The state of the PC and the modern business/home user

[FireXtol]

So where do you see the future of applications?
It seems, more and more, applications are being moved from the desktop to the web browser. This has great portability as any OS that runs a browser is now a possible client. It allows a business to run heterogeneous computer environments. It allows home users a simple way of interaction, as most users spend a large portion of their time in a web browser. There's typically no installation, besides a one time(and updates, such as Flash).

Do you think open source is a threat?
Businesses are fast moving to open source solutions, for obvious reasons. Even home users often use open source, such as FireFox. Most applications have a GPL, BSD, or otherwise open source licensed counterpart. How do you plan to compete with free?

How long do you see Microsoft as the market leader?
By many sources Windows has fallen below 90% share. If Windows continues to leak users, and open source alternatives become ever more mature and geared towards actual desktop users rather than server environments then do you see any significant reasons to why users would stick with Windows(beyond "it's what they're used to")? I find this especially relevant as Microsoft continues to make older applications obsolete/legacy supported. I mean, if people can't use what they're used to on the latest Windows, then this seems like rational for the likelihood of jumping ship. Especially if they're basically using the same open source applications, but just on a different OS.

Do you find open source knowledge valuable?
Can you use Bash? Have you ever used any open source OS? Do you know any open source frameworks? If you got a new job where they used popular free OSS, would you be ready?

[FunkyDexter]

I think Microsoft have got it sown up for a while yet. Whether linux users like to acknowledge it or not, Windows is still the most user freindly OS for the uneducated user. My Mum can (and has) installed Windows. She has exactly zero chance of being able to install any of the linux distros that are out there. She'd be totally lost. To answer some of your specific points:-

applications are being moved from the desktop to the web browser

I disagree. This is often cited but I've seen precious little evidence to actually support it. There are some apps that are suited to web and some that are suited to desktop. There is and will always be plenty of scope for both and, when a developer makes the wrong choice of platform because they fall in love with one or the other, their app usually fails.

Businesses are fast moving to open source solutions

Again, this is often cited and, again, I've seen precious little evidence of this. There are a few success stories but they remain very much the minority. I've tended to work direct for clients during my career - i.e. not for IT companies - and I find that most companies are extremely risk averse where their IT is concerned. Open Source is generally percieved as a risk for the very reason that it's not proprietary. If a company goes to Microsoft for it systems they know they will be getting ready support via a ready made consultancy network. That guarantee simply does not exist with open source software.

Windows has fallen below 90% share

I don't know if that's true but, regardless, I'd counter with: so what? 90% share is still, fundamentally a complete monopoly. I hardly think this represents Windows "leaking users".

"it's what they're used to"

Don't dismiss that - it's probably the single most powerful purchasing driver for the vast majority of home users. Windows does what they want. It does it as fast as they want. It does it in a way their familiar with. The questionis not why wouldn't they swicth, it's why would they.

Do you find open source knowledge valuable

Occasionally, yes... but then I'm a technical user. My mum will probably point her toes up without ever touching open source because a) she's not particularly aware of it and b) it would scare the bejeezus out of here.

Whether you like to admit it or not (and I suspect you don't) Microsoft does what it does extremely well. It produces products that are perfectly sufficient for the needs of the vast majority of users and markets them well. Open source occasionally over achieves in the former - which matters not one jot - and utterly fails in the latter. You will now go on to argue thet linux is better than windows because it's faster and more lightweight. You will argue that firefox is better than explorer because it's more feature rich. And you will only be demonstrating that you've completely missed the point. Most users don't want better, they just want comfortable.

[GaryMazzone]

The desktop application is dead and everything will be on the web was be screamed at us over 10 years ago..... I still use desktop apps, I have 0 web apps in use. Why would I want Google or MS or Oracle to hold my data it is mine I will keep it mine as long as it is possible.

[baja_yu]

Depends on what the "future" is, how much far ahead. I'd like to say open source but that will take some time. I don't see it in the next 7-10 years at least.

[FireXtol]

Oh, Funky, of course you say Windows is user friendly. That's like saying English is the most user friendly when all you know is English!

Well, there's Drupal, SugarCRM, Joomla!, osCommerce, Magneto, Openoffice, Linaro, IBM has internally switched to FireFox(which is right in line with their 'Migration to Linux' red book: A. switch to OSS apps, B. switch the OS, keeping the same OSS apps), Thunderbird, Chromium, Webkit, WebM, LAMP(Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP), Samba, WordPress, CVS, Subversion, VLC player, Handbrake, Pidgin, Audacity, Blender, ClamAV, Notepad++, GIMP/GIMPShop, Eclipse, GCC, Python, PDFCreator, TrueCrypt, VirtualBox, and a bunch more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_al...etary_software (Not all OSS) and more strictly OSS here: http://mashable.com/2007/09/23/open-source/

According to Gartner 85% of businesses currently use open source software(OSS), and the remaining 15% expecting to adopt OSS within the next year(this was a couple years ago). More here

Open source usage in embedded devices is also very popular. I'm sure you've heard of Android. Even my router runs Linux.

Then you have Microsoft's numerous failures such as watches, cell phones, music players, and tablet PCs. About the only products doing well are Windows and Office.

Websites: VBForums.com, Google.com, Bing.com, Youtube.com, Facebook.com, Twitter.com, Wikipedia.com, Blogger.com, Amazon.com, Flickr.com, Apple.com, BBC.co.uk, imdb.com, Adobe.com, AOL.com, Ask.com, Paypal.com, Cnet.com, Launchpad.net, Sourceforge.com, and NYTimes.com all run on Linux. Not to mention countless others. Hotmail?! Yea, it runs(for DNS) on BSD and Yahoo(very BSD friendly), too.

Perhaps you just don't realize how common web apps are? Such as Hotmail, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Yahoo email, Aviary(a creative suite), picnik, Youtube's new video editor, MS office web apps, Pandora, Spotify, and the endless Flash and Java applets.

Google thinks web apps are such a great idea that they designed an OS around a web browser! And numerous motherboard manufacturers are making technologies to quickly boot to -you guessed it -a web browser!

I use Opera, by the way(see my sig ). And I think you're missing the point. All that users are concerned with is doing what they want. "Can x do y?" If it can then they're happy. Most don't care about the OS they're on. Most don't care about the processor in the machine. They certainly don't care what software they use as long as it does what they want it to do reasonably(and cost is only insignificant to pirates).

I'm not trying to convert anyone to Linux. Do I think Linux/OSS knowledge is valuable? Damn right! Doesn't mean I think that you shouldn't use Windows.

Linux is certainly not lacking support. All the big names offer it. Canonical/Ubuntu, Novell/SUSE, Fedora/Red Hat and so on. Funky, I'd honestly wager that your mom could install a Linux distribution(like one of the three I just mentioned). Assuming one can watch and learn from a short 4 minute video on YouTube... then anyone should be able to install it!

baja_yu, have you heard of Linaro? It's a pretty bold move by numerous big names into making Linux manufacturer-friendly. Specializing in low-level support of core Linux runtimes(such as the kernel, device drivers, and other integral subsystems). The goal is to make Linux('distribution agnostic') more efficient across any distributions that choose to participate. Oh, and they're planning 6 month release cycles starting this November.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

FX - It seems, more and more, applications are being moved from the desktop to the web browser.

FD - There are some apps that are suited to web and some that are suited to desktop.

I would have to agree with Mr Funky (sorry i cant stop calling you that after i saw some noob call you it in a post ) my company develops and sells all kinds of application from legal case management software to Project Management, CRM, course booking, Stadium Management/ticketing applications amongst others.

Certain software like the Project Management system are web based hosted systems and seem to suit web development, but because of the tight integration needed with various other desktop software you wouldn't build a Case Management system as a web system. I personally think that it is horses for courses. Most applications suite one or the other type of development some you could do with either.

