Neowin.net

[quote]As for "costly", this is being uttered by a company that sells $600 proprietary Office software and $90 proprietary Operating System. Nuff said. They crack me up.[/quote] You really don't understand the difference between retail price and TCO, do you?

Yes I do. It's only caused on the linux side of things if you need tech support. And fortunately most linux users don't need their hand held unlike certain people. You can get by without ever paying a cent.

And why would that matter from a corporate perspective? Sorry, TCO doesn't just mean tech support. It means hiring employees to go through the server, creating training programs for all employees so they can learn how to use it, etc. etc. No, you cannot get by without paying a cent in the corporate world. If you want to use Linux as a home user, go ahead, but please pay attention to what the article is referring to.

It doesn't cost anymore one way or the other to train people on any operating system. There's no reason why linux, macos, windows, beos, et al cost anymore than the other. They pretty much all look and act the same now anyway. I use all of them all the time and I didn't find anything difficult on any.

[quote]I use all of them all the time and I didn't find anything difficult on any.[/quote] Well, then, you obviously already have the training. I'm sure that it would take less time to train someone on Windows than it does for Linux. It's just inherently more user-friendly. And in a corporate environment, time means money.

Good response. Yes Microsoft has been in the game for 20 years and Redhat and similar ilk not as long, and they still have some catching up to do. End users such as myself and government employees don't have to worry as much as developers such as yourself and that does vary where the cost would come in.

Linux is least expensive for servers, it takes a few hours to set up everthing you need (unless you buy somthing distro which is specifically customized to be a server). I have debian linux on my server and so far it has never costs me a penny.

zivan56, You would see how expensive it is if I told you that I needed to get a custom ERP or CRM package up and running in the next 12 - 18 months on your Linix network using Oracle, Sybase or SQL Server for my datastore. You are right that in a small environment that can use off the shelf solutions, Linux has an advantage but in a corporate environment the development costs are too high, Linix does get very expensive. TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) goes beyond the simple 'installing free software on the server'.

You can make Apache modules with Kylix (and other related components), in the same way as you can do so on Windows using Delphi. This would still cost less than a Microsoft solution. The costs of Kylix is not significant at all and can be used for all of those things you mentioned.

Actually, the cost idea of overall TCO of a Microsoft Product being lower is simply a lie. There are many cases where the MS solution may look good on paper but not in implimentation. Rarely, would you find no need for in-house developers and the time it takes developers to get up to speed with the proprietary API's (even if you where an MFC/ATL developer now switching to .NET) is greater than standard C/C++,Java and or Perl languages. Sometimes getting even an off the shelf MS product (Biztalk) to integrate within a system would take much longer to get working than a roll your own solution in any language you choose. A piece of advice, don't use Biztalk within a web project where you have a need for a response that is not loosely coupled. Biztalk fine for loosely coupled situations where you don't have developers who follow standards and know how to design a system that handles foreign data properly with metadata to describe it stored along with it.

Do you not have better things to do with your time than retype the same thing 60 times? Why don't you start by debunking my responses to your posts first?

And you reply the same thing to him everytime. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

I said: [i]Why don't you start by debunking my responses to your posts first?[/i] I reply the same thing to him every time because he never responds to them. He ignores them, tells me I'm on a one-track mind, and reposts the same thing I've already picked apart. Perhaps I should take my own advice? Perhaps you should learn to read.

[neoquote=#3.3 by JaggedFlame]I said: [i]Why don't you start by debunking my responses to your posts first?[/i] I reply the same thing to him every time because he never responds to them. He ignores them, tells me I'm on a one-track mind, and reposts the same thing I've already picked apart. Perhaps I should take my own advice? Perhaps you should learn to read.[/neoquote] He doesn't want to speak to you. Thats why people opt to ignore you. If I could add you to an ignore list I would because you're noisy and post stuff to stir the pot. That's why I ignore most threads like this and reply with something witty and sarcastic if I do. As far as the "advice" as concerned, I was referring to your posting as a whole being ignored. Why bother unless you are antagonzing him. Be aware. My point is, nobody cares about a raving fanatic who never posts good stuff on his own, and instead just replies to make people mad. It's called trolling. And you have left a plethora of evidence of this activity in the Neowin archives.

