Linux needs to try harder if it wants to catch Vista
November 19, 2007 
There has been a meme going around in the Linux world that Vista is really a dog and that Microsoft is only managing to make its numbers by jamming the new OS down the throats of unwilling customers. Now I admit I don't use Vista and haven't spent a lot of time benchmarking it against Ubuntu or Mac OS X or any of the other non-Microsoft alternatives.
I'm not planning to start using it any time soon either – XP running on my old ThinkPad is more than adequate to support my hard-to-kick Microsoft Office habit. Sure, I may take a closer look at Vista when the ThinkPad finally kicks the bucket. I'd look at it right now if someone could show me something in Office 2007 I really need that's not in Office 2003. (Better outlining in Word maybe? Grep search in Excel? A spellchecker that doesn't have brain damage? If those features are there, Microsoft needs to boost its advertising budget, because I haven't heard about them yet.)
But I don't have to use Vista to know that it's a lot more than a dog of an OS. Microsoft's recently reported revenue and profit numbers for its September quarter amply prove that Vista doesn't say "Woof! Woof!" when you boot it up. Consider:
-
Windows client OS revenue grew to $4.1 billion in the quarter, up a sizzling 25% year-over-year, driven mostly by rapid consumer uptake of Vista on the back of strong PC unit sales growth through the OEM channel.
- Unit sales of Premium versions of Windows to consumers (i.e. the stuff people buy in stores) surged by a spectacular 150%.
- Billings from corporate volume agreements for Windows clients grew 27%, implying strong positive intent among business customers to upgrade from XP to Vista in the near future (otherwise they wouldn't pay extra to put Windows clients under a multi-year contract with Microsoft).
But wait. Isn't it true that Microsoft was forced to push back by five months the date when it plans to stop selling Windows XP? (If you're interested, you can still pick up a retail or OEM copy until June 30, 2008, or as late as January 31, 2009 if you're a Windows white box dealer.) And doesn't that suggest, as the always intrepid Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols argued in September, that Vista is in deep trouble? Indeed, mightn't the trouble be so deep that Vista has become, as Steven colorfully puts it, a "zombie operating system" that stumbles around and looks from a distance like it's alive but up close turns into "the walking dead"?
Well, yes and no. Yes, Microsoft customers pushed back on the artificially early cut-off date for XP, and Redmond decided to take the long view by giving up a little ground in the short term. But no, Vista isn't a corpse, walking or otherwise, because Microsoft announced in its October conference call that 85 million copies of the new OS had been sold year-to-date compared to 45 million for XP. Making allowances for favorable spin – e.g. copies sold but not installed – it seems unlikely that a large publicly traded company could make a claim like that if, as Steven believes, the Vista story has really turned into a waking nightmare for its maker.
So what's my point? Simple. The Linux world isn't providing the leadership needed to stop the Microsoft juggernaut, at least not on the client side. It's not enough to say that Ubuntu has somewhere between 6 and 12 million users, as Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth did last summer. It's not enough to argue that Debian and Fedora and SLED and MEPIS have millions more. In order to be a credible long-term alternative to Microsoft client operating systems – whether they are called XP or Vista makes no difference – you also have to start making some real money from all those millions of users. All the client versions of Linux put together probably generate no more than a fraction of 1% of Microsoft's client OS revenue, which is certainly going to surpass $20 billion next year. There's no way a financial disparity that vast and disproportionate can fail to have a baleful impact on the future of Linux. No, I'm not arguing that client Linux is any danger of disappearing. With tens of millions of users and thousands of active kernel-level developers, it's guaranteed to be around forever. Not even Steve Ballmer can argue that one. But the way things are going, as an OS whose mind share far exceeds its market share, client Linux is never going to be more than a niche product for the fashion-conscious elite or the truly impoverished.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols bravely argues that Vista's sales lead over Linux doesn't matter. He compares the position of Linux today to that of the Japanese car manufacturers in the early 1980s. No one back then ever dreamed Toyota and Honda could one day catch GM, Ford, and Chrysler, let alone drive them to the brink of bankruptcy. Yes, the rise of the Japanese auto makers is one of the greatest triumphs of quality and innovation over entrenched domination ever witnessed in the history of business. But, um, Steven, the Japanese weren't giving their cars away for free. They financed their incredible success by reinvesting the proceeds of their early sales in new factories and manufacturing techniques. They spent billions and billions to get where they are today. And they always had a plan. In fact, they had incredibly detailed plans that covered every aspect – from manufacturing to marketing, from supply chain to finance – of their decades-long march to market leadership.
