Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source? - Linux

This is a discussion on Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source? - Linux ; You really have to wonder ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...pensource.olpc Until now, the received wisdom has been that GNU/Linux will never take off with general users because it's too complicated. One of the signal achievements of the Asus Eee PC is that it ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

  1. Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    You really have to wonder ...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...pensource.olpc


    Until now, the received wisdom has been that GNU/Linux will never take
    off with general users because it's too complicated. One of the signal
    achievements of the Asus Eee PC is that it has come up with a front end
    that hides the richness of the underlying GNU/Linux. It divides programs
    up into a few basic categories - Internet, Work, Learn, Play - and then
    provides large, self-explanatory icons for the main programs within each
    group. The result is that anyone can use the system without training or
    even handholding.

    This combination of good functionality and out-of-the box ease of use
    with a price so low that it's almost at the impulse-buy level could prove
    problematic for Microsoft. Until now, there has been no obvious advantage
    for the average user in choosing GNU/Linux over Windows on the desktop,
    and plenty of disadvantages.

    The price differential has been slight, and there has always been the
    problem of learning new ways of working. The Asus Eee PC changes all
    that. Because the form factor is so different, people don't seem to make
    direct comparisons with the desktop PC, and therefore don't expect the
    user experience to be identical.

    The UK company Elonex has already set an even lower price point: it has
    just announced its own ultraportable, called The One, which offers most
    of the features of the Eee PC for £100. Other companies that have
    launched, or announced, similar machines running GNU/Linux include Acer,
    Everex, and the Australian company Pioneer Computers; even HP seems to
    have one on the way. At least one manufacturer of traditional portables
    is worried by the downward trend in prices. According to Cnet, Sony's
    Mike Abrams commented: "If [the Eee PC from] Asus starts to do well, we
    are all in trouble. That's just a race to the bottom."

    This makes the relative cost of systems running Microsoft's products
    greater. The argument that its software is "worth more" because it has
    more features is unlikely to cut much ice as users discover that
    functionality of the kind offered by Firefox and OpenOffice.org is fine
    for most everyday uses - the target market for these new small devices.
    Moreover, the rise of free browser-based online services such as Gmail
    and the Google Docs office suite means you can get by with just Firefox.
    The situation in developing countries is even worse. Not only must
    Microsoft and its partners compete with new low-cost portable GNU/Linux
    systems specifically designed for these markets, like the XO-1 from the
    One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project or Intel's Classmate PC, but they
    must also sell against unauthorised copies of Microsoft's products, which
    are routinely available on the streets for a few dollars. To combat this,
    Microsoft has started selling copies of Windows for around $3 in these
    markets.

    Size does matter

    Although this kind of bargain basement pricing helps make its products
    competitive with low-cost alternatives like open source or unauthorised
    copies, Microsoft's profit margin is cut close to zero. That's not
    necessarily a disaster for a company with huge cash reserves, but it
    could be dire for one planning to take on billions of dollars of debt -
    as Microsoft has said it will need to do in order to finance the
    acquisition of Yahoo. What if it is forced to extend this kind of pricing
    to western markets in order to match the cheap GNU/Linux systems in this
    "race to the bottom"?

    The first effects may already be being felt. Notably, last week Microsoft
    cut the cost of retail copies of Vista, apparently because people don't
    see it as a necessary upgrade at the prices charged. While the vast
    majority of Windows "upgrades" will still come through people buying new
    PCs, as corporate customers hold back, the erosion of Microsoft's ability
    to set prices for its operating system - and perhaps more importantly its
    hugely profitable Office suite - could spread deep into its product suite.
    And if people don't think that the extra features of Vista are worth the
    price, at least at retail, it makes the argument that Windows is "worth
    more" than Linux harder to sustain. It's an interesting - and, for
    Microsoft, critical - question just how low the price of these "basic but
    good enough" portables can go.

    The original target price of the OLPC machine was around $100, but its
    designer, Mary-Lou Jepsen, already thinks she can do better. She says
    that a $75 system is "within reach," and she set up a new company, Pixel
    Qi, to help realise that vision.

