In other words
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| helios Sep 22, 2009 6:38 PM EDT |
Not much has changed. IBM said the same thing at the Linux Collaboration Summit. I openly called them on it (film exists somewhere) and made them uncomfortable for about 2 minutes... Aside from that, they have no idea what desktop Linux is providing those who do not wear suits or 500 dollar shoes...we're talking ghetto kids who now have a shot. IBM could care less...I am beginning to wonder if The Linux Foundation isn't their house organ... h |
| tuxchick Sep 22, 2009 6:59 PM EDT |
Why Ken, I just happen to have right here at my fingertips a link to my blog about that event, 'Who Are The Real Friends of Linux and Free Software? Or, Linux Is Still a Dirty Word'
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008/10/who-are-the-rea.html And that blog links to your blog with your most entertaining video of the panel squirming their way out of "We don't want to say the L word because it's icky" Here is a direct link: http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2008/10/leave-it-to-little-guy... And the Reg has some interesting quotes from LinuxCon: 'Does the Linux desktop need to be popular?' http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linuxcon_2009_joe_br... ""I don't know that it's important that everyone or some substantially large percentage of the user population is using Linux as a desktop." |
| phsolide Sep 22, 2009 7:20 PM EDT |
Now, I love linux as much or more than the next guy, and I've been an exclusive linux user at home since 2002 (and before that, I ran NetBSD, from 1995). But I doubt that corporatations will *ever* allow the mass use of linux desktops. That would mean giving up control. Right now, MSFT Windows allows them to do all kinds of crazy cr@p (like proprietary VPNs) that no sane person would countenance. The IT departments (actually the IT department director-levels) would have to give up the unprecedented control that Windows allows them over their users. This means giving up the occasional round of bikini golf in the bahamas, by the way. No reason for a sales staff to "lubricate" sales anymore. Windows and the Office suite allow IT departments to set fixed HTTP proxies, fixed email servers, monitor disk access, etc etc and users can do *nothing* about it. Why do you think that corporations were so dang enthusiastic about Sarbanes-Oxley? It let them install EVEN MORE CONTROLS over their employees. I bet the really paranoid corps, like WalMart, actually have a spy department, and they have fake checkout employees to listen to the real employees gossip about each other. And then they find an excuse to fire the employees that commit the moral-crime-of-the-day. |
| azerthoth Sep 22, 2009 7:37 PM EDT |
For Walmart thats easy, if you want to get fired or get someone fired, just mention the word union. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 22, 2009 7:49 PM EDT |
IBM's not in a position to monetize desktop Linux. I gather they're interested in using it internally, and you'd think that their own interest would be a clue of sorts as to how they might pursue that, say, with their own customers ... but desktop Linux won't move the iron they're interested in selling. |
| softwarejanitor Sep 23, 2009 11:22 AM EDT |
@phsolide I think you have your tinfoil hat on a little too tight and it is cutting off circulation... |
| bigg Sep 23, 2009 11:38 AM EDT |
> IBM's not in a position to monetize desktop Linux. I'm of the belief that desktop OSes are not profitable for anyone. Apple has never bothered to become a desktop OS company. Microsoft makes tons of money on the desktop, but that's because (a) they have deals with OEMs to get paid for every desktop/laptop sold, and (b) the schools subsidize and enforce with a stick the use of Windows and only Windows. If Microsoft were starting from scratch, I do not see any way that it would be profitable. They'd get maybe $20 a copy and they'd have to spend millions on marketing and support users. Good or bad, that's the way I see it. If we're waiting for a large corporation to ride in and save the day, we'll be waiting a long time. |
| flufferbeer Sep 23, 2009 12:01 PM EDT |
@bigg, I'm in total agreement w/o you here. In the carrot-and-stick methods of training, Micro$ucks keeps whittling down its rotting carrots and sharpening its ever-increasing sticks. The thing is, I see it presenting a HUGE continued challenge for Linux distros to either (a) revamp the desktop separate from Winhoe$ as much as possible or else (b) keep trying to somehow imitate the Winhoe$ look-and-feel. If the large corporation you speak about tries to ride in and save the day, and it even THINKS about (b) imitating the Winhoe$ desktop in any way for Linux, lawsuits and legals threats will rain onto that corporation bigtime in the blink-of-an-eye... and also heaps and heaps of more FUD+EEE!! 2c |
| tuxchick Sep 23, 2009 12:06 PM EDT |