Quote:
"it's what they're used to"

Don't dismiss that - it's probably the single most powerful purchasing driver for the vast majority of home users.

Yep, the general public are fairly conservative where software is concerned, and users at a company even more so. Try moving an average user onto Linux from Windows and they would not know were to begin.

The biggest two challenges Linux faces is to be accepted in the corporate world and games. Moving the average user away from MS Office is a fairly monolithic task. Most corporate IT Directors are firmly in the Microsoft camp.

The Corporate Market and the Gamers market are two of the biggest around when it comes to PC's and if Linux is to gain any major traction on the desktop it needs to address these areas.

Linux will always be around, and i like it as an operating system but it is not about to overtake windows any time soon on the Desktop, everyone can see that it's major growth area is mobile computing.

Well, there's Drupal, SugarCRM, Joomla!, osCommerce, Magneto, Openoffice, Linaro, IBM has internally switched to FireFox(which is right in line with their 'Migration to Linux' red book: A. switch to OSS apps, B. switch the OS, keeping the same OSS apps), Thunderbird, Chromium, Webkit, WebM, LAMP(Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP), Samba, WordPress, CVS, Subversion, VLC player, Handbrake, Pidgin, Audacity, Blender, ClamAV, Notepad++, GIMP/GIMPShop, Eclipse, GCC, Python, PDFCreator, TrueCrypt, VirtualBox,

Look you have named some good software there but most people will never come into contact with any of it bar Open Office, firefox and Thunderbird. Most of that software is really for technical users or developers.

[FunkyDexter]

That's like saying English is the most user friendly when all you know is English!

It's amazing how few people in the Western are bi-lingual isn't it? What does that tell you about human nature?

Well, there's Drupal, SugarCRM...

I've never heard of most of them. The rest of civilisation has never heard of most of them. They're not sucesses in any meaningful terms. You've heard of them because you a technical user and are therefore interested in such things. The great unwashed, however, couldn't care less.

85% of businesses currently use open source software(OSS),

Businesses use a range of software. It's not surprising that some open source is included in there somewhere but it doesn't mean they're adopting it any meaningful way. What percentage of businesses use Microsoft? I'm willing to bet it's 100% (or so close to it as makes no difference)

Perhaps you just don't realize how common web apps are?

Perhaps you don't realise how common desktop apps are? As I said, neither has a monopoly and neither is close to it.

Assuming one can watch and learn from a short 4 minute video on YouTube

Try that pitch on my mum and she'll look at you blankly. Why should she go and find a tutorial on YouTube. She barely knows what you tube is.

And I think you're missing the point. All that users are concerned with is doing what they want. "Can x do y?" If it can then they're happy. Most don't care about the OS they're on. Most don't care about the processor in the machine. They certainly don't care what software they use as long as it does what they want it to do reasonably(and cost is only insignificant to pirates).

I agree with all of that except the first sentence. Users don't care what app they're using. They don't care what OS they're using. And since they don't care, what's their motivation to change? Cost won't cut it as an argument, I'm afraid, because they see the lost time and frustration of learning a new world as offsetting any financial saving - if they're even aware of the alternatives. In truth, the cost of a windows install isn't significant enough for most of them to even bother looking around. Actually, I think you're the one that's missed the point. You're a technical user who's willing to spend some time and effort to get the most out of your machine. The rest of the world will happily spend a few quid not to have to think about it because they just don't care.

Consider this: your question is whether the world will adopt open source. It's not about whether they should adopt it. Purchasing decisions are emotional, not logical. Microsoft and Apple actively market to pull your emotional strings. Open Source hopes you'll make a logical decision. Conclusion: Open Source will always fail to reach anything more than a hard core minority.

Mr Funky (sorry i cant stop calling you that after i saw some noob call you it in a post )

Hey, if I could get all my mates to call me that I'd happy man. Groovy, Baby. Yeah!

[JuggaloBrotha]

I haven't seen Funky take this point on yet, so I'll chime in on my 2 cents:

Google thinks web apps are such a great idea that they designed an OS around a web browser!

You mean to say:
Google thinks web apps are so great they're taking the most basic unbloated Linux and tweaking it to boot to a hidden desktop that can run only 1 program: Google Chrome.

It's not a web browser operating system at all. It's a web browser running on an operating system like normal, an operating system designed to hold the PC as far back as possible, something that would mean we don't need dual core processors or even a cpu faster than 900MHz. Conceptually it's bringing the idea of main frames back into modern technology, have the server do all the processing and the thin client (a pc only running a web browser) handle the interaction with the web app and the user, no processing power (other than silverlight, some javascript and/or flash) on the end client needed.

And numerous motherboard manufacturers are making technologies to quickly boot to -you guessed it -a web browser!

Yes, yes they are making motherboards to boot faster, as well as making them support other faster hardware, etc... Have been since the first motherboard ever made and will continue to do so as long as circuit boards are being created at least. That's nothing new at all, and stating this doesn't re-enforce your points at all, though since web browser's aren't operating systems it'd be awfully hard to have a motherboard boot a web browser, it has to load the OS first and the OS loads the browser.

[Blakk_Majik]

According to Gartner 85% of businesses currently use open source software(OSS), and the remaining 15% expecting to adopt OSS within the next year(this was a couple years ago).

This is misleading. You neglect to point out that it was a survey, and on top of that, the survey only covered 274 organizations. Add on that these were spread out between Asia, Europe, and North America, and this survey becomes almost useless.

Furthermore, the article states that the businesses "use" open source, but does not give a penetration percentage. If a company allows people to use Chrome as their browser (as I do at home), that company technically uses open source. However, if they use Windows for OS and Server software, MSSQL for databases, Office for documents, Outlook for e-mail, and Visual Studio for all software development, how much is that enterprise really invested in OSS?

Mobile is uncharted territory, so it's up for grabs. It's easy for software such as Android to make big waves there, because there is currently no standard of exactly what a mobile handset should do, and how it should do it (although Apple did in fact lay some of this groundwork with the iPhone).

PC's have defined purposes, and thanks to Windows, a template of what a PC should be able to do, and how the user should interact with the underlying system.

Windows also has huge support from hardware vendors. When a new version of Windows comes out, manufacturers race to make sure their devices are compatible (although some dropped the ball with Vista). Hardware support for Linux generally occurs "when they get to it".

[FireXtol]

@NeedSomeAnswers, I don't see how Mr Funky's and my statements you quote are in conflict. Whether or not web applications are being developed for traditional desktop applications does not change the potential suitability of either. I also agree with Mr Funky on his point that "some apps are better suited for web, and some for desktops"(paraphrased). Every single piece of software "I use and highly recommend" in my signature is a desktop application.

A quick Google and I've found plenty web-based Case Management Systems. I guess you don't research comparables in your business. Interesting... I'd bet your customers do.

Many Linux distributions are as simple to use as a Macintosh. Want software? There are numerous repositories. Find what you want, click Install, and it's taken care of. Just as an installer does for Windows. It's basically the 'App Store', only everything is gratis.

Linux has already been accepted in the corporate world. Where do you think most of the contributions to Linux come from? Directly from corporations. Many hire programmers to code open source, and to modify and improve the software to meet their business models' demands.

I don't think you understand the implications. Let me break it down. Businesses switch to OSS on Windows or even Macintosh. Their entire list of needed software, sans the OS, is OSS. Now, what's stopping them from also moving the OS to OSS? Most businesses aren't emotional. They are logical. Then, and only then, we shall see (slowly, surely) adults also moving their home PCs to entirely OSS(and the next generation of children learn Linux from their parents). It'll be what they use practically every day in their work environments(it'll be what children use every day at home). They will learn it intimately in order to satisfy their role in the corporation(or just to have fun). They will all become comfortable with it.

@Mr Funky, I suppose it tells me that people learn and know what's most practical.