Put aside the fact that the operating system which can hold a candle to my Honda Accord in reliability or ease-of-use hasn't even been dreamed of yet, let alone built. The problem with Steven's auto industry analogy is that no one in the Linux world today seems to have anything like a Japanese-style plan for long-term conquest, and no one has the giga-bucks it would take to make it work (not until IBM or Oracle buys Canonical, at least).
Another thing. Microsoft isn't GM. Its executives may not always be terrifically popular people, but they aren't time-serving empty suits in the Roger Smith mode. And Microsoft's programmers aren't walking around with UAW cards in their wallets either, at least not yet. It's possible the company has passed its prime and entered a phase of plodding maturity where it will effectively cede the ability to create new markets to the Googles and VMwares of the world. But even if this is so, then the model for Microsoft's future is surely IBM or HP, not GM or Ford.
Linux and open source have got to transform themselves from purely cultural insurgents into profitable exploiters of market leading innovations. On the server side this transition took place several years ago, with distributions like RHEL and SLES and the emerging generation of commercially viable open source apps like MySQL, SugarCRM, Alfresco, Zimbra, JasperSoft, Compiere, and so forth. Even Ubuntu is getting into the game on the server side, as its recent pre-installation deal with Dell shows. But on the client side the most visible attempts to make Linux into a revenue-driving growth machine by adding innovative features and consumer friendly packaging – Linspire and Xandros come to mind – have flopped. Now Shuttleworth is having another go at it with Ubuntu. But so far it looks like Ubuntu's roaring success is inseparable from the fact that it's free as in beer. Client-side Linux is never going to give Microsoft a run for its money – or even Apple – unless it can get critical mass as a normal, profit-driven business. Right now I'd say the odds of that ever happening look pretty long.
Of course, every time someone suggests that Linux should be a business like any other, angry geeks with pitchforks appear at the edge of the forest and start shouting (or writing in their blogs) "It's not about money, it's about freedom!". Well, sure. But if you neglect money too much, my fine open-source-is-freedom friends, you risk shouting yourselves all the way to oblivion.
Reader Comments (42)
How exactly do you propose Ubuntu charges? There's already a distro with closed source features that charges for it's OS. And Ubuntu has pledged to never charge for its operating system. There would be nerdy net riots if they suddenly did. Canonical is purported to have a business plan for making money without charging for the OS, and I agree that extra resources would help certainly. But time and time again people have pointed to the disparity in budgets between closed and open source projects and now some open source projects are starting to close on the leaders market share (Firefox comes to mind), with a mere fraction of their competitors actual budget. Open Source is a better way of creating software. I think if we had resources, there'd be no stopping us, but at the same time we can't give up the entire reason this whole thing was started.
You are missing the point.............just because the you make a bunch of money doesn't mean that the OS is better. Many people use it because it's all they know. Many people in the mainstream really can't tell you about it because they don't use it at work ........they use microsoft products, which is what the business world is based on..............but this doesn't mean that the OS is better.
I like to pose a question. Have you ever really used Ubuntu or Fedora, or Red Hat or any of the other linux based OS's out there? By the writing of your article i would say not, so then how can you say whether the open source people like myself who use Linux are not telling the truth about Vista or any Microsoft products. Microsoft products are hogs when it comes to system resources and that's a fact.....just take a look at Vista and how you have to upgrade basically your whole computer just to get it running and half the time you still have problems. With Linux (which is open source) you can have Linux running a six-year old computer easily and still have the same effects of Vista. Now how money could people have saved themselves if they knew that, but many people don't know so that continue to support a system that really is draining the average users wallet.