[quote]He doesn't want to speak to you. Thats why people opt to ignore you. If I could add you to an ignore list I would because you're noisy and post stuff to stir the pot. That's why I ignore most threads like this and reply with something witty and sarcastic if I do.[/quote] It's funny, I didn't realize relating how Microsoft software helps me was noisy and stirring the pot. Then again, this crap didn't even start until people like azazel and zivan56 accused me of trolling because I'm a "fanboy". Look, Fotix, if you want this stuff to go away, it's not going to. All I can say is that when there are different viewpoints on an Internet forum, it's to your disadvantage to huddle up in a corner and hope they go away. I'm not trolling. I'm not starting flamewars. I'm just offering my opinion. If that's too much for you, then I don't know what to say. [quote]As far as the "advice" as concerned, I was referring to your posting as a whole being ignored.[/quote] My posting as a whole is not being ignored. Maybe you're ignoring it, but I don't really care, because that's not something I can (or particularly feel the need to) control. As I said, I'll offer my opinion and I'll try to rebut other people's points. That's the idea of a forum, isn't it? [quote]My point is, nobody cares about a raving fanatic who never posts good stuff on his own, and instead just replies to make people mad. It's called trolling. And you have left a plethora of evidence of this activity in the Neowin archives.[/quote] Show me. Trolls are people who never give any evidence to support their points. While I might get people mad, it's because they think I'm blindly supporting one company, all the time. People like Tom Servo and I are just going around debunking popular misconceptions. When Rambo2000 first started posting, I provided him with a list of reasons to consider, because he wasn't making sense. When [i]he[/i] couldn't "convert" me, he started ignoring me. What does that tell you? Am I a troll, or is he narrow-minded? If you think I'm a raving fanatic, again, I don't know what to say other than there are tons more people on Neowin who are more obsessed than I am. The evidence is right here in the forums, every day.

I noticed several replies where you demanded he respond for you. He doesn't have to. He's smarter than that. Heck, I wish I could do that before but I gave in in this topic. I assure you, it will be the last It's not your business to "debunk" anything because you don't even have a point. You just want to antagonize and victimize. A certain other person engaged in unwarranted namecalling in another topic for no justifiable reason. That isn't right. And it is the very definition of trolling. You don't link to sources and explain them in relation to the news topic. You put in no real effort for your position other than to argue and criticize. You always ask questions in your replies as if anyone cares to answer you. Well, nobody does really. When is the last time you contributed something positive to Neowin without attacking anyone who dares to criticize Microsoft? -- don't answer. I've yet to see an example of it. If you don't like being ignored, I have some news for you. Prepare to face a lot of it because I've joined the crowd. Merry Christmas, and relax dude, k.

