Re: ``Nothing like a monopoly to get investors to cheer youon''

[Wandered Inn <esoteric@denali.atlnet.com>]

Sujal Shah wrote:
> 
> I disagree with this assertion for pretty-much one reason:  BeOS, Linux,
> BSD, Irix, MacOS X, etc. are not all competing for the same mindshare,
> at least not as I understand it.
> 
> Linux, BSD, Solaris compete for the lower-to-midsize market for servers,
> competing with NT.  HP/UX, AIX, Solaris, maybe IRIX, Ultrix, and the
> other "big iron" *nix's, compete for the higher, higher end of the
> market for servers.

Do a search on "linux and beowulf."

> 
> BeOS and MacOS X, and maybe the Amiga OS will compete for the desktop
> space in particular areas, Be with heavy=duty multimedia capabilities,
> and MacOS X with similar (but IMO weaker) multimedia capability,
> focusing on graphics, layout, etc.  Along with these guys will be IRIX,
> and some (very little) BSD and Linux for the rendering tasks (though Be
> looks to be strong there).

You focused on a very narrow scope of desktops.  How about the corporate
desktop.  Where people, for the most part, use: browser, word process
and email.  Linux can do this much better than any of the Microsoft OS's
currently.

Then theirs the software develpment desktop.  For the 'point and click'
pseudo-developer, NT or Win95 work.  For real developers, Linux is
robust, but is missing some tools that would be nice to have.

> 
> My point is that Operating Systems are not all the same, nor are they
> all competing for the same space, in many cases.  I wouldn't ever
> consider Be to be a competitor for Linux or HP/UX because people don't
> use the things for the same purposes.  Be has stated from the outset
> that they're not trying to create a general use OS, but one focused on
> Multimedia (and let me tell you, the performance doing Multimedia tasks
> makes Windows, Linux, and the Mac look like rank amateurs, little
> baby-OS's).
> 
> MacOS, AmigaOS, Windows are definitely all in the same category because
> they're aiming to make a general-purpose OS.  Linux could be considered,
> but the hype it's getting is NOT as a general user operating system.
> It's getting hyped (and getting apps) mostly for its usability as an
> NT/general purpose server replacement.

I again disagree,  Linux is certainly a viable solution for the generic
office desktop and a development desktop.

> 
> Sujal
> 
> Brett Glass wrote:
> >
> > At 10:27 PM 11/7/98 -0500, Charles Behney wrote:
> >
> > >Wall Street loves a Sure Thing. How can you make Linux a darling of stock
> > >analysts?
> >
> > I don't know. However, Linux may (inadvertently) make Microsoft MORE
> > of a darling of stock analysts. Why? Because Linux will prevent any new
> > commercial operating system -- such as BeOS -- from being able to compete
> > with Microsoft's offerings. Linux will compete with them for developer
> > mindshare, for sales, and for capital. The result: Microsoft's position
> > as the ONLY viable commercial option will -- perversely -- be strengthened.
> > Linux will kill off potential competition for it.
> >
> > --Brett
> 
> --
> ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@worldnet.att.net
> 
>        http://home.att.net/~sujal/
> Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org

--
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@denali.atlnet.com

You mean you paid MONEY for Service Pack '98????