Future: Linux will replace Microsoft Windows getting 98% desktop market!
Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> Future: Linux will replace Microsoft Windows getting 98% desktop market!
You must be on crack!
> Linux is promoting brilliant ideas and beautiful innovations:
>
> * One single MS Windows 2000 server can serve upto 5000 Linux PCs!
If one microsoft server can do this, then one Linux server can do at least
as much.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nos...@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Q: What do you call a christian who accidently read the bible
with his brain turned on?
A: An atheist
Ken Morris
versions of Windows, especially Windows 9x, in stability I doubt it
will ever get as easy to install and configure as Windows. I'm hoping
it does 'cause I want someone to give Microsoft a run for their money.
And I'm hoping it's Linux now that BeOS is dead.
I like what I see in the Linux distros I've looked at so far.
Especially Mandrake 8.1. It was one of the easiest OSes I've ever
installed but I still had problems with my USB mouse and I still had
to do some configuring to get my burner to work. I just don't have to
do those things with Windows 98SE or 2000 or XP. I must admit 8.1 was
a big improvement over 7, which didn't recognize my sound card,
ethernet nic or Promise PCI ATA controller. 8.1 did recognize all
these things. And YES I was impressed.
I see Linux's true strengh as a Network Operating System. I think over
time it will displace Netware and give NT Server a good run for it's
money. I just don't see it as a home os as it lacks the gaming support
(yeah I kow about WINE) nor do I see it as a business office desktop
platform as there is nothing on the desktop that can touch Microsoft
Office.
I work for the Government of Nova Scotia in Canada. I've had
delegations from Japan, Washington, Iceland, etc arrive at our office
asking us for a laptop with MS Powerpoint so that they give our
management or our Politicians a demonstration of some proposal they
have developed in Powerpoint. The business world uses MS Office. There
is nothing we can do to change that untill something better and less
costly is available. One thing Microsoft does well is Marketing !
Cheers
Kenmo
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:05:24 GMT, computertechnology
<"alavoor[remove-all-this-to-reply]"@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Future: Linux will replace Microsoft Windows getting 98% desktop market!
>
>Linux is promoting brilliant ideas and beautiful innovations:
>
>* One single MS Windows 2000 server can serve upto 5000 Linux PCs!
>
>* Linux runs the MS Windows applications by using WinConnect on
> remote MS Windows 2000/XP server. One single MS Windows 2000/XP
> server is very powerful enough to cater to 5000 Linux users.
> See http://www.thincomputinginc.com/winconnect
>
>* Installing/Upgrading Linux on desktop is less than 5 seconds!
> Please see 'Diskless howto' at http://24.221.230.253
> You will simply pop in "Live Linux" CDROM into the CD drive and
> power on and Linux comes up on desktop! You can upgrade every 2
> months by simply throwing away old CDROM and insert new
> "Live Linux" CDROM, upgrade in just 5 seconds and there is no
> hard disk installation!! Try to upgrade the MS Windows, you
> will spend 4 to 5 hours installing the system and compare that
> with "Live Linux" which takes just 5 seconds to upgrade!
>
>* One large Linux server can cater upto 5000 diskless Linux desktops.
>
>* Alternate option to WinConnect is VNC remote display client,
> for details see 'Diskless howto' at http://24.221.230.253
>
>* Using WinConnect or VNC you can run all the MS Windows
> applications like MS Office, MS Outlook, MS Access, MS Excel
> natively but using Linux Desktops. Extra plus is you can run all
> the Linux applications and MS Windows applications from
> Linux Desktop!
>
>* You may want to kiss and say goodbye to Microsoft on desktop!
> You must also kiss and say goodbye to vast amounts US $$$$$$$s
> which you spent on software licenses from Microsoft. Whatever
> money you spent on MS Windows desktop is gone forever.
> Where do you have so much money to pay Microsoft ??
>
>* Linux is excellent on servers and is rock solid. You will have
> excellent service from Linux on server side. Linux runs
> email servers, database servers, apache web servers,
> application servers, file servers, print servers, source code
> control CVS servers and the list goes on and on and
> on ...... hundreds and hundreds of them.
>
>* Linux is a serious competition to Microsoft on desktops and
> servers!
>
>For details on Linux visit the mega site
> http://24.221.230.253
>
>Every day about 10,000 persons visit this popular site!
>
P60
Or:
One single MS Windows 2000 server can serve time upto 5000 Linux PCs
Arne
Bob Raymond
news:fp6j6ucft153fohga...@4ax.com:
> I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Although Linux may surpass some
> versions of Windows, especially Windows 9x, in stability I doubt it
> will ever get as easy to install and configure as Windows. I'm hoping
> it does 'cause I want someone to give Microsoft a run for their money.