Let's talk about the OS's for a moment if you don't mind. How many times must you defrag your computer to keep all your files straight or just to keep your computer from slowing down. I would have to say lots, but not with Linux. My computer only needs to be defraged when it reaches somewhere around 98% disk usage........and even then it will defrag itself........not me having to defrag the computer wasting time when i could be using the computer for something productive. I would also like to note that Linux systems doesn't need half the room of Vista or XP to be installed on your system, saving you tons of space on your hard drive for the things you really need........which are Apps to finish your work..........OH! and i did i mention that the apps are free. WOW! Free........who ever heard of such a concept.
Look around the world...........many developing countries such as Africa, South America, Asia are already catching on........People here are already in the know and use Linux. This is where your market is, not here in the U.S. or Europe (which i might say are bucking the trend as well). Microsoft can't compete here as many people don't have the $399.00 to purchase for a operating system plus did i mention the software which is another 399.00, which leaves Microsoft out in the cold. Microsoft time is coming to an end just as the analogy with the Japanese car market.........which really had little to do with money and more with people impatience with America n manufacturers. People got tired of an inferior product and made the switch. This is the same thing that is happening with Microsoft. People never see the fall of something until it happens.
I would like to conclude with the next time you decide to write an article please..........please talk about the OS, compare them, try them both and i would like to say more than thirty days as it takes more than thirty days to get to know a product especially something as technologically advance as an Operating System.........you too will be surprised by what you see.
I would argue the opposite, it's not market share that Linux lacks, and that's important; Linux needs more mind-share. Free software benefits from more users: the more users, the more support, and thus the higher the quality. No matter how small the percentage of users that contribute to code, documentation, or support, a 10x increase in users means a 10x increase in contributors - you can't say that for proprietary software.
Mind-share is what matters, and FLOSS needs more of that. (which, articles like yours actually helps with -thanks)
You have some good points. I am not one of the Linux converted, I am an angry bystander waiting for Linux to finally become something better than Windows and OSX. The only thing they need now is a FULL software suite. They have a patchy set of tools now, made mostly by introverted programmers with no empathy for the end users. I would pay a fair amount if Linux programmers could come up with the correct tools. The state of Linux at this time, I would not use it even if they were giving it away... oh wait... still no.
Consider from whom your stats are coming from. First, what assurance do you have that they didn't fudge their numbers? Many Linux users are stuck paying for MS's software whether they like it or not as part of purchasing a computer these days, but you can be sure that the Vista copy that shipped with the PC will go unused. Not only that, but also many (more) people upon buying a computer with Vista pre-installed will replace it with XP, but MS gets to record that purchase as revenue and as market-share. Also, how do the fact that the US dollar is worth less now than when it was in 2001, the fact that there are WAY more computers in the world now than there were in 2001, and the fact that the price of MS's software is much higher than it was when WinXP came out affect those statistics? Is MS really as successful with Vista as it was with XP, all things considered? Personally, I doubt it.
I agree - you are missing the point.
First, and most importantly, it really is all about the freedom and you may howl about pitch-forks but you just do not grasp that concept and it's absolute importance.
But second - the pile of money amassed by M$ with Vista has little relation to the 'quality' of the product. Vist actually does go 'woof! woof!' when you boot it up.
Unix, and therefore Linux, is part philosophy and part implementation, mutually complementary and each based on sound, well thought out principles with solid reasons behind each component. It simply works, independent of dollar signs.
M$ products are simply commercial products produced with the single objective of producing revenue. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they punish the user if that is more profitable.
Unix/Linux is simply better by any measure other than generated revenue.
I agree with quite a lot of your views. When it comes to the desktop, linux is more hype than substance. I head an open source firm - www.rknowsys.com. We provide exclusive FLOSS consultancy and not even ONE of my clients uses linux on the desktop. Reasons include custom applications built for Windows, lack of Linux sysadmins, perceived (and real) complexity of managing linux installations. You will find more issues on my blog. http://corporatelinux.blogspot.com/
The future of Linux is handhelds at this point in time. Linux on the desktop will take years and years. I hold the view that Linux on the servers too has quite a way to go.