Quoting: Apple has never bothered to become a desktop OS company. ??? Sure they have, that's their core business. Quoting: Good or bad, that's the way I see it. If we're waiting for a large corporation to ride in and save the day, we'll be waiting a long time. Dern tootin'. |
| jdixon Sep 23, 2009 12:24 PM EDT |
> Sure they have, that's their core business. No, Their core business is desktop hardware. The OS is a necessary add-on. I have to agree that I can't think of anyone other than Microsoft who's made a long term successful business by providing a desktop OS. LDOS lasted for a few years on the Tandy's, and DRDOS also made it for a few years, but no one's lasted very long. |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 23, 2009 1:47 PM EDT |
I don't think you'd find that MS makes a ton of money from the desktop OS (relative to the rest of their revenue streams, at least), but it is the direct enabler for their server operating systems, server application systems such as SQL and Exchange, Office, and application frameworks. If MS starts to lose too much ground on the desktop then they stand to lose billions of dollars on the rest of their garbage. That's why they are sharpening their sticks, and why they want to be the environment upon which open-source software such as Apache runs. They make nothing if a PHP web page runs on Apache on Linux, but they still make money if you run it on Windows. |
| techiem2 Sep 23, 2009 1:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:No, Their core business is desktop hardware. The OS is a necessary add-on. Which is rather amusing considering that they are using the exact same hardware as everyone else now. They just charge more for it, make it "pretty", and make you feel like you are in some special l33t group for paying 3x more for it than you would from OEM X. The OS is basically just one of their big selling points now (which is even more amusing because it's not really the OS itself, it's the BSD base of the OS....). I know! Someone do the same thing, but with a Linux desktop! Have some pretty cases made, setup your own custom distro with a purty fancy desktop, and charge at least $1000 for everything! You can call the company Orange Computer. (hehe. Apples and Oranges) Hey, it works for Apple! :P |
| tracyanne Sep 23, 2009 5:40 PM EDT |
IBM want what most big business want, vertical markets, walled gardens, where they control the customer. They used to have it, they want it again. Desktop Linux doesn't give them that, but Linux might, in the form of Cloud computing, this or similar ways of leveraging Linux are what drives probably every one else in the Linux foundation as well. |
| tuxchick Sep 23, 2009 6:03 PM EDT |
'Cloud' computing absolutely puts control firmly in the vendor's hands, and anyone who thinks we're going to see anything other than lip service paid to open standards and formats, and not locking up customers' data, well no dessert for you. Canonical announced earlier this week that they have no plans to turn Ubuntu Server into a MS Small Business Server competitor. Which would be a sleek prefab LAN server with a nice graphical management console, and a set of packages for typical LAN services such as file and printer sharing, email, authentication, wireless bridge, a simple CMS, and so on. Not that SBS is any better than any other MS-ware, but the concept is sound, and a Linux SBS-type distro that support Linux/Mac/windows clients would be the Killer Linux. Linux users have been wanting one for years. Instead they are partnering with I think IBM (not sure) to do some kind of cloud thingy. Which is a big disappointment. |
| tracyanne Sep 23, 2009 7:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:partnering with I think IBM (not sure) to do some kind of cloud thingy. yep, it's there in latest news |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 24, 2009 5:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:But I doubt that corporatations will *ever* allow the mass use of linux desktops. That would mean giving up control. Right now, MSFT Windows allows them to do all kinds of crazy cr@p (like proprietary VPNs) that no sane person would countenance. You're not making any sense. You can do all that and much, much more on Linux. You can set up a Linux-based enterprise network that locks in, controls and spies on users far harder, deeper and more sneaky than would be possible on Windows. And it's not even that hard to set up. Linux is the wet dream of any BOfH |
| gus3 Sep 24, 2009 11:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:You can set up a Linux-based enterprise network that locks in, controls and spies on users far harder, deeper and more sneaky than would be possible on Windows.NIS for the services, KDE or GNOME kiosk mode for the lock-in, Wireshark for the spying. (Bonus points for setting up a one-way Ethernet cable for the spying.) |
| ComputerBob Sep 24, 2009 3:58 PM EDT |
> You can call the company Orange Computer.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Micro |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!