Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

FUD: "Linux Still Doesn't Make it On Desktop"

Homer's picture

A response to that FUD piece, "Linux Still Doesn't Make it On Desktop", from Microsoft Shill, Michael Gartenberg

Michael Gartenberg MugshotThis piece is so heavily encrypted into FUD, that it's necessary to provide a full translation, as follows:

Even Unix workstation vendors had thoughts of moving beyond scientific and engineering applications to mainstream knowledge worker desktops.

Translation: He arrogantly presumed, and continues to assume, that *nix solutions will never be useful to anyone but geeks, despite the fact that there is nothing that can be done on Windows that cannot also be done on *nix, perhaps with the exception of being part of a spam bot-net ... and frequently crashing (thus losing productivity).

But by the late '90s, it felt as if I was doing the color commentary for a horse race whose leader was out in front by 10 furlongs. Still, while it was clear to many that Microsoft was going to dominate the desktop, that didn't stop some in IT from looking for alternatives.

Translation: The fact that Microsoft had, and continues to have a Monopoly, is a GoodThing®, and he's bemused by the fact that others don't agree with him.

Then a dark horse emerged.

Translation: GNU/Linux is evil. It's wrong to support and use GNU/Linux, or anything other than Windows.

Many people now believe that Linux represents a viable alternative.

Translation: Many people now wrongly believe that Linux represents a viable alternative. They must be wrong, since it isn't Windows.

Today, with mainstream hardware vendors like Dell offering Linux installations and some folks thinking a major shift is about to happen, it's time to take another look at Linux on the desktop.

Translation: OEMs have finally escaped their Microsoft chains, and he is scared shitless that his beloved Microsoft might finally lose its monopolistic grip on the industry, so he's going to write a carefully crafted FUD piece denouncing GNU/Linux.

Unfortunately, despite major strides in recent years -- notably the Ubuntu release -- Linux still isn't viable for most end users or organizations.

Translation: He wishes that it were true that GNU/Linux wasn't a viable alternative to Windows.

And here we come to the crux of his argument, the first and only part that does not revolve around his own twisted opinion, a citation from Dell at a time when they had only just begun to offer Ubuntu:

Take a look, for example, at the Dell offering. When it was first announced, I asked company officials whether it was a mainstream product with full support. No, they said. The Linux machines were meant for enthusiasts who wanted a "no Windows" option.

Translation: Not wanting Windows is weird, so only weirdos would ask for that option. Dell can't understand why there was over 100,000 votes for GNU/Linux systems on IdeaStorm - their tiny minds cannot comprehend why people want the choice of anything other than the Windows OS, which is only sustained by the current monopoly, rather than customers' preferences. They can't understand it, so it must be weird and wrong - therefore they're reserving mainstream support for the Status Quo, and only extending a token gesture of support to Ubuntu "freaks".

Of course what our friendly Shill has failed to point out, is ... that was then, this is now. Dell currently offers exactly the same support options for Ubuntu systems as Windows systems. I'm sure his oversight was entirely accidental.

Users would still have to pay for the operating system -- about US$50 less than Windows, which was hardly a major savings

Translation: He is an idiot who apparently thinks Ubuntu is a commercial OS, then focuses on the fact that Microsoft Windows' true value is only $50 (so why wouldn't you want it?), rather than addressing the real issue of why people do not want Windows, which in the main has nothing to do with money.

If he wanted a truly balanced article, perhaps he should have addressed the phenomenon of hoards of people running screaming from Vista over issues like WGA, DRM, UAC, software incompatibility, lack of drivers, gross instability and crashes, the huge bloat that "requires" expensive hardware upgrades, the deceitful use of DX10 as a lure, the clumsy and unintuitive interface, the pitiful regression of functionality, and the continued security problems - despite assurances that Vista would Fix Everything®.

He doesn't have to look very hard for citations either; the Blogosphere is overflowing with them, including withering criticisms from ex-Microsoft employees and so-called "evangelists". Here's just a small taste:

and significant features would be missing because of a lack of driver support.

Translation: He's an idiot and a hypocrite who thinks Vista doesn't suffer from driver support issues, and that Linux driver support is still inadequate - despite the fact that it probably supports more hardware than any other OS (including multiple CPU architectures, proper 64 bit support, more than 3GB of memory, a vast range of legacy hardware that will probably never even be supported by XP - let alone Vista, and most modern hardware that is supported "out of the box" - without requiring idiotic "F6 driver floppy" disks or a ridiculous post-install driver download marathon).

