Is Microsoft obsessed with Linux?

Umm sounds like someone "not microsoft" is more concerned _grin_..Just kiddin I HAD TO BE FIRST..

I think MS is obsessed with Linux for a couple of reasons.

In one sense, it is probably the first real competition that they have faced, certainly since Win95. As you say, not so much on the desktop, but especially in server space and in the realm of embedded devices, where the much more favorable licensing terms and greater flexibility works very much in the favor of Linux.

In another, I think that that as Linux becomes more mature and usable on the desktop, it highlights the idea that the underlying operating system is becoming less important, as a specific individual piece, than it has been in the past. Although Windows, as an OS, is unlikely to actually go away, it will likely diminish somewhat as a primary product necessity. This will push the focus for the business on other products and venues. Even the flagship product of Office will start to feel this pressure, since unless you are one of the few who use a large percentage of the features, the need to upgrade to later versions of Office isn't necessarily a strong one.

This falls into the idea of the operating system as a commodity, with some small possibility that at some point in the future, the OS will be treated just like RAM or hard drives, etc., in that you get whatever brand you like or that does what you specifically want.

Additionally, Linux threatens MS in another way, apart from it's usability (or lack thereof, depending on your position), and that is in the context of escaping vendor lock in. When I worked as a digital engineer, one of the primary rules that we had (and one that took the most justification for exception) was the requirement for having at least two vendors for every part or subsystem that we used. The benefits of such a rule are obvious, you aren't subject to the risk that your product can be controlled (directly or indirectly) by an outside party.

It's kind of funny that you should mention that MS has essentially closed the door to third party extensions, since that's pretty much what Stardock is about. Although it seems unlikely, it is possible, however remotely, that a change in the OS or a new feature in the next version of windows could have a severe impact on Stardock.

And it's clear that Microsoft doesn't really like the idea that they can't have that lock-in. When Japan, China, and South Korea announced an initiative to fund and create their own operating system (probably based on Linux), Microsoft cried foul. Their argument that the governments shouldn't involve themselves in the choice at that level rings false, since they would certainly have no problem at all if the initiative were to fund more purchases of Windows.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no enemy of Microsoft, although I do think that they have played fast and loose with some of their practices. I use XP and Linux side by side (I develop on both platforms). However, I can speak quite adequately about the upgrade cycle (or more accurately, the lack of a compelling need to upgrade), as the ONLY reason I upgraded to XP was in order to take full advantage of Stardock products, most notably Windowblinds and WindowFX. Apart from those applications, there is nothing I do on Windows that I couldn't (and didn't) do on 2000. As for Office, I use office 2000 and it is highly unlikely that I will upgrade to any newer version, simply because I have yet to see a feature or capability that compels me to do so.

Also, on a practical note, Linux is at the point where I could use it exclusively for everything that I do (apart from my windows development). For me, it is ready for the desktop. The office suites available work perfectly with the types of documents that I have to deal with, the customizability is substantially better than Windows alone, and in many cases, can compete reasonably well with Windows + Stardock (however, the skin artists for windows are generally much better than the ones that focus on linux, with a few notable exceptions).

One good thing that has come out of Microsoft's attention to Linux has been that the competition has arguably compelled MS to further improve windows, especially where security is concerned.

As an individual "end user", there are two things that make Linux unappealing as a desktop replacement for Windows.

First, it's still fragmented. I've seen Linux from several different vendors use different ways to install new programs. Until simple things like this are made universal, Linux'll be slow to takeover desktops for the AVERAGE user.

Second, it's often complicated to do the aforementioned simple things if you don't want to or can't do them the way the vendor suggests you do them. Certainly one can always drop down to the command line, but the AVERAGE user isn't going to do this. Heck, how many windows users even use the "Run" command from the start menu?

Linux's getting better. And I've considerred switching to Linux myself. But as an individual with no IT staff to help, the learning curve is still too great for serious conseration as a Windows replacement. This is not to say that I can't learn it, but that I don't have the time.

I think it's a little harsh to say Stardock is in the Microsoft camp and not really consider Linux as it was once in the OS2 camp.........who know's one day it may just be in the linux camp too. Not looking for a fight or even meaning this in a serious way, just thought I'd point it out and have a cheap dig

Personally I have only recently started taking Linux seriously, and within a week of knowing practically nothing about linux configurations I have a fully configured server that works more than happy with all my Windows machines and their connected hardware like printers and vice versa.

I don't think that Linux just ain't there for desktop or everyday users, but I remember the nightmare of Windows 3.1, give it some time (plenty) and it may just make it; But after using Windows servers and taking a week to learn everything I needed to get a Linux one working..........Linux as a server gets my vote everytime.

And after giving it some thought if Macromedia made Flash, Dreamweaver and Director for Linux then I could easily switch to a Linux platform without the need for Windows.

But I'd die if I didn't have Object Desktop on my windows machine

Regards to all,

I've been experimenting with Linux the past couple of weeks out of sheer boredom. I've learned quite a bit on my own and from messageboards and websites. Of course I use X Window mangers(GUI's) like Windowmaker,KDE to get around and I still have alot to learn. I've been a MS Windows man for 7 years and after just 2 weeks of Linux I personally don't think it is crap. The different window managers all have there on style and feel and are all customizable once you get the hang of how to do it. My favorite is Windowmaker because it mimics Nextstep which is a clean and simple interface. From what I see so far running Linux with the different window managers is SO MUCH FASTER than any MS Windows. And it uses so MUCH LESS MEMORY. I really doubt if I'll ever dump MS Windows but let me tell you, I'm having alot of fun with Linux. I installed the Mandrake distribution of Linux on a different partion on my hard drive so i can always have access to MS Windows. I can even read files off my MS Windows partion from Linux, I just can't write to it. The Mandrake distro came with a ton of applicatios from office type to multimedia type which is more than I have on my MS Windows partion and all this is free. The only problem is that everbody and their mother uses MS Windows so sharing different types of files is easy for all the MS Windows users. There are applications that allow cross sharing of MS Office files with office files on a Linux box but I checked this website the other day that had the office programs to do that and the web admins of the site had to remove the programs at MS's request.YES MS IS PARANOID.

