patrick.net

You do realize that Microsoft owns Skype now, right?

I have to fundamentally disagree with your argument for doing p2p messaging. That makes it a pain in the ass to do archiving, stop legitimate spam and malware, do multi-user chat, or do anything on mobile.

Dan: Bwahaha at that chart. I can think of a few worse ways to measure "market share" of server operating systems (my favorite is Microsoft's version, which is based on revenues of the organizations that produce the software), but that one is pretty terrible.

A rational way to measure would probably be to look at the top 100 internet destinations (by traffic). Not that you'd ever know how many servers those companies have (I know a few of them, and 7 figures+ for a single company would put you in the right ballpark). Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. aren't running windows servers.

Kevin says

You do realize that Microsoft owns Skype now, right?

Yes, and it has gotten much worse since the Microsoft takeover. Which is why I use Skype 4.2. Nevertheless, there is no censoring built into any version of Skype detected so far. And Skype 4.2 lacks all the annoyances that Microsoft added.

Kevin says

I have to fundamentally disagree with your argument for doing p2p messaging. That makes it a pain in the ass to do archiving, stop legitimate spam and malware, do multi-user chat, or do anything on mobile.

If you want a paper trail, use a Wiki or email. Skype is a replacement for phones and messaging, and it is useful for screen sharing. It's not meant as a permanent record.

As for spam, I have never gotten any with Skype. Just set it so that only those in your contact list can call you. Simple. Also, I have not experience any malware on Skype.

Multi-user chat and conference calls are easy to do on Skype. It just doesn't do conference video, yet. And although I have not used Skype on a mobile phone, there certainly is a Skype app for every major mobile platform.

Kevin says

Dan: Bwahaha at that chart. I can think of a few worse ways to measure "market share" of server operating systems (my favorite is Microsoft's version, which is based on revenues of the organizations that produce the software), but that one is pretty terrible.

If you have a better source, show it. I just did a Google image search and took the most credible chart I could fine quickly. Feel free to do more research than I have. I concentrated on web servers because those stats are readily available. Of course, there are many different types of servers...

Kevin says

A rational way to measure would probably be to look at the top 100 internet destinations (by traffic).

Not really. You would only be looking at a few big players by that method.

Whether or not Vicente is correct when he says "Windows days are numbered" is not determined by a few big players but rather by how many copies of Windows Microsoft can sell, or more precisely, how much licensing revenue they can get. This is far more affected by the number of servers running Windows than whether or not the big players use Windows.

Perhaps you are trying to address a different issue?

Now, I wouldn't mind if Windows days were numbered. I still use XP because Vista and Win 7 suck and Windows 8 looks like it's going to stink as well. But it would be nice if someone were to create a better OS than XP. And no, I don't consider Apple's OS or Linux to be better. Now if we could get a modernized version of OS/2, that would be cool. Or a correctly implemented Win XP x64 with Direct X 10, that would be even better.

Windows used to be big but that was when the OS actually mattered. Back in the day it wasn't so much that the programs had their own file system but even the OS. You couldn't say swap an Atari program into a Amiga or Apple and PC. Now with say office the .docx file extension can be accepted by countless programs, many don't cost a thing like google apps and libreoffice.

Sometimes just having fees adds up more than selling a whole product outright.

XP I think worked well...windows 8 I actually think works quite well but it might be a tad too late. I use ubuntu although some of the gui can be different. going from gnome to unity is strange. gnome 3.0 I think is crap..at least they fixed unity.

I like Ubuntu linux. A few years ago I got some XP craptops to set up a few friends down in Mexico. One had strange behavior, lost sound, froze up sometimes, ran slowly etc. I put ubuntu on it and it was magically transformed: faster, sound worked again, great.
I haven't used the latest version, but microsoft cannot sell windows to people in India and China for $100 when Linux is free and superior and that is a large % or the cost of the entire computer.
My phone is running linux and it's OK too. Everyone at Google has desktops running it.
iChat was faster than skype but it wasn't cross platform.

Linux is fine until you want to install software, then it's a major pain in the ass. Until Linux developers start making their installs as simple and easy as on Windows, Linux is not going to be a mainstream operating system no matter how loved it is by a subset of geeks.

When the typical senior citizen can easily install a program on Linux and use it's interface, then Linux will stand a chance. Unless there's been a major revolution in Linux over the past few months, that day ain't here yet.

mdovell says

Windows used to be big but that was when the OS actually mattered.

