You guys may not have the balls to say that "linux is better", but I certainly do. There are thousands of quantitative reasons, which can be very easily argued among computer science literate individuals of why linux and the linux kernel is _FAR_ superior to windows.-Kamel
We have the balls to start that argument, but the question is, will we solve it? Absolutely not. That
MY-OS-IS-BEST argument plays in many different flavors, depending on who you are and what you do with a computer. Since the Linux vs. Windows (vs. Mac) argument is ongoing -- I've seen Mac and Microsoft go at it for almost 25 years and both are still there, as Linux has been since '94 and will be -- the argument is never finished. To me, there are better ways to spend my time.
My own argument is not which OS you use, but can I collaborate with you? I'd rather my OS
seek to establish interoperability among products built to the IETF, OASIS, HTML 5, World Wide Web Consortium, and other standards. Other questions one should ask are:
--
Do I have the freedom to leave? --
Are my data portable? --
Do interoperable products for the 'product class' exist; that is, are they interchangeable?Software interchangeability goes beyond formats, protocols, APIs, user interface, and operating system support, and also includes in-application programmability. Note that these issues apply not just to standalone desktop applications but also to software delivered through a web browser. Does your choice of OS promote this concept or does it frustrate it?
The primary reasons Windows excels beyond Linux so well is because it is made with commercialism as its number 1 concern.... Few things are designed for it, hardware or software, and Linux does not care for commercialism currently meaning it will never grow to become a commercial product.-Kamel
Ah, the
No Free Lunch reason is alive and well. The "cloud" is largely a marketing myth promoted to give false hope to customers who will only later discover that implementations, not standards, dictate costs. Otherwise it is merely a race where the fastest company to market is not permitted to outpace the slowest gazelle, or as it's playing out right now, the company with the deepest pockets can give away the most services, and by doing so, dominates the market until everyone else's pockets are empty.
(See Sun.)
Microsoft can't buy Linux. It can't sue it for patent infringement (it's threatened to, but it has no case there). Microsoft can't sell Windows cheaper than Linux, since it's already free. And it can't outspend Linux. Because of the portability and scalability you mention, Linux is already built for the cloud, for mobile, for netbooks, for mainframes, for large Hadron Colliders, and so on. Windows has to be retooled for a netbook, and even then, you're going to get an 8-year old version of their last OS that will cost you at least $150-$200. Traditional, big corporate takeover attack methods don't apply to Linux, so the whole damn enterprise that is 'Linux' leaves Redmond frustrated and feeling threatened,
not on the desktop of course, but on the server side, where the real money is.
______________________
The best thing Microsoft could do would be to make sure Win7 is the opposite of what Vista was. Win7 doesn't have to be perfect. All it has to do is be lighter and faster, and less annoying in some areas (UAC, Explorer, fewer than a half dozen versions). If they do this, they'll be fine, and a billion people will be happy again.
Post 'em if you got 'em!
Recent Posts