    In the process, she hopes to spawn an entirely new generation of
    computers. "We'll have decent, highly portable, rugged, multi-use
    computers everywhere. That poses constraints on the circumstances of use
    - the input aspects and the screens, the networking and the software, all
    will have to evolve." If they're to be cheap enough for many people in
    developing countries to buy, these systems will almost certainly be using
    open source, but Jepsen doesn't see the zero price tag as its main
    advantage: "The true and large value of free [software] is the ability to
    change and customise it."

    In other words, Microsoft could give away its software, and it still
    couldn't compete with the truly open, customisable nature of free code.
    It seems that the only way Microsoft can hope to get people using its
    software on this new class of low-cost, ultraportable machines is by
    going fully open source itself.



  2. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?


    "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    news:XqZzj.216$R_2.119@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
    > You really have to wonder ...
    >
    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...pensource.olpc
    >
    >
    > Until now, the received wisdom has been that GNU/Linux will never take
    > off with general users because it's too complicated. One of the signal
    > achievements of the Asus Eee PC is that it has come up with a front end
    > that hides the richness of the underlying GNU/Linux. It divides programs
    > up into a few basic categories - Internet, Work, Learn, Play - and then
    > provides large, self-explanatory icons for the main programs within each
    > group. The result is that anyone can use the system without training or
    > even handholding.
    >
    > This combination of good functionality and out-of-the box ease of use
    > with a price so low that it's almost at the impulse-buy level could prove
    > problematic for Microsoft. Until now, there has been no obvious advantage
    > for the average user in choosing GNU/Linux over Windows on the desktop,
    > and plenty of disadvantages.
    >
    > The price differential has been slight, and there has always been the
    > problem of learning new ways of working. The Asus Eee PC changes all
    > that. Because the form factor is so different, people don't seem to make
    > direct comparisons with the desktop PC, and therefore don't expect the
    > user experience to be identical.
    >
    > The UK company Elonex has already set an even lower price point: it has
    > just announced its own ultraportable, called The One, which offers most
    > of the features of the Eee PC for 100. Other companies that have
    > launched, or announced, similar machines running GNU/Linux include Acer,
    > Everex, and the Australian company Pioneer Computers; even HP seems to
    > have one on the way. At least one manufacturer of traditional portables
    > is worried by the downward trend in prices. According to Cnet, Sony's
    > Mike Abrams commented: "If [the Eee PC from] Asus starts to do well, we
    > are all in trouble. That's just a race to the bottom."
    >
    > This makes the relative cost of systems running Microsoft's products
    > greater. The argument that its software is "worth more" because it has
    > more features is unlikely to cut much ice as users discover that
    > functionality of the kind offered by Firefox and OpenOffice.org is fine
    > for most everyday uses - the target market for these new small devices.
    > Moreover, the rise of free browser-based online services such as Gmail
    > and the Google Docs office suite means you can get by with just Firefox.
    > The situation in developing countries is even worse. Not only must
    > Microsoft and its partners compete with new low-cost portable GNU/Linux
    > systems specifically designed for these markets, like the XO-1 from the
    > One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project or Intel's Classmate PC, but they
    > must also sell against unauthorised copies of Microsoft's products, which
    > are routinely available on the streets for a few dollars. To combat this,
    > Microsoft has started selling copies of Windows for around $3 in these
    > markets.
    >
    > Size does matter
    >
    > Although this kind of bargain basement pricing helps make its products
    > competitive with low-cost alternatives like open source or unauthorised
    > copies, Microsoft's profit margin is cut close to zero. That's not
    > necessarily a disaster for a company with huge cash reserves, but it
    > could be dire for one planning to take on billions of dollars of debt -
    > as Microsoft has said it will need to do in order to finance the
    > acquisition of Yahoo. What if it is forced to extend this kind of pricing
    > to western markets in order to match the cheap GNU/Linux systems in this
    > "race to the bottom"?
    >
    > The first effects may already be being felt. Notably, last week Microsoft
    > cut the cost of retail copies of Vista, apparently because people don't
    > see it as a necessary upgrade at the prices charged. While the vast
    > majority of Windows "upgrades" will still come through people buying new
    > PCs, as corporate customers hold back, the erosion of Microsoft's ability
    > to set prices for its operating system - and perhaps more importantly its
    > hugely profitable Office suite - could spread deep into its product
    > suite.
    > And if people don't think that the extra features of Vista are worth the
    > price, at least at retail, it makes the argument that Windows is "worth
    > more" than Linux harder to sustain. It's an interesting - and, for
    > Microsoft, critical - question just how low the price of these "basic but
    > good enough" portables can go.
    >
    > The original target price of the OLPC machine was around $100, but its
    > designer, Mary-Lou Jepsen, already thinks she can do better. She says
    > that a $75 system is "within reach," and she set up a new company, Pixel
    > Qi, to help realise that vision.
    >
    > In the process, she hopes to spawn an entirely new generation of
    > computers. "We'll have decent, highly portable, rugged, multi-use
    > computers everywhere. That poses constraints on the circumstances of use
    > - the input aspects and the screens, the networking and the software, all
    > will have to evolve." If they're to be cheap enough for many people in
    > developing countries to buy, these systems will almost certainly be using
    > open source, but Jepsen doesn't see the zero price tag as its main
    > advantage: "The true and large value of free [software] is the ability to
    > change and customise it."
    >
    > In other words, Microsoft could give away its software, and it still
    > couldn't compete with the truly open, customisable nature of free code.
    > It seems that the only way Microsoft can hope to get people using its
    > software on this new class of low-cost, ultraportable machines is by
    > going fully open source itself.
    >