Last edited by 6042 on 22 Dec 2002 - 20:52

I guess you haven't been looking around. I provide a lot of support for my points. It's just that when people like you call me a troll, [i]that's[/i] what's inflammatory, not the fact that I respond. No one links to sources in a comment. That's more than uncalled for. But I can use personal experience to back up my points, and I frequently do. If you don't see that in my comments, please learn to read more effectively (that's not an insult). Why do you assume there's a crowd, and that the existence of this "crowd" is going to cow me into shutting up? There are better ways to get that point across. I know you are mature enough to recognize them. I know I am mature enough to care when you have a good reason for telling me that I'm being negative. [quote]You always ask questions in your replies as if anyone cares to answer you. Well, nobody does really.[/quote] See? That's what I mean. Why assume? Just tell me you don't agree with me. I don't need to pretend there's a large anti-JaggedFlame movement at Neowin, because there's not. Other people have, in fact, responded to my posts, specifically in the browser articles, telling me that they 100% agree with me telling people to use whatever they want. A few people complaining is enough for me. An example of me [i]not[/i] responding in an inflammatory way to anyone who criticizes Microsoft is just down the page. I know you didn't ask for it, but you're severely misinformed. [quote]If a company is using Linux, they should stay with Linux. It's definitely cheaper to stick with whatever they have, regardless of which has the lower TCO. For new companies, TCO isn't everything: it's simply one of the factors that alerts the company to which suits their needs better. This will be DIFFERENT IN EVERY SINGLE CASE. It won't always be Linux. It won't always be Windows.[/quote] See? It doesn't tell everyone to switch to Microsoft. It doesn't attack any groups in particular, or in general. It has personal experience behind it. It is, in fact, a relatively harmless comment. I honestly don't understand where you're getting this opinion that I attack anyone who criticizes Microsoft. In reality, I don't care what people use: I just think they're losing out if they shy away from certain companies because of an irrational bias. To this point, I don't see any reason for me being negative other than the fact that some of my posts seem derogatory. I can change that. I can also ignore posts that I don't agree with, but would start a war if I responded with my opinion. I'm [i]not[/i], however, going to change the fact that I voice my opinion otherwise, or the fact that I have one. Again, I know you are mature enough to know this. I hope you're mature enough not to get sucked into a vendetta with me. If you still feel the need to ignore me, that's your decision (and not one that will bother me). Enjoy your Christmas. You won't be seeing me around for a couple of weeks, so I hope you get around your sensitivity by then (again, not an insult).

Last edited by 820 on 23 Dec 2002 - 01:42

Jeez, this one is a long one, I must of missed the party Ok then, JaggedFlame, I don't really have any problems with you or anyone else, if you want to be pro windows, thats your choice and I'm fine with that, we're all pretty much mature enough to have our own views on things. Ive been using computers now for almost 20 years and can say I know a lot about them, When I look at Linux and look at where it's heading, I see it going places and getting stong backing by big companys and goverments, and I can't understand why anyone would honestly think Microsoft being in control of everything in the computer world is a good thing because it's not, and we all know it's not just going to stay in the computer world, the computer is going to spread to many other things like the alerm of your house, your tv, your car, your phone, your hi-fi, almost anything you can thing off, and I truely don't think it's a good idea to have one company in charge of it all with a proprietary OS, it's not in our intrest as consumers and for the world to let that happen. We would be more or less be letting Microsoft have the power to do what ever they wanted, charge what ever they wanted and there would be very little we could do about it. I hear somewhere that Microsoft have not droped the price of windows for ages, if ever, and also hear the reason they don't drop it is because they need the money for research and development, but if that was the case then why do Microsoft have billions in the bank doing nothing?, and why have they not droped the price of windows?, simple really, because they have no competions untill recently and I bet the price of windows will drop because of Linux. They could of droped the price but choose not too, they was rakeing in as much money of us because we had little choice but to use windows, there is no way any company could make so much money just of software unless they was over chargeing for it, Microsoft spend very little on windows compared to how much they make of it, which say they are ripping us all off.

