Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 71.131.180.11]
on October 20, 2007 10:23 PM
Microsoft Office is their cash cow and it relies utterly on the Windows kernel. Trying to put their Explorer GUI and Office on top of Linux, while easier than continually developing their own kernel, would be a major task.
And then they would be in the same position the Windows fanboys accuse OpenOffice of being in - if it's indistinguishable from Linux, why not use Linux?
The main advantage to them would be that they could offer a cheaper OS to corporations while not forcing the corporations to retrain everybody currently using Office to use another office suite. But how much cheaper would Microsoft be able to sell an MS-Linux? Not much - especially if they intended to jack up the price anyway, since greed is Bill's watchword in life. The fact it costs them less to maintain a Linux kernel than an MS one doesn't lead me to believe that Bill will charge any less for it.
I don't see it happening until Microsoft is already so on the ropes from Linux's advance that it won't matter what they do, anyway. It would be a PR disaster to abandon the MS kernel for Linux. It would be an admission of utter failure on the part of MS to be an OS company - an admission long overdue, but nonetheless a PR disaster.
Linux, however, will not penetrate corporations on the desktop until corporate inertia and incompetence is overcome. Only when corporations realize that making Bill the richest guy in the world is not an effective use of their IT capital will Linux come into its own in corporations. And it will have to do that before the driver issues are resolved, as well. Once corporations shift to Linux, they will demand certified drivers for their hardware from their suppliers, and those suppliers will in turn demand them from the peripheral manufacturers. This is happening to a slight extent with Dell, already.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Where does Linux go from here?
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.131.180.11] on October 20, 2007 10:23 PMAnd then they would be in the same position the Windows fanboys accuse OpenOffice of being in - if it's indistinguishable from Linux, why not use Linux?
The main advantage to them would be that they could offer a cheaper OS to corporations while not forcing the corporations to retrain everybody currently using Office to use another office suite. But how much cheaper would Microsoft be able to sell an MS-Linux? Not much - especially if they intended to jack up the price anyway, since greed is Bill's watchword in life. The fact it costs them less to maintain a Linux kernel than an MS one doesn't lead me to believe that Bill will charge any less for it.
I don't see it happening until Microsoft is already so on the ropes from Linux's advance that it won't matter what they do, anyway. It would be a PR disaster to abandon the MS kernel for Linux. It would be an admission of utter failure on the part of MS to be an OS company - an admission long overdue, but nonetheless a PR disaster.
Linux, however, will not penetrate corporations on the desktop until corporate inertia and incompetence is overcome. Only when corporations realize that making Bill the richest guy in the world is not an effective use of their IT capital will Linux come into its own in corporations. And it will have to do that before the driver issues are resolved, as well. Once corporations shift to Linux, they will demand certified drivers for their hardware from their suppliers, and those suppliers will in turn demand them from the peripheral manufacturers. This is happening to a slight extent with Dell, already.
#