I am increasingly impressed by the progress of linux in attracting the media attention. When I first tried linux over a year ago now I tried a search on the BBC news website for linux. It returned 3 results, in 2 of which linux only got one sentence. Over the past year its articles have gradually gained more prominence in the technology section and today it made a spot on the homepage. I personally believe that BBC news is the best news site on the net if not the best site and their acknowledgment of linux by means of news reports shows Linux's growth. I hope it continues in the future until Microsoft is either bankrupt or forced to cuts its prices and listen to consumers.

Michael Smith

Not technical, therefore not suitable for Linux-General. Better suited in General. Moving there.

I agree but you can bet that you'd be able to get a 100% low fat no carb menu at McDonalds before Microsoft goes bankrupt

I've converted to Linux in the last 8 months and love the fact that I can change my system to however I want (within my capabilities so far that is). I keep reading stories on MSNBC of countries (and even some state governments here in the US) who are converting all or some to Linux.

"The Associated Press
Updated: 8:26 p.m. ET June 17, 2004FRANKFURT, Germany - City officials in Munich have approved a plan to change their 14,000 computers from Microsoft software to open-source Linux programs -- a process that will take until 2009."

I think a lot of it has to do with price and stability. Linux comes a lot more stable and secure by default, while MS comes much less stable and secure by default.

Every Windows installation I've done (Yes with full updates) has had problems within a month, and I only use my PC for web developing and surfing the net.

I've had Linux since Fedora 1 was released and haven't had to do a reboot once. I think this kind of stability, and saving thousands of dollars is the real driving force behind large Linux converts like in Munich.

to all poster`s; linux goes way back when i started w95 it was only for academic`s & us govt, but because of brain power then it grew out their hands in Linus Tovald. Thank You L.T. we are becoming free of MS bond.

It should also be pointed out that while there's often quite a few stories floating about in reference to the latest XXXXX inc. migrating due to yyyyyyy/whatever reason's, there are still lot's of large organisations who will take a lot of persuading.

Yes, for Joe user, it's really just about the ease of use and the learning curve. "We" don't mind that too much. It's something that is being addressed by some distro's and the grid learning nature of linux (forum's etc) is great at fostering the community spirit (something that I think is excellent).


BUT it should be remembered that large organisations don't only have their IT investment's to look after, but they have to look to "one stop" support and their future revenue stream to think of.

Yes, maybe 1 linux sys admin can support more servers etc (even though they tend to cost more), yes there's also a saving in software cost's, yes etc etc etc (you can go on for quite sometime with reason's why).

Money is the driving force in commerce. All, plus more, or the above reason's for changing. If there's a 5% drop in productivity over say, 6 month's, plus the cost's of retraining staff (even if it's just producing/providing idiot guide's to where all the facilities are located, and how to do X, Y and Z), well if that 5% drop represent's more than the equivalent saving - well then they just ain't gonna do it.

Yet these are the type's that we need to change. That's pretty much the only way linux based system's are gonna impact on what "they" can provide. Commerce seems' to have lost the ability to look to the future and identify long term saving. They seem to calculate their margin's on a max of 5 year's.

Those of you who're in the know, should be able to see that even though there's distro's who provide secured/hardened versions of linux. But even these change maybe 2 or 3 time's in 5 year's. That in mind, how are you gonna convince some corporate suit, who won't even let it's users install different background images of the benefit's. I mean, let's face it, something as simple as which window manager? as soon as anyone with a little knowledge point's out that over the example of 5 year's how many time's kde/gnome will change the libraries that they use - even if the suit understand's it, it's enough for them to head for the nearest beach for the sand to bury their head's in.

Maybe now you can appreciate some of the reasoning behind linux vendor's aiming at SME's.

spineynorman; Ms & Msn are the largest of most, yet they utilize linux for their servers! along with quite afew more. ???? of course it so stable they would be crazy not.

Why did IBM choose to work with a flavour of Unix (AIX), and support windows (2003) as their main ally. The market has gone mad is the answer.
Most people dont know the diff from mega bytes and mega bucks, no wonder the whole world is confused.
I would not be surprised if Bill is using a Linux box to view his bank account. Loyalty towards corp or os for that matter is dead. We live for ourselves in 04.

hadesthunder; well said. corporate greed with gold is the corruptor.

As I pointed out prior to hadesthunder!

Lets face it, any reasonable employer, will allow you to do anything. The only, and I mean only driving force as to whether that particular boss will let you do what you want, is

"how much is it going to cost"!

As with most companies, invariably, they've got a fair idea of how much the expect to earn from any given product.

They'll know the break even point, followed by the projected earning's estimate. Well, if they can exceed that, hell that's just a bonus!

I feel that linux should be aiming more at the desktop market as people in industry are against adopting it because it the workers will take a long time to adapt to it. If the workers, even a small percentage, were using the computers at home they would be able to help others to settle in making it quicker and cheaper for the company. I only use linux at home and i love it except for the little things it dont do or takes to long to configure. People should be made aware of linux and encouraged to give it a try. I have persuaded 2 people to try, one is still using it but the other person could not connect to the net with it so gave up (he was daft enough to uninstall windows too so he had no other way to get on the net.)

Michael

No, I think the answer is that IBM is a company which is trying to make money. Like it or not, Windows 2003 is a perfectly good OS, is a huge market and will remain so for some time. IBM would be crazy not to be in there. Likewise, AIX runs on IBMs proprietary pSeries hardware. AIX and pSeries is a more mature platform than Linux on Intel and more suited to many high-end computing environments. AIX is also the fastest growing proprietary server UNIX, ahead of Sun and HP on UNIX server shipments. Linux on pSeries is still a niche market. IBM pushes Linux too, of course, but they are big enough to do everything and would be mad not to.


They do use Linux in their environment, but I don't think it's a big part. Of course, others such as Amazon and Google do, but it would be quite untrue to suggest that Linux is obviously the right choice for everyone.

Thanks for that nice unbiased post, I love linux but i cant disagree with a word in ur post.

iainr. Many good points.

Boffy. Have to agree with you completly. I know that Linux is designed mostly for Network Workstations/Servers. It does a great job at that.

But if people who take their box to PC world to get rid of the virus, or pay for expensive anti-virus software, knew that there was no way they could download a virus from a dodgy attachment or link site, that would harm anything beyond user files on their system, they would be queing in shops for the latest copy.
There is a choice in the OS market. If your clever you get Linux and Windows, if your very clever you just get Linux and if your are intelectually challenged you just get Windows without uncle Norton.
The real problem is more to do with hardware. There are a few OS's that are worth using, but tell me of a cpu other than Intel Pentium and its 1yr behind, stalker, that I keep forgeting the name of. IMB/Microsoft monopoly is what I call it.

Are Apple Macs more power for the pound?

I doubt it. There's no disputing that Mac's are good, but given that they make more of an effort to control both software and hardware if they had a monopoly? similar to MS, then IMO, they would be worse than Bill Gates et al, could even dream of.

At the same time, it's fair to admit, that if Job's and Mac hadn't been subjected to the kind of pressure that only MS can wield, then maybe they wouldn't be so bad - I can't say, I don't know Steve Job's etc etc.

regards

john