If Linux OS has been developed, for free, as an alternative to Microsoft OS, and the motivation of those that develop it is not for profit, but only to provide an alternative to MS, then once Linux achieves any significant market share then development of it will stop because there would be no longer any incentive. The more successful Linux is now, the more it is doomed to fail in the long run.
>can they maintain the momentum to keep growing
>and take on 25%+ of the client/desktop market?
Who is "they" in your scenario? Trying to compete against Linux is like trying to introduce an alternative to RCA audio connectors -- you can't. Open standards always win . "They" are IBM, HP, Dell, and all the other hardware/services providers in the world. Practically without exception, the major players are adopting Linux to varying degrees.
>Growth to that extent requires buy-in across a corporation.
There is already buy-in across the globe. Companies bought in to IBM mainframes didn't they? Novell LAN servers didn't they? They bought in to Windows clients didn't they? Now you're trying to claim it stops there, that the momentum prevents progress. Why now, suddenly? Well, I can tell you; nothing remains the same. Nothing. It's arrogant and short-sighted for anyone to think THEIR product will never be replaced.
>those that control the technology purse strings - the business leaders.
It is the business leaders themselves who are controlling and contributing to Linux development. Just what do you think is really going on here anyway?
Finally there is a platform on which they can market any product they wish without having to kowtow to Microsoft first for sanction. And you know that Microsoft never gives sanction where the proposed product would conflict with their agenda. You cannot fight open standards.
I cannot believe that Americans, who CLAIM to love their freedom so much, bow down and kiss Microsoft's feet. Whatever happened to the entrepreneural spirit in the US? It's all Big Corporations who brainwash the masses now. Good Old American "know how" just isn't anymore, because of monopolizing by big money.
>MSFT is growing revenues and units sold on the server end
It's costing Microsoft more to generate revenue now than it ever has in the past, and the ratio is shrinking. Profits are shrinking.
>this only helps them "lock in" the clients on the front end.
That is precisely why the companies mentioned above are fighting like mad.
>If/When the growth in server units halts for them is
>as much a determining factor as the client portion of
Server growth doesn't have to halt in order for Microsoft to stop being profitable and returning an ROI on investments.
>let's check back in 6/12/18/24/30/36 months
Well isn't that pointless. Hindsight is 20/20. If we don't use current information and historical examples to predict the future, then we might as well just discuss history alone and there's no point in that. The trick is in predicting the future. The point is to be ahead of the game. Otherwise, don't bother investing. A leader, not a follower, be.
Other vendors have reached the beginning of critical mass (i.e. Apple) and then slowly slid back down into the low single digits.
Do I think that will happen to Linux on the desktop? No, specifically because of the breadth/expanse of how Linux can be leveraged across a wide range of devices (i.e. scaling up/down). But the question at that point becomes - can they maintain the momentum to keep growing and take on 25%+ of the client/desktop market?
Growth to that extent requires buy-in across a corporation. That's where it stops becoming a decision driven by the technology herd, and one driven much more by those that control the technology purse strings - the business leaders.
I see that MSFT needs to change how they do business - if they don't, then they will keep bleeding marketshare to Linux - if they do, then I believe they can maintain a somewhat dominant role.
MSFT is growing revenues and units sold on the server end - this only helps them "lock in" the clients on the front end. If/When the growth in server units halts for them is as much a determining factor as the client portion of the equation.
You believe this is going to come to fruition in the near-term, I don't (based on revenues and market research). This is another example of let's check back in 6/12/18/24/30/36 months and see where everything stands...
>I keep referring to 2006 as the year that
>will show how this is going to play out...
So, maybe it's not 2005 but 2006 when Linux accounts for 12% of clients. BFD. The imporant thing to realize is that it's not the year that "will show how this is going to play out" but the year in which Microsoft HAS LOST the fight and its ability to be profitable. They know this, and they are trying desperately to get their middleware injected into the media delivery stream. Whenever anybody watches a DVD or listens to audio, Microsoft wants to be "in the middle" and receive royalties. Profits from the infrastructure, Windows, will dry up soon and they know it. Keep in mind that "the client" isn't so much a PC anymore but all kinds of different and varying devices where Microsoft does NOT hold that much ground. PointOfSale and "thin client" easily managed business devices included.
That is the same kind of thinking that got them the monopoly they have now, own the base, Windows, and make royalties on the applications i.e. Office, IE, etc..
So, Microsoft becomes a true IP company, relying not on superior technology for its profits but on royalties on proprietary technlogies.