Globally, Joomla/Drupal/other OSS is easily more popular than SharePoint. Surprised you're so unaware. Do you consider yourself technically inclined? Because in China, Russia, Taiwan, India, Japan, Indonesia, Germany, Finland, Austria, and the Czech Republic Linux is very popular(to name just a few). (basically every nation that actually manufacturers computers/semiconductors)

According to numerous independent statistical measures Internet Explorer(all versions) has dropped below 50% market share(globally). In certain countries this is especially noticeable due to the browser ballot.

OpenOffice has had over 160 million downloads. Potential loss to MS, had these users bought MS Office instead, is around 56 billion USD. More here

In case you missed it: Every single piece of software "I use and highly recommend" in my signature is a desktop application.

Again.... You're clearly demonstrating you do not understand. Most users know next to nothing about how or why Windows 'works'. They use software(mostly a web browser). Much of that software is available on other operating systems. It's a nearly identical user experience regardless of platform. FireFox doesn't change drastically from Windows to Macintosh to Linux. Web pages still look and function the same.

I realize that in the UK amongst English speaking individuals that Linux is quite unpopular, and Mac and Windows is very popular. Definitely more so than amongst non-English speakers.

You appear to assume I'm solely a Linux user. That's just untrue. I am more or less forced to use Windows just like most others that want 'proper' hardware support(mainly device drivers), and software that makes use of hardware acceleration(which requires drivers). As hardware manufacturers move towards desktop support for OSS(it is happening), I will surely be happy to ditch Windows.

@Blakk_Majik, Neglect? I linked to it!

Yes, you're exactly right. It's not a measure of "completely OSS", but it does demonstrate a willingness to use OSS where companies see fit. That's all that was intended by my use of it.

I suggest you also look into Linaro. It has very big names backing it.

===

Windows may be the hare, but OSS is the tortoise.

[FunkyDexter]

Can I just say how happy I am that everyone has started referring to me as "Mr Funky"? This is perfect as the Mr part conveys the respect and deference to which I've always known I was entitled (it has long been a mystery to me as to why no-one seems to hold the same opinion) while the Funky bit acknowledges my ongoing tendancy to wear loud shirts and 'Get On Down Like a Sex Machine"... or something like that.

I would still challenge your assertion that Linux has been accepted into the corporate world. I guess it depends on your definition of "accepted" but my experience (mostly with small to medium businesses) is that they really aren't interested in pushing any boundaries at all where their operating systems are concerned. They want something that is familiar, trusted and supported. The cost of Windows is negligible when compared to, for example, the Marketing budget. Businesses want to concentrate on their core function, not ancillary functions like IT which they'd rather just have ticking along in the background and throw some cash at occasionaly. They most certainly do not want to be hiring programmers to tailor someone else's product.

And I still haven't seen any evidence to support that acceptance which is so often quoted. I've come across companies using Nix based server systems (though Windows Server still seems to have a far higher penetration to me) but I haven't come across a single company yet that has deployed anything other than Windows as their desktop OS.

And I would SERIOUSLY challenge this:"Most businesses aren't emotional. They are logical." Perhaps they should be logical but "should" and "are" are two very different beasts.

I suppose it tells me that people learn and know what's most practical

It should tell you that people think about the bare minimum they can get away with, practical or otherwise. We're lazy, particularly where new ideas are concerned.

Do you consider yourself technically inclined?

No, not really. More technical than my mum, perhaps, but I've never really found technology a turn on. I like puzzles and logic problems, I think that's why I ended up being a developer, but I'm really not interested in technology in general. A trait which, by the way, I share with the vast majority of the general public - which includes the decision makers in business.

You're clearly demonstrating you do not understand

Nope, you are. Your assertion is that there's nothing to stop them switching. But there is - inertia. How many people switch bank accounts or gas suppliers every month even though their is almost always a better deal available elsewhere? The percentage is tiny. Why? Inertia. As I said before, we are lazy - and we're willing to pay to be so. So that my argument as to why people wouldn't switch, you've yet to give a valid argument as to why the would.

You appear to assume I'm solely a Linux user

Honestly, I didn't and sorry if I've given that impression. The only assumption I've made so far about you is that your interested in technology. I could be wrong there but, since you're clearly well enough informed to hold a cogent argument, I think I'm probably right.

Don't get me wrong here, the part of the picture I think you're missing is nothing to do with technology, or cost, or functional benefit. It's to do with human nature. The debate isn't about what's sensible, wise or justifiable... it's about what is.


edit> I just corrected the spelling of "loud shirts" in the first paragraph. Decency prevents me from repeating the way I did spell it but, suffice it it to say, I ommitted one letter and you definitely would not want to wear what I wrote, loud or otherwise.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Most applications have a ... BSD... How do you plan to compete with free?

Windows has had a BSD from the very first edition (though generally, people add an 'o' in the middle).

[Shaggy Hiker]

This is misleading. You neglect to point out that it was a survey, and on top of that, the survey only covered 274 organizations. Add on that these were spread out between Asia, Europe, and North America, and this survey becomes almost useless.

Furthermore, the article states that the businesses "use" open source, but does not give a penetration percentage. If a company allows people to use Chrome as their browser (as I do at home), that company technically uses open source. However, if they use Windows for OS and Server software, MSSQL for databases, Office for documents, Outlook for e-mail, and Visual Studio for all software development, how much is that enterprise really invested in OSS?

Mobile is uncharted territory, so it's up for grabs. It's easy for software such as Android to make big waves there, because there is currently no standard of exactly what a mobile handset should do, and how it should do it (although Apple did in fact lay some of this groundwork with the iPhone).

PC's have defined purposes, and thanks to Windows, a template of what a PC should be able to do, and how the user should interact with the underlying system.

Windows also has huge support from hardware vendors. When a new version of Windows comes out, manufacturers race to make sure their devices are compatible (although some dropped the ball with Vista). Hardware support for Linux generally occurs "when they get to it".

I totally agree with every point in this statement. We use some of the technologies that were listed, and therefore would be counted in the 85%, yet that would be totally misleading. The truth is that exactly two people use those technologies and the rest either are working on other things, or want to resist those two people. The orgainization is NOT Open Source in mindset by any stretch of the imagination, despite using a few OSS items.

I also agree with everything Mr. F. Dexter has stated, and won't belabor that point. However, the original question has to do with the future more than the present.

What I see is that the present is not a reflection of the future, and is only a tepid indicator of future direction. One point appears to be reliable, though, which is that desktop and web will eventually blur. The problem with the web is that it basically sucks. It started out only being able to display static text pages. Then graphics were added, but they were still static. Then a series of other things were added in an order I don't know and won't guess at. By this time, we have competing technologies that will allow you to be increasingly interactive with web pages, but not interactive enough.

I am currently working on a project that can't be rendered in a static web page, as it relies heavily on drag and drop graphics. There are ways to do that, but they are all quite recent technologies, and generally rely on some component being installed locally (though it may be installed via a web page). This trend may continue to the logical conclusion where no distinction can be made between web and desktop apps.

On the other hand, there is no place safe on the web where things like fake AV attacks, malicious redirection, viruses, and so forth, won't show up. This is not a problem being taken quite seriously enough, at this point. There is theft around the edges, losses happen to a few people, annoyances that impact many more, and so on, but there has not been anything so utterly damaging that the web becomes shunned. It could happen. The level of spam, malware, exploits, and so on, could rise to the level that people stop using the web. That may sound absurd given our history in the last two decades, but we only HAVE two decades of history, which is nothing like an established track record. Furthermore, exploits are increasing at an exponential rate. Additionally, there are probably almost none of you who have not altered your web usage simply because of malware potential. Do you download things off torrents? Surf porn sites? Open random attachments to emails? It is entirely conceivable that sometime in the next decade or two, a person or persons, will make use of emerging or established web technologies to launch an attack that is so damaging (one way or another), that people no longer feel secure using the web.

