Mandrake Linux files for Bankruptsy

[Ted Striker]

http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/03/01/15/030115hnmandrakesoft.xml?Template=/storypages/printfriendly.html

Meanwhile Microsoft handed out $870 million in dividends.

[Asher]

Cue Urban to talk about how Linux is going to take over the world.

[DinoDoc]

Too few nerds to support it?

[Urban Ranger]

Are any of you members of the IEEE? Read the lastest Spectrum?

[Asher]

Nerds tend to shun Mandrake, actually.

They think it's too easy to use.

Once something becomes easy to use, it's no longer chic in the computer geek world.

Computer geeks get a kick out of obfuscated and cryptic things so they can feel superior to people who just don't care to spend as much time with computers as they do...

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Mandrake Linux files for Bankruptsy

Originally posted by Ted Striker

http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/03/01/15/030115hnmandrakesoft.xml?Template=/storypages/printfriendly.html

Meanwhile Microsoft handed out $870 million in dividends.

MS's earnings are largely based on its market position, which is a result of its illegal business practices.

I am sure you can be a rich thief as long as you can get away with it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Nerds tend to shun Mandrake, actually.

They think it's too easy to use.

Once something becomes easy to use, it's no longer chic in the computer geek world.

Computer geeks get a kick out of obfuscated and cryptic things so they can feel superior to people who just don't care to spend as much time with computers as they do...

Since you like MS stuff, it makes you a non-nerd, by your logic.

So what made you a spokesman of geek mentality?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Since you like MS stuff, it makes you a non-nerd, by your logic.

So what made you a spokesman of geek mentality?

I'm obviously generalizing, there are exceptions.

And Urban, it's amazing what you see when you open your eyes.

I'm not the spokesman for the geek mentality, it's just that I'm not one of the geek-sheep. I'm just surrounded by them all day, every day.

[Agathon]

'Tis Asher - Redmond's representative on these boards.

Microsoft also announced a scheme to let government agencies look at its code because they are scared of Linux - at leas that's what the press say. I looked again at Linux not long ago and was very impressed with the way it has come on. I'd even consider using Red Hat (I am not a geek so I don't care) since I could do pretty much what I want using it.

I wouldn't worry about open source software failing. Open source will continue to catch up because it is simply a better way to write software - just like open peer review system is the best way to do science. Why do you think Apple dumped the Mac OS in favour of Free BSD? In the long term I think Linux has a bright future.

I reckon one day, perhaps a couple of years from now a very large business will move to desktop Linux - Microsoft's draconian licensing policies will eventually be its downfall - Linux is simply cheaper. After all the only thing they've got going for them is their monopoly - other than that they produce bloated rubbish (I'm a former Windows victim - though I have to admit they did a really good job on Office X for Mac - and yes I paid for it).

[Ted Striker]

Well I think Microsoft has had the best marketing team in the history of computers.

There wasn't much of a point to Mandrake. Red Hat does all the same stuff anyway.

[Asher]

Oh joy, one of them

Originally posted by Agathon
I wouldn't worry about open source software failing. Open source will continue to catch up because it is simply a better way to write software - just like open peer review is the best way to do science.

Open source software fills niche software components. It can be successful for commodity products like web browsers and web servers, but once you start doing real development with it for other applications it's not viable at all. Where's the open source software for monitoring hearts for hospitals? Where's the open source software controlling the avionitcs of jumbo jets?

Open source, by its nature, results in a huge array of different versions of products, lends itself to removing standardization which confuses and annoys users and distributers alike, and if the whole industry went open source -- who the hell would spend their time developing all these products? Right now, the vast majority of open source projects are funded by companies. The reason they're funded is because they want to take down MS. If MS is ever taken down, there's no point in continually funding most of these open source products. Why pay engineers for a product you're giving away?

Why do you think Apple dumped the Mac OS in favour of Free BSD?

Have you seen Apple's finances recently?
They don't even come close to having the budget to completely design their own OS from scratch to compete with Win2K and XP, they needed to build ontop of Mach.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well I think Microsoft has had the best marketing team in the history of computers.