> And I'm hoping it's Linux now that BeOS is dead.
I'd say for most distros with a graphical install, Linux is already
easier to install than Windows. That entire graphical install program
(even the kernel load is graphical in most distros) can be much more
appealing to newbies than the same blue-screen, white text Microsoft has
used since DOS. Now configuration once set up can be a little tricky for
the newbie, but that's improving fast too.
> I like what I see in the Linux distros I've looked at so far.
> Especially Mandrake 8.1. It was one of the easiest OSes I've ever
> installed but I still had problems with my USB mouse and I still had
> to do some configuring to get my burner to work. I just don't have to
> do those things with Windows 98SE or 2000 or XP. I must admit 8.1 was
> a big improvement over 7, which didn't recognize my sound card,
> ethernet nic or Promise PCI ATA controller. 8.1 did recognize all
> these things. And YES I was impressed.
SuSE 7.3 Pro set up my burner automatically. It's not too hard to do
that in the distros that don't do it automatically either (just a little
append= line). I'm surprised you had a USB mouse problem. I haven't
really had one of those since I was using Caldera 2.3. XP you have to
install add-on software for burning, which can be very expensive,
incompatible, etc. Now rewriting doesn't even work at all for me in XP.
Roxio has yet to add support for my burner, and Nero doesn't seem to like
working with Windows Explorer too much.
> I see Linux's true strengh as a Network Operating System. I think over
> time it will displace Netware and give NT Server a good run for it's
> money. I just don't see it as a home os as it lacks the gaming support
> (yeah I kow about WINE) nor do I see it as a business office desktop
> platform as there is nothing on the desktop that can touch Microsoft
> Office.
Star Office? K Office will be up there once they can get their Word
import filters straightened out, but already Excel files are a snap with
KSpread. And it's WineX for games, not just Wine. You need both.
What's wrong with some of the current gaming offerings? Quake 3, Unreal,
Tribes 2, and quite a few more are available natively for Linux, and they
are pretty popular for Windows still.
> I work for the Government of Nova Scotia in Canada. I've had
> delegations from Japan, Washington, Iceland, etc arrive at our office
> asking us for a laptop with MS Powerpoint so that they give our
> management or our Politicians a demonstration of some proposal they
> have developed in Powerpoint. The business world uses MS Office. There
> is nothing we can do to change that untill something better and less
> costly is available. One thing Microsoft does well is Marketing !
KPresent is getting there. If someone on the KDE team would follow
through with one of their commercial ideas they keep having in the
interviews, it would have marketing.
terry
>
> computertechnology wrote:
> >
> > Future: Linux will replace Microsoft Windows getting 98% desktop market!
>
> You must be on crack!
>
> > Linux is promoting brilliant ideas and beautiful innovations:
> >
> > * One single MS Windows 2000 server can serve upto 5000 Linux PCs!
>
> If one microsoft server can do this, then one Linux server can do at least
> as much.
>
> Erik
> --
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
> Erik de Castro Lopo nos...@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
>
> A: A Christian
--
Registered Linux User #188099
><>
Daykin2k
"Ken Morris" <ke...@hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
news:fp6j6ucft153fohga...@4ax.com...
Juha Siltala
> beos are dead aka out of business ?
beos=dead yes :(
--
Juha Siltala
Gnarr!
Stephen Plumb
my tupence worth. I went to the local computer vendor the other day and
looked at the Microsoft XP professional . About R5 500, Microsoft Office XP
Professional. About R7 500. That means for me to equip my four office
machines with MS OS plus office comes out at R52 000. This is before I start
with Dev Studio or anything else. By comparisson I can build a reasonable PC
inc monitor etc for about R10 000.00. This would be a AMD system that runs
say two speeds below their current range topper.
Now in Salary terms you can pretty much put a $ in place of the South
African Rand, but as of the recent crash it is around 11ZAR to the USD.
Since that little walkabout I am examining exactly what I can achieve on
Linux.
I have not yet found anything to match the ease of development of VB but I
have had a look at Kylix and it has promise. I will still have to do a
little development on MS for outside users, but all my internal work and
analysis is going to be moving across to Linux as soon as I can recode all
the algorithms into C++. This will take a while but it is better in the long
run for me.
I must now, sadly, regard South Africa as a 3rd world country and quite
frankly MS is just too expensive even though I agree it is nice and easy to
use, and even here it is still prevalent. I know that other 3rd world
countries like India are heavily into Linux because they too have a weak
currency. I have also heard of many acedemic institiutions going linux as
they cannot afford to Site Licence MS.
I see price as the thing that will ultimately loose MS marketshare. If they
considered a 3rd World Structured pricing stratergy then I may be persuaded
to look at them again but for now my efforts are focused on how I can get
linux onto the desktop, and like owning a Landrover, I suspect there will be
no return once I am converted.
