Should we write Code Red II that formats all local disks? Would it help or hurt?
You know, you'd think that after Code Red and all that jazz owned so many IIS servers and cost corportations SO much money last summer that they'd switch off of IIS to apache. These guys are real system administrators, after all...
Not so -- IIS is now stronger than ever and getting more serious patches than ever. Just today another "arbitrary code" vulnerability was patched. Better install/reboot those IIS servers, again, boys.
If the system admins don't switch what do you think the chances are a regular user would switch, especially considering that system admins can get any functionality they'd want out of *nix and users cannot.
Never. At least not on mainstream home desktops. Some corporate, sure, but Linux, and open source OSes in general don't have what it takes for mainstream desktop users.
By never if you mean "no time soon without drastic changes and full software support", i'll agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't even see it getting very popular in many corporations at all. Here's the situation: a large, for profit, corporation wants to save money in it's IT department by switching to linux so every secretary gets linux. How is that going to effect productivity when they secretary can barely use windows? =)
One could say that Windows' capatability is worse than Linux's, because you can use wine to run quite a lot of Win32 apps on Linux. You have to recompile/hack/get reduced functionality out of lots of apps in order to get them to run on Windows.
No, you can't say that. In the IT environment you might be able to say that linux has better software availability then windows but the fact of the matter is this: 90% of all for profit softwares are released on windows but not on linux. For profity softwares are far more common than open source softwares. Wine is teh suck.
Truth. OpenOffice might help the first problem, but idiot simple will never match up with UNIX.
It's not so much a problem of being an idiot as it is a problem of: 1) the user not having enough patients to learn what is necessary, 2) the user not caring much about computers but merely reguarding them as a necessary tool to accomplish his daily tasks, 3) the user does not have the type of experiences working and experimenting with computers necessary because of #2.
Whether or not Linux was ever meant to be on the desktop, people are dragging it there, kicking and screaming or not.
Whether or not Windows NT was meant to be a real server OS people seem to be happily applying it to all types of server functions....
If you guys follow the latest stuff, apparently one MS had the power to crush Linux with their FUD back in 98, and Red Hat is being limited because MS Office and IE is not available for Linux.
What does IE have to do with it? Version 0.9.9 of Mozilla, in my opinion, is just as good /without/ the security holes of IE. What was MS thinking when they integrated IE into the OS? "Hey guys, lets make a huge collection of security holes and integrate it into windows.." Great idea =)
MS office isn't available for linux but alternatives are getting better and have compatability with MS formats. It's only a matter of time until the alternatives really are good enough so that it doesn't matter which you are using.
Java, write once, run anywhere.
I never used to have respect for Sun -- now, however, I see the light (no pun intended). Sunblades are awesome, Solaris, in my opinion, is by far the best version of unix, Java has made strides, and the flatscreens on the systems they donated to UW rock =)
The bottom line is that the domination of windows on the desktop isn't slated to change anytime soon. Low cost systems may come with linux or no OS but mainstream systems will continue to run windows until the users (or the alternatives) change -- and neither is happening fast enough to overturn anything anytime soon.