Glad to hear it. Back to the war: [quote]I can't understand why anyone would honestly think Microsoft being in control of everything in the computer world is a good thing because it's not[/quote] Of course it isn't a good thing. I just don't see it happening with the hawks in the media grabbing hold of everything Microsoft does. Remember the big deal with the subscription model for software? They tried it in Australia and it received such a resounding no that they decided to stick with shrink-wrapped software. When people disagree with the actions of a company, that company would have to be stupid to continue anyway. That's why I'm not worried too much about the prospect. [quote]I hear somewhere that Microsoft have not droped the price of windows for ages, if ever, and also hear the reason they don't drop it is because they need the money for research and development, but if that was the case then why do Microsoft have billions in the bank doing nothing?, and why have they not droped the price of windows?, simple really, because they have no competions untill recently and I bet the price of windows will drop because of Linux.[/quote] It probably will. That being said, it might drop anyway. Remember Office? It still has no major competitors, yet Microsoft is losing sales because people don't want to shell out the cash to upgrade. What are they doing about this? They're releasing a teaching and learning version for cheap, and they're lowering the price for people like you and me who want to pick up a cheap copy in the store. See, competition definitely spurs prices to drop, but I don't think the lack of it is any barrier to Microsoft being controlled by the people's whims. If we don't like the price of a product, we don't upgrade to it. That's enough to make the company act in our interests, even if a side effect of that is making more money. [quote]Microsoft spend very little on windows compared to how much they make of it, which say they are ripping us all off.[/quote] Yes, but don't they have to make a profit to pay the employees? It actually costs less than a dollar to make each new copy of Windows. All it involves is duplicating code onto a piece of plastic. But, the amount of man-hours and people who went into the project require there to be a tremendous profit to pay them. And this gets back to the whole TCO issue: it's not just support. It's also the amount of time the sysadmin and people in the company spend using the operating system. If a significant amount of time is lost, a significant amount of money is lost as well.

Looks like you guys are having fun, its nice to know JaggedFlame remembers me

lol, yeah, wsup zivan

Sometimes argueing can be fun Zivan , ok back to the war, I hope it's friendly fire by the way I remember about all that in Australia, but the problem is is that theres always back doors to sneak past the users to gain more control, most of them faile because people find out about it, but the problem is is the ones that slip by without anyone knowing about it and Microsoft are in a strong position to take a lot of control in a lot of things, and I'm willing to bet the reason the US goverment went soft on them lately is because they don't want to harm one of there own companys and because it could mean the American goverment might get the idea of putting spy software in windows to steal secrets of companys and goverments or anyone around the world that uses windows. One things for sure, companys, goverments, people don't trust Microsoft and there goverment to have so much control, anf it's partly that reason what will make Linux the defacto standed, and as you probaly already know, in Europe Linux is getting a lot more of a push then it is in America, say if the market goes anything like 50/50 which is very likely, just a matter of time and, Linux will of won it all then, I think if most Europeans use Linux then thats it, it's won, others will follow as they are already starting to do now, the only country that might be a bit slow on catching on with Linux is America, simple because it's an American company and because of the goverment there, but they'll have to follow or they'll end up isolateing themselfs from the rest of the world. Competions is good, the more the better we are off, Linux is perfect to give the most competions with them all starting equaly, Microsoft wouldn't have the advangtage of there OS that way and because of that, a lot more competions will come in because then they feel they can compeat, I think Microsoft droped the price of there office programs because of open office and star office, they are good enough or getting good enough to do the job of what most people want and it's free, all Microsoft have in that repect is there brand name which they could very much lose if they don't port there software over to Linux early enough before other companys sneak in and take the market. Remeber what Microsoft did to win the market from netscape?, gived the browers away for free which garanteed to gain market share fast, Microsoft did this to many companys, give it for free to gain market share untill it's got it all and later on if they wanted, they could charge you for it, which I hear they are thinking of it but I doubt it now because of Linux, what I'm getting at here is that Microsoft have won most of there battles by either buying the other company out, or giving away there own product, two things they can't do when it comes to Linux as they can't buy it out and can't kill it, thats what really worries Microsoft because what they used to do doesn't work anymore and they don't know how to get around it, the only thing they can do is make a better product and stay ahead of Linux, but thats unlikely to happen, Linux is gaining ground fast and over time will over take Microsoft. Microsoft would argueblely say that Windows XP is there crown acompleashment, by far there best windows they've made, but what is ironic is that when Microsoft bring out there best windows ever, Linux as it's best year ever, so what I mean here is that Windows XP is something they had to put a lot of work in to get and took them years to get here, the next windows will just be a patch on Windows XP, probaly called 5.1 or whatever, the thing is, Linux is having major updates a lot and they are doing them much faster then windows and thats only going to get worse for Microsoft as Linux will keep speeding up, everything is stacked in favor of Linux, I can't see how Microsoft can get out of this one, and it will be much worse once Linux gets there installers of software and drivers sorted it, to me it's more or less would be good enough to throw away windows and just use Linux then, using Linux is pretty easy, just like windows, but setting it up and installing drivers and software are a nightmare, but as a OS goes, it's easy to use like windows and the core of Linux seems to run much better then windows with memory and speed. Yeah fair enough they have to make a profit to pay there employees but not so much, the money they are making for what they are giving is way too much, it's only software in the end, they are making way more then they are spending and hardware companys don't like that, thats probaly part of the reason why so many of them are supporting Linux, to pull Microsoft down a few pegs and knock windows of the top block. When Linux takes over, could you imaging how competetive the market will be for OS's that we can choose?, the OS will go up in leaps and bounds because of it, a bit like the PC in hardware, compeating with each other on the same computer, that what Linux would be like, compeating and making the best product and we choose.

