In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Locke
<johnlocke98513@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:14:25 -0700
<3tgi73ldo27d7trp9mr7ovr149676a66tv@xxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:30:32 -0400, "Dr. Shlongwell"
> <dShlong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:1209381.oH9tJ8RJtF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> New LinuxCOE helps admins customize distros
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | LinuxCOE is used both by HP and other companies, whose names Lamparter
>>> didn't
>>> | disclose. He says customers of LinuxCOE appreciate HP's
>>> distribution-agnostic
>>> | approach, which helps avoid vendor lock-in. Internally, HP's Managed
>>> Services
>>> | devision uses LinuxCOE for managing their customer's Linux environments.
>>> `----
>>
>>
>>No list of "Killer Lienux Apps" would be complete without mentioning the
>>Reiser file system.
>>
> Yes..agreed. Some brilliant work there. As it is the default file
> system on several distros its more a part of Linux then
> it is an application.
>
Doctor Shlongwell does have a point; Linux has no "killer
apps" as such (as opposed to Microsoft, whose apps are
occasionally designed to maim competitors), though some
of the apps for Linux are rather interesting visually:
QEMU/VmWare, OpenOffice, GLX.
Linux distros also tend to be very solid and well-built,
with Linux being the conceptual engine (or maybe chassis)
upon which a system/solution can be built; by and large
it doesn't totter nearly as often as Windows solutions do
(though in all fairness Windows solutions post-XP aren't
feather-delicate either, but they do crash a little
too often).
But, like a Ferrari, the engine doesn't sell the car
(though Ferrari isn't that good of an example because
*everybody* knows a little about Ferrari, and one can't
say the same about Linux -- yet), and we're up against
the Mighty Microsoft Manipulative Marketing Machine, plus
various OEMs and other vendors with a vested interest in
keeping Microsoft around -- after all, if no viruses can
propagate through a machine, what price antiviral add-ons?
Nor is the engine directly visible, unless one pops the
hood and knows where to look (and what to look for).
Of course, one can get into a Ferrari and drive it around
-- and immediately know that it's something very special,
presumably (I've not driven one).
So Microsoft starts to sling "facts" around (their Get
The Facts campaign in particular) which suggests Windows
will perform better, more cheaply, etc. The public is
likely to buy it unless Linux can counter with a lot more
credible info that the public can absorb. (No, highly
technical tidbits such as int $0x80 won't do. General
responsiveness studies might.)
The real truth might be in part case studies and/or
atatistics, but one has to be careful: figures lie and
liars figure. Many issues are out there: backwards
compatibility with older file formats, for one, as well
as customer protocols (do they need Word for some reason,
for example?) and procedures, and of course comfort level
with the devil, or in this case, the Tux, that one doesn't
know, as opposed to the Microsoft most do, or think they do.
Microsoft is embedded into the desktop space. Fortunately,
they are also ingrown as well; the desktop space is expanding
into the mobile space and looking for alternatives that are
cheaper, work more effectively, etc. Linux is doing some
very interesting stuff in areas Microsoft can't fit, as it
can run in a far smaller footprint.
This isn't killer, of course -- most users will never
see Linux embedded in such things as phones, monitoring
devices, and servers -- but Linux might be able to embed
itself into a number of other spaces, and eventually get
into the desktop (as opposed to Microsoft's attempt to
invade server space from the desktop side, which didn't
quite work).
We live in interesting times. :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