    >



    I can give you 13 billion reasons each year why MS isn't going open source.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    Tony Drudge wrote:

    > I can give you 13 billion reasons each year why MS isn't going open
    > source.


    Yep. M$ will prove as short-sighted here as they've proved about so many
    other things in the past. Now constantly trying to play catch-up.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  4. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    RonB wrote:
    > Tony Drudge wrote:
    >
    >> I can give you 13 billion reasons each year why MS isn't going open
    >> source.

    >
    > Yep. M$ will prove as short-sighted here as they've proved about so
    > many other things in the past. Now constantly trying to play catch-up.


    It's the Linux "community" that's been fruitlessly trying to catch up for
    the last decade, trying to put together workable desktop solutions and apps.

    Alas, Linux flatlined at <1% of the desktop a long time ago.



  5. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    DFS wrote:

    > It's the Linux "community" that's been fruitlessly trying to catch up for
    > the last decade, trying to put together workable desktop solutions and
    > apps.
    >
    > Alas, Linux flatlined at <1% of the desktop a long time ago.


    Which is why you non-stop, 24/7, FUD against Linux here. And why M$ has
    admitted that Linux is their biggest threat. Sorry Doof, but there is a
    major disconnect here.

    But, by "playing catch-up" I was talking about smartphones, Internet search
    engines, video games and what not. All those fields were the "brilliant" M$
    always manages to come to the party just a little too late.

    The only reason M$ ever became a dominate OS provider is because they
    hitched their wagon to IBM. If not for IBM it would have been MicroWho?

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  6. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    RonB wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> It's the Linux "community" that's been fruitlessly trying to catch
    >> up for the last decade, trying to put together workable desktop
    >> solutions and apps.
    >>
    >> Alas, Linux flatlined at <1% of the desktop a long time ago.

    >
    > Which is why you non-stop, 24/7, FUD against Linux here.


    You think market share has anything to do with why I slam cola idiots?



    > And why M$ has admitted that Linux is their biggest threat.


    It's really their ONLY threat: runs on most x86 hardware, it's free, and
    it's improving. Fortunately for MS, the OSS development model mostly
    results in crapware, and the clowns at OpenOffice can't write a competitive
    office suite.



    > Sorry Doof, but
    > there is a major disconnect here.


    Yes, and it comes from you absolute loonies:

    "MS is dying"
    "Linux won!"



    > But, by "playing catch-up" I was talking about smartphones, Internet
    > search engines, video games and what not. All those fields were the
    > "brilliant" M$ always manages to come to the party just a little too
    > late.


    And why is MS supposed to be a big, successful player in every part of the
    computing/technology world?

    As for brilliant: take a look at MS software vs the laughable slop that
    comes out of the "brains" of OSS wacks. One little example: take a look at
    the Windows Task Scheduler vs KDE KCron (or Gnome Task Scheduler).




