Not to derail my own thread, but WOOT!

I passed my internship to consultant AND I''ve got a shiny new key

He''s right! It''s not his fault people aren''t running something better than Windows!

My Windows partition is ""GAMES ONLY"".

Yeah, you visited a site that caused your pure and virtuous IE to display JPG images. Bad user! What did you expect?!

That is why I switched my wife to Firefox. Oddly enough, she hasn''t really noticed any difference and is still happily surfing the net. I also have the peace of mind that she is less likely going to do something that ends up with me having to clean up viruses, hijackers, spyware, and worms.

You mean MS will run their own Porn picture service?

Besides the delusional, when people say Linux on the desktop is a threat to Microsoft they don''t say that because of how it looks and works now. They say that because of the speed of improvement. Look at the latest the Linux desktop has to offer, and look at it two years ago. Nobody''s seen that kind of improvement in a product in the proprietary space, even Mac OSX doesn''t move that fast. Part of it has to do with how well built a foundation UNIX and Linux are, part of it has to do with the modular/distributed development that open source is forced to adopt. The point is, nobody thinks you can plunk down anybody in front of Linux today and they can do everything they need to (though the basics like IM, web and email all are there). It''s that Linux is moving very rapidly and MS is failing to keep up. Longhorn at this point is still playing catchup to things Linux already has and it''s still two years away. Most people in the OSS community see Longhorn as the make or break point for ""good enough"". When people see Longhorn, and all the problems that come with a complete MS rewrite of their OS, they''ll start looking for alternatives instead. If Linux can be good enough at that point, it''ll be like the Firefox/IE situation now, the momentum will shift rapidly. Sure it won''t switch the market share overnight, but people will increasingly switch. Basically, nobody can really say whether or not Linux is a threat to MS at this point, because the only real threat to MS is a few years away. If Longhorn drops the ball, Linux can pick it up, which is the only way anybody can hope to break MS''s OS monopoly at this point. It''s not that Linux is a clear alternative, it''s that it could be by the time that it''ll count for anything.

Sorry for the sidetrack, don''t mean to derail anybody.

I''m a Linux lover, Mac OS X lover, BSD lover... so that''s all out in the air.

Anyway, Windows can be made considerably more tolerable with a mere few steps:

1) Replace Internet Explorer and Outlook Express (typical choices are Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, but other options like Opera are just as good in this respect)

2) Do NOT have administrative privileges on your everyday-use user accounts (sadly, admin privs tends to be default behavior when it comes to Windows) * THIS is the one that most users skip, and the one that can help the most

3) Run Windows Update weekly (the only thing IE is needed for). MS releases new security patches every Tuesday. Install them.

4) Firewall and anti-virus. AVG has a great free AV. Sygate''s software firewall is much less problematic than ZoneAlarm.

5) Use either Spybot S&D or SpywareBlaster to ""immunize"" your system from potential spyware issues BEFORE you have problems. Also, have Spybot run a scan at startup, or run something like SpywareGuard.

Well, there''s a difference between ""threat to remove MS domination"" and ""threat to replace Windows machines right now"". I think the latter is very possible, as we''re seeing in many international governments.

And really, Linux desktops can easily handle the needs of many users right now.

Example: I can put my girlfriend in front of a basic GNOME desktop, and say ""use the computer"". Despite being non-computer-savvy, and having no experience in a UNIX/Linux envrionment, she can find and use the web browser, office software, and other ""basics"" with little effort. She plans to have me install a Linux on her laptop soon, as Windows crashes keep interrupting her work.

For people whose computer use is defined by WWW, email, IM, and word processing (which is an awful lot of people), the default desktop environments of many Linux distros is plenty easy to navigate. In some regards, I would argue it to be easier than Windows - instead of having to navigate folders named after the *companies* that make the software, you have folders with self-explanatory names like ""Internet"", ""Office"", ""Text Editors"", etc.

For a novice computer user, the only thing the Windows shell would have over, say, GNOME, is possible familiarity. It''s not fundamentally easier to use in any way.

The only real remaining ""gotcha"" when it comes to basic Linux desktop use is software installation. As a geek, I adore being able to use command-line tools like Portage in Gentoo, but for the average user, double-clicking an .RPM doesn''t always easily install like it should.

But from a pure ""desktop usability"", point-and-click-and-do-things standpoint, KDE and GNOME don''t trail Windows in any meaningful fashion. On, say, a business desktop where the necessary software is pre-installed, or on Mom & Dad''s PC where their software is installed for them too, the ""Linux desktop"" is definitely a suitable alternative.

