The problem for Linux distributions on the desktop is that their strength is to provide a free, simple infrastructure, not a commercial complex end-user product.
The Linux OS and the Linux way is so fundamentally different from Windows, that Linux will NEVER work like Windows. So it's impossible to replace a Windows desktop with a Linux desktop without changing a lot of other things, too.
One place where Linux is strong, though, and can get much stronger, is the market for remote desktops, like Citrix and Terminal Services. It is in the best interest for Microsoft to keep that market down as long as possible.
Linux cannot replace a Windows desktop for years to come (just like Windows could not replace a Linux desktop), but it limits Microsoft's abilities to improve their products in certain directions without losing market share.
Linux businesses that focus on delivering infrastructure are fighting against odds. The whole idea behind using Linux commercially is independence in the infrastructure layer, which makes it possible to have software from several software providers on the same computer. Red Hat still gives away it's distribution although it contains some proprietary pieces, because it knows it cannot keep the market share if it required people to pay for the basic infrastructure. They focus their earnings on added value, like services, automatic update and support.
Since Microsoft focuses on license sales, there couldn't be much more difference between Red Hat and Microsoft. Eazel was too focused on a product that isn't really needed, Corel Linux was a hype-thing that failed, and there are certainly a lot of other companies in the Linux business with failed business plans. Who cares? The whole idea behind Linux is that you can survive this easily. Who would stay with Windows if there would be no more Microsoft?
How would the chinese military perform, if they used Windows computers in a war against Taiwan? Would Microsoft support them if they got into trouble?
Lars. |