    > The only reason M$ ever became a dominate OS provider is because they
    > hitched their wagon to IBM. If not for IBM it would have been
    > MicroWho?


    blah blah blah.. always the revisionist speculation from sore lusers.




  7. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    * RonB peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> It's the Linux "community" that's been fruitlessly trying to catch up for
    >> the last decade, trying to put together workable desktop solutions and
    >> apps.
    >>
    >> Alas, Linux flatlined at <1% of the desktop a long time ago.

    >
    > Which is why you non-stop, 24/7, FUD against Linux here. And why M$ has
    > admitted that Linux is their biggest threat. Sorry Doof, but there is a
    > major disconnect here.


    Not to mention that, even by the suspect "web hit" metric, Linux desktop
    share is increasing at an accelerating rate.

    Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    based PC that are good-sellers?"

    --
    We are not even close to finishing the basic dream of what the PC can be.
    -- Bill Gates

  8. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    Linonut writes:

    > * RonB peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's the Linux "community" that's been fruitlessly trying to catch up for
    >>> the last decade, trying to put together workable desktop solutions and
    >>> apps.
    >>>
    >>> Alas, Linux flatlined at <1% of the desktop a long time ago.

    >>
    >> Which is why you non-stop, 24/7, FUD against Linux here. And why M$ has
    >> admitted that Linux is their biggest threat. Sorry Doof, but there is a
    >> major disconnect here.

    >
    > Not to mention that, even by the suspect "web hit" metric, Linux desktop
    > share is increasing at an accelerating rate.


    Liar. The BBC pegged it at 0.8%

    >
    > Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    > based PC that are good-sellers?"


    Because linux is free and keeps the price down through lack of licensing
    fees and lower HW requirements.

  9. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    "Hadron" stated in post
    fqrm7m$k1b$5@registered.motzarella.org on 3/7/08 8:16 AM:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * RonB peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It's the Linux "community" that's been fruitlessly trying to catch up for
    >>>> the last decade, trying to put together workable desktop solutions and
    >>>> apps.
    >>>>
    >>>> Alas, Linux flatlined at <1% of the desktop a long time ago.
    >>>
    >>> Which is why you non-stop, 24/7, FUD against Linux here. And why M$ has
    >>> admitted that Linux is their biggest threat. Sorry Doof, but there is a
    >>> major disconnect here.

    >>
    >> Not to mention that, even by the suspect "web hit" metric, Linux desktop
    >> share is increasing at an accelerating rate.

    >
    > Liar. The BBC pegged it at 0.8%


    And NetApp listed it at 0.67%... and now down to 0.65%



    Does not mean it is dropping - the stats are not exact... but well away from
    even having 1% of the user base.

    >> Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    >> based PC that are good-sellers?"

    >
    > Because linux is free and keeps the price down through lack of licensing
    > fees and lower HW requirements.


    And yet cannot make it to 1% of the user base... yet. Once the UI
    fracturing problems are worked out - as well as some other issues - Linux
    will presumably grow.

    --
    The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
    limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
    great nations. - David Friedman


  10. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:10:49 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > * RonB peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's the Linux "community" that's been fruitlessly trying to catch up for
    >>> the last decade, trying to put together workable desktop solutions and
    >>> apps.
    >>>
    >>> Alas, Linux flatlined at <1% of the desktop a long time ago.

    >>
    >> Which is why you non-stop, 24/7, FUD against Linux here. And why M$ has
    >> admitted that Linux is their biggest threat. Sorry Doof, but there is a
    >> major disconnect here.

    >
    > Not to mention that, even by the suspect "web hit" metric, Linux desktop
    > share is increasing at an accelerating rate.


    Linux has been flatlined at less than 1.0 percent for years.
    The BBC pegged it at 0.8 which I think is too high, but still within the
    range.

    So once again you lie....


    > Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    > based PC that are good-sellers?"


    Ask yourself why Asus is releasing a Windows version of that same Eee PC a
    couple of months later....


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  11. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    Hadron wrote:
    >
    > Liar. The BBC pegged it at 0.8%


    Eh? I keep hearing that it is only 0.6%. That would be a better than
    30% increase.