So those are the directions that seem plausible to me: An utter blending of web and desktop such that the two types of apps cannot be distinguished, or an exploit so damaging that the web changes in a totally radical direction.

[FireXtol]

It's what they're used to. Inertia. Old habits die hard. Don't fix what ain't broke. Yes! Yes, exactly. As mentioned in my original post. I wasn't dismissing this(as has been claimed), but acknowledging it is an obvious reason. Though, if you want to continue to bring it up, feel free to do so.

So that my argument as to why people wouldn't switch, you've yet to give a valid argument as to why the would.

Again, I'll refer to my original post:

I find this especially relevant as Microsoft continues to make older applications obsolete/legacy supported. I mean, if people can't use what they're used to on the latest Windows, then this seems like rational for the likelihood of jumping ship. Especially if they're basically using the same open source applications, but just on a different OS.

Even if the applications are not open source, many applications today support multiple platforms.

I would still challenge your assertion that Linux has been accepted into the corporate world. I guess it depends on your definition of "accepted" but my experience (mostly with small to medium businesses) is that they really aren't interested in pushing any boundaries at all where their operating systems are concerned. They want something that is familiar, trusted and supported. The cost of Windows is negligible when compared to, for example, the Marketing budget. Businesses want to concentrate on their core function, not ancillary functions like IT which they'd rather just have ticking along in the background and throw some cash at occasionaly. They most certainly do not want to be hiring programmers to tailor someone else's product.

Well, we can look at some numbers: Netcraft

Consistently the majority of the most reliable networks(servers hosting +200 million sites) utilize BSD and Linux. Apache's dominance has long been established. Windows has tried what appears to be at least a couple times to take share away from Apache, but companies soon realize Microsoft's Server/IIS just isn't as capable, secure, or efficient as Apache.

This very web site, VBForums, uses Linux servers. Ironic or simply good business sense?

Small business to medium-sized businesses come and go like the tides or the seasons. Proven companies desire proven technologies.

You're basically justifying your argument using small-time businesses with admittedly non-existent IT staff. I'm talking Fortune 500 companies. Businesses that use proven technologies. Businesses with experts in IT that know from experience what the best technologies are to enable corporations to deliver their products and services.

Like Google! A carbon neutral company, and a leader in environmentally sound business practices. Google's step 1? Efficient servers, of course. Servers that run Linux. More here

Walmart, Chevron, General Electric, Ford, and AIG use Linux. Citigroup, ConocoPhillips, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Verizon, and Goldman Sachs use UNIX. 13 out of the top 20 Fortune 500 companies utilize *nix(the rest are either unknown or Windows, typically Server 2003). Would you still like to challenge the corporate acceptance of Linux/OSS, Mr Funky?

[ttownfire]

Would you still like to challenge the corporate acceptance of Linux/OSS, Mr Funky?

Will not speak for him... but I'll say something...

I'm a student developer, but by no means a n00b to technology or computers. I did high level Wx (weather) computer modeling work at AFWA while in the USAF. We had every kind of OS you could imagine. Overall, we had WAYYYYY more windows boxes than anything else; Why? Because the rest of the military did as well, inertia.

We checked the *nix boxes to make sure they were routing the correct info to the windows machines the forecasters and analysts used. We pluged and chuged on the server farm and batched till the boxes could take no more... but for day to day work, the real hours were put in on the windows machines.

Re-read Mr. Funky's inertia paragraph again. Watch the youtube video of iphone4 vs evo... it will show you what the OSS movement is up against. You know how long it took for me to convince my parents that Firefox was "Ok" to use? They don't want anything to do with Open Office. They are happy paying $XXX for a license of MS Office, why? To save a word document in OO, you need to know about all kinds of files types... its NOT simple to the unwashed masses. You try to convince them to put Linux on the $600 machine they have.... its not worth the trouble.


OOS has a place, but its definitely not mainstream at this point. Someday... perhaps. The web? Not even close for prime time real computer work. Not even close.

[leinad31]

I read somewhere before that Coke, instead of directly competing with Pepsi for the same market segment made the drink readily available (more vendos) so it can grab shares from other drinks, e.g. water.

I think the same could be said of how OSS is growing; it is new market dependent. If how people use technology changes, e.g. less mainframes in the past, less desktop use, less time on games more time on social network, etc, then maybe we would see proliferation of OSS.

Otherwise, if things remain as they are, desktop-centric in businesses and homes, then it is expected that things will remain more or less the same in the future.

[FireXtol]

Will not speak for him... but I'll say something...

I'm a student developer, but by no means a n00b to technology or computers. I did high level Wx (weather) computer modeling work at AFWA while in the USAF. We had every kind of OS you could imagine. Overall, we had WAYYYYY more windows boxes than anything else; Why? Because the rest of the military did as well, inertia.

We checked the *nix boxes to make sure they were routing the correct info to the windows machines the forecasters and analysts used. We pluged and chuged on the server farm and batched till the boxes could take no more... but for day to day work, the real hours were put in on the windows machines.

Re-read Mr. Funky's inertia paragraph again. Watch the youtube video of iphone4 vs evo... it will show you what the OSS movement is up against. You know how long it took for me to convince my parents that Firefox was "Ok" to use? They don't want anything to do with Open Office. They are happy paying $XXX for a license of MS Office, why? To save a word document in OO, you need to know about all kinds of files types... its NOT simple to the unwashed masses. You try to convince them to put Linux on the $600 machine they have.... its not worth the trouble.


OOS has a place, but its definitely not mainstream at this point. Someday... perhaps. The web? Not even close for prime time real computer work. Not even close.

-1, Flamebait.

[FireXtol]

I read somewhere before that Coke, instead of directly competing with Pepsi for the same market segment made the drink readily available (more vendos) so it can grab shares from other drinks, e.g. water.

I think the same could be said of how OSS is growing; it is new market dependent. If how people use technology changes, e.g. less mainframes in the past, less desktop use, less time on games more time on social network, etc, then maybe we would see proliferation of OSS.

Otherwise, if things remain as they are, desktop-centric in businesses and homes, then it is expected that things will remain more or less the same in the future.

Interesting points. From what I've read desktop market estimates are around 20% of the current computer market. People seem to love mobile/netbook/laptop. And these machines are typically far less powerful than desktops.

But that's just the thing. How much time do you spend in a web browser? Multiple tabs... remind you of the task bar? You can run Pandora for music, Google Docs for word processing, games in Flash. Most users are anything but 'desktop-centric'. They are largely web-centric, spending the majority of their time in a web browser. Web browsers that work on any platform(OS).

Linux has plenty of games. There's Wine, which may let you run your game natively on Linux. But, realistically, Windows has the best performance typically. Hardware manufacturers have tended to release their drivers first and foremost and with the most dedication to Windows(not surprisingly). But even Linux often performs better than Macintosh. And Linux has to mainly rely on open source drivers written by people who have likely never worked for AMD/ATI or Nvidia. Sure, there are proprietary drivers, but sometimes they just aren't good enough(and they certainly don't align with the OSS philosophy).

Consider Microsoft losing just 5% per year over the next ten years. That's all it takes!

[ttownfire]

The whole premise of YOUR topic is FLAMEbait.

[leinad31]

Interesting points. From what I've read desktop market estimates are around 20% of the current computer market. People seem to love mobile/netbook/laptop. And these machines are typically far less powerful than desktops.

But that's just the thing. How much time do you spend in a web browser? Multiple tabs... remind you of the task bar? You can run Pandora for music, Google Docs for word processing, games in Flash. Most users are anything but 'desktop-centric'. They are largely web-centric, spending the majority of their time in a web browser. Web browsers that work on any platform(OS).