Finally! A well thought out, unbiased, intelligent comment. Thank you! Thank you so much for bringing light to the dark dreary ignorance of our existences. Whatever would I have done had I not been alerted to the awe-shattering fact that Microsoft is full of so much sh!t. Amazing. (that was sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it, btw)

[quote] (that was sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it, btw) [/quote] good one

lol

[neoquote=#4.0 by mintll]Microsoft are full of so much SHlT[/neoquote] Bad grammar, dude. Seriously, it's very often true that the TCO of Linux is more expensive. Not ALWAYS, but often enough. It's also expensive for the Linux provider. So many have gone under. Linux may be "free" now, but once it's established, I wouldn't be surprised...

lol, I had a good laugh at that, as for Linux, it's free and even if there was a small charge it would be worth it and the likelyhood is the people who don't want support and help with it can get it for free which a lot of people would be alright with that. As for Linux costing more then windows could be true early on but I doubt that as well, but if it is that is only untill the company moves over and once all that is done, it works out cheaper in the long run for the company, where by if they stayed with Microsoft, they would have to pay the Microsoft tax year after year or what ever and pay the price they set, so Linux does work out cheaper in the long run but maybe not in the short term.

It's not just all about support. There's also employees to hire, employees to train, and the amount of time it takes to do certain tasks. And when you take all of this into account, there are variable results for each company. If there were a black and white answer to this problem, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about it. As a result, I personally think it's useless to be sitting here discussing which has the lower TCO, because the results aren't unilateral for all companies.

Last edited by 820 on 23 Dec 2002 - 03:39

True, I don't expect it to be easy for companys early on or even cheaper which is hard to say, I still think it's cheaper, but that doesn't stop the flood of companys, people and who ever else that keeps moving to Linux, I'm hearing it a lot lately, but once they have moved over and trained them on that, it works out cheaper in the long run and Linux deffrenetly isn't going to go away., if so many people and companys are starting to move over to Linux now when it's not the standed, whats it going to be like when it picks up more share?, there will be nothing stoping it.

[quote]As for all these staffing costs, don't get me started. You hire someone that knows Linux already. Most people that know **** about ANYTHING do anyways.[/quote] Okay, buddy, get ready for every single employee in your company to complain that he or she can't get what he needs to do done because he doesn't know how to use the mainframe anymore. It surprises me how full of it people can get just because they know how to use an operating system. Not everyone does, you know. This isn't just Microsoft fanboyism, or whatever the hell certain idiots call it. If a company is using Linux, they should stay with Linux. It's definitely cheaper to stick with whatever they have, regardless of which has the lower TCO. For new companies, TCO isn't everything: it's simply one of the factors that alerts the company to which suits their needs better. This will be DIFFERENT IN EVERY SINGLE CASE. It won't always be Linux. It won't always be Windows.

