Selling Linux to Windows Users

[iodine at runbox.no]

Mark Haney wrote:
> bqz69 wrote:
>> Windows has to sharpen themselves, in order to compete with linux with 
>> more than some 20.000 programmer, and which cost nothing - quite an 
>> argument???
> 
> No, this isn't much of an argument.  MS has (IIRC) about 5,000 
> programmers.

More like 20.000, IIRC.

> Granted they ALL aren't working on the Windows OS code 
> base, but I'm sure a large percentage know the API inside and out 
> regardless.

The Windows API is HUGE. I doubt any one man knows the
whole thing inside out by himself.

> Windows problem (now, anyway) and potentially linux's problem in the 
> future is code bloat.

And bureaucracy.

> The Windows OS (and I group them all together for 
> ease of argument) has a MASSIVE codebase.  I forget how many lines, but 
> it's significant.  But, the /problem/ with that isn't the size of the 
> code base, it's the fact that there is still Win95 code sitting in the 
> OS, and it's wreaking havoc with newer technologies.
 > (That's a VERY  simple example.)

In that case, it should be easy for you to give an example where
this has happened?

> The other problem is Microsoft's desire to make /everything/ 
> interoperable with everything else.  It creates this massive cascade 
> effect when one piece fails it makes all the other interdependent pieces 
> unstable.
> 
> What I've said for 10 years now is the MS needs to scrap the existing 
> code and start over.  Make it mean and lean.  And stable. 
> Unfortunately, that also means killing backward compatibility, which 
> they will NOT do.  It's too big a gamble to them.

Apple managed it by running OS9 in a virtual box. Microsoft
could do the same for compatibility's sake. I wouldn't put it past
them. By now, they are painfully aware of the problem with bloat
and problems to do with keeping compatibility. The Singularity project
is promising as a fresh start.

> The linux world, on the other hand, with it's 'do one thing, but do it 
> right' mentality WRT it's tools, doesn't have the same scenario facing 
> it.  Python 3 was released recently which breaks everything previous, 
> but that doesn't render EVERYTHING broken immediately.  The migration 
> can be at a much more measured pace.

That's just a programming language. An OS is a whole other can of
worms. Anyway, Python 2.x still works, and binaries can be made
with that included for those who find it too much trouble to migrate
their code.

> I personally have become wary of software makers who try to 'be 
> everything to everybody' with their products. (McAfee and Symantec come 
> to mind along with MS.)  Being a jack of all trades means you never get 
> EVERYTHING great, just marginal, and marginal is not satisfactory anymore.

Agreed.

-- 
Odd