I am not very convinced about your Japan argument though. The openness of Linux ensures that there will be organisations like mine which have plans for consumer Linux. IBM, Lennovo, Dell, Canonical, Novell, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva...will have plans and each will slowly start chipping. It will take 4-5 yrs at least till Linux gets credibility on the desktop. I am sure there are billions being spent right now on Linux based solutions for the desktop. I am pretty sure that there are indeed well thought out strategies to provide compelling value for Linux on the desktop.
The story of gOS is a good beginning. Linux uptake will start from niche areas like gOS, kiosks, handhelds, POS solutions etc and slowly make way into the mainstream.
I have been using Linux since 1998 and have used quite a few distributions on the deskptop. PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu and SLED are the most promising for the desktop and they have at least 1-2 yrs of development pending before they can reach the corporate desktop level. More on this on my blog - http://corporatelinux.blogspot.com/
You don't have to kick your "Microsoft Office{2300} habit" to switch to Linux. CrossOver Linux will let you install on Linux. You could probably just use Wine. OR, just dual boot. Linux doesn't have to try harder, you have to try harder. Stop presenting your personal inertia to represent a problem with Linux. You could probably use "your pet application" on a Mac with 3 different options. YOU keep yourself stuck on MS WinXP. It has nothing to do with another OS.
You stick yourself with Windows, because you you want to. It is good enough for you and many other people, who will put up with its annoyances, because they do not know any better. Well I hate to inform you; for many of us Linux users, Wndows is simply not good enough.
Like many, I have to use Windows at work right now, because of network VPN connectivity. However, in less than three weeks, that will change. Why? Because my company will be purchasing a Linux version of this software and that will allow me to do away with Windows as my primary OS, once and for all.
I literally despise having to use Windows NT. 2000, XP, and especially Vista, or any other Windows version. Why? Because it makes me much less productive.
All of the Windows versions suffer from trojan and virus vunerabilities. If you connect to the internet, then you must have virus scanners and firewalls probing in the background at all times, which bring Windows to its knees! Windows then becomes a slower than a slow moving turtle.
Try browsing files through Windows terrible file manager, Explorer. This thing will lock sometimes for 45-90 seconds, before you can browse a directory. Try and put an attachment in an email 30-120 seconds wasted waiting for explorer to respond. And yes, I still get the BSOD on average 2-3 times a week on my Leveno T60 with 4 gig of RAM. What is this crap about having to defrag a hard disk? Why do I need to do this? Because the File Management System in Windows is a horrendous mess. Yes that includes both Fat32 and NTFS, though NTFS is better, but still definitely not Enterprise strength.
Lets compare my personal computer experience with all of my home desktops, laptops, and servers, all of which use Linux or Solaris as the primary OS. Why are all my personal computers virtually Windows free? Answer, because I do not have BSODs, I do not need to purchase a subscription for virus scanners, firewall checkers, etc. I do not have to defrag my drive every two weeks (in fact I never do), and I do not have to have a super powerful machine to run Vista. Last, but certainly not least, I do not have to put up with BSODs and an unstable OS that I have to reboot just to install software, an update, or because the damn thing becomes unusable.
Linux never dies on me, never causes me to wait 6 hours to defrag a hard drive, never asks me to renew my virus scanner and hardware firewalls, and in many cases has just as good to better software available for it than those for Windows.
The FIle Managers in Linux are fast-- the most you will have to wait even with a 200 gig hard drive loaded is 15 seconds or less.
Another great advantage of Linux is that I have total control of my system, unlike Windows. IF I need to change this or that, I simple apt-get or use Synaptic to install, remove, or update.
I do not run Linux simply because it is free nor because it is not MS. I run Linux because, it is simply better than any Windows MS has to offer. MS has a couple of nice products and yes Office is one of them. But I can do everything I need to do with Open Office. I do not miss a beat.
My primary occupation is that of a software architect. Linux makes me more productive by getting more done in less time. Windows 2000 was actually my jumping off point, but I still have some VMs for Windows to test with. One MS required update crashed my desktop and cost me three days of work, just to load all of my software back up. The last time I had this problem, became my last straw! I converted all my personal desktops to Linux and have never looked back. To start with it was stability and security that caused me to go to Linux. Today I use Linux because it is hands down a much better option for me. My time is money and I cannot afford to keep putting up with a slow dragging OS that is prone to lock-ups, freezes, security problems, etc.
