M$ Takes a Hit

Overall M$ had a fine last quarter, but one of the cash cows has run dry, the desktop operating system. Revenue was down 6% and income was down 11% for the client division. M$ repeats, “Windows Division revenue is largely correlated to the PC market worldwide, as approximately 75% of total Windows Division revenue comes from Windows operating system software purchased by original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) which they pre-install on equipment they sell. The remaining approximately 25% of Windows Division revenue is generated by commercial and retail sales of Windows and PC hardware products and online advertising from Windows Live.” but shipments of PCs were flat not down according to IDC. This is a real downturn in M$’s business, separate from the world economy of PCs.

What hurt M$ in this segment is that XP is no longer generating revenue for them and half their end users run XP. Also, the number of PCs shipping with “7” is only about 50 million per quarter, far less than the 90 million shipped. The monopoly is seriously weakened and has no prospect of new life. The world wants small cheap computers which are selling with double digit growth quarter after quarter. Worse yet, for M$, is that the shortage of hard drives from Thailand will now kick in and could affect the whole of 2012. Not enough people can even buy the obsolete technology even if they wanted it.

The shifts in the market for PCs will cause more organizations to use thin clients and smart thingies which don’t require hard drives. OEMs and retailers, normally “partners” of M$ will be shifting to other technology long before “8” arrives. They cannot afford these drops in income because their margins are much smaller than M$’s. This will compound M$’s decline because a feedback loop has started. Very few PCs running M$’s stuff were sold at Christmas and the retailers are way behind. They know they can sell Android/Linux on ARM and will be seeking other things to sell like GNU/Linux on ARM and x86/amd64 to increase their margins. M$ will be cut out of the market by their inefficiency.

UPDATE
ZDnet has a story that includes this information:
“Microsoft has sold over 525 million Windows 7 licenses since launch”

Wow! Let’s see, October 22, 2009 until December 31, 2012 is 9 quarters. They sold 525/9 = 58 million licences per quarter when the world is shipping 90 million PCs per quarter. No wonder they’re doing so well in the client division.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to M$ Takes a Hit

  1. oldman says:

    “For people like you oldman the line has not been crossed yet.”

    Perhaps, but I preferr to remember a favorite line of mine. Perhaps you have come across it…

    oþþæt þæt onwende wyrd seo swiþe.

  2. oiaohm says:

    Oldman the problem is you were attempting to define a line. I have accepted the fact we cannot.

    The closest define I have to a line. This line is super grey. When the Linux system can do what a large number of people require and want.

    For some parties Linux meets all they need to do today.

    Crossing the line does not have to be bound to commercial software companies providing software. If the FOSS in a area get good enough the closed source in that area might not be required.

    Oldman you were trying to say something clear cut. If you had a clear cut line that worked I was interested.

    I think you had what you thought was a clear cut line in your mind and you failed to test it Oldman. Because when you attempted to test it you would have found the bugs I found. That there is software only for Linux that not on windows OS X that is closed source.

    The world is more grey that what we like.

    Linux world we are seeing movement in the direction of the line. How far and when it fully crossed is completely going to be by person/company requirements thing. For some companies and people the line was cross years ago.

    For people like you oldman the line has not been crossed yet.

  3. oldman says:

    “Really so far you line is bogus try again. oldman.”

    Nope. You have the all answer you will get. Your dismissal of it is based on your speculation on your part.

    I do however agree with you on one point. We will not know the line has been crossed until it happens.

  4. Mr Hill says:

    It is inevitable, Windows is declining. OEM’s know that tablets are the thing consumers want now, PC’s due to natural and economic disasters are going to become more expensive. With that in mind, desktops are going to become a very small niche market in the future.
    Its not about what devs like me want, it is the consumer as Dr Loser and Phenom should know. Mac OS and the iOS platform is growing in demand and will not slow down any time soon. When people go Mac, they never go back; trust me the amount of people who I know have gone to Macs are more than pleased. They are not my cup of tea overall (own a macbook pro for work), but the growth is obvious. Android will evolve for the tablet, and other platforms. Without doubt ARM is a game changer. When Wintel was in charge, they called the shots whilst stifling competition; now OEM’s and hardware manufacturers are the ones in charge. Get used to the fact that people are more savvy about choices now and more aware than they where 10 years ago. Hence the reason patents and litigation culture which corporate software have had to resort to compete. FUD does not work with the young hip youth who would rather play with cool platforms like Macs, Android, and even Ubuntu. MS has never been cool to the young (18-32) and that is the next generation who are going to be the target market audience.

  5. oiaohm says:

    “Btw, a quick check for a random HP printer showed that the size of a driver for Vista / 7 with all the installer is… just 3 MB.”

    3 meg not the universal driver. The HPLIP 3.x 20 MB for Linux is a unified driver for all HP printers even worse that is 32 bit and 64 bit.

    Windows 64 bit hp universal printer PCL6 + PCL5 + Postscript. 16.8+17.5+16.4 50.7 Meg. Linux run file contains 32 bit versions as well windows 32 bit version 15.9+16.6+15.4 47.4 Meg

    Please be aware PCL6 + PCL5 + Postscript are all contained in that Linux HPLIP file .run. Yep just in drivers is almost 100 meg and I have skipped the support programs to match up to what is contained in the Linux 20 meg installer.

    Basically lets compare apples with apples. It is possible to instal Linux drivers 1 by one.

    3 megs you say on windows. That is a little large.

    3 megs times by 2,068 we don’t want to go there. Ok lets do something more sane how may printers would you have to down load before you got to 20? ~7.

    13 megs of the 20 meg Linux for are printer description files. There are 2,068 HP printers and scanner descriptions in there. Also there is half a meg of docs. About another half a meg installer crap.

    So leaving 6 megs for 32 bit and 64 bit.

    Yes a single printer install of HP is about the same size as Windows. The single install is PCL6, PCL5 and Postscript support in one driver. So you could say about 1/3 the size of windows because its 3 drivers in one for 3 meg. Gets worse with the effect of code sharing it end up at 1/5 compared to windows. Even been kind and forgetting the duel support in the run file it still under 1/2 the size of the Windows solution.

