judges evah now. This is the most high level "consultant fee" friendly government I can remember going way back. Those who already have the coin to spread around are not hesitating to "share the wealth" with those charged with maintaining what passes for "law" nowadays.
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:2)
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. More important is the browser. If it doesn't work with Apache, then as far as MS is concerned, Longhorn is broken and can't access most of the Internet. Many corporations are using web based solutions. My timecard is web based. So is our internal newsletter, campus maps, HR information, safety guidelines, employeed education courses, polls, etc. If Longhorn breaks the way we do business, we'll probably find something else that works as a client.
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:2)
There are markets where they still represent a single percentage in terms of market share. Those are the capabilities of Longhorn and its associated b
Re:Wait for Longhorn (Score:3, Interesting)
And, this would be one of those things that would probably vault Linux forward rapidly. If it's all new, what's the advantage of Windows?
Take a look here [joelonsoftware.com] for an interesting article on how Microsoft is losing the "API war
Gartner Inc. (Microsoft) statistics - look into it (Score:4, Informative)
Wonder why? Look into it. Gartner Inc. is a "separate" firm created by a certain firm to create (sell) all of these statistics (ultimately to serve the purposes of the firm.) Microsoft owns at least 20% of this underlying firm.
Informative for Linux newbies. (Score:2, Informative)
Stage2 into introducing linux has to be vnc (get realvnc and play with 2 windows boxes first) however configuring it isn't that easy with linux which is where I recomend this book as a step by step guide to a lot of things, chapt
So hard to pin down (Score:2)
Interesting that MSFT only expects 10 to 30% of their Software Assurance customers to renew. Not a surprise to anyone but MSFT. lol.
For some reason when I hear "Software Assurance" I always think of "Information Retrieval" in the movie Br
Some percentages more useful than others (Score:2)
The total shipments of one competitor as percentage of the total across all competitors tells a much more interesting story, and in this case the theme is that Linux is indeed a serious competitor, taking one fifth of new installs.
It's high tim
Re:Some percentages more useful than others (Score:2)
those numbers don't sound right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:At this rate ... (Score:2, Funny)
How do you measure it? (Score:5, Funny)
If by distribution sales, probably next year or the year after.
If by legitimate installed base, Linux is probably well in the lead already.
If by total installed base including warez, probably next year or the year after.
If someone makes a virus that downloads a modified Debian and replaces MS-Windows, IIS and VBSCript with it without noticeably interrupting the services on the machine, about two weeks after that.
Re:How do you measure it? (Score:3, Insightful)
A virus that transforms a running Windows machine into a Linux machine without even rebooting (which would certainly noticeably interrupt the services on the machine)? And Web services are transferred from IIS to Apache without any interruption? Including the rewrite of IIS specific stuff to Apache specific stuff?
Re:How do you measure it? (Score:2)
I think that's easy to accomplish
Re:How do you measure it? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh? I don't know that a reboot on a Windows machine would be considered outside of the normal course of events. Yeah, technically an interruption, but the user wouldn't remark on it...
Re:How do you measure it? (Score:2)
The whole thread is about servers, and the parent explicitly mentioned IIS ans VBScript. And not only home users get their machines infected. What percentage of the computers infected by e.g. Code.Red do you think was from home users?
Re:How do you measure it? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:At this rate ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I like linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I like linux (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I like linux (Score:3, Insightful)
On one hand you bash the corporate linuxes, and in the same breath you judge the 'GNU assholes'
oh and, try working in a corporate environment.
And read up on the Software lifecycle, development is just a fraction of the cost. $400 for RedHat buys you a whole lot more than just the free software.
But then again, why should you, you're an excellent software engineer.
Re:I like linux (Score:5, Insightful)
"have a root password since it was a single user machine" - This is totally normal, every version of Windows since NT has had this. Your probably confused because most peoples home Windows machine logs in with the administrator account. Most linux distro's can log straight into your user account from boot now too, IIRC RedHat 8 allowed this.
"X Windows loaded up and I was in Linux" - This statement just proves you know nothing about Linux or UNIX in general.
"CD ROM icon...where was it? Apparently I had to mount it manually" - IIRC RedHat 8 came by default with amd running, so I am starting to think you never actually intalled RedHat 8.
"it wants the stupid root password again" - BTW you better get used to this, Windows 2003 and above tries to enforce good administrator procedures by getting users to log into their own account, then "Run as..." administrator.
I am amazed that someone who has "studied the Linux kernel in depth" actually gave up on installing a distro because the automatic detection of the sound card didn't work.
"even though its autoupdate some how corrupted my kernel and I had to overwrite it" - Didn't your studying help solve this problem?
"I'm an excellent software engineer" - oh boy... I need to laugh... someone carry on for me please!!
Ahem...
Re:I like linux (Score:4, Informative)
linux isn't windows. it was never meant to be (well, as you discovered, fc2 comes as "close" as any linux distro as has.)