Things I don't understand:
- How Apple's Mac OS X has 5% of the market, has no decent up-to-date office suite, has a limited set of software compared to any other platform, and is praised as a huge success (I'm excluding from this question any mobile phones, media players and internet media stores. I'm talking about personal computer OSes), despite being used to some extent by content creators (artists, professional writers) and people who see it as a fashinable item.
- Why people insist in measung success based on Microsoft's revenue margins. People may have another goals instead of earning insane amounts of money and taking over the market. Like is this way and some market droids should get over it. Some businesses can be profitable based on corporate contracts, ignoring completely the desktop as a revenue stream, just like Microsoft did (and still does) with pirated copies of Windows. The difference is that in Linux copying is expressly permitted, and every Linux business/corporate user/domestic user benefits from it.
- Why some "experts" think Microsoft's OSes are examples to be followed by other OS developers. Au contraire, there are some bad Microsoft API/UI/infraestructure design decisions explicitly avoided by other OSes' developers for the sake of security and sanity. The most praised personal computer OS in usability and beauty is Mac OS X, an UNIX (BSD) system with an GUI (graphical user interface) on top. Its idea came from Mr. Jobs' NeXT computer, that was (surprise!) an UNIX system with a GUI on top. Linux nowadays is (take your bets) an UNIX (for all purposes) with a GUI on top. Do you see a pattern here? Microsoft had Xenix (an UNIX) and were working closely with IBM in OS/2 (an UNIX with a GUI on top), but they threw everything (tied to a chair) out of the window, ignoring decades of knowledge to recreate everything from scrath.
- Why people forget the fact Windows is popular because of piracy. OS/2 was a way better product at its time, but Windows was easy to (illegally) copy, as measures to avoid copying where non-existent or non-efective. There's a feeling Microsoft knows that if they press too much, users will just slip out for another system. Microsoft seems to tolerate piracy as a way of getting mindshare, so it's benefited by piracy as much as to never implement a fully tamper-proof, secure system.
- People seem to forget the fact that any Windows version, by itself, is almost useless for the vast majority of users, as some essential software (an office suite) isn't part of the OS. What makes an OS be worth is what you can do with software you run on it. In this aspect, a bare Linux wins hands-down any other bare OS in the market, as it comes with lots of software that will suffice for the majority of people who edit text, browse the internet, exchange e-mails and chat in IM clients (it in the client. If you go to the server arena you're way better served with Linux too).
- People seem to ignore the fact buying a machine without Windows is an almost-impossible task, and getting a refund is even worse. No surprise if Redmond gets its revenue high, even if Microsoft's credibility from its users is in an all-time low, and being a convicted monopolist doesn't help much. In some countries, like Brazil, a majority of computers are sold with Linux preinstalled (so the OEMs don't have to pay the legendary "Microsoft tax"), and I, being an IT professional, neever saw a single machine running Vista in production or in a friend's desktop. Conceding some people will get rid of the preinstalled Linux and install a pirated MS OS (that those users never had intent to paying for anyway, or they would buy the machines with Windows preinstalled), it wouldn't be Vista anyway. People I know who bought a machine with vista preinstalled removed it and installed XP over, some even installed Linux.
- People seem to see a war between Linux and Windows, while in fact it could be better explained by darwinian evolution principles and group behavior. The Free Softare movement came from people's needs, and it flourished because it found its market niche. Piracy, fine wines, Linux, canned meat, branded clothes exist because there's a demmand, and the same basic market laws apply to all. What people see as a OS war is just an adaptation of macroorganisms composed by a mass of people who react in some previsible behavioral patterns. Of course the individuality of a single organism is extremely important to each macroorganism, as those individualities can shape the behavior of the group as a whole, adding new elements or reinforcing old ones in the macroorganism's ethos.
No race at all! I am a Linux user since 1998, a no-Windows-at-all Linux user. I am not racing against anyone... Don't use Linux if you don't like it, as easy as that.