Linux has plenty of games. There's Wine, which may let you run your game natively on Linux. But, realistically, Windows has the best performance typically. Hardware manufacturers have tended to release their drivers first and foremost and with the most dedication to Windows(not surprisingly). But even Linux often performs better than Macintosh. And Linux has to mainly rely on open source drivers written by people who have likely never worked for AMD/ATI or Nvidia. Sure, there are proprietary drivers, but sometimes they just aren't good enough(and they certainly don't align with the OSS philosophy).

Consider Microsoft losing just 5% per year over the next ten years. That's all it takes!

They are still oriented towards the desktop technology and similar variants of it... true they might actually do more on the web after they purchase the machine, but before or at time of purchase there's the possibility that you would need desktop specific features, or apps for desktops... So you lean towards what you are already familiar with and what most people you know are using... people you'll ask for help later on so its a bit of social networking influenced also more so for games.

Also if your going to spend hundreds of dollars on hardware you want to use it immediately and get your money's worth... not spend time learning, tuning, setting it up. Decision are based on what they view as practical which can be far from what technical people view as practical.

Most OSS converts, well not the technically savvy ones, became so out of necessity (it came with the hardware, or as mentioned change in use of technology, its what people they know are using, imposed by the company, etc) or because there was a low risk/cost means of trying it out (virtual machines). There's hardly any motivation to do the shift for the typical person... the best you can hope for is they use both OS (again virtual machines)... they will still keep Windows just in case so they can open immediately files meant for windows rather than waste time figuring out linux counterpart.

Also there's the incentive to maximize usefulness of things/apps you had to pay for regardless if it was by choice or forced. You're not gonna remove it without second thought.

[arunb]

actually open office is a very good application unlike MS Office which is a crap piece of software, highly priced and overrated.

Open Office on the other hand has an excellent drawing application. We always use Open Office for drawing in my office.

Actually there are many good open source applications out there its just that they are not publicized, so most people are unaware of their existence. In fact open source applications are very good for a professional.

Some examples

1. GIMP, its the best drawing application in the open source market. It can easily give Photoshop a run for its money...

2. VLC Player- Another superior product that is not known to most people, VLC (VideoLan) is a media player that has both Windows and Linux applications.

The interface for VLC is considered to be the most comprehensive one in the media player market. The app has many features and options for adjusting sound video quality etc..

I have many other apps in mind , there's K3D a three dimensional drawing tool for instance similar to Google Sketchup.

thanks
a

[FunkyDexter]

Would you still like to challenge the corporate acceptance of Linux/OSS, Mr Funky?

Absolutely. The link you provided refers to web hosts. These represent a tiny (and highly techically adept) portion of the business landscape. Similarly, feel free to run an impromptu poll on how many of this sites users work for a fortune 500 companies - I'm willing to bet it will be less than one percent (don't bother running a poll on how many of us work for hostong companies because the nature of this site wil skew the result).

The point is that the small to medium businesses that your argument dismisses actually make up the VAST majority of the business landscape. It is here that business software will succeed or fail - not in the technical sector and not in the fortune 500 sector.

if people can't use what they're used to on the latest Windows,

You're overstating the case. The number of apps that MS have obsoleted is actually very low. Vista was probably their worst cock up in this regard but, actually, most home users were perfectly happy with it (and I personally think the horror stories that went around were generally overstated and served to falsely magnify the issues - but that's anecdotal). Businesses didn't adopt it in the numbers MS would have liked but they've been perfectly happy to move to 7. Add to that that the typical home user will simply pop down to PCWorld every 5 years or so and just buy a whole new pre-installed box and your again left with the same picture: there is simply no impetus to change.

You yourself have said that, even though your not a fan of windows, you feel like you can't get rid of it. I'll extrapolate on that to assert that you will not feel like you can safely get rid of it for a long time yet because MS have made themselves integral and will fight tooth and nail to remain so.. Again, the question is about what will happen, not what should happen.

-1, Flamebait

Not sure why you dismissed that. He seemed to be describing a real world scenario to me.

However, the original question has to do with the future more than the present

Good point Shaggy and I should add that my arguments here are to do with the immediate future. Anyone trying to project more than a decade (probably less) ahead would, at various times in the history, have missed the rise of google, facebook, the internet and even the home PC itself. We can at best project what's likely in the next few years. If the history of this industry should teach us anything it's that the next big innovation will be entirely unpredicted.

open office is a very good application unlike MS Office which is a crap piece of software, highly priced and overrated.

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree with you, at least from Office 2007 onwards (I hate that damn ribbon). It's irrelevant to this debate, though. The vast majority of the public aren't even aware that OpenOffice exists and, if they become aware, will run screaming without even bothering to try it out.

its just that they are not publicized, so most people are unaware of their existence

And therein lies the crux of the whole issue.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

@NeedSomeAnswers, I don't see how Mr Funky's and my statements you quote are in conflict.

well you seemed to be saying that Web apps are taking over from desktop apps, which i disagreed with i see it as more of a rebalancing, sorry if i mistook your meaning.

A quick Google and I've found plenty web-based Case Management Systems. I guess you don't research comparables in your business. Interesting... I'd bet your customers do.

Please dont try and suggest i dont understand the market my company operates in, trust me i know far more than you (unless you have happened to work in the same area as me for the last 8 years). There are 2 legal case management system out on in the UK market that i know of, neither of them are selling particularly well. Also the kind of tight integration you need with other legal systems and office productivity software is a lot easier to do with a desktop system which is why most Case systems are still desktop systems.

I don't think you understand the implications. Let me break it down.

I understand perfectly well thank you.

I am not in any way dismissing open source i am a fan of many open source application, what i am questioning is this idea that you have that because OS products maybe better (in some peoples opinion) and cheaper then gradually everyone will move to open source from microsoft.

If you look at the debacle that was Vista, even then Linux failed to gain major traction on the desktop in the corporate world. Companies just said we will wait for the next version.

What country are you from FireXtol ? i am willing to bet that the situation in your country is somewhat different than in the UK.

In the western so called developed countries Microsoft is deeply ingrained in company culture i will give you an example -

at a company i used to work for the switched out the perfectly functioning existing Novel groupwise email system, for Outlook at a cost of over £1 Million with few discernible benefits. (seriously the meetings are better and it looks a bit nicer but it still basically just an email system)

They mainly did it because all the major companies in there business sector use Outlook and they aspired to be like those big businesses.

Every company i have ever worked at either uses Outlook or moved to outlook while i was there, and for outlook you need exchange and a windows network environment.

As for the home user, you keep saying that people mainly use just the web now days but if i use my own family as an example, my brother mainly uses his computer to play games, so he cant move to linux. My Sister is a music teacher and has her keyboard and microphone connected to her computer, and my parents do a lot of printing and photography.

With Linux they would be lost as to even setup these peripherals, let alone things like routers. Also all these things already work on the windows PC so why would they change ?

I as someone who is interested in technology i am happy to learn new technologies even just for the sake of it, but most people are not.

Walmart, Chevron, General Electric, Ford, and AIG use Linux. Citigroup, ConocoPhillips, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Verizon, and Goldman Sachs use UNIX. 13 out of the top 20 Fortune 500 companies utilize *nix(the rest are either unknown or Windows, typically Server 2003). Would you still like to challenge the corporate acceptance of Linux/OSS, Mr Funky?

I will answer this one, my girlfriend has once (for her sins) worked for AIG. All there desktops are Windows. I would be willing to bet that every other company apart from google there has windows on the desktop. If you think Bankers for instance are goingt to install Linux on the desktop you are dreaming.

I dont dispute Linux in the server environment, and i expect that Linux will continue to grow in the Server market, and mobile market (where its probably strongest) it just the desktop were it still has a long way to go.

Can I just say how happy I am that everyone has started referring to me as "Mr Funky"?

I am glad that in a small way i have encouraged this honourific

[Hack]

Every company i have ever worked at either uses Outlook or moved to outlook while i was there

Me too and that, for me, covers a wide, wide range of different industries across a number of different states.

