The death of Microsoft
- Thread starter prt_systems
- Start date
No grudge: I still work with their systems and with them. Just a reality statement about their business practices. You seem to be missing the point as well - there is no licensing practice with open source: its free. There are two paths that you can use to build your business infrastructure: the $soft licensing model or the free opensource model. Its youtr choice.
Linux and LAMP and the other tiers of servers currently available are great alternatives to $soft and are very cost effective. I am just surprised that so many people dont have the sense to lower their costs and improve their ROI ... but its still true ... a fool and their money ....
No you grow up. Go ahead and tell me why any company would be investing dollars in another round of $soft fee increases when they have an alternative. Moreover, I am just stating what I see in the market and yet I keep gettting people saying it isn't happening.
It is and its going to be a big problem for $soft down the road unless they modfify their approach. Frankly, I dont care if they lose market share or not.... But things really are not going their way of late and I think they need only look at their own management structure for a solution.
Quote from Agyar:
The same people that have been putting up with them for years. MS will continue to lose small amounts of market share to Linux etc., but there will not be a large deluge until Linux gets their shit together.
The main reason that MS will continue for a while is just momentum. IT leaders do not want to take the risk of a Linux move when MS licensing is such a relatively small budget item for them. You may think it is a huge chunk of change, but I am familiar with MS licensing and it doesn't really cost all that much. IT leaders are a risk-averse type. Why take the huge risk of changing to Linux? If it blows up in their faces, they have to answer some hard questions from the people in charge. "What benefit was gained taking this risk to move to a different OS?", for example. There is no "killer app" for linux that overcomes this in general computing. There may be some in some niche areas.
This is also not an issue in the cheapest of the cheap companies that will take the opportunity to cut every single dime they can from their budgets and just deal with whatever risk comes their way. This is one of the big areas that Linux has had success in (the other being companies with anti-MS zealots in leadership). I prefer not to work for this type of company, because any company too cheap to pay MS licensing fees doesn't want to pay me what I'm worth either.
I'm more interested in what people are saying day after day when file servers aren't working....
On my side, I prefered to pocket the 60000$ bonus out of the 120000$ my ex-company (12 people) spared using linux rather than M$ products...thanks to me.... and this was in september 2000... But I love seeing people being 5-10 years late....
I have another point about M$, far away from all these details of licensing : it just doesn't work...and is very limited...
Please, can someone explain to me how to become temporarily user B when you are logged as user A under windows ?
Please, can someone explain to me how to become temporarily user B when you are logged as user A under windows ?
Well, you can still impersonate (a new version of that old idea) another set of credentials ... if allowed.
If you mean ssh or rlogin ... I think you can still do that from a command line if you have utilities installed, or you can just use rsh .... you can also use the VNC client : at least on 2000 I have not fully tested it on XP/2003
a simple equivalent of 'su - user', just as simple as that...and then being able to open any application as this user...
I wish it were that simple ....... Isn't linux great ?
Actually, the 'su - user' is more a GNU system thing....but this is out of reach of most computer illiterate users here... ;-)
Actually, I agree with you that Linux is great. I have a Debian box running at home that I enjoy spending time on. I sure as hell would not give it to my mother to use though, and she navigates around Windows fine. In the October Linux Format magazine you'll find one of the editors agreeing that Linux is not ready to storm the corporate desktop. Check out the article titled "The Problem with Desktop Linux" by one of the editors, Paul Hudson. Here are some relevant passages.
QUOTE
It should be clear to everyone that Linux is no less suitable for the desktop than any other OS, at least in terms of the technology. That is, if you're talking about how advanced the OS is, Linux certainly competes with all corners. So, if we know it's technologically advanced, we know it's free, we know it's secure and we know it's fast, why do best estimates show Linux on only a 3.5% market share?
QUOTE
In his foreword to the 2001 book Everyday Linux, Eric Raymond wrote: "The days when Linux was really more complex to administer than a Windows machine are long past us."
[...]
Raymond was back three years later with a long rant about how hard it was to get his printer working on the network. This time he said: "The best intentions and effort have led to a system which despite its superficial pseudo-friendliness is so undiscoverable that it might as well have been written in ancient Sanskrit."