    3 x 3 9 megs not good lets say you miss read the model number another 3×3 and you are up to the Linux universal download for every HP printer. Windows is not looking that great particularly if you have a old printer that has developed a glitch in one mode. Ie HP printer do that with age like not being able to print one of PCL5 PCL6 and Postscript yet still work perfectly otherwise.

    From a practical point of view 2068 buck shot method for 20 megs is quite a decent deal.

    Last time I looked at OS X was a while ago and back then they were the same size as Linux. Boy have they gone down hill. Thanks for the update Phenom. There is no valid reason for OS X drivers to be exploded out that far.

    Also I just noticed something. That huge apple file only supports 518 hp printers.

    Thanks for a really good reason to run a Linux box with Apple machines Apple printer support is crap.

    Phenom remember I did say I was not above human error. This is me being slightly out of date on how bad OS X has become.

  6. Phenom says:

    http://support.apple.com/kb/DL907

    File Size: 515.44 MB
    Wow!

    Btw, a quick check for a random HP printer showed that the size of a driver for Vista / 7 with all the installer is… just 3 MB.

    Another quick check – HPLIP 3.x is… 20 MBs.

    Well done, Ohio, you are a real specialist. 🙂

  7. oiaohm says:

    Phenom funny enough you need to think –why does hp have to provide there own full app to monitor printer status on Window–

    They don’t have to on OS X and Linux due to the Cups printer system providing a framework to-do it.

    Really there is a weakness in Windows design here causing printer drivers to be larger. When larger more tempting for maker to slide in more crap because 1 or 2 meg more on 20 meg will go unnoticed and grow out of control to 52 MB.

  8. Phenom says:

    @Pogson: Here’s a modest example. HP CP5225n colour LaserJet printer, driver for XP = 52MB. Driver for Ubuntu (HPLIP) 7 MB.

    Pogs, I hope for your own good that you do not thing these 52MBs are all code. Doing so would be, hm, rather naive. HP Windows drivers come along with applications that monitor printer’s status, and these apps are plagued by images, and have help files, and support many languages… There is also an installer, again in a variety of languages, and splash screens, and custom skins…

    Pretty crap, I would say, and I hate HP’s drivers. I try to avoid using HP equipment these days just because of the quality of their drivers.

  9. oiaohm says:

    oldman Still you have not given a good marker.

    All applications not possible. There will always be a percentage of applications that are platform exclusive.

    What is the line oldman. This is the problem no one really knows where the line is. So when we cross it we will not know until after.

    There are applications that are Linux Windows only that are not for OS X in existence. Linux OS X and not Windows.

    Really so far you line is bogus try again. oldman.

  10. oe says:

    “For example, Adobe has less than 50% of the market and their share is falling. Their price is rising as Adobe tries to milk the cow dry. That’s not a sustainable business model. Eventually Adobe will see M$-only as lock-in and port the software. That could be real soon.”

    When Adobe ports their Creatives Studio, Photoshop and other pricey wares (if they can, as the code base seems bloated) you know the Titanic is plunging under the waves..the smart rats big and small: Matlab, Ansys, Mathematica, Nero, FoxitPDF reader, AVG antivirus, Opera, among other, boarded the lifeboats long ago….

  11. oldman says:

    “The bottom line is that if M$ had to compete on price/performance…”

    Actally microsoft does compete quite nicely on Price performance. They just dont compete on what YOU consider price performance. To be perfectly blunt Pog, no major vendor is going to compete on your terms because its simply not worth their while to chase the market that you represent. Someone who wants software for free and expects a cheap computer to last for 10 years is simply not gooing to generate enough business.

  12. Clarence Moon wrote, “How can that be construed as “paying OEMs to ship” it?”

    Sigh… Consumer sees 12 M$-only PCs on the shelf and picks one. He pays the retailer $450 for the box. The retailer pays the OEM/distributor $350 for the box. The OEM pays M$ $50 or so and has costs of $280 leaving only $20 margin. The OEM could ship GNU/Linux and not pay M$ anything so M$ pays an additional amount to keep the OEM on the leash, say $20. The OEM is happy he increases his margin with no extra effort/risk. Because the OEM is locked in, M$ doesn’t have to pay any more than that. M$ still makes $30 for nothing…

    The bottom line is that if M$ had to compete on price/performance, they would be making $10-$20 per PC shipping their software and would not be able to bribe/lock-in OEMs. Their revenue per PC and their share of seats would plunge like a stone and the world would be a better place. So, M$ pays the OEMs to mess with competition rather than let the house of cards collapse.

  13. Clarence Moon says:

    “75% of M$’s revenue comes from OEMs who ship that other OS by default an no one actually chooses that. M$ is paying OEMs to ship that other OS.”

    This is an often claimed notion that seems so incredible that I cannot begin to understand how you can continue to profess it, Mr. Pogson. Microsoft is obviously obtaining massive amounts of revenues from license fees paid by OEMs who incorporate Windows into their product offerings. How can that be construed as “paying OEMs to ship” it?

    You might say that Microsoft offers a discounted fee structure based on volume, but each unit shipped is money in Microsoft’s pocket. OEMs could ship Linux an not have to pay anyone a fee, if they did all their own support as most do anyway for Windows, but they choose not to do so. They are hard nosed business people certainly and you must accept that they are doing what they think is best for their company’s profits.

  14. oldman wrote, “This is what I mean when I say your experience is becoming irrelevant. XP is nearly 12 years and 2 generations obsolete Pog.”

    Hmmm. 35% of users of PCs are similarly wrong, I guess. What are they thinking?

    oldman also wrote, “When commercial entities creating desktop software begin offering their wares on Linux, then and only then will microsoft be in trouble, not before.”

    Thanks, oldman, I guess I had not noticed that FireFox, LibreOffice, VLC, Audacity, Chrome browser, etc. are made for GNU/Linux. Then, there’s anything written in Java, etc. That’s a Hell of a lot of software installed on a lot of PCs. It’s FLOSS. It’s good. It’s on GNU/Linux PCs.

    I guess M$ is in more trouble than I knew.

    For example, Adobe has less than 50% of the market and their share is falling. Their price is rising as Adobe tries to milk the cow dry. That’s not a sustainable business model. Eventually Adobe will see M$-only as lock-in and port the software. That could be real soon.