    >
    >>
    >> Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    >> based PC that are good-sellers?"

    >
    > Because linux is free and keeps the price down through lack of licensing
    > fees and lower HW requirements.


    True, and that is why desktop Linux is not 'flatlining' like some
    claim.

    I remember not so long ago when the critics kept crowing that Linux
    was only at 0.2%. Yes, Linux still has a small share of the desktop,
    but there is no doubt that share is growing.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  12. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    "thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com" stated
    in post j4a8a5-4uv.ln1@tux.glaci.com on 3/7/08 10:20 AM:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> Liar. The BBC pegged it at 0.8%

    >
    > Eh? I keep hearing that it is only 0.6%. That would be a better than
    > 30% increase.


    Depending on what stats you look at it is between 0.65% and 0.8%. Either
    way desktop Linux is not at even 1%... variations in that range between
    reports tell you nothing.

    >>> Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    >>> based PC that are good-sellers?"

    >>
    >> Because linux is free and keeps the price down through lack of licensing
    >> fees and lower HW requirements.

    >
    > True, and that is why desktop Linux is not 'flatlining' like some
    > claim.
    >
    > I remember not so long ago when the critics kept crowing that Linux
    > was only at 0.2%. Yes, Linux still has a small share of the desktop,
    > but there is no doubt that share is growing.


    Sure: and as Linux matures on the desktop it will continue to grow. At some
    point there will be a distro that will have both an attractive look (as
    PCLOS does now) and have a relatively consistent and efficient UI (as Ubuntu
    tries to do now with mixed results). When that happens Linux will see
    substantial growth - maybe even making it to double digits or near there.

    --
    Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.




  13. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    > Linux has been flatlined at less than 1.0 percent for years.
    > The BBC pegged it at 0.8 which I think is too high, but still within the
    > range.
    >
    > So once again you lie....


    'Flatline' would indicate it is staying at the same level over a long
    period of time, and the historical stats just do not show that. It is
    still under 1.0 according to a variety of web metrics, but take any
    of those metrics and look at the long term trend, and you see
    undeniable growth. That is not 'flatflined'.

    >> Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    >> based PC that are good-sellers?"

    >
    > Ask yourself why Asus is releasing a Windows version of that same Eee PC a
    > couple of months later....


    Uhm, to serve that slice of the market that wants to run Windows on
    it? That still does not alter the reality that they launched this
    thing with Linux, and it has been a hot seller in that configuration.
    Face it, Linux is finally penetrating the retail sales channel. It
    is verifiable progress you cannot spin away.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  14. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    Snit wrote:
    >
    > And NetApp listed it at 0.67%... and now down to 0.65%
    >
    >
    >
    > Does not mean it is dropping - the stats are not exact... but well away from
    > even having 1% of the user base.


    Unfortunately, Linux share is still small enough that changes from a
    month to month basis are likely lost in the statistical noise. We
    probably need to smooth the average over three months at least.
    Yearly trend lines are probably more useful.

    > And yet cannot make it to 1% of the user base... yet. Once the UI
    > fracturing problems are worked out - as well as some other issues - Linux
    > will presumably grow.


    Actually, taking a global view, most credible estimates I've seen put it
    at least at 1.2% (some higher). Of course most of the web hit data is
    going to come more from the US, where Linux use is lower. Web stats can
    be useful for trend lines, but not definitive for overall desktop usage.
    The trends are upward and the software is improving, so I don't really
    worry much about the current size of the user base.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  15. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    "thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com" stated
    in post 6ie8a5-2c5.ln1@tux.glaci.com on 3/7/08 11:36 AM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >>
    >> And NetApp listed it at 0.67%... and now down to 0.65%
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Does not mean it is dropping - the stats are not exact... but well away from
    >> even having 1% of the user base.

    >
    > Unfortunately, Linux share is still small enough that changes from a
    > month to month basis are likely lost in the statistical noise. We
    > probably need to smooth the average over three months at least.
    > Yearly trend lines are probably more useful.