So many people have this notion of ""Linux is hard"". Then I hand them the mouse and say, ""here, use it"". 15 minutes later, as they''re browsing and IM-ing and doing most of the stuff they do on a daily basis, they ask, ""what''s so hard about this?""

The one big catch remaining is that damn software installation. Although tools like YaST and even ""Click and Run"" are a step in the right direction. The ""download a file and double-click to install it"" paradigm is not necessarily the best way to go. In the long run, I''d argue the ""pull up a window with a big fat list of software to choose from, and click one to install"" approach is easier, but unfamiliar to the Windows crowd.

People also talk about ""putting someone in front of a Linux machine"" and how they will have trouble doing X or Y, and I think they largely fail to recognize how many of those same things took some learning to accomplish in Windows. The comparison usually boils down to ""can I do in 5 minutes in Linux what I took 2 months to learn in Windows"", and that''s never a comparison that can be won.

This was from Gartner research (which if memory serves is pretty-heavy anti-Linux). The articles I found has no substance behind those claims:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18785
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/infoworld/20040930/tc_infoworld/48208

At least based off of what you see in the articles, their claim is this: Linux is cheaper to ship with new PC''s. Pirated copies of Windows XP are readily available. Ergo, 80% of PCs that ship with Linux will have a pirated copy of XP installed. Doesn''t add up. If there''s more to their research than that, you can''t see it unless you want to pay for it:
http://www4.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=123972

At the same time, the Open Source Industry Association''s counter to that Gartner research seems equally silly (as maybe it was meant to be?):
http://theinquirer.net/?article=18812

The rest of the numbers you have look fairly sound, though, from ones I''ve seen bandied about.

Revenue for whom? Or more appropriately, nobody but Microsoft will ever make money off Windows. If 30 different companies can make money off of Linux, regardless of their profit margin, they''re going to do it. Nobody''s going to say ""well MS has 95% profit margins, we''ll just give up now."" Besides, considering it a failing for other software companies profit margins not to equal MS profit margins is like failing your local priest for not being Jesus. It''s very unlikely that anyone will have that kind of profit margain on any other operating system again.

Yes actually, in Gnome 2.8. Check the ""System Administration"" section. Software installation is still a problem, I don''t know why Red Hat doesn''t just include Synaptic or something, installing software on Linux is insanely easy compared to Windows (i.e. Apt-RPM), they just need a GUI for it.

Actually if you read what he said, you just backed up his statement. He said MS doesn''t control the server market, you said UNIX was anywhere from 25%-35%. Large enough that they can''t control it. If Linux desktops had 25% of the market it''d be considered a runaway success.

And if you look at the numbers of the right now of course it''s going to look dismal. Nobody is saying Linux is taking over the world, just that it''s in a pretty good position to get there sometime in the not too distant future, which is more potential than has existed anywhere else in the OS market since the early 90''s.

IBM. Novell.

Neither are companies anyone with half a brain thinks ""may not exist in 1-2 years"".

Most realize that Red Hat is not disappearing anytime soon also, in no small part because of the fact that their enterprise distro is the most popular choice for IBM customers. RH provides the distro, IBM provides the iron and support. Neither are going anywhere anytime soon.

You make it sound like the only option for enterprise customers is fly-by-night operations, and that''s just not true.

no..I never said all...but again you have to wonder why these companies are now pushing Linux.. Look at Novell they are certainly not in the same position they were 10-15 years ago.

IBM both needs and hates Microsoft.. so they play a dodgy game of back and forth.

Honestly from the people I talked to they fear Apple more than Linux..

If Apple had say an enterprise email package and RIM/Blackberry support (which is rumored) they could pose a threat.

I know I''d switch...and I''d switch both desktops and servers..

Which is why Microsoft fears them the most.

This guy''s playing ""Software Tycoon"" in real life!

Just a random thought... I''ll shut up now...

I can say although IBM is pushing Linux, they are also still continuing to push AIX as well. And its all well and good that they may promote Linux as an OS, they are still trying to entangle enterprises (be it for good or bad) in their suite (MQ, Websphere, etc).

Why would that buck trends and statistics? Novell is porting all their apps to Linux. If you can continue to use the Novell apps you''re currently using on Linux, why would that be so strange to upgrade? Most Linux servers come from Sun, HP and AIX transitions anyway, why would Novell be any different? Just because they''re currently transitioning to Windows doesn''t mean a new cheaper Novell Linux distribution for servers with all their tools available and very little retooling required wouldn''t turn heads.