  15. oldman says:

    “Please try to think up marker that is some what usable.”

    Clarification: When “ALL” the major players start offering Linux versions of software that is only available on OS X and windows.

    Remember Windows can run in a VM on Linux as well once Linux has earned the right to own the hardware.

  16. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “When commercial entities creating desktop software begin offering their wares on Linux, then and only then will microsoft be in trouble, not before.”
    Not a usable marker other wise MS was in trouble in 1998 with coral office suite for Linux. We both know this is not true oldman.

    Please try to think up marker that is some what usable.

  17. oldman says:

    “Stuff that you have to pay for over and over for no other reason than that M$ wants more money is crap.”

    You assume there is no other reason, in every case I have changed OS’s because the vendor added functionality that took advantage of the “new” version.

    “Stuff that slows down, literally, with use is crap.”

    The software that I wish to run runs just fine and it has been running on my desktop for 3 years.

    “Stuff that BSODs is crap.”

    The last two that I saw in the past 5 years were from disk failure. I’ve seen NONE otherwise.

    This is what I mean when I say your experience is becoming irrelevant. XP is nearly 12 years and 2 generations obsolete Pog.

    “Worse than all that for me is that GNU/Linux gives far superior performance at lower cost. How can that not be the right way to do IT? ”

    What good is your “superior” system if the desktop software that it gives is at best mediocre!

    The world deserves better than only FOSS on the desktop. And those who can afford it purchase closed source commercial software for their desktop and leave the FOSS to refuseniks like yourself.

    “How low does M$’s share have to go before oldman and others realize people are finally choosing what works for them?”

    When commercial entities creating desktop software begin offering their wares on Linux, then and only then will microsoft be in trouble, not before.

  18. oldman wrote, “Why should I have to produce evidence for things that are obvious or well known, Pog?” and “having given up closed source commercial software, you have lost the ability to judge it accurately.”

    Sheesh, oldman. You think highly of yourself. No doubt you are expert but so am I. I have used IT for many decades and know crap when I see it. Stuff that you have to pay for over and over for no other reason than that M$ wants more money is crap. Stuff that slows down, literally, with use is crap. Stuff that BSODs is crap. You can put whatever beautiful stuff you want on top of that other OS and it’s still crap. The world does not owe M$ a living because M$ produces crap. Worse than all that for me is that GNU/Linux gives far superior performance at lower cost. How can that not be the right way to do IT? Working for M$ has made large numbers of otherwise sane people slaves and willing slaves at that.

    What oldman claims is well known is like the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes which were nothing at all. 75% of M$’s revenue comes from OEMs who ship that other OS by default an no one actually chooses that. M$ is paying OEMs to ship that other OS. If M$ paid them to ship GNU/Linux they would. More OEMs are realizing that M$ distorts the markets for its gain and are realizing they can make more money shipping Android/Linux and GNU/Linux so the monopoly is on its last legs. How low does M$’s share have to go before oldman and others realize people are finally choosing what works for them?

  19. Kozmcrae wrote, “FLOSS is everywhere except the desktop.”

    That’s not true. Certainly the share of seats is small but many millions use GNU/Linux desktops. This is the situation one gets when retailers give M$ a free ride. If they gave GNU/Linux a free ride, the opposite would be true. Nevertheless, the number of seats running GNU/Linux keeps increasing and the rate of growth has remained healthy for a decade. The fact that M$, the OEMs and retailers conspire to stifle competition is not a demerit for GNU/Linux. It’s doing well.

    There’s this about growth. No matter how slow it is if it keeps increasing it will eventually be huge. We know the webstats are wrong because they are way off from known datapoints like Mac prevelance. Apple is not ashamed to publish their unit sales. M$ is. Stats not controlled by M$’s “partners” are multiples of the values widely propagated to evangelize that other OS. IDC reported GNU/Linux was tied with MacOS 8 years ago and I don’t think GNU/Linux has slowed down in those years. We read of migrations of hundreds of thousands of seats of GNU/Linux but never of MacOS. In fact, in education, MacOS has been given the boot. All the recent growth in MacOS has been retail. Since NetApplications is biased to USA, MacOS is over-represented. Apple recently had only 4 stores in all of China. There’s no way they are 8% of seats there. USA consumes only 19% of PC production these days. They are not representative.

  20. oldman says:

    “oldman doesn’t seem to give numbers supporting his opinions which is why I doubt him. ”

    Why should I have to produce evidence for things that are obvious or well known, Pog?

    “I and the world do not owe non-free software a living..”

    At the same time, having given up closed source commercial software, you have lost the ability to judge it accurately. The issues that you raise are dated and the environment that you give as an example only represents a part of the continuum of desktop computing.

    ANd Oh yes, the world is perfectly capable of making its own decisions about what type of software to use. And it does so on a regular bases – choosing both closed source commercial software AND FOSS according to need and budget function and feature.

    And it does so whether you like it or not.

    Remember Pog:

    Not everybody expects or even wants to computer on the cheapest platform possible.

    Not everyone expects a computer to last forever, especially if they wish to take advantage of the increasing function and features available in what is the state of the art of computing.

    And most importantly, people do not want to become computer geeks just to use a computer.

    This is reality.

  21. Phenom wrote, “The CDs you mention contain things like training videos”.

    Well, that may be in some cases, but I have seen CDs full of stuff with no training included. e.g. some of HP’s “printer drivers” are shipped with whole applications to do stuff remotely associated with imaging and printing…

    Here’s a modest example. HP CP5225n colour LaserJet printer, driver for XP = 52MB. Driver for Ubuntu (HPLIP) 7 MB.

  22. oldman wrote, “What happens is that Pog resets the counters on his end and talks about the same old increasing dated nonsense about closed source commercial software”.

    The only counters I have reset recently were the blog traffic which started again at zero when I changed statistical packages. I would not have changed if I had realized that consequence…

    Every measure of FLOSS usage that I know indicates FLOSS has been increasing in usage for as long as I have been using it. oldman doesn’t seem to give numbers supporting his opinions which is why I doubt him. The famous non-free software packages do seem to thrive in certain niches without doubt but they are certainly more costly than other technologies like FLOSS. Consider M$’s office suite. Some pay huge prices for features they rarely if ever use and LibreOffice and others are bloated with features. It makes no sense to me and for complete systems I have set up in schools there certainly is no advantage to non-free software and plenty of advantages to Free Software.