Boy now I'm rambling, anyway Linux is not for your everyday user and yes Linux was developed mainly for networking but since it is open source alot of folks have developed different window managers so it can act a little like MS Windows so yes it has gotten alot more user freindly. But if you think you can drag and drop files like MS Windows, forget it, if you think you can double click on an executable to install a program forget it. It's a little more complicated than that, but not terribly.

As far as Linux not being productive in an office, well I've never worked in an office but from what I've seen I don't see why Linux can't be as productive as MS Windows in an office enviroment. There are tons of office apps for Linux and I've only tried their MS Word and MS Excel equivelant and they work pretty good although like I said I sampled them I didn't go deep into using it.

Over the past year I have grown to dislike Microsoft for all their monopolizing, money greeding and their secureless operating systems. Damn has anybody kept count of how many security holes they had to patch since XP came out? How many virus' are there for MS Windows? How many for Linux? Or macOS for that matter. I'll use windows because I have to. All my friends, family uses windows. All the apps and games are for windows. But if I could afford it I would move to a Mac.


But who knows maybe I'll just make the big switch to Linux in the mean time.

Please excuse my grammar, I'm no righter, um riter, oops rider, I mean writer.

I feel the biggest thing holding Linux back on the desktop right now, in business, is the lack of specialized software. On your mainstream programs for word processing, internet, graphics, etc, Linux is very close to the usability of the comparable Windows programs. It's the specialized apps where Linux falls short. A lot of smaller to mid sized companies still use custom software tailored for their types of business. Service companies use service software, Doctors use medical software, you get the idea. So far there doesn't seem to be a lot of development of these types of programs in the Linux community.

Also, in todays business climate, TCO doesn't hold a lot of weight when a lot of companies are looking at 'what do I have to spend today' as opposed to 'what will I spend over the next (fill in the blank) years'.

Linux can be just as productive for office use as Windows. OpenOffice.org is an excellent open source office suite maintained by Sun Microsystems. It has a lot of the advanced features you would expect in a professional office suite like MS Office. It can also read MS Office files quite well with some minor errors. If MS Office is something you need, no problem. Crossover Office, a commercial distro of Wine, gets MS Office to work on Linux quite well.

It sounds like Microsoft is really turning against third party software developers with statements like "half of all crashes are caused by third party code" and locking off access to their OSes features. Microsoft's hostility towards third party developers can only mean good news for Linux. Linux is open so third party developers can really take advantage of Linux's features. Also, third party developers can still keep their source closed and sell their software if they choose.

Linux means a free market where more than one company can make their own OS. Each OS would be completely compatible with each other so the end user can use whatever software he wants no matter what OS he has and easily migrate to another OS without having to find a whole new set of software to replace his old software and the trouble of converting his files to new formats.

The only thing preventing me from switching to Linux only is the fact that the software I use isn't available on the Linux platform. 99% of the time, when I use my computer,  it's with either Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop or Internet Explorer.  Photoshop, I guess I could replace by the GIMP if I took the time to learn it well. Explorer, I need because I come here all the time and this site doesn't work well with other browsers.  As for Flash and Dreamweaver, there is just no equivalent for Linux. So I'm stuck. But I really like the OS, it's just that I can't use it for anything I do. (

I visit this site often using Mozilla Firebird on Linux. I found out that the features that only seem to work in Internet Explorer can be easily be used using markup code.

To quote others in a gray box: "

(paste quoted material here)

"

To link to an image: "[ img](place web link to pic here)[ /img]"*

*leave out the space in [ img] and [ /img]

Linux is growing, maturing and luring M$ users in a very big way. I have "tasted" a number of Linux Distro's and am proud to say that Slackware has me hooked. Regrettably, there exists a learning curve of sorts, but learning is a good thing compared to being held "hostage" by what big business (M$) is dictating to their "loyal" end-users.

Linux will only grow as a threat , because it will only be a matter of time before M$ drives it's consumers away by underhanded practices and close-mindedness. Just think about it, Linux is one vendor that will not succumb to the pressures, monopolizing methods, and egocentrism of YOUR Bill Gates.

Stepping Off Soapbox

P.S.

It is only natural for a software website, such a Wincustomize, to "poo-poo" an alternate OS to Window$. One only has to look as how "one's pockets are lined" to reach the conclusion,

"Personally I think Linux is crap"

It is a sad state of affairs in my opinion that I have to read statements like this , when I consider the degree of intellect this site has represented since I have visited, and purchased software and membership! When do you receive your check from M$ Frogboy?

hee hee.

"When do you receive your check from M$ Frogboy?"

If Frogboy was paid by Microsoft, he would have said things that were 100% favorable to Microsoft and would not have said that Linux makes a better server than Windows.

Please pick a better argument than "office productivity is not as good." OpenOffice is a very productive suite. Now if you want to talk software installation I may be able to agree with you.