I just wish there was more support in terms of applications but I think the
tide is turning, and each time I look around there is more available. In
terms of Hardware support, my purchasing decision will be influenced by the
support for Linux.
We shall have to see how it all pans out in the next ten years or so. I
don't hate Bill. No one forced anyone to use MS, he was just cunning and, as
has been said, MS marketing is very good. I just want to see Linux as a
viable alternative choice that you don't have to be a complete geek to run,
and I think it is getting there fast.
Regards
Stephen
choxen1
a long time, if ever, before it can compete in the home market. Gnome and
KDE are just not ready for prime time and the X-Servers are slower than
windows. Until Win2k Linux had a shot but didn't take advantage of it.
Anyone remember OS/2 which was backed by a huge corporation, IBM, and is now
a foot note in PC history.
I'm a Linux user and love it, but I'm also a realist.
"Daykin2k" <dayk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10149009...@drone4.qsi.net.nz...
Bob Raymond
news:u7vfjfb...@corp.supernews.com:
> Linux can give M$ a run for their money in the server market, but it
> will be a long time, if ever, before it can compete in the home
> market. Gnome and KDE are just not ready for prime time and the
> X-Servers are slower than windows. Until Win2k Linux had a shot but
> didn't take advantage of it. Anyone remember OS/2 which was backed by
> a huge corporation, IBM, and is now a foot note in PC history.
X-Servers slower than Windows, GNOME and KDE not ready for prime time?
Not really. My experience has been that KDE very rarely crashes, I can
configure it any way I wamt to, and I can actually choose between it and
any other window manager (I don't use GNOME very often, but when I do, it
never crashes, I can configure it any way I want to, etc. Right now,
yes, X11 is running slower than Windows because I have a Radeon 8500,
which doesn't have full support. But I wonder why I could run the latest
and greatest KDE on my old Rage 128 Pro which currently chokes with
Windows 2000 on a 433mhz Celeron?
And plenty of people use OS/2 even to this day.
Anthony W. Youngman
>news:fp6j6ucft153fohga...@4ax.com...
>> I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Although Linux may surpass some
>> versions of Windows, especially Windows 9x, in stability I doubt it
>> will ever get as easy to install and configure as Windows. I'm hoping
>> it does 'cause I want someone to give Microsoft a run for their money.
>> And I'm hoping it's Linux now that BeOS is dead.
>>
you!
In my experience linux has LONG been EASIER to install than windows.
Installing doze has been an absolute nightmare on far too many
occasions. Take my current attempts with Win2K. I'm trying to install
that on the same disk (different drive letter) to Win98. It stomps all
over the 98 partition, reboots, and blue-screens. Installing 98 on that
machine was a real pain too - it kept on blue-screening, but when I gave
up and came back the next day it was fine...
On the other hand, linux has been a cinch almost since I first started
trying to install it with a distro called Universe. Even Slack on
floppies was dead easy, just thoroughly boring as I swapped floppy after
floppy (30 in total! :-(
How people can claim doze is easier to install I don't know (unless by
install they mean "switch on and let the auto-install just run).
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Rick [Kitty5]
> you!
>
> In my experience linux has LONG been EASIER to install than windows.
> Installing doze has been an absolute nightmare on far too many
> occasions. Take my current attempts with Win2K. I'm trying to install
> that on the same disk (different drive letter) to Win98. It stomps all
> over the 98 partition, reboots, and blue-screens. Installing 98 on that
> machine was a real pain too - it kept on blue-screening, but when I gave
> up and came back the next day it was fine...
>
> On the other hand, linux has been a cinch almost since I first started
> trying to install it with a distro called Universe. Even Slack on
> floppies was dead easy, just thoroughly boring as I swapped floppy after
> floppy (30 in total! :-(
>
> How people can claim doze is easier to install I don't know (unless by
> install they mean "switch on and let the auto-install just run).
Another 'Linux was easy for me to install, therefore the world and his
dog will have the exact same experience'
Installing is a pointless argument in any event, as most users (myself
included) are far more interested in the final result of said install.
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
tony
<ri...@kitty5.com> wrote:
> Another 'Linux was easy for me to install, therefore the world and his
> dog will have the exact same experience'
Shut up rick. It is the same when you came here some time ago and made a
royal idiot of yourself and claimed mandrake was hard to install and W2k
is the best OS for "real work".
Just because you are unix challanged does not mean unix is hard.
Bryon Lape
XP since Windows 286 on machines (that includes NT and 2000 server). I've also
installed Slackware and RedHat. Slack 7 was when LInux begame to be easy to
install. The problem I have with Linux is getting everything configured
correctly. But easy is also a relative term. On one machine, I had to find a DOS
driver for the CD-ROM so it would show up in WIndows 98 (eventhough the install
programme found it fine). Also, trying to do a dual-boot with windows is better
when you use something like partion magic.