    The reason my knowledge of non-free software is dated is because I and others I know don’t use it any more. I and the world do not owe non-free software a living.

  23. oldman says:

    “You know precisely the software I’m talking about in this case. You know in general everything about FLOSS that everyone else does on this blog. ”

    You’re right, Mr. K, I do know FOSS, having been dealing with in some way shape or form all my career.
    That is why I am as harsh on at and people like you who wish to declare victory because it happens to be good for what you define a “mundane tasks”.

    Actually Mr. K, I really dont know exactly which of the FOSS music packages that you have in mind. Now you can stop your games and state which you are talking about or continue to remain silent, in which case as far as I am concerned, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    “You’ve been resetting the counter back to zero every time you log onto this blog. I believe you’ve been trying to bore us to death.”

    No Mr. K. What happens is that Pog resets the counters on his end and talks about the same old increasing dated nonsense about closed source commercial software – Its his blog and its his right to do so! I for my part pipe up when I feel it is appropriate with the other side of the coin that he consistently ignores. We will continue this untill Pog gets tired of me and bans me.

    Thats how it works in a discussion sonny.

    If it bores you, then I suggest that you stop reading and/or stop butting into to a conversation that you are not a party to.

  24. Phenom says:

    Pogs, you are wrong at two points.

    If you believe that 500MB is actual binary code, then you are as clueless as it can get. I can tell you, very few, and I do mean few systems have such a huge code base. The CDs you mention contain things like training videos, documentation, examples, free resources.

    This, Pogs, is not bloat. This is what makes a product accomplished. What you call bloat is what people out there give their money for – because it is really features.

  25. Kozmcrae says:

    “Go on, its not that hard!”

    How true.

    Just to keep things on track here and not get lost in tooting your own horn. FLOSS is everywhere except the desktop. You think you are entitled to expect FLOSS to shine your shoes and if it doesn’t, then it’s no good for anyone. FLOSS works on the desktop for all the mundane tasks everyone, except you, uses a computer for. That is the point I am making and have always made.

    I have watched you and the other Cult of Microsoft members for a long time. You fake ignorance and promote uncertainty about FLOSS. You know precisely the software I’m talking about in this case. You know in general everything about FLOSS that everyone else does on this blog.

    You’ve been resetting the counter back to zero every time you log onto this blog. I believe you’ve been trying to bore us to death.

  26. oiaohm says:

    Thing that is hard for people like DR Loser to get was the binary compatibility design issue was in fact sorted when Linux swapped from static to dynamic.

    Just since its core tech the features of it are forgotten. So the lack of universal binary solution was a myth before the first Linux Distribution appeared. Has been ever since.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA0NjI Items like this are also interesting.

  27. Dr Loser wrote, “Apart from the sheer clumsiness of chrooting everything (and what happens if you have dozens of the sodding things hanging around, each with their own chroot environment? What was your complaint about bloat, again?), it’s a total evasion of the basic point.”

    Dr Loser conveniently ignores the reason that universal binaries are not commonly used in *NIX ssytems, they are bloated. Dr Loser, your arguments are circular. You want a universal binary to make installation easy and it requires bloat to do that. Just look at 500MB CDs to distribute some apps for that other OS. They are always bloated things. In the *NIX world we assume that less bloat is better and make a system of libraries that are widely used so that a binary need not include them. This saves all kinds of resources: bandwidth, CDs, storage and RAM. Then you complain about the bloat your requirement entails. Twit.

  28. Dr Loser wrote, “if, as I predict, all Linux development grinds to a halt in about five years time (because Linux has satiated all its niche markets), then it would be possible to have a universal binary.”

    Nope. Won’t happen as long as new devices happen and people think of better ways to do things. The universal binary is here now if you only turn your imagination loose. I see all kinds of folks distributing binaries. It works for them. Source code works, too.

  29. Dr Loser wrote, “And if we define “is not” as “is,” the same principle applies.”

    It certainly seems that Dr Loser is trying to waste time/resources here.

  30. oldman says:

    “You know damn well what software I’m talking about.”

    I actually expect you to tell me Mr. K.

    Go on, its not that hard!

    Just… Type… the… works..in.

    “You know damn well what software I’m talking about.”

    Well, then In the absence of an answer for our resident cult of FOSS member, I am going to assume that you are a johnny one note musical illiterates who doesnt know his notes, can barely play his instrument and needs the software to get is masterworks down. And in the absence of an answer Mr. K that is how I am going to portray you so long as you presume to portray my musical skills.

    Your choice.

  31. Kozmcrae says:

    “How much of a musician are you sir? ”

    @ldman is playing dumb. You know damn well what software I’m talking about. You and the rest of the Cult of Microsoft play dumb. You start each session with a clean slate.

    How much of a musician am I? Enough, that’s how much. You are full up to your ears with yourself so I guess if you think you are a musician than you are almost all musician.

  32. oiaohm says:

    Key thing Dr Loser. Notice my method does not give a rats what the distribution is or what package management the distribution is use or even if the distribution has package management.

    Basic core of Linux system design provides everything you need to successful install a binary universality on all Linux distributions.

  33. oldman says:

    “Troll tactic 43 is to demand evidence for things that are obvious or well known”

    OF course they have to actually BE obvious and well known, as opposed to something the poster just thinks is so.

  34. oldman says:

    “If @ldman has not at least heard about it then I doubt that he is even a musician. ”

    Mr. K. I was trained composer and continue to compose music in my spare time. And by music we are talking full symphonic music.

    How much of a musician are you sir? can you actually write music. Or do you have to capture your thoughts in some sequencer?

    The “have you heard” game goes both ways Mr. K. Have you heard about Finale, Sibelius or Notion? How about the vienna symphonic Library. All of these are professional tools used by professional composers. You can say that you dont need them, and that is fine, but they remain the main products for professional music engraving.

    How about the DAW/audio restoration systems from Sadie and Cedar? Both are windows based, and both are the go-to tools by professional sound restoration people. Check out what was done on the album “Robert Johnson, the complete recordings” if you wish to hear what a professional windows fronted system can do! Don’t need it …Fine! But trying to make believe that it doesn’t count shows how ignorant you truly are.

