From: Joe Barr 

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:41:57 -0400, William F. Zachmann wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Looks a lot like "deja vu all over again" to me.  That list would have
> done just fine for OS/2 ca. 1992/93 or thenabouts as well.
>
> Whether you believe it or not, I really do not have anything against
> Linux, but I *AM* struck by the remarkable similarities between the
> situation of Linux today and that of OS/2 in the early '90s.
>
> Perhaps it will turn out differently this time, but I do not yet see any
> very compelling reasons (unless one just happens to hate BillG & Co.) to
> expect that it will.
>
> All the best,
>
> will
>
>
> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.16.12.48.15.821097{at}pjprimer.com...
>>
>>
>> Here are the top ten results from the poll on what Linux needs that was
>> conducted here and on a couple of newsgroups.  Thanks to all who
>> played.
>>
>> 1. Applications
>> 2. Ease of use
>> 3. OS preloaded with desktop hardware 4/5 (tie) Drivers and Games
>> 6. Name recognition
>> 7. Easier installation of applications 8. Better Microsoft Office file
>> filters 9. Better documentation
>> 10. Hot plug-and-play
>>
>> The full story is at:
>> http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/07/14/181225.shtml?tid=23
>>
>> --
>>
>>
Hey, Will

It already is turning out differently.  Microsoft is defending its
heart-of-darkness (the preload arena) as vigorously as it can, but it
couldn't stop HP from offering a Linux preload.  Granted, it did manage to
stop one top OEM.  I believe it was IBM who very recently backed down from
a plan to offer Linux as well.

IBM's successes with OS/2 in 1994 came from its own preloads and deals with
overseas OEMs like Vorbis.  OEMs at that time may have felt they had the
leverage necessary to actually be able to negotiate with MS, but they were
soon disabused of that notion.  Linux's phenomenal success story to date
has been written almost completely without the aid of preloads.  Now that
the barrier is falling, it will surge into the desktop space in exactly the
same way it has the server market.

The differences between the OS/2 challenge and Linux are many.  For one
thing, Linux is safe from the monopolistic/monetary attacks that Redmond
used against IBM and DrDOS and Netscape and Lotus and Borland and all the
rest.

SCO and a certain segment of the tres duh press are simply furious that
their threats and FUD are being largely ignored by everyone.  The usual MS
ploys are simply not working.

This time around MS cannot compete on price (see Munich), or performance,
or reliaability, or security, and by and large the world's PC buyers/users
are a more knowledgeable less gullible group than they once were.

See ya,
Joe


















--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4