There wasn't much of a point to Mandrake. Red Hat does all the same stuff anyway.

I don't know about that. I think Gates got very lucky, although there is no doubting he is a smart guy.

Yeah pity about Mandrake, but the beauty of free software is that there is real competition. And in competition companies fail. Others will rise if the opportunity presents itself.

[Ted Striker]

Open source, by its nature, results in a huge array of different versions of products, lends itself to removing standardization which confuses and annoys users and distributers alike, and if the whole industry went open source -- who the hell would spend their time developing all these products?

This is why it's such a shame that BSD is not in the forefront. I have wasted so much time trying to use industry standard UNIX tools on Linux only to have to look them up. This makes for security problems not to mention wasted time.

It's real easy to switch from HP or AIX or Solaris to BSD than it is to Linux.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Asher
Computer geeks get a kick out of obfuscated and cryptic things so they can feel superior to people who just don't care to spend as much time with computers as they do...

Quote material...

[Agathon]

Re: Oh joy, one of them

See what I mean - he could be Gates himself.

Originally posted by Asher

Open source software fills niche software components. It can be successful for commodity products like web browsers and web servers, but once you start doing real development with it for other applications it's not viable at all. Where's the open source software for monitoring hearts for hospitals? Where's the open source software controlling the avionitcs of jumbo jets?

Give it time. I hope you don't mean that Windows controls jumbo jets - I may never fly again.

Open source, by its nature, results in a huge array of different versions of products, lends itself to removing standardization which confuses and annoys users and distributers alike, and if the whole industry went open source -- who the hell would spend their time developing all these products?

This is a blatantly one-eyed view. Proprietary software, by it's very nature results in monopolies, which because of what they are tend to produce bad results for the consumer. There are bad results either way. Fortunately we don't face the stark choice you seem to think we do.

You didn't read what I said very carefully. Take the example of scientific research. There is a split between research that is conducted by private companies for profit and that which is "open" (what used to be the norm in Universities and still is to a large degree). No private company would invest in the kind of research that produces the most spectacular advances because these things are a leap in the dark - that's why University scientists research these things.

There is a public/private split in scientific research which works and has worked exceptionally well. It is just one application of the general truth that some things are better done collectively and others privately and some in combination. To argue otherwise is to fail to face the facts.

Do you constantly worry about the demise of University based scientific research? I'm presuming you don't. Well don't worry about open source software, which is just the application of the same principle to the software market. Of course it is a fairly new thing so there are bound to be teething troubles, but everyone will be better off for it.

Right now, the vast majority of open source projects are funded by companies. The reason they're funded is because they want to take down MS. If MS is ever taken down, there's no point in continually funding most of these open source products. Why pay engineers for a product you're giving away?

I don't think you understand. A workable open source project doesn't need to involve "giving it away" - it involves a division of between for profit and disinterested labour. What will happen is that the market (if regulated properly to destroy the MS monopoly) will involve companies using open source material to defray costs - just like chemical companies use discoveries made by university scientists (whom they don't pay). In every western economy this sort of thing goes on all the time (look at the production of novels, of which most are produced by English Lit grads - now how are the universities paid for?) - why shouldn't it be different for computer software?

Have you seen Apple's finances recently?
They don't even come close to having the budget to completely design their own OS from scratch to compete with Win2K and XP, they needed to build ontop of Mach.

That isn't their reasoning. Apple's reasoning is that they have no economic stake in designing their OS completely from the ground up. This is old time thinking. It is more efficient for Apple to use open source software and adapt it for their own needs. They aren't giving away OS X (although it is cheaper than Windows) nor are the Red Hat people giving that away (at least I couldn't see them doing so on their website).

And what do we have in OS X - well it is a fantastic OS - the best I've ever used. It has never crashed on me in nearly 2 years and it is simple to use. It is far better than the Classic OS (which was easy to use but unstable) so what should Apple be lambasted for improving their OS by whatever means were best?

Apple's problems are the same as other hardware manufacturers - people just don't seem to be buying many new computers. It's not as if Apple is in deep trouble - if they hadn't restructured and done some other stuff they would have made a profit.