For what it's worth I believe that Microsoft will get hurt sooner or later by Linux. I have personally been using only Linux (NOT DUAL BOOT) for the last 3 years and I can tell you that I have seen Linux coming a long way to where it is now. Unfortunately Linux’s survival does depend on Software developers developing for Linux platforms but then again it’s the same story for Microsoft. I think as more and more software developers are realising that Linux is coming up strong and starting to develop software for Linux the stronger Linux gets the weaker Microsoft gets. I must a admit I am doing my bit for the Linux community cause I already converted my Father-in-law (NOT technical at all) to Linux for his home system, email, internet, Documents, etc and I have resentely converted my sister to Linux too (Suse 8.2) and she loves it. :-). Anyway to resume all this my guess is that in the next 5 years Microsoft will BE loosing great market share to the Linux community. P.S. I am already waiting for Suse 9 to come out in UK. :-) Quoting Gedi :

I was at a training course a few days ago. Whilst the rest of the group I was with had wondered off to stretch their leg in the break, I ended up on a discussion with the consultant/training officer about Linux, Unix, programming etc...

He passed a comment that Linux would never make it make it into homes or even onto workstations. The average user will always want microsoft product and far too much investment has been made with microsoft as a whole to warrant changing. His argument was, he was a software developer mainly for industry and virtually 100% of his work is for microsoft based software, even though his company offers development on any platform.

Needless to say we ended up arguing!!

As this list is home to many industry proffesionals, I would love to hear your comments on this.

Was he correct??

Will Linux ever be a real threat to Microsoft, not just in industry, but in the household also?

----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------- GVON BROADBAND ... Just LOOK at these Prices £23 per month for 512K £89 per month for 1M £99 per month for 2M Are these prices for real? You bet. See http://gvon.com for more details and to ORDER NOW ONLINE Managed and Supplied by http://Gvon.Com and http://DomainShop.co.uk Gvon's HeyPresto WebMail is FREE for Customer Use Only

Gedi wrote:

I was at a training course a few days ago. Whilst the rest of the group I was with had wondered off to stretch their leg in the break, I ended up on a discussion with the consultant/training officer about Linux, Unix, programming etc...

He passed a comment that Linux would never make it make it into homes or even onto workstations. The average user will always want microsoft product and far too much investment has been made with microsoft as a whole to warrant changing. His argument was, he was a software developer mainly for industry and virtually 100% of his work is for microsoft based software, even though his company offers development on any platform.

Needless to say we ended up arguing!!

As this list is home to many industry proffesionals, I would love to hear your comments on this.

Was he correct??

Will Linux ever be a real threat to Microsoft, not just in industry, but in the household also?

One of the problems with this kind of question is revealed by the word 'compete'. I contribute code to various Linux projects, not in order to compete but because the program doesn't do something that I want it to do, so I fix it. Competition doesn't come into it, and I'm perfectly happy for my father and mother to use Windows. There is no way they could survive with Linux. There are of course companies, such as IBM, or Redhat, who are trying to compete with MS on a business level, but here the competition is not about the desktop so much as the industrial side of things. The money to be made in open source is not in supplying product, but providing services for the product. And households with desktops do not provide a steady stream of income for services. Industry does. The 'competition' between the industry giants over free or open source software and proprietry software is more a struggle of two business models, one of proprietry software being sold as a manufactured product,and the other as a set of services being sold for a product produced for (and by) the common good. The fact that digital products can be cloned essentially perfectly, and for free, means that the old "software (or music...) as product" is at a basic disadvantage. Left to its natural course, the free software model will win. But there is so much invested in the old business model, that its quite possible the new will be 'legislated' out of existence. A tantalizing thought is that the beacon of free software will be picked up by China, where the idea of the common good, or the commons, is more established in the age old confucian model. The US will tie itself up in laws and regulations that will stifle software development. Time will tell. cheers -- GPG fingerprint = 3D45 5509 D380 26A4 523E A9D8 A66A 5F38 CA43 BB0E