I agreed with JaggedFlame that people might start complaining early on but thats always the cast, most people complain when change happens, but shouldn't mean change shouldn't happen, once a company moves over to something like Linux, over a year or two, they'll be used to it and it wouldn't be a problem with the added benefits of not having to pay the Microsoft tax, the early change is the hard part but once that passes, it will get easier and the more market share Linux's gets will make it easier as well, but it does work out cheaper to have a free OS then a paid OS.

[quote]but it does work out cheaper to have a free OS then a paid OS.[/quote] I don't agree. For one thing, switching to a free OS can cause a lot of problems. Support is there, sure, but it's not as guaranteed. Microsoft has one of the best support systems in the industry (at least for corporations: I'm not sure about personal support, although they were pretty good when my IntelliMouse required repair). Linux, well, it's not as established, and it's going to take it a lot of time to reach the level Microsoft is at right now. Beyond support, there's also the cost it takes to find a new admin or retrain the current admin for Linux. And a bunch of other stuff. And it works the other way, too: Linux people switching to Windows would have a big headache on their hands; not always justified by the benefits, either. And, for companies starting fresh: what if they need to use technologies such as ASP .NET, or Windows Media Services? I think Linux would be quite out of the question there. There are some things that .NET servers are much better at doing, as there are Linux servers better at doing other things. I guarantee you the TCO of Linux would be higher if you were trying to run something the equivalent of .NET on there. See? Lots of variables. Who are we to lay down rules for what companies should and shouldn't use?

I think you are missing the point of what companys are thinking, I don't think they are thinking of the short term problems, they can be sorted out with time, they are looking at the long term future of it and seeing it's a better model then what Microsoft as got, nothing is ever easy to change, but if it's better which in the long run Linux will be for companys and people, then I think it's worth it and so do many others switching over now, think of it as a cost at the start to get long term benefits, thats how they will be seeing it, but if they stuck with Microsoft, they have no say but to pay the Microsoft tax and wait for them to upgread there windows where with Linux they could alter it to suit there needs themself if they knew how or pay someone to do it, it works out a lot better for the company and cheaper in the long run. Here is a link with what Linux is all about. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134601185_microlinux230.html

Gee, Fotix, would you rather read comments like the one I'm replying to? Or would you rather read an intelligent, thought-out comment that, while might get you mad, is entirely in accordance with the point of a forum?

I don't think Linux can kill Microsoft off as Microsoft are too big of a company to be killed off and they do other stuff as well, but what looks likely to happen is the company will be a lot smaller then they are now and that could be a risk to Microsoft to from other companys like IBM who might want to buy them out for there technologys. But for them to be killed off, very unlikely.

Yeah and the only real edge Microsoft have over Linux in the desktop market is the ease of use, but it's only a matter of time before Linux starts getting much easier and like it's doing slowly now, starts creeping it's way in the desktop. I'm seeing Linux get easier to use and the only thing that stoped me using Linux was the installers of software are a nightmare, but I hear they are working on fixing that, if they sort that out, that will bring to Linux a lot more software and make it much easier to install software, which to me could be the deal to get me on Linux and throw away windows.

[quote]Yeah and the only real edge Microsoft have over Linux in the desktop market is the ease of use[/quote] No way. Microsoft has a very functional GUI program, much better than X. It has technologies like ClearType and Yukon (which is coming soon), while many Linux distros are still struggling with TrueType support. It has much more developers making programs for it. And ease of use is a lot more of a big deal than you may think. Linux can definitely get a [i]foothold[/i] in the desktop market at the rate it's going now, but instead of aiming for where Microsoft is now, it needs to anticipate how fast Microsoft is improving Windows, as well. I don't see any companies doing that right now.