The reason that so many people are buying Vista is of course that it is impossible not to if you want to buy a PC with an OS preloaded if you buy a new PC. If you want Windows XP, you have to buy Vista anyway and downgrade it. If Linux was sold under the same terms, ie. if you had to buy Linux preloaded first if you wanted a new PC and then choose to upgrade ir to Windows, Linux would sell similar numbers.
The key to breaking the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop OS is to break the Windows tie with the hardware - ie. legislate to sell the hardware separately from the OS. You may still buy Windows preloaded, but OEMs and Microsoft should be required to sell the hardware and Windows seperately, and to avoid price fixing as a method of tie-in, the price of Windows and hardware sold separately should add up to the price sold bundled. In addition Microsoft should allow virtualisation companies and distributions to act as Windows OEMs on exactly the same terms as hardware OEMs, so that Ubuntu or VMware can sell OEM Windows as a prepackaged virtual machine for add-on to Linux distros.
Until this happens, no matter how good Linux or any other OS becomes compared to Windows, hardware will always come with Windows preloaded and with the Microsoft tax attached, unless you wish to pay a premium to buy from a small specialist OEM.
I needed to upgrade my laptop. From a 700Mhz Advent I had used for years, to something newer. It had Vista on it. It was replaced immediately. The machine was what I needed but not that rubbish. On went Linux, again. Did Linux numbers increase? Did Vista numbers increase? According to sales, because I had limited choice, due to M$ marketing, not becasue of what I purchased
The numbers are a sham, and peolple are starting to notice. :o)
Linux has been around for 16 years now and I don't think it's going to fade away anytime soon. Will it catch up with Vista? May be, may be not. Personally, I think not - not anytime soon. However, that does not mean that Linux is unimportant; just by being there and being a credible alternative, Linux and related products like OpenOffice limit Microsoft's monopoly power and forces it [Microsoft] to put more effort into it's products and that is important. So, if Vista and Internet Explorer are more secure nowadays - as some Windows users claim - then they might note that they have Linux to thank for it. And I say all this as someone who's used Linux exclusively since 2000.
I do think we need to move beyond the tiresome "Will Linux catch up with Vista?" type debates.
"DON'T GIVE UP ON VISTA"
"Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista", lets pay Jeff Gould and see what results he can get.
Two words to Jeff Gould; Good Luck!
Have a good turkey day ;)
Sorry, Jeff, Vista REALLY is a dog. Trust me, I *have* used it. Even my Microsoft-loving CEO moved to OSX rather than put up with that steaming pile of $#!+.
Now he never shuts up about Apple - two steps forward one step back...
Of course I should have noted above that Microsoft got their Vista licensing fee for the pre-installed software even though the computer was unusable.
And Jeff has the gaul to tell us that consumers are not having Vista forced upon them. Wake-up, Jeff! It's time to sell your Microsoft shares.
Hi Jeff,
I'm typing this post on a friend's laptop which was sold with Vista Home edition, but is now running Ubuntu. My friend brought the laptop to me to fix because it was unusable for him - Vista was asking him for a password he claims never to have set. Fortunately he hadn't yet put any data on the system, so I suggested we wipe it clean & install Ubuntu.
While it was a pain to get the Broadcom wireless working, it's pretty sweet now.
So, Microsoft gets to claim a Vista sale for this laptop, but in reality it's a Linux system. I wonder how many folks have done something similar - purchased a Vista system & then replaced Vista with either Linux or XP?
I can tell you that in the last year I bought four computers that came with Windows, but only two of them has ever booted Windows. The others had openSuse installed on them immediately. I allowed the install to set up the third to dual boot with Windows, but it has only booted windows a few times. I'm probably going to just install Solaris over Windows soon. The only computer that boots Windows regularly is the wife's laptop. Every time she complains about Vista crashing I remind her I can install openSuse on it. Eventually it's going to happen.
(FYI: Wifi on a Dell Precision M90 was completely painless to set up on openSuse).
