Skip to comments.Is Linux For Losers?
Posted on 06/19/2005 6:41:20 AM PDT by Willie Green
click here to read article
naa AI bots have come farther than that, I would expect more reason from them..
You mix Apple with .. umm... oranges. It was not Microsoft but IBM that licensed out it's architecture. Other companies were then able to manufacture "IBM clones" at a cheaper cost. That was bad news for Apple but for IBM as well, because even though IBM's propriatory MicroChannel Architecture was superior to PCI, it cost more at the counter, much like the MacIntosh. Consumers, in all their wisdom, went with the cheaper machines. Software market followed the consumers and their PCs, making it slim pickins for Apple enthusiasts.
Microsoft's role was something else entirely. Initially, IBM had a machine but no operating system to run on it. Microsoft delivered one "cleverly" named DOS. Even better, MS somehow managed to retain the copyrights. That enabled them to sell the same OS to other PC manufacturers. Which they did in a most unprecidented way. MS offered it's OS to manufacturers at bargain prices with the following catch: MS got paid based not on the number of it's OSs that shipped, but on the number of computers that shipped. In other words, a person buying a PC clone could [seemingly] get Windows for a song but would have to pay "extra" for a copy of IBM's OS/2. So, despite OS/2's superior multitasking and scripting abilities, it failed due in large to a stacking of the deck.
Upstarts like Linux have little chance of supplanting Windows despite Windows' flaws, because the switching cost for businesses currently using Windows would be too high for the benefit gained by using some other operating system.
Nevertheless, Linux is finding its way into corporate America and this is a trend that appears to be growing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years.