You people make me chuckle.

News flash: Microsoft owns the desktop and server OS markets in just about every measurable way.

Dan8267 says

Now, I wouldn't mind if Windows days were numbered. I still use XP because Vista and Win 7 suck and Windows 8 looks like it's going to stink as well. But it would be nice if someone were to create a better OS than XP.

After a bit of transition, I have found Windows 7 to be a big improvement over XP. Whatever they did to make 32 bit apps run they did it right with 7 - Vista was about useful as Windows ME. If they gave the option to use the XP UI they would be my hero. They do not have to rearrange everything just to prove that the new version is better.

EightBall says

News flash: Microsoft owns the desktop and server OS markets in just about every measurable way.

Based on the IT market here, it seems like Windows Server is the OS of choice for the majority of VMs on the Internet. Linux has a solid following, but clearly less than a third of the market down here in Florida despite that it is free.

The reason I've consistently heard for server farms using Windows over Linux is that although Linux is free to buy, it costs more to administer than Windows and that's the biggest cost: employee salaries. Windows is just easier to maintain according to the people who run IT farms. The license is a small expense in comparison.

Now you may not agree that Windows is easier to admin than Linux, but unless you run a server farm, your vote doesn't count.

EightBall says

I have found Windows 7 to be a big improvement over XP.

Win 7 is much better than Vista, but I still prefer XP by a lot. Microsoft made a really bad choice in Vista when they decided to screw the end user and do everything content providers want. They eased up a bit in Win 7, but that version still keeps the end user out of control even when the end user is an admin. I want full control over my computer.

EightBall says

They do not have to rearrange everything just to prove that the new version is better.

True. And that's a problem with both Microsoft and Apple. The solution is that the graphical shell should be version entirely separate from the OS. They should be two separate products that have nothing to do with each other and no collaboration between the two.

If only Android could keep itself free from spyware installed by mobile device makers, it could seriously challenge Windows. But I'm not trusting my computing to any device that is caught logging my keystrokes and sending them back to a third-party server no matter what the reason given. How could I do banking on such a device?

Dan8267 says

The reason I've consistently heard for server farms using Windows over Linux is that although Linux is free to buy, it costs more to administer than Windows and that's the biggest cost: employee salaries. Windows is just easier to maintain according to the people who run IT farms. The license is a small expense in comparison.

It is also far easier to get talent that has experience with Windows.

EightBall says

It is also far easier to get talent that has experience with Windows.

*snort* talent? Why is it, that every single Windows "expert" I've seen couldn't program 20 lines of script if their lives depended on it? That when confronted with an AD meltdown their response was a wipe & rebuild? Every Windows "expert" I've seen to date can point & click and knows a lot of arcane things to pass tests, and that's all. I work for cheap SOBs who hire people with the right certs on the resume and will work for peanuts, but I suspect that is the norm not the exception.

EightBall says

It is also far easier to get talent that has experience with Windows.

True, but that's only part of it. The development of Windows is more centrally managed, so the Windows administration experience is more cohesive. Linux, by the very nature of it's everyone contribute what you want, is far less consistent and requires a lot of arbitrary knowledge.

So even though Linux is free, which means lots of kids are playing with it, it takes less time to get up to speed with managing a Windows server. The tech is standardized and there's so much literature on it.

That's not to say Windows is completely clean. It has a lot of baggage from the COM and CORBA days, but at least Windows admin all speak the same language so to speak.

Vicente says

Every Windows "expert" I've seen to date can point & click and knows a lot of arcane things to pass tests, and that's all.

I've seen people who don't know crap get hired as sys/network admins. But I've also seen extremely talented people in the same roles. It all depends on the individual.

Vicente says

*snort* talent? Why is it, that every single Windows "expert" I've seen couldn't program 20 lines of script if their lives depended on it? That when confronted with an AD meltdown their response was a wipe & rebuild? Every Windows "expert" I've seen to date can point & click and knows a lot of arcane things to pass tests, and that's all. I work for cheap SOBs who hire people with the right certs on the resume and will work for peanuts, but I suspect that is the norm not the exception.

I have to agree with you especially about scripting - most windows admins fear the black command prompt. Part of that is what you've experienced with paper certs but part of it is that you can get away with point-and-click for 95% of things.