A big problem new linux users seem to encounter is the huge difference in how hardware is interfaced. in windows you run a setup.exe and magically a box pops up and says you have a new network card working.. WOW!. In linux, the kernel has the code for many, many, many NIC's already, and most distro's will include all of them compiled as modules in their default kernels and load the appropriate one when you boot. However, sometimes you'll have 'odd' hardware and it wont be able to find a module for your device... adding new code to your kernel (via patching) or compiling a module outside of the kernel tree isn't ever easy and this is where novice users will fall down and scream till' their blue in the face that "linux blowz".
Once you do it a couple times for various peices of hardware (NIC's [be it wifi or otherwise], video or sound [doesnt happen much, alsa is now included in the 2.6 kernels]) you realize it's not too terrible.. but it takes a lot of time to get a good feel for everything in linux/unix. The power of unix is in the terminal and always has been. If you dont know much about unix shells before your initial linux experience you'll be left with a severely crippled experience.
Re:I like linux (Score:2)
"After knocking your head against the wall a few times, you won't feel the pain anymore" is maybe a decent analogy. Even if the kernel needs to be recompiled, it really shouldn't take more than something like 1. RMB->Install kernel module 2. Enter root password 3. Wait. (Unless that module require
Coupe of points (Score:5, Interesting)
But what I find most stupid is the philosophy behind it. Why make something so complex for free? I'm an excellent software engineer, good software is hard to make, it's beyond art, takes incredible amounts of education, hardwork and talent, and it should be kept proprietary and one should be paid to make it.
You say that good code is like a work of art - if it is, then why don't you do what an artist does? An arist creates a small number of great paintings(programs), has a showing (creates a company website), and sells them to the highest bidder, and sells each painting only once. The artist does not care if that painting is subsequently copied by another artist - in fact, it is seen as a compliment by most!
Your age shows in the post (first tried RedHat 8.0 in University), so let me educate you a bit on the history of programming. Before Microsoft came along, it was common that software (and a whole lot of its code) was free. Why? Because most programmers worked for hardware companies, who were interested in selling hardware.
Does IBM make any less money if it ships a server running Linux or Windows? No, in fact they likely make more money since they don't need the Windows license markup and can thus charge less.
Personally, *my* wish in life is that eventually, all "software companies" are abolished; programmers will either work for hardware companies customizing their OS/driver platforms, or they will work as consultants, customizing existing open source software to the business, with the end product from both of these endevours going back to the public.
Really, if I as company X spend some time customizing an application to by business, what harm does it do to release the code? None, other than it may save someone else time and money in the long run. God forbid it be a compeditor - but what if it saved a non-profit like World Vision millions of dollars??? Isn't that worth it? Are you really that greedy of a copany, that the chance that it may help a competitor outweights the chance that you could be saving people's lives? (Sze note: from the behaviour of most companies, the answer is a resounding yes.)
Just as a note, I say the above as a professional programmer with a software company as well. I know to some people like you it might seem weird for me to be advocating the elimination of my profession, but really, I am in it for the love of what I do, not the love of money. When you do something for the love of what you do, you will always find a way to make ends meet.
Re:Coupe of points (Score:2, Interesting)
I know the parent is flamebait but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I see this sort of opinion piece a lot, and can't help thinking I must have been extraordinarily lucky with my Linux installs - I can honestly say I've had more trouble configuring a Windows installation correctly than I have a Linux one, and the most complex thing I've had to do to get my CD-ROMs working correctly was create a link to it via the KDE desktop context menu - Before I worked that out (right-click should have been my first option, but no, I felt techy) I did it by creati
Re:I like linux (Score:3, Insightful)
In your rant, you focussed on the install / setup issues with Linux. Firstly, as a loyal Linux user myself, your main problem seems to be that you are not prepared to get your hands dirty. This is what you have to do if you use Linux. You are no longer in your magical lala land where you click on the magical ice cream and everything is just fine - not true. Linux is more honest. Operating systems ARE complex, and if you wa
Re:I like linux (Score:2)
So does windows (Score:2)
Re:So does windows (Score:2)
Re:I like linux (Score:2)
If I wrote on here "water is wet", does that mean it ceases to be? :-P
Re:I like linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we enjoy writing code? Perhaps we want people who otherwise couldn't afford the software to have it? Perhaps we think it's a better way of programming.
Not everything in life is about money, you know.
Re:Fast typist? Or prewritten? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fast typist? Or prewritten? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.linuxsucks.org/read.html?postid=8345&re plies=39&page=1
[linuxsucks.org]
Re:Fast typist? Or prewritten? (Score:2)
could this be some sort of script that searches the internet for rants and matches them with slashdot topics ?
It wouldn't surprise me. I stumbled into the anti-/. world a while back, and it appears that no task is too trivial for these kiddies.
Re:I like linux (Score:2, Funny)
It's like I'm back in 97 again!