In short, even though Linux has come a long way in the past few years, it hasn't come far enough.

Translation: In short, he's a liar and a Shill.

The latest and greatest hardware still arrives without Linux driver support.

Translation: The latest and greatest hardware still arrives without Linux driver support from the vendor, but does get supported by Linux kernel developers. He conveniently forgot about that too, I'm sure. He must have also forgotten about Open Source initiatives from companies like AMD, Intel, and a rapidly expanding number of vendors.

Until a vendor is willing to take a gamble and build fully optimized Linux systems

Translation: He thinks that the only way to "fully optimise" a system is though computer retailers, rather than OS distributors. He also thinks that allowing customers freedom of choice is somehow a "gamble" for those retailers, when what he really means is that it "risks" Microsoft's monopoly ... something that must never be allowed to happen. IOW he's an idiot and a Shill.

most IT shops simply won't bother to make the costly transition.

Translation: IT shops currently are "bothering" to make the transition, and saving money in the process. The Shill's job is to try to stop that trend and reverse it, at all costs.

And cost is the hidden factor. While much is made of Linux's being free, the truth is that software costs account for only about 10 percent of total cost of ownership for PCs.

Translation: He carefully masks the fact that exactly the same analysis equally applies to Windows, except the costs are invariably much higher.

Finally, there's the lack of critical application support. Most notable for businesses is the lack of support for Microsoft Office.

Translation: He is an idiot who thinks Microsoft Office is a "critical" and irreplaceable application.

Yes, there are office suites available for Linux, but the reality is that most organizations are dependent on Microsoft's applications.

Translation: Most organisations used to think they were locked-in to Microsoft's monopoly through proprietary formats, but have come to realise that they needn't be, since there are multi-platform, Open Standard, Free Software alternatives like OpenOffice.org. This scares the shit out of Microsoft, who subsequently employs lobbyists and Shills to discredit Open Standards and Free Software, for fear of losing one of their biggest cash-cows.

Anything with less than 100 percent interoperability and compatibility isn't going to make it in the business world.

Translation: "Interoperability" means "doesn't work with anything but Windows". Coincidentally, so does the word "compatibility". Anyone not 100% loyal to Microsoft is not going to "make it", because Microsoft will abuse their considerable power and money to try to lock you out of the game ... or break your kneecaps, whichever.

And does anyone believe that Microsoft will ship a Linux version of Office anytime soon? Or ever?

Translation: You need Microsoft Office. No really, honest - you do. You must buy it. You must buy it now. OpenOffice.org does not exist; it's a mere figment of your imagination. Repeat after me, "I will buy Microsoft Office today. I can't live without it". You are feeling very sleepy.

And it's not just business users who are affected. Sorry, consumers, but there's no version of iTunes for Linux.

Translation: In order to listen to music, you must own an iPod. In order to use an iPod, you must use iTunes. There simply are no alternatives to these conditions. You are feeling very sleepy.

So, the search for an alternative to Microsoft on the desktop continues.

Translation: So his efforts to discredit GNU/Linux continue in vein.

The fact that a mainstream hardware vendor like Dell is willing to make a Linux effort is laudable, but until such offerings enter the mainstream

Translation: Dell, one of the world's biggest OEM's, is not "mainstream". Neither presumably are any of the other OEM's who offer GNU/Linux systems, like HP and Lenovo, for example.

we'll have a catch-22 situation in which vendors wait for users to adopt and users wait for vendors to deliver.

Translation: He is living in the past. The vicious circle has already been broken, and now he's living in a fairy tale delusion in which Microsoft's monopoly remains unchallenged.

For now and the foreseeable future, it's going to remain a Microsoft world.

Translation: See the "delusion" comment, above.

Linux still isn't the answer.

Translation: See the "delusion" comment above.

And of course, there is always that other Unix-based operating system that has gained popularity over the past few years. It's called Mac OS X, and it comes from Apple.

Translation: Erm, erm ... he's getting desperate now, and looking for possible escape routes. He sees the inevitability of GNU/Linux, and knows he can do nothing about it, but predictably he will continue to try nonetheless, since that's what he's paid for. Well he has to justify his job somehow, doesn't he?

Michael Gartenberg is vice president and research director for the personal technology and access and custom research groups at Jupiter Research

Enough said.

Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology is a key evangelism function. "Independent" analysts’ reports should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent consultants should write articles, give conference presentations, moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set themselves up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour." - Microsoft.

Comments

Anony Mouse's picture

thank you.

enough said :)