    The yearly trend does *seem* to be going up... but you are right that this
    could be from "noise", especially with inexact stats such as web hits which
    likely favor the more technically savvy users... which Linux users likely
    tend to be.

    In other words web stats likely overestimate Linux user base.

    >> And yet cannot make it to 1% of the user base... yet. Once the UI
    >> fracturing problems are worked out - as well as some other issues - Linux
    >> will presumably grow.

    >
    > Actually, taking a global view, most credible estimates I've seen put it
    > at least at 1.2% (some higher).


    Do you have a reference for that?

    > Of course most of the web hit data is going to come more from the US, where
    > Linux use is lower. Web stats can be useful for trend lines, but not
    > definitive for overall desktop usage. The trends are upward and the software
    > is improving, so I don't really worry much about the current size of the user
    > base.


    And, really, if it works for you who cares if you are the only one using it!
    But, still, the same things that will help the user base grow will also help
    me as a user... and I would love to see Linux grow and improve in the ways I
    have described its needs.



    --
    Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.


  16. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:30:28 -0600, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >> Linux has been flatlined at less than 1.0 percent for years.
    >> The BBC pegged it at 0.8 which I think is too high, but still within the
    >> range.
    >>
    >> So once again you lie....

    >
    > 'Flatline' would indicate it is staying at the same level over a long
    > period of time, and the historical stats just do not show that. It is
    > still under 1.0 according to a variety of web metrics, but take any
    > of those metrics and look at the long term trend, and you see
    > undeniable growth. That is not 'flatflined'.


    So?
    It's effectively flatlined.
    If Linux can't get above the 1 percent figure in 10 or more years what are
    you going to call it?

    Also the figures are all over the place so nobody really knows the *Exact*
    number.
    What is known however is that all of these numbers seem to hover around 0.6
    or 0.8 percent.
    Take an average if you like , it doesn't matter because in the scheme of
    things the adoption of desktop Linux is miserable.



    >>> Ask yourself: "Why are Asus and other companies coming out with Linux
    >>> based PC that are good-sellers?"

    >>
    >> Ask yourself why Asus is releasing a Windows version of that same Eee PC a
    >> couple of months later....

    >
    > Uhm, to serve that slice of the market that wants to run Windows on
    > it? That still does not alter the reality that they launched this
    > thing with Linux, and it has been a hot seller in that configuration.
    > Face it, Linux is finally penetrating the retail sales channel. It
    > is verifiable progress you cannot spin away.
    >
    > Thad


    It's a hot seller because people figured out how to load Windows on it and
    that is what a good portion of them are doing.

    Asus saw this and is jumping on the opportunity.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/


  17. Re: Why doesn't MIcrosoft go Open Source?

    Robin T Cox espoused:
    > You really have to wonder ...
    >
    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...pensource.olpc
    >
    >
    > Until now, the received wisdom has been that GNU/Linux will never take
    > off with general users because it's too complicated. One of the signal
    > achievements of the Asus Eee PC is that it has come up with a front end
    > that hides the richness of the underlying GNU/Linux. It divides programs
    > up into a few basic categories - Internet, Work, Learn, Play - and then
    > provides large, self-explanatory icons for the main programs within each
    > group. The result is that anyone can use the system without training or
    > even handholding.
    >



    >
    > In the process, she hopes to spawn an entirely new generation of
    > computers. "We'll have decent, highly portable, rugged, multi-use
    > computers everywhere. That poses constraints on the circumstances of use
    > - the input aspects and the screens, the networking and the software, all
    > will have to evolve." If they're to be cheap enough for many people in
    > developing countries to buy, these systems will almost certainly be using
    > open source, but Jepsen doesn't see the zero price tag as its main
    > advantage: "The true and large value of free [software] is the ability to
    > change and customise it."


    >
    > In other words, Microsoft could give away its software, and it still
    > couldn't compete with the truly open, customisable nature of free code.
    > It seems that the only way Microsoft can hope to get people using its
    > software on this new class of low-cost, ultraportable machines is by
    > going fully open source itself.
    >
    >


    As I've always said, the real gain is avoidance of lock-in by putting
    control into the hands of the customer. The traditional proprietary
    lock-in model is very nasty... foss unlocks this well indeed.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

+ Reply to Thread