As many of the questions I ask on this list will tell, I am fairly new to Linux..but I am learning. I would say this is the case for a lot of people. I am currently consulting for a medical facility that has employed me to evaluate their Information Technology needs. One of the issues that has come from that evaluation is the fact that the 'server' they are currently using is way outdated in both its hardware and operating system. Therefore, one of the first things we will do is get a new server. A true server. Now, here is the issue that I think Linux faces. This facility has been using the same software for the past 8+ years. They are used to it and they do not want to switch. I called the company that makes the software and asked if they were doing anything in the way of porting the software to run on Linux. The answer was "somewhat". Somewhat translates into "we have one facility that has actually found a way to port the software to Linux by themselves, but we do not support them." The key word here "unsupported". If the software company had said that they would/could support their software on Linux, we would already have the server and would probably be a Microsoft free medical facility by now. The reason... not because I don't like Microsoft (even though I really don't). The reason we would be M$ free is because we wouldn't need M$. I have 25 current and potential users in this facility. NONE of the current users that have machines do anything that cannot be done in Linux. Email (Evolution, Kmail, etc), occasional document (Ooo, ABIword, etc.), and browsing (Mozilla, Opera). The only reason we have to go with M$ is because the software company we currently use doesn't support. Mind you, the other facility already sees that the software will work with Linux, but the company we would be reliant on for support will not support it. This means, for the Server, we are looking at spending an extra $1500 for software and licensing than we would if we were to go with SuSE or Red Hat. And for each workstation we are spending an additional $500+ for software (Win XP and Office 2003). Naturally, since we are looking at 10+ new machines throughout the facility, my Administrator was pleased to hear about the possibility of Linux, and more than disappointed when I told him that we could not use it. Now, we do have alternatives. We can replace the software we are currently using. I looked into that and the closest comparable software package (direct competitor of the company we are using now) is between $15k and $20k for purchase and installation (and they probably don't support a Linux installation either). Long story short.. as long as consultants such as the one you spoke with are working for companies like the one that makes the software we use, then yes, Linux will have issues making it to the workstation and into the office space. In this case, the software company has no idea how the other facility ported Linux. Truth be told, I'm sure they don't want to know. These techs want that MCSE they put on their business cards after their names to mean something :-) But as long as people like you and I the others on this list continue to shed light on what is really going on; as long as we continue to show that there are alternatives, change will come. It may not be fast, but it is inevitable. -=Thinker On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:53, Gedi wrote:

I was at a training course a few days ago. Whilst the rest of the group I was with had wondered off to stretch their leg in the break, I ended up on a discussion with the consultant/training officer about Linux, Unix, programming etc...

He passed a comment that Linux would never make it make it into homes or even onto workstations. The average user will always want microsoft product and far too much investment has been made with microsoft as a whole to warrant changing. His argument was, he was a software developer mainly for industry and virtually 100% of his work is for microsoft based software, even though his company offers development on any platform.

Needless to say we ended up arguing!!

As this list is home to many industry proffesionals, I would love to hear your comments on this.

Was he correct??

Will Linux ever be a real threat to Microsoft, not just in industry, but in the household also?

----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/

I was at a training course a few days ago. Whilst the rest of the group I was with had wondered off to stretch their leg in the break, I ended up on a discussion with the consultant/training officer about Linux, Unix, programming etc...

He passed a comment that Linux would never make it make it into homes or even onto workstations. The average user will always want microsoft product and far too much investment has been made with microsoft as a whole to warrant changing. His argument was, he was a software developer mainly for industry and virtually 100% of his work is for microsoft based software, even though his company offers development on any platform.

Needless to say we ended up arguing!!

As this list is home to many industry proffesionals, I would love to hear your comments on this.

Was he correct??

No he was not correct, he's an idiot. I'm not trying to be some kind of zealot here, but the guy is out of touch with reality of the situation. Anyone who is AFRAID to change will declare to his dying breath that there is no change coming. He's got a cushy job there will his Microsoft training crap and he'll be out of a job if Microsoft goes out of demand. Look at all the stuff that's never supposed to have happened: Apple was the first really useful GUI environment that was readily available. It died. No one will ever need more than 64K or RAM... right. IBM thought that they were impenetrable, until Microsoft changed that thinking. Used to be you couldn't get fired for going with IBM. Now they say you can't get fired for going with Microsoft. Someday that will likely change as well. Study Industrial history. Microsoft has only two choices in the long run, fully embrace OpenSource (which mutually excludes the extend/extinguish process) or go out of business and become a has-been. I for one, would not have had this arguement with anyone. If they cling so strongly to their Microsoft Mentality simply give them you email address and ask them to send you their opinion on the matter in 5 years.