    As I have said, Mr. K. The devil is in the details…

  35. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser sometime run these two programs
    /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 or /lib/ld-linux.so.2
    Yes those are not libraries. They are programs. Magic right. Linux kernel does not know how to load dynamic libraries at all so depends on loaders.

    Yet you install a binary and a loader is use. That loader has a list function. That is a verify function. It will tell you if the application has all its dependance or not and where those that are being used are sourced from.

    patchelf(there is a older program before patchelf as well) combined with this. Means you can change the rpath of library lookup to point where ever the installer program wants the application to find its libraries. So yes any library that the loader tells you is not there you can install into a selected path on the system away from the main distribution files to solve your applications problem. Can you be sneaky and download like debian deb or fedora rpm files from there respected mirrors to extract to get the missing libraries so saving your site some downloads.

    Yes you could use a static binary or script to search down the system loaders as well.

    Anyone who knows how to make universal installers for Linux has no problem making universal installing binaries. Serous-ally I don’t care what distribution. If your distribution does not provide what my application wants my installer will just source what my application needs from else where and place it with it on the filesystem.

    Now the ones like maya who make universal binaries then don’t know how to run the loader to check if all dependencies are accessible to the program and correct the run path(rpath) accordingly are also a pain in but. Also not using the loader –list information to install extra dependencies as required. But equally defective windows installers exist. This kind of error gives universal binaries on Linux a bad name.

    rpath is like the windows manifest for sxs under linux both bind into the binary. Both tell the program what libraries it should be loading. rpath is the first locations a Linux binary looks for libraries any thing solved on the rpath will not come from the distribution libraries. Yes it quite possible that everything an application is using is solved on the rpath so no library from the distribution is used.

    Is it also a pain in but that most distrobutions don’t provide end used with patchelf to correct these issues themselves. Yes it is.

    Really only problem on Linux with lack of universal binaries is people like DR Loser who don’t think they can be made so never ever learn how to make them.

    Issues with universal binaries not working end with.

    One the parties that should be making them not making them because of many reasons. One of the big thing is the myth they don’t exist when they do.

    Second with distrobutions not wanting to teach people that they can in fact exist so not providing the tools to fully manage binaries. If they did making universal binaries might be dead simple. So removing distrobutions from existence.

    For people like me who truly do know Linux making universal binaries is a fairly straight forwards step by step process. Even converting like debian or ubuntu or fedora programs to stand alone universal programs. Follow the steps and you don’t have any issues moving a application between Linux distrobutions. The difference between distrobutions is mostly window dressing. Once you get past that universal binaries are simple.

  36. oiaohm says:

    patchelf I mentioned before will build as a static binary. So your installer can twist you binaries to find libraries where ever. So so you only need to ship one binary with a proper built installer for Linux.

  37. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser problem is LSB binary will work on 95+ percent of all Linux desktops without a single alteration.

    You are dealing with a person who produces LSB binaries and uses them. Yes you have to install the LSB toolkit from LSB to built programs.

    LSB itself is based on comparative testing.

    By the sound of it you have been using the distribution provided tools so have been getting your ass kicked. You would not be thinking you would have to go to a central body and get a SDK to produce universal.

    https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Uplift_Target

    Your selection of allowed functions is quite small when using LSB. Please look at that closely.

    Ubuntu and Debian very close. Note its comparative testing. Functions only enter the LSB when 6 distrobutions there contain them and test cases to confirm they are working correctly exist they can enter LSB. LSB is highly exclusive on what functions get into each version.

    Basically about time you stop being a idiot Dr Loser. Universal Linux binaries exist right now. You are simply choosing not to make them.

    Reason why libreoffice only needs to build 2 binaries for x86 platform. One for 32 bit and one for 64 bit is that libreoffice and openoffice code base before it is LSB conforming.

    Yes its even packaged by LSB rules. rpm and deb are LSB packaging. rpm is primary packaging deb is recommended secondary.

    Basically Dr Loser you don’t have a leg to stand on. You complete argument has been bogus and still is. Yes get the facts over 95 percent of all Linux distributions are LSB supported. Worst in fact is that due to LSB design it can convert any distribution to be LSB supported even the ones that choose not to provide LSB support.

    Linux kernel user-mode binary compatibility is key. LSB can sit on top of the Linux kernel binary compatibility to get itself into a system. Statically built binary s only depend on what the kernel provides so stable interfaces can be used.

    So a little static program can probe the system working out what you have and don’t have. Yes exactly like what a windows installer does.

    Yes Linux has equal to NT native binaries is static binaries.

    Yes a static built binary using only Linux kernel stable provided functions to user-space from 10 years ago works today perfectly. No tweaking no alteration required.

    Of course I expect you want something with dynamic loading to keep program size a little smaller.

  38. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    Or, to summarize in your own words:

    “If we define the binary distribution as the distro, there is a universal binary distribution.”

    And if we define “is not” as “is,” the same principle applies.

  39. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    “LSB standard stuff that is.”

    And therein is the rub. Once again: you cannot be universal unless you are literally universal. I’ll even give you the standard statistical measure of certainty — 95% — as a reasonable substitute. “LSB standard” will only apply when “LSB standard” equates to 95% of Linux desktops. Which it doesn’t, and probably never will.

    Look, I am by no means averse to the concept of a universal Linux binary (or to the LSB); in fact, I would welcome it. It would make my life, when I program on Linux, a damn sight easier.

    My only point is that it doesn’t exist right now, and given the way that Linux development/distribution works, is highly unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future.

    One small caveat there is that if, as I predict, all Linux development grinds to a halt in about five years time (because Linux has satiated all its niche markets), then it would be possible to have a universal binary.

    I’m not really sure that that would be a scenario which would appeal to you.

  40. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    This is a persistent misconception and a thoroughly debased argument from supporters of Gnu/Linux.

    “It can run in a chroot with all its dependencies and do the job. The installer creates the chroot and populates it.”

    I’m ignoring the fact that you eliminate 99% of all commonly used apps from consideration by admitting that graphics and audio are a bit of a problem, btw. Nobody really needs a Web browser, anyhow.