ChubZee
the horror) it becomes 'easier' to install than M$ Operating systems. This
is down to the fat that the installers are so powerful in comparison to
anything WinDoze has to offer. Just yesterday I installed the new version of
Mandrake on my PC, and Windoze XP on a friends.Both PCs are of an almost
identical spec and while the Mandrake install took around half an hour
longer, I was still configuring the XP box this morning, whereas my Mandrake
box has been running perfecly all night.
For the less computer literate people around the world, they will always go
for the easier, and unfortunately M$, option.But as soon as a linux distro
gets an installer that is as easy to use as any for Windoze but still has
the power current installers have, M$ are going to be in real trouble.
"Bryon Lape" <aint...@noway.com> wrote in message
news:3C93569C...@noway.com...
Acme Optics
Not until lots of companies switch the company PCs (the ones the
average employee uses) from MS to LINUX will we see this great
"takeover" come true. I hope it happens but I can't see it in the near
future. I hope I'm wrong.
Jim Klein
Carolyn Beckman
> In article <a6vh21$hgisc$1...@ID-83783.news.dfncis.de>, "Rick [Kitty5]"
> <ri...@kitty5.com> wrote:
>> Another 'Linux was easy for me to install, therefore the world and his
>> dog will have the exact same experience'
I do have a dual-booting machine, with win95 and winNT in the
primary partition and Slackware 8.0 in the extended partion.
The microsloth part of it was far harder to install, because of
the usual lack of information. Do I use the NT and 95. Hardly
at all. It is there because I have to support it for other
people. In my opinion, In spite of the obvious superiority
of linux, it will never replace windows. The reason is simple.
There is a large group of people who know nothing and do not
wish to learn anything about computers. They just wish to use
them. They survive until they louse up the system so badly that
it has to be repaired or reinstalled by someone who knows how.
Furthermore, as the knowledge of dos fades, they have no idea
of what the command line is. Slackware is for the user with
some idea of software and hardware.
--
=================================================================
bec...@clone.concordia.ca
Carolyn Beckman
=================================================================
Lordy
news:6YAsVBFJB$i8E...@thewolery.demon.co.uk:
> How people can claim doze is easier to install I don't know (unless by
> install they mean "switch on and let the auto-install just run).
Yes they do :)
Its not just about installing the OS. Its about getting all your hardware
supported.
Unfortunately, for anything that needs a software driver, hardware
manufacturers generally only produce Windows drivers. If you are lucky
you get an *unsupported* linux driver from the manufacturers web-site.
Until this changes (and it is no fault of Linux but due to "market
forces") Linux will always be harder to get **fully** running with
hardware Mr Joe Blogs might buy.
eg. Scanners, Soft Modems, USB stuff etc.
The geeks among us may be prepared to spend a whole evening getting a
scanner to work but Joe Bloggs will be pi***ed. Joe Bloggs doesnt have an
external modem either.
Joe Blogs doesnt want to read a HOW-TO document which , with all the good
will in the world, is probably written with a similar philosophy as Unix
man pages (from geek to geek), although I prepare to be corrected on that
one :)
I long ago decided to buy onlywell known hadrware that has Linux drivers
on their website. Joe Bloggs doesnt do this .. yet.
Lordy
Gomez
UNIX is user friendly. It's just picky about who it's friends are.
G.
Anthony W. Youngman
>> Linux will never be as easy to install as Windows? I've got news for
>> you!
>>
>> In my experience linux has LONG been EASIER to install than windows.
>> Installing doze has been an absolute nightmare on far too many
>> occasions. Take my current attempts with Win2K. I'm trying to install
>> that on the same disk (different drive letter) to Win98. It stomps all
>> over the 98 partition, reboots, and blue-screens. Installing 98 on that
>> machine was a real pain too - it kept on blue-screening, but when I gave
>> up and came back the next day it was fine...
>>
>> On the other hand, linux has been a cinch almost since I first started
>> trying to install it with a distro called Universe. Even Slack on
>> floppies was dead easy, just thoroughly boring as I swapped floppy after
>> floppy (30 in total! :-(
>>
>> How people can claim doze is easier to install I don't know (unless by
>> install they mean "switch on and let the auto-install just run).
>
>Another 'Linux was easy for me to install, therefore the world and his
>dog will have the exact same experience'
You missed the "doze has been a nightmare far too often" bit...
>
>Installing is a pointless argument in any event, as most users (myself
>included) are far more interested in the final result of said install.
I couldn't agree more. I just get totally fed up with the "linux is
difficult" propaganda, seeing as my experience is that doze is all too
often a nightmare...