[Shaggy Hiker]

...this idea that you have that because OS products maybe better (in some peoples opinion)...

Ok, hold it right there! That's a flagrant conflation of acronyms. FireXtol was, at least, good enough to use a different acronym for Open Source Software (OSS) to distinguish it from Operating System (OS), but you, sir, have violated all that is decent with your bastardized misuse of the term. Therefore, I have alterted the acronym police. I hope that when they arrive, they whale away on you for a while (and thereby issue you a cetacean), before hauling your sorry ass to the hoosgow for that offense.

But on a less serious note, I note that our agency has an agreement with MS which reduces cost on all MS products and provides a certain amount of support above what our own techs handle. Whether it would be ultimately more cost effective to go OSS for the OS is hard to say. We are an Information Services branch, but we mostly do programming for various projects. Whether it is better to use an OSS OS to provide IS for ISS (an acronym standing for Idiots Staggering up Streams, but you aren't expected to know that), is an open question. Their OS for ISS is MS not OSS while we at IS are using MS VS to provide IS for ISS.

Is that clear, or should I say it again?

[JuggaloBrotha]

Whether it is better to use an OSS OS to provide IS for ISS (an acronym standing for Idiots Staggering up Streams, but you aren't expected to know that), is an open question. Their OS for ISS is MS not OSS while we at IS are using MS VS to provide IS for ISS.

What heck did you just call me? o_0

[FireXtol]

@NeedSomeAnswers, I'm from USA.

Because things may stop working on the next version of Windows. They may go from 32 bit Windows to 64 bit. All their devices now require 64 bit drivers. If those don't exist their devices probably won't work. Now the solution is to buy new devices that have capable drivers. Junking good equipment. It's an endless tick-tock of software-hardware upgrades.

@Mr Funky, he types like a lying child, and not a man of the military. Seriously lacking decorum. I just don't buy it, and I just won't waste anymore of my time with it. So anyways!

I don't understand why you continue to argue from ignorance. You've admitted you're not technically inclined, and you don't, "find technology a turn on"(paraphrased). What gives? Like hating football and buying a season pass!

You asked, "Why would banks use Linux?" The answer to that is simple, because it's more secure than Windows. Banks, or other corporations, can know exactly what code is running on every single machine. You have absolutely no real idea what could be running in proprietary/closed source code. In critical applications closed source is simply not a wise option(or one at all). I'm sure your bank probably runs on Windows, and you wouldn't have it any other way.

You're so not with it, Mr Funky! You know whom make or break the next technology? Developers, plain and simple. How do you miss that? It's the developers who make the software that makes the platform popular or not. If developers refuse to develop for your platform then it doesn't stand a chance!

Linux software is getting very good, and more and more companies are investing in it. I somewhat dismiss smaller businesses because their investments into Linux aren't as substantial(if existent). Nearly 99% of Linux users only use Linux, yet only around 1% of Linux users develop for it. I've read that the number one company contributing to Linux is Red Hat. Probably up there with them is Novell, Canonical, and other corporations which over-see their respective distributions(distros).

This thread is really starting to circlejerk....

[leinad31]

We'll you did ask for state of PC and we gave our answers... perhaps you should have asked for state of data centers?

Also, for all the advantages of OSS proprietary technology, especially proprietary formats, are still being circulated. When my wife bought a netbook I tried to convince her to use Open Office. I installed it and opened one of her Excel files... the demonstration didn't go well, the file wasn't rendered as expected. I could have informed her of the evils of proprietary technology and why she should avoid it, or convince her to exert extra time and effort in converting ALL her files into open formats, or tell her to convince all her friends/colleagues to send her files in apt format, etc etc... but for her its as simple as this "It doesn't work. It just makes it harder for me." Being an outlier (in her circle of friends/colleagues) isn't worth it for her.

We need to understand such mindset of typical users... if others were as technically inclined as we are then we wouldnt even be having this discussion. they would appreciate the data sheets and product demonstrations for open source. Open source dominance would already be a reality, but it isn't and if nothing major changes then status quo will result in status quo..

[Shaggy Hiker]

You asked, "Why would banks use Linux?" The answer to that is simple, because it's more secure than Windows. Banks, or other corporations, can know exactly what code is running on every single machine.

Sure they could, but the people making the decisions don't know. Are you expecting that the people who make the purchasing decisions sit down and go through the code in the Linux kernel to be certain that there is nothing malicious in there? What would that be, a hundred lines of code? Two hundred? In all seriousness, it strains credulity to think that just because people CAN do something smart they will. Such faith makes me doubt that you have reached twenty, yet, let alone your dotage. A more accurate assesment is that if somebody can cut a corner, they will.

Technically speaking, OSS leaves institutions open to fraud. If somebody can re-write some code and convince the bank to use the code, then the door is wide open to clever thieves (though the cleverest ones are at the head of the table, in that industry). The people deciding which software to run are certainly not spending their time combing through the code assuring that no back doors, trojan horses, or other gimmicks are seeded into the distro they are using. Therefore, they have two options: Go with a distro backed by a large company (RedHat was charging for their Linux distro at one point, though I don't know if they are now), or put their faith in a person. With proprietary software, such a thing....can also happen. So what's a bank to do? Hire the right people, audit, and retire before the excrement hits the fan.

You have absolutely no real idea what could be running in proprietary/closed source code.

Nor do you in OSS unless you wrote it yourself. In fact, the only thing you can be fairly confident about is that there were LOTS of hands stirring the kettle that produced the distro you are using. Were all of those hands clean?
[CODE]
You're so not with it, Mr Funky! You know whom make or break the next technology? Developers, plain and simple. How do you miss that? [/QUOTE]

Since you're going to be vaguely insulting to Mr. F. D. Esq. II, I would suggest that the answer is: By not being an idiot. After all, there are thousands of developers. A few of them make blockbuster apps. The rest make apps that don't turn a profit. Some of us don't make commercial software, so we don't really expect to make a profit, but for those who DO make commercial software, it is not the case that "If you build it they will come!" In fact, to a large extent, if you write it, you won't make much money. I would expect failures to greatly outnumber profitable success. Therefore, it is not the developers who drive the system, but the buyers. The public has routinely turned its back on technically superior forms in favor of other things for no discernible reason. Most of the key examples have been in hardware, but there are plenty in software, too.

You can make the most brilliant program that ever was, and it can totally flop because people are capricious as an aggregate. They drive the market. MySpace was HOT! Now it's a has been, while Facebook, only one of several such offerings, is the in thing. The history of technology is not a story of better replacing current, but only of new replacing current. Whether it is better is irrelevant, and no developer can be certain whether their 'next big thing' will be a hit or a flop.

This thread is really starting to circlejerk....

Dude, you started it. You wanted peoples opinion and you got them. Unfortunately, it was apparently not the opinion you wanted, as you have argued with everybody who has posted (since everybody who has posted has disagreed with your premise). Guess what: The majority of respondents don't see the future of Linux as shining as brightly as you do. You can dismiss us all as ignorant bozos, or you can learn something. We represent different facets of geekdom across the world. Each has a different perspective based on the path their individual lives have taken them. The sum of all these views, including yours, is a fair indicator. You just happen to hold a minority position.

And with that, I will depart onto a path of my own. I'll be back in a month. Enjoy.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Because things may stop working on the next version of Windows. They may go from 32 bit Windows to 64 bit. All their devices now require 64 bit drivers. If those don't exist their devices probably won't work. Now the solution is to buy new devices that have capable drivers. Junking good equipment. It's an endless tick-tock of software-hardware upgrades.

Things stopped working with Vista, i know people who had nightmares with Vista, and the ones that moved off Windows at all moved to apple.

You asked, "Why would banks use Linux?" The answer to that is simple, because it's more secure than Windows. Banks, or other corporations, can know exactly what code is running on every single machine.