    Thing is, you are talking about an OS within an OS. Apart from the sheer clumsiness of chrooting everything (and what happens if you have dozens of the sodding things hanging around, each with their own chroot environment? What was your complaint about bloat, again?), it’s a total evasion of the basic point.

    There is no such thing as a universal Linux binary; not even anything close. If you have to carry around your own emulation environment wherever you go, then I’m afraid you are not talking about a binary any longer; you are talking about a particularly contorted ecosystem.

    Having said which, I’d still like to have a single example quoted that isn’t, in fact, a mini-distro of its own, like Clonezilla.

    “Many of the mainstream distros can handle either and there’s still source code.”

    Many does not equal all. I believe the “uni” in “universal” should imply this fairly obvious distinction.

  41. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson if you look a little closer at libreoffice you find there is only 2 binaries provides.

    The 32 bit binaries in the rpm and deb packages is 100 percent identical.

    Same with the 64 bit binaries.

    So yes they are universal. LSB standard stuff that is. You provide in deb and rpm to be 100 percent distribution friendly. They could have provided in rpm and let deb users just use alien like as if it would have made any difference. If you don’t have a deb or rpm distribution just extract those files it works.

    Universal Linux binaries exist. They are just outnumbered by the distribution dependent.

  42. Dr Loser wrote, “There is no such thing as a “universal binary things that basically run on any Linux distribution.””

    That’s pretty trivial a challenge. The GUI and audio are about the only restrictions. Get any application, say a number-cruncher, that does not use the GUI and audio and you have a universal binary. It can run in a chroot with all its dependencies and do the job. The installer creates the chroot and populates it.

    Look at the dependencies of LibreOffice on Debian GNU/Linux:
    Depends: libreoffice-core (= 1:3.4.4-2+b1), libreoffice-writer, libreoffice-calc, libreoffice-impress, libreoffice-draw, libreoffice-math, libreoffice-base, libreoffice-report-builder-bin, ttf-dejavu, ttf-sil-gentium-basic, libreoffice-filter-mobiledev, liblucene2-java (>= 2.3.2), libreoffice-java-common (>= 1:3.4.4~)

    That’s a huge app with few dependencies, mostly fonts and Java stuff. At LibreOffice.org you will find 7 binary downloads with 4 for GNU/Linux, 2 each for x86 and 2 for amd64 and the two are for .deb or .rpm. Many of the mainstream distros can handle either and there’s still source code. Many distros distribute LibreOffice with all the necessary dependencies in the repositories, so, if we define the binary distribution as the distro, there is a universal binary distribution. With FLOSS the distro system makes the cost to developers is small for porting to the many distros. The packaging teams do that work. People who have very complex apps can distribute a binary by shipping their own distro that can run in a chroot or virtual machine. KVM, for instance, makes that possible with any recent distro on many hardwares. An example is Clonezilla which is a great application for backup/restoration that has its own distro. To the extent that ‘486 version will run on most PCs, it’s a universal binary.

  43. Dr Loser, pining for the good old days, wrote, “Some of them will have been shipped with XP (yes! Even in 2007!) and some of them will have been shipped with Vista.”

    That makes the decline even more phenomenal. They are not shipping XP and Vista is in rapid decline so they are not shipping much of that today. It’s all on “7” today and revenue/units are sagging… Sad for a monopolist. Great for everyone else. Before long Intuit and Adobe will be porting apps wholesale.

  44. oiaohm wrote, “Why are they swapping to multi process design secuirty. So a defect in one section cannot effect everywhere else. Twit. Multi process design is valid for secuirty reasons and means to locate error reasons.”

    This is something the folks who designed that other OS completely ignored. If they had multiple processes they did their best to make them interdependent so that the house of cards kept falling down. They did not consider that a bug but a feature…

  45. Kozmcrae wrote, “Actually I do know but it’s no secret so, I’ll do as I always do with the facts, go fetch them yourself. It will do you good.”

    Yep. Troll tactic 43 is to demand evidence for things that are obvious or well known, thus distracting everyone from the direction the conversation is heading. They should get their own blogs…

  46. oldman, I have in the last decade of using GNU/Linux in schools only met one teacher who insisted on using that other OS. Everyone else wanted only to get the job done and they were happy to use GNU/Linux on the old equipment because GNU/Linux worked so much better.

  47. oiaohm wrote, “the normal MS admin do what keeps them in the job today even if it costs there company there future.”

    Amen. That’s a cute description of the Wintel treadmill. It’s the same as being in a hole and keeping digging. Most of the “cost” of migrating from that other OS to GNU/Linux is filling in the hole…

  48. oiaohm says:

    http://nixos.org/patchelf.html

    Something that is forgotten how many different library loading systems can be installed on Linux. As many as you down right please. Yes the interp of binary is very much Linux and Unix world equal NT subsystems.

    Reason every dynamic binary has a interpreter you can set. So yes anyone providing applications for Linux does not have to be stuck to distribution limits.

    Rpath override is particularly handy for those old applications. chroot install the old parts and rpath the binary to look up the chroot libs so old application works. Basically core design of Linux has a really good sxs solution. Issue is lack of GUI tools so novices can use it.

    Yes rpath is forgotten its great for maya reason libraries for maya don’t effect the rest of system so its kept nicely isolated and easy to remove.

    User Friendlessness is Linux problem. Technical limitations no such thing.

    Just think if patchelf + means to pull in old libraries into a storage directories had a gui doing what windows compatibility gui did how much simpler making stuff like maya and other things work would be.

    Binary compatibly is not the issue. Means to configure binary compatibility simply is missing. Those of us with skill have no trouble working with the limitations.

    This is why DR Loser is so wrong. Linux does not have the issue they think it does.

  49. oiaohm says:

    Kozmcrae you did over step. FOSS was built by people making stuff to suit there requirements.

    But Oldman there is a requirement to for errors and reports of exactly what is required.

    Oldman can at least answer stuff near correct.

    Oldman does have some issues not thinking on long term time frames. Basically the normal MS admin do what keeps them in the job today even if it costs there company there future.

    Please don’t put oldman and DR Loser in the same group. Kozmcrae. Basically Oldman is a stubbon closed source heavy admin who does know how to be a admin.