Linux is playing catch up but the pace of the two shows that Linux is moving faster then Microsoft, the same thing happend with the PC in the 80's, it was playing catch up to all other computers, but once it got there, it over took them and left them for dead, Linux looks like it's going along the same lines and uses the same model of openess. I'm not saying the Linux GUI is perfect, but windows is not either, I think the windows one is better but not by much, it's pretty easy to use Linux once it's set up, as for this cleartype, Linux does have it, it just depends on which distru you pick and if it doesn't have it, you can put it in yourself, I think all of them will have it in 3 to 6 months, I've used Linux and as a GUI goes, it's fairly easy to use and getting easier. Linux is progressing a lot faster and will keep getting faster then windows, within 6 months I see more work done on Linux then Microsoft do on windows in a year if not more, and like I said, Linux is playing catch up, it's not always going to be like that, I think in about 2 years, Linux will match anything windows throws at it, and you are forgeting one thing, Microsoft are way behind on the core in windows then Linux is, the Linux core works a lot better then windows, so it's not Linux have to catch up on everything, it's got many things that are better then windows already. The simple fact is the ease of use, Linux doesn't have it yet, it's only been working on that a short time thought, give it more time then watch it.

Tell Microsoft to surrender to Linux then because they can't win any other way, and I don't think it will make any odds if Microsoft give windows away for free, they still have a monoply in that market so Linux will still win I think.

The problem with MandrakeSoft is simple, they let you download the software and only let you buy it a month later in the box, and the problem is with most people is they can't wait and want it as soon as it's out, so most people just download it for free. What would be the best thing for them is to offer it where you can buy it online and download and pay for it there and they send the box, manuls and CD's to the address orderd from later on when it's out in shops or the other thing they could do is don't put it on the net untill it's out in the shops, that way they can make a profit on it.

Are there stats anywhere showing how many people download it as opposed to how many people buy it? For some reason, I can't bring myself to think that more people would buy it than download it, regardless of when the boxed version came out. As for support, Red Hat only supports its operating system versions for two years after they come out. Two years! What about Windows 95, whose end of life hasn't even happened yet? Windows XP should last at least eight to ten years. I think that's a much more appealing aspect for corporations.

Didn't MS kill Win95 support in 2001? I know IE6 doesn't support it.

The wonderful thing about Linux is it's ability to adapt, and be adapted. If Mandrake goes completely out of business (which would be terrible) the Linux community would havelearned a great lesson, which they have before and will continue. Linux is an evolving operating system. It changes constantly and can be changed continuously to meet different needs. This is the gretest part about the operating system. So, basically any failure of any one distribution can simply be obsorbed as a lesson. Nothing more. Although Mandrake has contributed greatly to the idea that Linux can be a great desktop OS. What they did is "keep it Linux" but still provide a user friendly enviroment, without actually trying to be Windows (Lindows etc.) If every company distro would die today, the source would still be there for someone else to pick up where everyone else left off. Which is why you can't kill it. It's like a cancer that devours stupid stuff.

[neoquote=#9.3 by PeterTHX]Didn't MS kill Win95 support in 2001? I know IE6 doesn't support it.[/neoquote] Yeah, but its extended phase end-of-life isn't until... well, a week and a day from today.

I'm not sure what the stats are for Mandreak, but the reason I don't buy it yet because it's not my main OS, but once it is I'll be willing to pay once in awhile for it, but what stops me now paying is that if I pay, you only get it a month after it's been on the web site which is the problem, if I could download it there and then and pay for it online, I would be willing and I've heard many others would, people want things as soon as it's out, they don't like waiting and thats the problem why more people download it for free, even people who would be willing to pay a small fee for the work they have done. By the way, they've still been supporting windows 95 this long?, gosh, I thought that went out with the stone age

Linux will be doing leaps and bounds in the next two years and don't forget that they have only been aiming at the ease of use for about a year now, maybe less, so you might be putting Linux on sooner then you thought as I think it will be ready sooner then 5 years, 2 or 3 years I think.