Ms says Longhorn is better than ever windows.Now what we linuxsirs do??
Now windows is easier and more stable.What about Linux??
Linux in desktop is sure to fail?????

MS has 3 things riding against it.
1) Why upgrade from XP? Longhorn requires critical mass to be able to ram DRM and secure computing down everyone's throats.
2) Linux has reached critical mass on the server, and I suspect that the actual number of desktops is higher than anyone expects. This will continue to grow the whole time that Longhorn is being developed.
3) Longhorn will be late, giving #2 more relevance.

Side Note: What makes you think Longhorn will be more stable, or even come close to the stability of Linux. It has a LONG way to go before that happens.

RO

I agree with RO. Linux was around when MSFT came out with Win95, Win98, Win2000, WinXP, etc, and if anything, Linux has only become stronger. MSFT is famous for promoting its latest version continuously, at least until the next release is imminent, and then it switches gears and suddenly starts bad-mouthing all previous versions of Windows. The classic for me came with Win98, where the commercials constantly bragged about how "Windows98 boots up 30% faster than before." Well, what was before was Win95, so I guess the conclusion I was supposed to draw was that the MSFT software I had been using for the past couple of years suddenly was total crap and worthless. (I kind of came to that same conclusion on my own, without benefit of the MSFT advertising budget, but that's another story) Anyway I doubt Longhorn will have any more or less effect on Linux than XP did. -- J.W.

I agree completely, fellas. The idea that Longhorn will somehow boost MS sales by a million percent while simultaneously ending the linux uprising is simply not going to happen. Historically, people are getting sicker and sicker of MS and are changing gears faster than ever before!

Chris

"How we face Longhorn? "

Relaxed?

Or, as the saying goes hereabouts:

What should the oak tree care, when the sow scratches its hide on the bark ...

nevertheless,Linux's step in desktop is so slow!
I worry!

Ask yourself Why? If you use Linux and have no problems using it, why are you worried the desktop is slow to becoming about? Or are you complaining that its literall slow, like in performance? Nothing to worry about and who cares if it takes over the desktop market.. that is not its goal, really, it isn't.

My two cents.

The handful of m$ programmers vs. the astounding number of developers in the Linux community -- no comparison. That Trusted Computing crap is going to backfire - like the FBI's Magic Lantern trojan. If there are millions of Longhorn boxes 'trusting' each other, what's to stop an ingeniously crafted worm or some-such from spreading like wildfire between the longhorn boxes that 'trust' each other? One box gets infected and spreads it (in trust) to the rest.

Considering microshaft's history of hiding and lying about security flaws in every OS they release, I wouldn't take the chance of using their software.

there is way to much underserved hype over linux use as a desktop, there is too many different distros that do things very differently (some terribly). some linux distors match M$ with their stupidty, the only difference is they fly under the banner of opensource. until there is a set of standards that are enforced amoung these distros, linux WILL fail, splinter and takes its place in the backgound the same way Unix did

/begin sarcastic post

heh-heh....
Bill Gates
Distribution: slack 9.1
quote: "until there is a set of standards that are enforced amoung these distros,..."

Wasn't LSB just the dumbest idea?

"...linux WILL fail, splinter and takes its place in the backgound the same way Unix did"

Yeah, you're right. I have to admit that I agree. You know...Linux, Apache and Linux-like systems only run about 75% of the Internet & WWW. Linux can't possibly survive.

i never said i didnt like linux, that being said, im only running it now because my HW isnt supported by BSD. slackware tries the hardest to keep existing standards in place, thats why i'm using it. my short commings with linux have nothing to do with its performance or stability or anything like that, it is a new-ish nix work alike, so is BSD - they have been around for longer and do a better job (i think)

if anyone here really likes linux, then give one of the bsds a shot, u will love them

Yes, there are a lot of distro's, but most are converging on some sort of apt-get. As for the rest,
UNIX NEVER had the kind of exposure or development behind it that Linux/OS does. Not only that, but UNIX on the PC (intel) was never really very good, whereas, hey, 10s of millions of people run Linux on a plain old PC (and many, MANY millions more servers). I think you want it to fail, and this is simply a version of FUD. THE ONLY reason Linux on the desktop hasn't grow leaps and bounds...OEM install/delivery/support of a Linux desktop. MS still flexes their muscles there.

NOTE: 100% standardization is NOT a good thing. Unless the desire and unrivaled ease with which Virus' and Worms spread through a standardized and uniform configurations is what you really want.

EDIT: Just read your follow up post. I have used BSD, it was alright, but Linux has more programs. I don't want a BSD vs Linux debate. Both are good, BSD is more secure, imho, but I enjoy the unlimited and phenonominal number of linux programs. I think the closed nature of the BSD liscence (potentially closed) makes it less attractive to the OS community :edit

RO

P.S. You don't work for Gartner do you?

no i dont

unix never did, but that was so long ago, programmers back then were Mathematicians and electronic engineers.

both being Nix's, BSD's can 'piggy back' on the success of linux and run all the apps available for it (thro linux emulation mode)

I for one am a hardcore anti-standardization of Linux distributions. Linux should never dig a ditch around itself and proclaim one day that "This is the only correct way to use Linux!"... That will be the day I'll find another OS to play with.

Just because MS claims that its OS is standardized, why the heck should others be MS sheep and saying "I comply!". Does it make Windows better just because certain aspects of it is "standardized"? And must Linux be standardized to the Windows UI guidelines then?

Also the meaning of the term "failure" is subjective... To me MS is failing now, and it can only get worse... How do I count the "failure rate" of MS? Errmm... say something like number of virus released divided by the number of critical updates issued in a particular year... I don't see how Linux can "fail"... it doesn't set any objectives, does not have any financial concerns (note that I am not talking about distros here), shareholders to please, nor does it have any opportunity to cover up any inefficiency in its code considering its open source nature.