    Dr Loser is a pure jackass who cannot get facts correct to save himself.

    I walk between closed and FOSS. Using where both suite. So yes there at times programs that are only good on Windows but there are equally good cases like running a maya video render that going to take 30 days on Linux is going to take 45 if you use windows servers. Yes half the time again longer. So it impossible to meant dead-lines for me using windows at times.

    Sorry 15 days late due to internal windows design issues kinda get you fired. Also when building a render farm you are not going to pay for windows licenses due to the lower performance. This is the hardest reality for a lot of Windows users to accept windows is crap internally making it crap for large scale work.

    Oldman would understand this limitation. That is not all about Gui. Its about getting the job done. Particular jobs force Linux usage. Render farm not running on Linux most of the time is stupidity.

    Basically I have informed bias. I know where the skeletons in the windows system are. I know where the skeletons are in the Linux system. This is why I am not a party to mess with if you don’t have your facts. Thing is over the years I have watched Linux skeletons keep on disappearing. Yet the windows skeletons at the core are as strong or if not stronger today than they were in the year 2000.

    Part of making a informed selection is understanding what you are selecting between. Part of my bias is speed of improvement.

    Am I perfect no. At times I will get things wrong. But they are not normally fact after fact after fact incorrect. Oldman is the same he normally gets facts correct. There are some correct facts in both of us. Hey that is human.

    Dr Loser time you get at least one fact correct or shut up.

  50. oldman says:

    “IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMPUTER USERS WHO DO NOTHING BUT MUNDANE TASKS WITH THEM”

    Dont you mean that it is of no importance to Mr. K., the self appointed protector of Robert Pogson who keeps coming back and singing his same boring tunes

    “We don’t need people whose sense of entitlement is way out of bounds.”

    Oh, one must not insist that software conform to ones needs. One should just accept the gift of FOSS and shut up!

    So now the message of the great protector of FOSS Mr. K. is

    FOSS wins because FOSS wins…

    followed by

    Your needs are irrelevant because FOSS wins.

    And finally

    We are glad that you dont use FOSS because you insist on it working to your specifications.

    And you talk about my arrogance Mr. K.

  51. Kozmcrae says:

    “The rest of us will just take this as an admission that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you have absolutely no evidence for your posts, and you are basically full of shit.”

    Actually I do know but it’s no secret so, I’ll do as I always do with the facts, go fetch them yourself. It will do you good.

    If you think I should do it for you then you don’t care enough to know. I’ll give you a hint though: It runs best on 64 bit CPUs. And there are professional and non-professional versions of the software suite.

    If @ldman has not at least heard about it then I doubt that he is even a musician.

    You are the one full of she it Dr. Loser. Each day you come here with a brain clear of all the previous day’s exchange of words. You start all over like you’ve never heard of FLOSS. You conveniently forget all that you know about it, which is basically everything I know about it. Then you peddle your ignorance in the hope, it appears, of promoting uncertainty about FLOSS.

    That’s all, you don’t need to prove anything yet you put the onus on the defenders of FLOSS to provide proof. All you need to do is promote uncertainty about FLOSS.

    If you want proof of software provided by FLOSS that will give a musician all that he needs, (in software) then find it yourself. It matters not if you find it because IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMPUTER USERS WHO DO NOTHING BUT MUNDANE TASKS WITH THEM.

    If @ldman must do with out FLOSS to accomplish his tasks then I count that as a victory. We don’t need people whose sense of entitlement is way out of bounds.

  52. oiaohm says:

    Really me saying gcc was to find out how big of a moron you were Dr Loser and you walked straight into it. You are nothing more than a MS Troll who knows nothing about software development. Dr Loser and you just proved it.

  53. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser there is no trial for the Linux version of Maya. So of course you will not find a link. You have to buy Maya 2012 you are too much of a to cheap do that.

    Maya 2012 will be aquired by those needing the performance. So they don’t have to give away free copies.

    Why only 64 bit versions. If you are after performance you are not going to be using a 32 bit machine. Also a redhat license is a redhat license. So if you have a 64 bit machine and you have 32 bit redhat installed you can change to 64 bit redhat free of charge. As long as you don’t change the number of copies running redhat basically does not care. Windows they have to provide 32 bit copies because Windows people cannot free upgrade to 64 bit. Even that the 32 bit copy performs like complete crap. Doing 64 bit operations on a 32 bit machine is not good.

    ==There is no such thing as a “universal binary things that basically run on any Linux distribution.”==
    Define run. Maya runs. It can be a pain in the but when the distribution is lacking parts particularly. But will run. Has bad defaults out box some applications on windows do that to you as well.

    http://www.xonotic.org on the other hand works on all Linux distributions without question. So yes the universal binary does exist. Can maya be packaged with its all its dependency as well yep. So you claim that a universal binaries for Linux does not exist is not true.

    Maya problem on Ubuntu was really no worse than a windows program failing to install because you don’t have the right visual basic runtime or MSVC runtime installed or some other required part. Of course people like you Dr Loser want to forget even under windows at times you have to work your ass off so applications work.

    Does that you have to work with some applications to make it work now make it not a Universal windows program??

    Do people fail to request companies to package up a clean and nice ready to go package yes this is true for Windows and Linux and OS X.

    Basically there are well packaged and poorly packaged universal binaries for Linux. Maya is poorly xonotic is example of well packaged.

    Neither would be possible without a stable ABI of some form DR Loser.

    That Universal binaries do exist for Linux. Could you be complaining there are not enough of them and be valid yes. Saying there is no such thing is being a complete lie.

    Dr Loser
    “Nope: the application is badly designed. Period. If your application relies upon forking and joining a vast but indeterminate number of processes, then I am afraid you are going to have a nasty shock when you enter the third millenium: it wasn’t a particularly good idea in the 1970′s, and it’s an absolutely rotten idea now.”
    Thank you for insulting chrome and firefox.

    Why are they swapping to multi process design secuirty. So a defect in one section cannot effect everywhere else. Twit. Multi process design is valid for secuirty reasons and means to locate error reasons.

    MS excuses for basically having a poor process handling model is that multi process is last century so leading to poor secuirty outcomes.