Have you ever worked for a Bank ? Banks are some of the most conservative organisations i have ever come across, even most Cash machines (ATMs) run on Windows, when there is no need for them to do so.

I'm sure your bank probably runs on Windows

I would be really impressed if you could name a major bank that does not use Windows on the desktop of the vast majority of employees.

It's the developers who make the software that makes the platform popular or not

Really i thought it was Marketing, otherwise i am at a loss as to why anyone would buy an IPad.

Linux software is getting very good, and more and more companies are investing in it

No one disputes this but where does this translate to Linux taking over the desktop ?

Obviously you are a linux and OOS fan, but i think you are little naive if you think that it will take over on the corporate desktop any time soon. There are too many hurdles for it to over come.

Ok, hold it right there! That's a flagrant conflation of acronyms. FireXtol was, at least, good enough to use a different acronym for Open Source Software (OSS) to distinguish it from Operating System (OS), but you, sir, have violated all that is decent with your bastardized misuse of the term. Therefore, I have alterted the acronym police. I hope that when they arrive, they whale away on you for a while (and thereby issue you a cetacean), before hauling your sorry ass to the hoosgow for that offense.

Arrgh, arrrested for a typo ! what on gods earth is a hoosgow ???

Their OS for ISS is MS not OSS while we at IS are using MS VS to provide IS for ISS.

acronymtastic !

[FunkyDexter]

I don't understand why you continue to argue from ignorance. You've admitted you're not technically inclined, and you don't, "find technology a turn on"(paraphrased).

I'm not arguing from ignorance. What I said was I don't find technology particularly interesting. I don't own an MP3 player. I don't own smart phone (I didn't even own a mobile phone until about a year and a half ago). I don't own a GPS. I won't be buying an IPad or any other tablet PC. The point is, I don't buy into any new technology unless I can see a real benefit to me.

On the other hand I've been working as a software developer for over a decade and have done really rather well in that time (forgive my arrogance here but it's true). I've worked over several versions of windows, several Linux Distros and several flavours of Unix. I've worked in Java, C++, VB4 onwards, C#, VB.Net, ASP (classic and .Net) and PHP. I've done Web development as well as Desktop. I've done server side development, client side development and mainframe development. I've worked as a developer, a manager, a project manager, a consultant, an analyst and a technical salesman.

I'm sorry for blowing my own trumpet here (I usually only do that in joke) but I'm definitely not arguing from a position of ignorance. Where I'm arguing from is a position of both understanding technology quite well (though far from encyclopoedic) and having dealt with people and businesses. And since you were ready to sling a little mud my way I'll lower myself to slinging a little back: you are clearly informed about technology but I would suggest you are ignorant about people and business. And I'm afraid it's the latter knowledge that is far more likely to govern your success or failure in this world.

You asked, "Why would banks use Linux?"

Actually, I don't think I've asked that at all. I would also argue that there is nothing intrinsically more secure about linux than there is about windows. It's just that the sort of people who attack operating systems are more likely to try and find Windows exploits than they are to try and find Linux expoits because they tend to view Microsoft as evil.

You're so not with it, Mr Funky!

That's very true. My fashion sense never left the 70s.

You know whom make or break the next technology? Developers

Wrong. Really, really wrong. As others have said, it'll be the buying public that decide success or failure of software. Your failure to grasp that tells me that you don't understand business.

If developers refuse to develop for your platform then it doesn't stand a chance!

You're posting on a site populated mainly by windows developers. What does that tell you?

I somewhat dismiss smaller businesses because their investments into Linux aren't as substantial(if existent).

So you've dismissed the vast mass of your potential customer base because they don't choose to operate in the way you'd like them to. I would suggest to you that that is not the most rational or profitable position to adopt.

I'm probably coming across as harsh now but only in response to your own tone. I apologise for that.

@SH

Mr. F. D. Esq. II

Now I definitely like that one.

[FireXtol]

Well, Mr. F. D. Esq. II, you certainly are the most engaging of the lot, and seemingly one of the most experienced. I do own an MP3 player. It runs Linux(Rockbox, highly recommended, BTW). My cell phone is also a 'dumb' model(it runs Linux). It merely does what a phone ought.

So you're willing to ignore the fact that Window's huge market share (alone) makes it more of a target than anything else out there(for 'malware')? Interesting. And yet you wonder why I call you out for your admitted ignorance/non-interest.

The buying public buys what developers develop for. Plain and simple. And it's tending to go away from iPhone(as they pile on developer restrictions) towards Android. Something tells me if you were truly a 'developer' you would know this truth intimately. But, then again, I suppose you've never developed an app that has more than a, oh, a thousand users(maybe not even a hundred?). Indeed, software doesn't tend to continue existing with such dismal share(user base). In-house software may perfectly 'fit the bill' but it's largely irrelevant outside of that house.

What people buy(assuming they really make decisions) has nearly nothing to do with the success of failure of a company. The company either offers something people will certainly buy, or they go bankrupt(sometimes bailed out for another go). This is the basic logic of "cause and effect". You're trying to say the effect(software) is the result of the cause(people buying). This has never been the case. It's not, "people buy it, developers/software will come" it's certainly "developers make it(software), buy people it".

Well, according to my other thread, the majority of people here prefer VB6 to .NET. What does that tell you? (I really like that you actually ask questions, by the way.)

I really don't consider small businesses the vast majority, as I've already tried to explain. Most home users only own Windows if they actually bought it with a new PC, and often they get 'support' from 3rd parties that end up installing a pirated version of Windows even though they technically own Windows! It's completely crazy. Why? Simple! 'Techies' know the pirated version will ultimately be less of a hassle. Activation? Taken care of!

You need not apologize. I can't even get through reading most of these other posts! My palm gets in the way.

I was reading an interesting article on /. this morning. It was covering Microsoft's decision to release source code(Windows 7) for review to Russian governments(they've done it for other countries, from Windows 7 to as far back as Windows 2000,(and everything in between) notably). Pretty much all the of disadvantages of open source(OSS) with none of the benefits.

FYI: This thread was created very much for forecasting the future of the desktop based on the current state of things(such as partial adoption of OSS). Minimally 10 years into the future. You don't have to reiterate Windows is popular. Everyone and their grandma knows that.

[zaza]

Just to chip my own 2c in here.

I work for a very large financial institution. We use just about everything in one way or another; it depends on what platform or product is right for a particular job. Sometimes, when a product isn't right, we blow it away and get another one in, like moving from Notes to Outlook.
However, all our user machines run Windows, and probably always will. We run Office, and probably always will.

To address a couple of the points above.

We don't give two hoots about whether code is proprietry or open-source. When we buy vendor apps, we're not downloading them off the internet for $20. We pay literally millions of dollars for highly specialised and customised software. These vendors have no interest in sneaking hacking code into their application. They can make far more money out of us and every other financial institution by making sure we keep paying for licences.

We can't afford to redesign from the ground up. Not necessarily in the monetary sense, but in the timing sense. We have systems that work the way we want them to work. If they don't work for half an hour, it can cost us millions of dollars. And you think we want to go through the pain of a completely new OS and application suite in one go? Or even in several goes?
Even doing it one-by-one, switching to apps that are multiplatform and then changing the OS later, there's too much risk and time and effort for the goal of what? The perceived benefits of running an open-source OS? It would never make financial sense, and our setup is already pretty stable and very secure, so it wouldn't make technical sense either.
On top of that, we have our in-house apps that are written and designed by us. If we switch OS, we have to either re-write the lot of them (and many are multi-million dollar projects) or buy them in and pay more licences. Why would we choose to do that?

And then there's Office. There's a single reason why we will always use Office, and that reason is...?

