Howard Bloom on 13 Sep 2004 17:22:02 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [PLUG] More critique of Linux desktop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Art Alexion
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 1:12 PM
> This is such a sham argument.  Of course there are at least 
> 40 useful programs that run in Windows only as there are 
> probably 40 useful programs that only run on *nix.
> The real reason for that is momentum, of course.  Commercial 
> developers (and virus writers) reasonably aim to design 
> products that can be run by the most common computers.  
> Before MS cemented its monopoly, software more often tended 
> to be written for more platforms.  Now, with 95% of the 
> desktops running Windows, there is a huge disincentive to 
> develop for other platforms.  It snowballs.  When fewer 
> programs are written for a platform, fewer people choose that 
> platform.  And when fewer people choose that platform, fewer 
> programs are written for it.
> The only way to reverse that trend is to buck the momentum 
> and create a rich software selection that attracts people to 
> the platform -- until the selection is so rich that it 
> attracts people to the platform.  Most desktop users don't 
> care about operating systems, they get one with their 
> hardware, or they [used to] choose one based on the software 
> they needed.
> OS/2 failed because IBM couldn't attract developers to write 
> for the platform.  Hence, no software.  Hence no customers 
> for the platform.
> Linux is uniquely situated to buck this phenomenon because of 
> the Open Source culture.  People chip in to develop software 
> because they need or want it themselves, regardless of how 
> many copies they will sell.  This permits Linux to accumulate 
> a rich selection of software no matter how many desktops are sold.
> For many of us Linux is already there.  For some, it is 
> getting there eventually.  For others, with special needs 
> [that even windows may not be meeting], it will never be there.

How is this a sham argument?  Can you find me an ACT equivalent to run on
Linux?  You probably don't even know what DeepAnalysis does and I'll wager
you a lot of money that there is no equivalent on Unix or Linux.  

I was an 0S2 from the very beginning and I was sad to see it go - it was way
ahead of its time.  OS2 disappeared because IBM lacked the balls to properly
fight Microsoft.  Years ago before Exchange was invented, I visited my
friend Peter in the Microsoft office in Delaware.  He badmouthed OS2 as a
horrible OS - and Microsoft was going to crush it.  He said anyone who runs
it is a chump.

When he took me through his NOC I noticed that Microsoft before Exchange ran
their worldwide mail system on OS2.


Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --