With so many free alternatives (which offer the same functionality and share compatibility of Microsoft products), does Microsoft really have a future? What would secure it, and if nothing can, what would make them last the extra mile?
Windows -> Linux/BSD
Office -> OpenOffice
Visual Studio -> Only good for Windows anyway, GCC good for any.
Internet Explorer -> Firefox
Outlook -> Evolution/Thunderbird
MSN Messenger -> Gaim
SQL Server -> MySQL (OK not exactly the same features)
Media Player -> Pffft. Too many free ones.
CJK IME -> FreeWnn + kinput2 (not sure of Chinese or Korean Wnn clients)
Paint -> The Gimp
Originally posted by DreamlaX
With so many free alternatives (which offer the same functionality and share compatibility of Microsoft products), does Microsoft really have a future? What would secure it, and if nothing can, what would make them last the extra mile?
Windows -> Linux/BSD
Office -> OpenOffice
Visual Studio -> Only good for Windows anyway, GCC good for any.
Internet Explorer -> Firefox
Outlook -> Evolution/Thunderbird
MSN Messenger -> Gaim
SQL Server -> MySQL (OK not [b]exactly the same features)
Media Player -> Pffft. Too many free ones.
CJK IME -> FreeWnn + kinput2 (not sure of Chinese or Korean Wnn clients)
Paint -> The Gimp[/b]
MySQL is just SQL without the front end...
Microsoft IS the world economy in so many ways. True you can have alternate products, but why would I want to choose Gaim or Yahoo messenger over MSN ? Yes, I use photoshop instead of paint (well for most things) and true if I have a demand for a different product, I purchase that. Take ULead DVD movie factory. Provides me all I need for only £30. I am happy. Microsoft does not intend to compete with ULead in this market, indeed MS has little ambition to dominate the entire global market, but they simply are better than other competitors. Which users really have time to learn Linux and why would you want to ?
Originally posted by DreamlaXIt depends.
With so many free alternatives (which offer the same functionality and share compatibility of Microsoft products), does Microsoft really have a future? What would secure it, and if nothing can, what would make them last the extra mile?
Windows -> Linux/BSD
Office -> OpenOffice
Visual Studio -> Only good for Windows anyway, GCC good for any.
Internet E ...[text shortened]... es.
CJK IME -> FreeWnn + kinput2 (not sure of Chinese or Korean Wnn clients)
Paint -> The Gimp
If you just want to play with computing, then all the "magic" stuff is great.
If you have three weeks to make a company something that will be usable and trouble free, then you need microsoft.
But that's just my opinion. I have been writing commercial software since 1986 and that includes building my own database system... a flat folder with my own index scheme built from binary trees with 10 base leaves.
My question is rather... Is there a hope that any serious business will ever survive if they use unintegrated "toys" into their risk chart?
Originally posted by DreamlaXI think software is becoming a commodity. And that is bad news for Microsoft, because commodites are similar in features and compete on price.
With so many free alternatives (which offer the same functionality and share compatibility of Microsoft products), does Microsoft really have a future? What would secure it, and if nothing can, what would make them last the extra mile?
Windows -> Linux/BSD
Office -> OpenOffice
Visual Studio -> Only good for Windows anyway, GCC good for any.
Internet E ...[text shortened]... es.
CJK IME -> FreeWnn + kinput2 (not sure of Chinese or Korean Wnn clients)
Paint -> The Gimp
The software browser is becoming the most important program on most PCs. Commercial software is moving away from client-server to a browser at client, and apps at server level. And Explorer is losing market share to Firefox and even when they come back better and stronger, how do you keep your browser better for the next twenty years?
If they have lose the browser battle, the operating system is next. Why not run Firefox on Linux if your staff only use browsers?
Originally posted by AlcraI do use dot net for distributed reports and for commiting to PDF format for file transfer.
Agreed whole heartedly.
Install Visual Studio .NET - takes about an hour, of which my participation time is less than five minutes - the rest is file copying and automated tasks.
Install ANY development language on Linux? A few days, of ...[text shortened]... decies etc.
Linux = waste of time. FREE? Don't make me laugh!
But it is not a big need with my customers yet.
It will be eventually. But as long as I can get them by on a T1 band and tie two or three hundred machines together with Citrix... why mess around?
Besides... With my citrix server... I can rent a computer in Mongolia and with three lines of code... log onto a totally secure net and use my computer from anywhere in the world.
The only drawback is the $6700 base license and the extra $14000 to get up to 300 users.
But it works. Faster and better than any 3 gig cpu running alone.
Originally posted by AlcraIf you can code, Linux is not a problem.
Agreed whole heartedly.
Install Visual Studio .NET - takes about an hour, of which my participation time is less than five minutes - the rest is file copying and automated tasks.
Install ANY development language on Linux? A few days, of which most of the time is MY time trying to resolve dependecies etc.
Linux = waste of time. FREE? Don't make me laugh!
What people want is a browser, e-mail client, MP3 player, somewhere to put their digital pics. These are commodities because all the features have been around for years.
Linux is getting easier and easier for newbies. And unless you have installed it recently, you don't how easy it is.
