Windows 7: Microsoft's Linux killer?

Talk of "Killing Linux" is bad journalism

I know journalists feel a need to always build tension by having one group in conflict with another group.

There is no way to "kill" Linux. There is no company that MS can cut off the air supply of. There is no central key personal that MS can hire. Linux is just a collection of guys working on stuff that interests them.

The fact that Linux is the backbone of most of the large data centers in the world, Google, Amazon, et al, is almost beside the point. Linux is a community, not a company.

All that said, I am looking forward to seeing what Windows 7 can do. Especially the 64bit version.

Why bother killing something that doesn't put up a fight?

Before saying anything, let's get one thing straight: I have 20+ years of computing experience, with 12 of those years having been professional in nature. Over the past 10 years I have been managing server environments. Presently, I manage a data center that is predominately Linux (RHEL4-5) and Solaris-based machines. Previously, I was part of a 10 man team that managed 4500+ Wintel (Windows 2k, 2k3 on Intel CPU) machines. Speaking from experience, Linux is NOT a more stable or reliable operating system compared with Windows. We constantly have engineers working to correct problems with, or rebooting the Linux-based machines, while the few Windows-based machines have remained completely untouched for the past 6 months. We have uptimes on a couple of our Windows boxes of nearly 4 years -- a number the Linux machines haven't even come close to (The Solaris machines, while a real PITA to set up are, however, definitely rock solid!). Basically the only real advantage of the Linux operating system is that it is much cheaper to purchase than Microsoft Windows. HOWEVER, the total cost of ownership has proven to be anything but free, with the downtime and configuration time required to get things up and running with it. Attribute this to the requirement of modifying obscurely-named text files scattered through the file system in random places, the odd method of having to use a package manager to locate an application in a list of thousands, the difficult way to make system-wide changes without having to go to several places, or even the most basic lack of an easy-to-read DIR command (LS is powerful but hopelessly difficult to interpret the output - especially over a monochrome console) Also, Microsoft released the EDIT command long ago with MSDOS 6 (or was it 5?), which quite frankly makes the Linux VI editor appear to be (and it is!) clunky, confusing, and an overall PITA to edit text files... something an operating system entirely based on text file configuration should have gotten right a long time ago. OH, and let's just mention something here -- how wonderful is it to have to make all your changes in text files anyway? It would be like having to modify all your program settings for Windows by navigating the registry. Let me tell you something very simple. Out of EXPERIENCE, and not just opinion, I can say quite confidently that Linux (at least in this lifetime) will NOT grab very much market share from Windows, ESPECIALLY as a desktop environment. I run Ubuntu and Red Hat on my personal computer - two of the more easy-to-use flavors... and even with several years of experience I can tell you that practically ANYTHING you do requires time, reading, and OS tinkering to make it work. Linux has yet to break the 1% market share (some studies have it as high as 1.5% on SOLD systems -- but many people buy them with Linux preinstalled on the cheap.. only to delete Linux and install Windows). FINALLY -- to those that think Windows can't run on low powered machines you are mistaken. Using utilities such as XPLite, you can shrink your installation to a miniscule less than 200MB that runs very fast even on the weakest machines. Windows and Linux, quite frankly, both run on similar hardware -- it's just that Microsoft decided to leave out a comparable "package selection" ability which would allow you to customize your install. Linux is nice in this regard but if you think that full install of Linux is not just as overhead-intensive as Windows... you're speaking out of your buttocks and not from experience. I'm sorry but no... Linux is NOT a true contender in the OS market. Realistically there are only 2 - Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X. On the cheap, you got Linux -- which requires more work to install, maintain, and upgrade. In the middle you have Windows - easy to use that comes bundled with [for the most part] ugly PC systems that haven't changed their basic design for ages. At the higher end of expense you have the Apple/Macs, that include an equally easy to use operating system installed on simply beautiful hardware. If you're broke and have no life other than wasting your weekends trying to get that new video card working in your Linux-based machine -- go for it. If you have a little more money and prefer to spend that time actually playing games or doing digital editing on the same video card you just installed by popping it in and running SETUP.EXE, go with Windows or Mac OS. Frankly put, you GET what you PAY FOR. I wish my company's clients would pay for more Windows-based machines.

Linux killer ?

So, Windows 7 "Starter Edition" (which slated to run on netbooks), a horribly crippled and stripped down operating system that can run no more than three applications at the same time (I kid you not) is somehow a "Linux killer" ?

Anyone who thinks such a pathetic offering has the potential to "kill" anything other than itself either needs to see a mental health professional, or your email address is steveb@microsoft.com.

Ok then. Seriously i like

Ok then. Seriously i like most of the OS for their different purposes.
I like to use Windows to treat documents, play games
I like to use Mac Os for medias purposes
And I like BSD, Solaris and Linux for programming, web hosting, network management in general

I m using Windows 7 and I like it and I would not say it is a Linux killer because every OS have his own specifik advantages and disadvantages.

The solution is create few partitions and install the OS you need.(if your not too lazy of course)

Anyway Vista still sucks.

killer, no killer

It's a cut throat world and something's got to die! But if you weigh the elements of this debate you still have a choice.

Microsoft should have rewritten Windows years ago and must have been working on this all along, behind the scenes. Now surprise, Windows 7 comes out, makes you wonder why they bothered with Vista. Oh well, that's a company with a product for ya.

So, let me say the reviews sound good (this is coming from me a Linux guy). Windows 7 they say is leaner code, runs on less hardware and is a snappy looker. This is no surprise, GM is also doing this after years of resisting. Is there a caveat we are missing? Yes, according to the trek MS has been taking, you will probably never, ever get "your own" install disc set ever again. You paid to use the software but not to own the software. It's OK to say "So!", because you only use it, you do not change it, nor fix it yourself or install it on more than one PC. Single users might not feel the pinch but businesses will pay big-time.

Linux and open source software is free! The copy you acquire is yours to do what you wish, because you own it. You can safely install your copy on as many machines as you have access to without breaking the law. Then Linux comes on live-CD, is portable and has free applications on the CD and if installed the Linux repositories.

The choice is still free or pay to play.

Not quite true .....

Interesting commentary. First, Preston states "The threat the Windows comes ENTIRELY from netbooks". That's not what others are saying, nor do the stats prove it. Linux is also a threat to Windows on desktops, e.g., the government of Japan is switching to Linux, many departments of the US government are switching to Linux, as are portions of the EU, China and other governments, in addition to libraries and many schools across the nation, not to mention many large corporations who are tired of having to pay license fees every year (especially in light of the current economic situation). Also, it seems that Preston views Windows as does the rest of the Microsoft gang: they completely ignore all the bad press and think a new system will make everything all better. Not quite. Microsoft has pushed to far; it is declining and will continue to decline. Many people were burned on Vista and now Microsoft wants them to buy another system that is nothing more than Vista revisited (as Microsoft even admits)?

If people who are quick to jump on Linux due to a bad experience they had a long time ago would take a look at what is currently available, especially Ubuntu, they would see that it's not what they saw many years ago. Many people do not even notice much of a difference. It's time for the Microsoft lovers to let go ... as with the eventually fate of any other major corporation, Microsoft's time has come and gone. While Windows may never die, it will eventually just become another alternative OS.