Now I ask you, what example from history can we draw on to see how that plays out?
Remember IBM's proprietary mainframe monopoly? Their proprietary bus, MCA? Their proprietary network protocol? Their proprietary parity RAM? Their proprietary network cards, Token-Ring? A "disruptive technology" came along in the form of the "Clone PC" and ALMOST DESTROYED THEM because of their business model.
OSS is a disruptive technology because of the license and distributed development model. This is aimed, not by design, squarely at Microsoft's "IP company" business model.
You see this, no?
>>Please watch the swinging door lest it smack you in your lazy ass upon exiting. Hopefully your voluntary departure will make room for an "American" type industrialist whose chooses to accept responsibility for him or herself.<<
You mean like Billy-the-Perv or Ken Lay or Martha Stewart or the folks at Adelphia or the execs at WorldCon?
...or how about the Halliburton executives?
...or the rest of the payola beggars dependent on the Government oan your tax dollars for their living (like Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin and Halliburton./KB&R)?
The largest current customer for the US economy is the US Government itself.
How about Bush's "haves and have-mores?"
...and the point was that Canada is not socialist.
...but you missed that, as well as the reading of Luke from the New Testament in Sunday School.
"The measure of a society is not how it cares for its most fortunate, but
how it cares for its least fortunate." -- Franklin Roosevelt
>>The joke, my poor, stupid little slave of the right, is on you, since the Canadians and the Germans and the French and the Japanese (and the Israelis, at our expense) live under an enlightened, caring system, that provides for their people, as it should.<<
Enlightened, caring systems? Please, stop, my sides are hurting.
Systems aren't enlightened, systems don't care. People care, people are enlightened and the American system provides beautifully for those who are suited for it. Sadly for you they are on your type, hence your perception of uncaring. They don't care about whiners.
You are a pseudo-intellectual that is not 1/10 as enlightened as you perceive yourself.
You are a superficial thinker exposing yourself to the world as such with every mouthful of wealth redistribution drivel you post under the facade of it being a requirement for "caring."
Having endeavoured, as is your right, to bring "enlightenment" to the unwashed masses in America and having failed miserably it would seem you would be more comfortable in France or Germany?
Please watch the swinging door lest it smack you in your lazy ass upon exiting. Hopefully your voluntary departure will make room for an "American" type industrialist whose chooses to accept responsibility for him or herself.
As if YOU never make any spelling mistakes and typos. You self-righteous pompous ass. Never addressing the actual topic, but always trying to poke holes somewhere insignificant.
Poke, poke, poke. You're the eight year old child of the party host whose bedtime was long ago and you're up late bothering the guests: "Your fly is open! Make you look!" That's you. You're the perfect example of an American we're looking for, Pokey...
``Microsoft has also managed to upset women and entire countries. A Spanish-language version of Windows XP, destined for Latin American markets, asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch," because of an unfortunate error in translation.
Microsoft has also seen its unfortunate style of diplomacy have an effect in Korea, Kurdistan, Uruguay and to China--where a cartographical dispute saw Chinese employees hauled in front of the government.
Edwards said that staff members are now sent on geography courses to try to avoid such mishaps. "Some of our employees, however bright they may be, have only a hazy idea about the rest of the world," he said.''
>>Explain then your tax structure and the level of gov.'t services provided free of charge to your countrymen???<<
Canada is not a "socialist country" no matter what the various convicted traitors and felons say on right-wing talk radio (especially that draft-dodging, fat, flat-footed, drug-addicted, serial divorcee who is your King of the Ditto-holes--or his minions, the convicted Marine Corps felon and the convicted CIA felon). "Socialism," like "communism" is not a political, but rather an economic system.
Canada and developed countries who take care of their less privelidged citizens are not "socialist" just because you say so.
>>>Again - calling names because your ignorant of the reality of the situation...WooHoo - you truly are a hoot...<<<
The hoot is you...and you ARE a rock-dumb, typical 'Amurrican,' sadly, I'm afraid typical of my countrymen, and the rule, rather than the exception. This explains the deplorable state of our economy and our political system and the fact that we seem to be slipping into an accepted state of "perpetual war" as envisioned by Orwell and Huxley.
The joke, my poor, stupid little slave of the right, is on you, since the Canadians and the Germans and the French and the Japanese (and the Israelis, at our expense) live under an enlightened, caring system, that provides for their people, as it should.
They have it better than we do and we owe THEM money...they own more of our economy than American citizens do.