As far as being "cheap" for key positions...I had a guy tell me once that if you get a bunch of $2 baseball players you'll be watching a lot of $2 baseball. Same holds true for just about anything in life. Just reread what you wrote - you complain that the windows admins can't do anything advanced and then say the cheap SOBs hire paper certified boneheads that work for peanuts. That is a big part of the problem in your situation.

Dan8267 says

So even though Linux is free, which means lots of kids are playing with it, it takes less time to get up to speed with managing a Windows server. The tech is standardized and there's so much literature on it.

The "ecosystem" that MS has with technet, MSDN, and their communities is a one-stop-shop for assistance. Sure you can google your questions for Linux but there are so many variations and opinions on how to do things that you can get conflicting answers or the "If you are running kernel x.y.z.1.2.22 and have library version s.t.u.33.55.5 do it this way" - it can be somewhat of a nightmare. Redhat has gone to great lengths to get a similar system going but the whole argument of Linux being free goes out the window and many Linux purists reject Redhat for that reason...

All that being said, Microsoft has made a pretty good business of being "good enough" but not necessarily "the best". They lumber forward at a fairly slow pace in some instances but that is not always a bad thing.

EightBall says

I have to agree with you especially about scripting - most windows admins fear the black command prompt.

Wow, the talent in your area must be different from South Florida. Here any Windows Admin would be using PowerShell scripts. No black command prompt, it's blue.

PowerShell is awesome. No wasting time parsing text. Instead of a text pipeline, you have an object pipeline. You talk native CLR objects. It's way better than any text scripting language.

Dan8267 says

Wow, the talent in your area must be different from South Florida. Here any Windows Admin would be using PowerShell scripts. No black command prompt, it's blue.

PowerShell is awesome. No wasting time parsing text. Instead of a text pipeline, you have an object pipeline. You talk native CLR objects. It's way better than any text scripting language.

Blue or black is all the same to the majority of sysadmins - they have to use the keyboard which is painful when you don't even know how to type properly. They type faster on their iphone than they do on their computer.

Something as simple as executing a remote command in powershell made this one guy look like the character from "The Gods Must Be Crazy" a few months back - I find that a lot of programmers feel that any scripting is "beneath" them and sysadmins would rather test the power line with their tongue than write script. Someone that can operate in both worlds is priceless.

"Linux is fine until you want to install software, then it's a major pain in the ass. Until Linux developers start making their installs as simple and easy as on Windows, Linux is not going to be a mainstream operating system no matter how loved it is by a subset of geeks."

What on earth are you on about? Its as simple as browsing through one of the many software stores now available EG .ubuntu software centre .Installing software has become a simple pick/click/ install .From the free open source stuff to paid proprietary software that can purchased.

So What if that dam developer is making me download a .deb instead ??A quick double click and that .deb file will open in the software centre or gdebi and install itself. Is that any harder than windows .Compiling a program from source is only 4 simple steps. Installing from the command line even easier with a simple sudo apt-get install (program name) all dependencies gathered and installed for you. .

Native Steam is coming to linux,unity 4 game engine is coming to linux,unigene game engine is already here.We are also finally getting some Professional video editing software from light works. Your entire statement that software is to hard to install on linux is simply WRONG and guess what we even have skype.

One thing Windows 7 has going for it is I can go anywhere on the internet and it not kill my computer by installing malware. In fact it's such a pain the balls, that many applications fail to install even when you run as administrator because other related processes, not directly called from the MSI package, in the install process can be unsuccessful.

That being said, there are a ton of things that made the PC the choice platform for most users, are now non existent.

Such as the lack of IO on newer laptops, such as card slots, and firewire ports. Cards that aren't compatible in Win7 box towers, and there aren't even comparable solutions.

Such as Audio and Video production, Gerbil plotter devices ect.
These devices always upgraded to previous versions of Windows.
Now even if they do install, using those devices result in the bluescreen of death.
Otherwise the Platform is stable and never bluescreens under usage with out peripherals.

If Windows continues this trend then I don't see Windows surviving.

It's like Windows went from a huge erector set where almost any configuration was possible as well as available, to Windows being a closed device that is nothing more and never will be, than what you got.

It's why tablets and smart phones are gaining so much in the market.
If your PC is nothing more than over sized glorified Tablet, then what's the point?