If you have three weeks to make a company something that will be usable and trouble free, then you need microsoft.You don't come from the same planet as those creationist loonies do you? Linux and BSD are much more stable and secure than Windows which is why they are supported by real software companies like IBM, Sun, Oracle and Novell etc
Microsoft simply got lucky by being the first out of bed with a cheap operating system which got them a huge share of the low end business and home market. They have managed to hang on to most of that till now with cunning and sometimes illegal marketing strategies, but certainly not a reputation for reliablilty or innovation. I have never heard of a bank running their systems on Windows and SQL Server.
You're all on the wrong track.
BIG business drives the computer world, BIG business is the USER.
USERS dont care what servers they are connecting to, they dont care what lies behind the interface.
GNU/Linux couldn't compete with microsoft over the USERS ten years ago because the interface wasn't simple enough. That gap has and is narrowing. A good interface is easy if given enough development time. Linux has plenty of time... If the interfaces become equivalent, BIG business wont give a fig which one they use.
GNU/Linux servers are now just as capable as any microsoft server, if not far superior in many areas. Anyone who argues that they are more complicated to setup should be fired if they are in an IT job. BIG business doesn't care how complicated they are to setup...BIG business wants stability and power that microsoft cant provide.
However...it isn't all good for GNU/Linux...
BIG business runs on money, the $ is it's ultimate master.
You'd think GNU/Linux beats microsoft on this one wouldn't you? It's FREE! It's more POWERFULL! It's more STABILE! Why would any sensible business enterprise bother to go with anything else?
But you'd be wrong...
Unfortunately (and wont SVW just love this...), it's communist...
Now, in and of itself, that's not a problem, this isn't politics/economics per se. Nobodies going to get sent to a prison in siberia because of the "cold war" between microsoft and GNU/Linux...
To understand why this is a problem you must first realise how BIG business works in a capitalist economy. Everything has a price, everything is either a commodity or a service. GNU/Linux, by not having a price is therefore neither commodity nor service and is owned by no-one. Effectively, in a capitalist economy it doesn't exist...
How does that translate? It's there all right, plenty of companies use it in some fashion or another, right? Surely this foolish jovian is having a laugh, right?
Imagine you are a BIG business. On the one hand you have GNU/Linux and a lot hyperbole, on the other hand you have a commodity and a price.
If the faeces hit the fan with the commodity, you know that you've PAID some other company for a faulty commodity. You can make back all the money you've spent on the commodity and all the extra costs it has incurred against your revenue from the company that supplied you the faulty product.
If that happens with GNU/Linux...where will you claim back the money you've spent (i.e. on wages, not the "commodity" ) and the revenue you've lost?
Hyperbole such as: "GNU/Linux is so good NOTHING will go wrong", doesn't hold much sway with BIG business...they will follow the $ every time.
Untill GNU/Linux manages to deal with this, microsoft (and the proprietary UNIX systems) isn't going anywhere...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Great! Gets a rec.
You're the first one who actually seems to see the big picture.
Big businesses want all the support they can get. That's what MS sells.
It's a fact that companies relate the price of a product to its quality. You tell some big corporation that your product is free and work just as well as your competitors product - they will 99% of the time buy from your competitor.
This perception will change in the future as Linux usage grows in strides, but until 'Linux' has toll free call centres to support the product where users can call in and say: "my email doesn't work, what can I do? I'm losing $10 million an hour! Help!" they will not be able to actually compete with Mr. Gates.
Originally posted by John GYes I come from that same planet and that same heritage.
You don't come from the same planet as those creationist loonies do you? Linux and BSD are much more stable and secure than Windows which is why they are supported by real software companies like IBM, Sun, Oracle and Novell etc
Microsoft simply got lucky by being the first out of bed with a cheap operating system which got them a huge share of the low ...[text shortened]... I have never heard of a bank running their systems on Windows and SQL Server.
Have you ever met with a small company who wants to develop a proposal/sales/warehouse inventory/dispatch/accounting system and they want to go ahead if the cost for 100 users in four states can be ten thousand dollars and it must be ready to go in 30 days?
I will just say that I have done it and succeeded. I don't have time to play with fancy toys. I'm a capitalist and proud of it. I just want to make money for myself and my customers.
If I were ever "employed" to play with the stuff, I would do so.
I am reminded of the "mini" vs. "ford" crowd in Britain.
And the "chevy vs. ford" crowd in the US.
There is no absolute truth nor absolute best anything. One does what one has been paid to do and/or has the luxury of learning on ones own.
If there is one thing I DID learn in 25 years of framing houses --- "There is no correct way to do the job. There are exactly as many correct ways as one can invent or discover."
That holds for all things. Not just computers and carpentry.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAccording to that quote, nobody can invent or discover a correct way (as the first part says there are none), which then indicates all the houses anyone framed, were framed wrong.
"There is no correct way to do the job. There are exactly as many correct ways as one can invent or discover."
Originally posted by DreamlaXPerhaps you tried to hard, but what I wanted to say is that there are exactly a "million ways to any particular job. A really big percentage of those are 'correct'. I will guess that even if we could determine the absolute best, and the runner-up best, they would be within one percent of the next thousand ways of doing ANY TASK."
According to that quote, nobody can invent or discover a correct way (as the first part says there are none), which then indicates all the houses anyone framed, were framed wrong.
That is my experience. But I'm a liberal who ain't too hung up on "convention".