Just two more examples of what counts as sold Vistas:
I work as IT manager in a German company. Our preferred computer vendor is selling all computers with Vista and including a downgrade option to XP. If you choose the downgrade option you still technically pay for Vista and it counts as being sold but you never get to see it. The computer comes with XP. That's two MS OSes sold for the price of the more expensive one.
There is also a computer shop I visit frequently the owner of which recently mentioned that a large number of customers who bought computers this year have returned to have Vista replaced with XP because it just won't run well. That, too, are Vistas sold but not used.
I suppose the only way to find out how many Vistas are actually being used is by taking a sample of websites not primarily concerned with computer technology but general interest (news sites, youtube, search engines etc.) and correlate the data they collect on OSes used by visitors. Then you can make an educated guess.
You missed the point of GNU Software. All these people commenting on linux miss the point of GNU Software. The point is not to make a load of money. The point is Freedom.
You cannot say has linux succeeded based on competition with microsoft. You have to ask has it succeed based on whether one can own a liberated computer with totally free software and get on with whatever it is they do.
So yes linux has succeeded!
What you should really be asking from the narrow perspective of business and capitalism from which you speak is whether linux businesses are succeeding. The answer I think is simply do they make a profit and yes some of them do.
For a linux user it is fairly pointless to care whether linux can take over the world. Why shouldn't people be free to use proprietary alternatives that cost a bundle and don't deliver on time. I think they have the right!
What I do care about is when Microsoft or others create stupid closed file formats which prevent me from sharing files with my friends.
Trying to read the MS financial numbers is pretty useless. The outstanding OS numbers could be because people are buying Vista machines then buying XP after tiring of Vista.
Microsoft once shouted that the Firefox user numbers were bogus because it didn't reflect the people that downloaded but didn't use the software. I claim the same thing here, how many paid for licenses of Vista that aren't in use? Since they really don't do refunds.
Mr. Gould writes, "Now I admit I don't use Vista and haven't spent a lot of time benchmarking it against Ubuntu or Mac OS X or any of the other non-Microsoft alternatives."
So that somehow qualifies you to write an article about how much better Vista is than Linux?
Haw haw!! I may as well write an article saying how much better laparoscopic gallbladder surgery is than the traditional open procedure, even though I've had neither procedure, I am not a doctor, nor am I a qualified medical researcher.
Credibility shattered! The rest of the article can be discarded as non sequitor.
I BOOTED MS office 4 years back because of Excel instability - constant crashes and using Open Office ever since. What little it lacks in tools it more than compensates with STABILITY and it's draw module blows MS office over horizon. I'm constantly wrestling with my XP to keep it working, virus scan blocks the whole system. I have 3 installs of MEPIS linux on almost identical machines and there is no comparison in speed. XP looses copy paste function after 12 hours of work and has to be rebooted and that with 1,5Gb of RAM.
I loaded light version Antix on PII400 with 256Mb RAM (10 years old) and it's used in workshop to display work drawings, play music and use firefox with reasonable speed.I tested for stability and once let it on for 90 days, no change in performance.
Please tell me how much MS pays for articles like that. I would like to make some money without work.
It seems to me that you are arguing that in order to succeed, a Linux company needs to become Microsoft. Microsoft did not get where it is, however, except through double-crossing its competitors, stealing technology, and using other unethical practices. Furthermore, the day of the desktop OS as primary platform is coming to an end, just as the day of IBM's mainframe computers has long ended.
Looking to the future, where everything is going to be web-based and what desktop OS you use matters little, I see Linux taking a much stronger position versus Microsoft. The fact that Linux's market share doubled over the past year is a sign of things to come. Meanwhile, Google has risen to dominance, because they're good and they're what comes next -- just as the desktop OS came after IBM. And Linux is in a position to complement and benefit from Google's role, by allowing people a safe and secure platform from which to access the Internet and collaborate with their friends.
Linux is also a natural outgrowth of the Web 2.0 ethos, of sharing and building on each other's work, and as such was far ahead of its time when it got started. I see that ethos transforming the way people do business. And like it or not, I see Microsoft and other major corporations transforming to adapt as well, before they become redundant in a marketplace where anyone can compete ... and many give their work away for free.