nemesis wrote:

> Nicolas Alvarez escreveu:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> I don't see Linux gaining the end user desktop market in the foreseeable
>>> future.
>> 
>> As someone who runs Linux on his desktop... I agree.
> 
> This comes as a surprise!  Since when, might I ask?

Not sure. Over 6 months ago. Any idea where that might be stored? Any file
timestamp unlikely to change since install? Since May 2008 it seems, but I
thought it was at least a month later than that...

For what *I* typically do on a computer (which involves a lot of C++
compiling), it's perfect. And my mom can still read her email.

>> I use KDE 3.5. Yesterday I tried GNOME. Today I tried KDE 4.
> 
> Tomorrow you'll try recompiling the kernel and installing microsoft
> fonts and Office running on wine, right? ;)
> 
> I smell a new Linux user temporaly blind by all the geeky
> possibilities... :D

I'm not new; I did admin stuff on a remote server (over ssh) for like a year
before installing Linux on my desktop; and I installed Linux on my desktop
over 6 months ago.

I used KDE 3.5 all the time here. I should update to the next version of
Kubuntu, but that means going to KDE 4 like it or not. I was also trying
GNOME because last time I tried it was years ago. Doesn't seem to have
improved much.

I was comparing because KDE 3.5 isn't really that good. But it seems the
alternatives aren't too much better...

Post a reply to this message

>  I would wildly guess that at least 99% of Windows sales revenues come
> from individuals, the remaining 1% from other companies. If FUD'ing the
> one tenth of companies not using Windows in their servers to switch to
> Windows would succeed, how much would Microsoft's revenue increase?
> Something 0.1%? One thousandth of what they current get.
>
>  Big deal? I really think MS is just being paranoid and making a lot
> of noise over nothing.

0.1% of what MS currently gets is quite a lot of money, enough to employ 
lots more people, build new offices, maybe even help to payoff the EU some 
more :-)  You can't ignore 0.1% of your total revenue!

Post a reply to this message

>>   IMO they should invest their resources on making better products rather
>> than trying to gain some 0.1% of market share by dubious means, which is
>> only negative PR for them and can cause a backlash. You don't get a
>> positive image of yourself by bashing your opponents. You do it by doing
>> a good job and offering high-quality products, and letting your products
>> speak for you.
>
> That isn't the way M$ does business. Typically they achieve market share 
> by eliminating competition rather than producing quality products.
>
> Of course, if they *did* sit up and start making better products, that 
> would be nice...

AIUI MS are trying to crush Linux by improving their products in areas where 
they think Linux is better.  Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time 
in every industry - it's just up to Linux to fight back just as hard by 
improving their software in areas where they are currently behind MS (which 
they have been doing).  It's just normal business behaviour between two 
competitors.

Post a reply to this message

>  Why do you think MS is so hated and eg. Apple isn't? Because Apple 
> doesn't
> use so many glaringly dubious attack tactics and get the hatred of every
> living being on Earth.

Sorry, but that's obviously not true, maybe in online forums and chatrooms 
the geeks complain about MS, but in real life nobody cares, and that makes 
up for far more of the MS customer base.  Think about it, if *everyone* 
really hated MS so badly they would actively look for alternatives and MS 
would lose most of its market share, but it's not like that.

Next time someone says they hate MS and don't do anything right, ask them 
how they would run MS differently, and how they would make more profit than 
MS is currently making.  Bash MS or not, they are still a very successful 
company and can afford to pay the best people to make sure it continues to 
be very successful.  Some unknown person in an online forum (who knows 
virtually nothing about how MS works) saying how he thinks MS should be run 
differently is just laughable.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2009 8:22 AM, Warp wrote:
> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Warp escreveu:
>>> 2) Why does Microsoft care about Linux, with its... what? Less than 1% market
>>> share?
>
>> I think they are more worried about enterprise Linux server installs,
>> which go beyond that puny 1% mark.
>
>    Even if 10% of companies used Linux in their servers, how much does
> that mean in the total revenue of Microsoft?

The majority of revenue for MS comes from two (sets of) products: Office 
and Windows.

For Windows, the licenses are pretty evenly split between new computer 
sales and Enterprise licenses[1].

While the PC Sales are a nice bag to hold, it means you're vulnerable to 
trends in the whole industry.  For instance, new PC sales this year were 
down, meaning a lot of MS's revenue was lost.

The Enterprise market is what they really like, because they sell 
licenses by the thousands.  If Linux makes headway here, combined with 
the loss of new PC licenses, then it can *really* hurt MS.

[1]Since the days of Windows 95, MS has failed to convince a majority of 
home users that upgrading is worthwhile.  They do sell *some* licenses 
as upgrades for home users, but it's a practically non-existent revenue 
stream for them.

...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Not sure. Over 6 months ago. Any idea where that might be stored? Any file
> timestamp unlikely to change since install?

ls -lh /bin/sh

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Not sure. Over 6 months ago. Any idea where that might be stored? Any
>> file timestamp unlikely to change since install?
> 
> ls -lh /bin/sh

2008-05-03 21:59

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Sorry, but that's obviously not true, maybe in online forums and chatrooms
> the geeks complain about MS, but in real life nobody cares, and that makes
> up for far more of the MS customer base.  Think about it, if *everyone*
> really hated MS so badly they would actively look for alternatives and MS
> would lose most of its market share, but it's not like that.

I read that people get used to things working badly, and I confirmed it with
my sister. I once watched through the process after she logged in, pointed
at the error popups that appeared, and she just indifferently said "oh yeah
that appears every time, I just close it". She didn't even like... *tell*
me so I can try to fix it.

Or the time I saw her very quickly click on all the FlashBlock placeholders
on a Flash-heavy page (it was clear she had done that a dozen times). She
didn't ever think there had to be an easier way (there is a domain
whitelist).

Post a reply to this message

> I read that people get used to things working badly, and I confirmed it 
> with
> my sister. I once watched through the process after she logged in, pointed
> at the error popups that appeared, and she just indifferently said "oh 
> yeah
> that appears every time, I just close it". She didn't even like... *tell*
> me so I can try to fix it.

Yeh that was kinda my point, normal people don't care enough about things 
like that to even try to find a solution, let alone go around publically 
announcing how they think MS could be run better.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Yeh that was kinda my point, normal people don't care enough about 
> things like that to even try to find a solution, let alone go around 
> publically announcing how they think MS could be run better.

M$ has somehow succeeded in convincing people that it is somehow 
"normal" for computers to not work correctly.

I mean, if your car occasionally stalled for no apparent reason, you'd 
demand to have it fixed. But if your computer sometimes doesn't work, 
everybody seems to think that that's just "how it is", and that this 
incorrect behaviour is somehow "acceptable".

Unfortunately, as more and more stuff becomes computer-controlled, 
people find it more and more acceptable for things to not work properly. 
  For example, mobile phones that occasionally "crash" and have to be 
"rebooted" to make them work again. TVs that occasionally "forget" where 
all the channels are and have to rescan for them. And so on.

10 years ago, if you bought a TV and it sometimes stopped working 
properly, you'd call the manufacturers and demand that they fix it. 
Today, it seems to be the attitude that "oh, well, it's a high-tech 
thing; it's inherantly impossible to make it actually work properly". WTF?

Thank you, Micro$oft.

Post a reply to this message