Excel. Or, more specifically, Excel combined with VBA. It's unbelievably powerful, and even people with limited programming knowledge can quickly learn to knock up some reasonable spreadsheets, or at least ones that do what they need them to do. Every company I know, and every company I have ever worked for, uses Excel and VBA to a vast extent.
There are thousands upon thousands of man hours that have gone into writing the spreadsheet apps that we run, and there's no way that they can be re-written into formal applications. Spreadsheets stick around for years, doing what they do, getting customised and built upon and redesigned. The only way that we would ditch Office is if Microsoft decided to stop allowing the use of VBA, or if they came up with a version of Excel that stopped VBA macros from running so that existing spreadsheets stopped working. They are extremely flexible, very familiar to everybody, and as long as they keep working they will be the #1 desktop tool.

Finally, who drives the market? Us. If developers at a particular software company say "We're only going to develop for Linux from now on", we won't say "Oh no, let's change all our infrastructure to keep in with this one group of developers", we'll say "OK, thanks. We'll shop somewhere else". And when the fees are as high as they are in the financial sector, there will ALWAYS be somebody else.
Sorry, but the cost of proprietry software really is chicken feed to major companies, and the closed-source nature of it isn't really a problem. So we'll be sticking with Microsoft for a long while yet, I think.


But happy dreaming anyway.

[formlesstree4]

I find it funny that you refute every point with an insubstantial point behind it. Yes, as was stated, this is basically a Windows forum, there's nothing wrong with it. What I find fascinating is that you don't seem to understand what we're saying. We get that you feel OSS will take a big step forward when, in my opinion, it won't really.

I do own an MP3 player. It runs Linux(Rockbox, highly recommended, BTW). My cell phone is also a 'dumb' model(it runs Linux). It merely does what a phone ought.

Aye, I've used Rockbox myself and found out real fast my device loved it. It was a fun piece of software. I bugged it up pretty well though.

Well, according to my other thread, the majority of people here prefer VB6 to .NET. What does that tell you? (I really like that you actually ask questions, by the way.)

That legacy technology is still alive and thriving. One reason Windows is so popular is the ability for older software to continue running on newer versions. One big issue with Vista was that quite a lot of legacy software was broken because Windows Vista was rewritten from scratch.

I really don't consider small businesses the vast majority, as I've already tried to explain. Most home users only own Windows if they actually bought it with a new PC, and often they get 'support' from 3rd parties that end up installing a pirated version of Windows even though they technically own Windows! It's completely crazy. Why? Simple! 'Techies' know the pirated version will ultimately be less of a hassle. Activation? Taken care of!

Name one business that does this currently that hasn't been sued already.

This thread was created very much for forecasting the future of the desktop based on the current state of things(such as partial adoption of OSS).

Yes, but we're giving our opinion that we don't feel OSS will be as caught on as you feel and when we tell you, you kind of don't like to hear that. I'm speaking honestly, everyone that has said (in their opinions) that OSS won't catch on, you instantly respond with quite a few OSS projects that the majority of us haven't heard. So far, it appears our predictions are right...

I look forward to your response, these topics tickle my fancy and I enjoy debating in them.

[penagate]

I agree with everything zaza said and I feel this debate is a bit pointless — there's no use arguing about opinions.

[FireXtol]

I agree with everything zaza said and I feel this debate is a bit hopeless — there's no use arguing about opinions.

Fixed that for ya!

[formlesstree4]

Fixed that for ya!

Who is it hopeless for..?

[FireXtol]

Who is it hopeless for..?

You've clearly not been reading my posts. Start from the beginning. If you manage to coalesce my intent with this thread... I'd love to have that discussion.

The Windows fanboys aren't presenting any novel or creative arguments. Frankly, they're unwanted. They reiterate mostly stereotypical(bad), or, to be fair, in some cases insightful niche arguments(okay). But mostly they're broad, they're boring, and I don't care to read them. Did anyone even read the OP?

Not a single one of you can honestly say you do not rely on OSS basically every single day of your life(again: this site runs on Linux!). Stop trying to straw hat this into a OS war. It's about OSS, and Microsoft's leadership. That includes Web(IE?), Desktop(Windows), and Office. All of which are declining in share, and by some accounts there's only 2 left where Microsoft has majority share.

I'll show you how: According to netmarketshare, in the last 2 years Windows lost 3.73% market share. If this trend continues for another decade Windows could be down to 72.81%. If this trend accelerates for any reason, Windows majority is likely lost.

Imagine all the productivity boost from the employees not knowing how to install games!

[formlesstree4]

You've clearly not been reading my posts. Start from the beginning. If you manage to coalesce my intent with this thread... I'd love to have that discussion.

I read the entire thread.

The Windows fanboys aren't presenting any novel or creative arguments. Frankly, they're unwanted. They reiterate mostly stereotypical(bad), or, to be fair, in some cases insightful niche arguments(okay). But mostly they're broad, they're boring, and I don't care to read them. Did anyone even read the OP?

If you don't care to read what all has to say, how is this a fair discussion? Most people generally do read the OP, then they read the topic. The topic was thrown into a OS war at some point due to comments on both sides being taken differently. It's just how things go. You create a post on a delicate subject, it will most likely divulge into a war.

Not a single one of you can honestly say you do not rely on OSS basically every single day of your life(again: this site runs on Linux!). Stop trying to straw hat this into a OS war. It's about OSS, and Microsoft's leadership. That includes Web(IE?), Desktop(Windows), and Office. All of which are declining in share, and by some accounts there's only 2 left where Microsoft has majority share.

We indirectly rely on Linux. The hosts of this site could swap over to a Windows host running Apache (Open Source project) or even IIS (Closed Source). Your next comment about OS warring, I don't know who it's really aimed at. Honestly speaking, if you want to say declaring certain facts an OS war, go ahead.

Open Source Software rules in some areas. You have named some great software that is open source, but this very forum isn't true open source software. You have to pay to get a license, and then you get to see things, and even then, the next upgrade could very well break it.

Web was not Microsoft's strong point on IE. I mean, they don't even care about the Acid2 or 3 test, so their browsers won't do much good. In the business world however, they are probably dominating. Most business computers come with some form of Windows, and because of that, the employees are probably using IE, not to mention the average user doesn't know about firefox/safari/chrome, nor would care to use them. I just convinced my mom the other day to even use Google Chrome, and she still is wary about it. The fact of the matter is (as has been brought up), if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And many people are still used to seeing IE load up and take care of business.

Look at Microsoft Office. It's become quite a handful of software recently. OpenOffice has advanced quite well too. But when you begin to compare the two, you'll eventually realize that the commercial application has more pro's than the open source one can provide, not to mention that you get the support and help from the commercial one that you might not easily get with the open source one.

I'll show you how: According to netmarketshare, in the last 2 years Windows lost 3.73% market share. If this trend continues for another decade Windows could be down to 72.81%. If this trend accelerates for any reason, Windows majority is likely lost.

The last 2 years saw the release of Windows Vista, the worst OS released for most since Windows ME. You don't think they lost market share then too? This trend will most likely be reversed with Windows 7 being released and relatively stable and secure. Due to security enhancements with User Account Control, Rootkits are pretty much ineffective now (if people leave UAC enabled that is). The point is, market shares will increase and decrease just like an economy.

Imagine all the productivity boost from the employees not knowing how to install games!

Employees are hired to work, not play. If they're playing games instead of working, then they shouldn't be there.

[dilettante]

The last 2 years saw the release of Windows Vista, the worst OS released for most since Windows ME.

Another big gout of nonsense.

Vista still has around 18% of Windows desktop/laptop market share, down from an earlier 24%. Windows Me never came anywhere near that level of penetration.

Windows market share actually increased over the last 2 years, and Linux has yet to reach 1% of the desktop/laptop market.

Windows 7 is not "more stable" in any meaningful way, except perhaps for the fact that vendors have finally gotten more Win 6.x drivers out at last. It is arguably less secure than Vista was due to its hiding and implicit acceptance of various levels of UAC alerts.


The whole thread seems to be nothing but a soapbox for contrarians. Linux effectively doesn't exist in the market at large.