    “May I recomment Intel’s TBB, or Microsoft’s parallel task and parallel algorithm frameworks?” These depend on threading. Windows is slower to starting and stopping a threads than Linux as well.

    Does not matter what path you go Dr Loser Windows is stuffed internally. NT use to beat Linux here. Reason applications have there own thread table so avoiding locking. Really since Linux locking has been cleaned up windows is now slow in this department. cgroup per application in linux causes linux to operate with a mxn thread model as well. So same thread model as windows and it still kicking MS but. So the performance difference is not the Linux 1×1 threading model.

    Only advantage in application performance windows has it active window bias. The only one at kernel level effecting performance. ulatancyd is able to inform Linux kernel of the information todo the same thing. Result on systemd distrobutions is basically no low level performance advantage to windows at all.

    This is your problem Dr Loser you have nothing to stand on. Linux is technically ahead at the low level stuff. Windows is technically head in the user-friendly stuff.

    So when you need the low level stuff for performance the pain of Linux user unfriendliness might be no long important.

  54. oiaohm says:

    Phenom because someone is a ubuntu F wit it cannot be helped.

    “The static libraries are installed by default and can be linked directly from /usr/autodesk/_maya_version/libs to /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib in your installation (by sudo cp, or similar). This is the libXm.so[version] file.”

    This is how to break a install. _maya_version stuff is so you can have multi versions of maya installed at once. They are never ever meant to be in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 ld.so.conf.d exists for a reason. A directory when you can place extra files to alter the dynamic library look up.

    csh exists in ubuntu univeral repos along with required openmotif. So there is no requirement to build either.

    “Maya will try to write files to /usr/tmp”. That is meant to exist by FHS that is required to be Linux Standard Base confirming. That this had to be fixed is not a defect in Maya but a defect in ubuntu.

    Basically if you have run the tests to be Linux standard base confirming lot of problems are reduced.

    Maya is a horrid program under windows at times.

  55. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    And on an idle drive-by, on my way to the fridge to fix myself a sandwich rather than to listen to the Wisdom, here’s what I heard about “cinepaint:”

    Posted by Andrew — 2011-12-04
    This is the most unfinished messed up project I have ever seen, After 12 hours of chasing down dependency files needed I realized that I wasn’t even half way there. This apparently is as broken up as Microsoft bloat-ware dll and foundation molasses

    Sounds like a must-have to me.

  56. Dr Loser says:

    @Koz:

    “Do you really think your challenge is worth answering…sir?”

    Probably not.

    The rest of us will just take this as an admission that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you have absolutely no evidence for your posts, and you are basically full of shit.

    As challenges go, it was clearly not worth answering. But, given what the rest of us have learned from it, I think it was well worth the asking.

  57. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    On a very small, and no doubt inconsequential, point about that 50/90 shipping things of yours, may I make the following observation?

    Some of them will have been shipped with XP (yes! Even in 2007!) and some of them will have been shipped with Vista.

    I’m sure your Postgresql skills are up to this.

  58. Dr Loser says:

    (c) oiaohm, rage personified:

    “Only advantage windows has is desktop applications due to having a bias to active window system. This also goes the way of the dodo with systemd and ulatancyd.”

    No comment.

  59. Dr Loser says:

    From the back of the Fridge:

    “By the way Maya and Softimage on Linux are another of those 2 universal binary things that basically run on any Linux distribution. Items that Dr Loser makes out does not exist.”

    OK, here we go. I can’t give you a link to Autodesk Maya, because unfortunately their web-site is too modern for URLs, but apparently they support Windows 7.

    Softimage appears to be similar (indeed,from the same company — good trawling there, oiaohm).

    I had one assertion and one question. Here is the assertion:

    There is no such thing as a “universal binary things that basically run on any Linux distribution.”

    If this is the best you can do, oiaohm, then you are doomed (and stupid). I’ll even give you four out of five Linux distros. Either one of these will break on a far greater number than you allow.

    And, presumably (I don’t have $4,000 to test this), here’s the question:

    Why not just save yourself the pain, use the Windows version, cough up the $4,000, and get a working version with support?

    If I were a graphical artist, with little or no interest in computers, then I’m pretty sure which one I’d choose.

  60. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    “Really its funny when DR Loser is toast IVAN turns up what give a new face and you hope no one notices?”

    Seek a doctor, oiaohm. Run. Do not walk.

    You need serious amounts of psycho-active drugs.

    I would recommend a list (because I know these things), and I would do so in order of side-effects and so on, but I think my only positive suggestion to you is to breathe deeply, walk into the kitchen, face the fridge, and say:

    “IVAN turn up you did? Need help. Need help. Blammo frontal cortex gone.”

    Good luck, my young friend, and may the medics be with you.

  61. Dr Loser says:

    @WallOfText:

    “Gcc compiler and anything else using multi-process design. Dr Loser runs faster on a Linux system than a Windows system because of the system fact Windows OS is slower at starting processes than Linux or OS X. So the application under performs on Windows.”

    Nope: the application is badly designed. Period. If your application relies upon forking and joining a vast but indeterminate number of processes, then I am afraid you are going to have a nasty shock when you enter the third millenium: it wasn’t a particularly good idea in the 1970’s, and it’s an absolutely rotten idea now.

    You can just about get away with it on C compilers (partly because they are intentionally separated from the linker), but that’s fine. Run the build overnight. It’s a vanishingly small requirement.

    As for the “anything else?”

    May I recomment Intel’s TBB, or Microsoft’s parallel task and parallel algorithm frameworks? (There are others out there. I’m not prejudiced as to supplier.)

    Firing up a process every time you need to do some trivial thing is the dire result of thinking that everything is a file, and that therefore you can communicate between one piece of logic and another piece of logic simply via a stream of text.

    This is cretinous and out-dated, oiaohm.

    You can improve the performance all you like, but it’s completely the wrong thing to obsess about.

  62. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    “Dr Loser spews lies, ‘Red Hat make their money entirely out of Linux server consultancy and services (entirely being short-hand for 90% or so), and they are the only company to do so.'”

    I seem to have penetrated your hide on this one, don’t I? The rest of the paragraph, which you elegantly edited out, was:

    “Let’s be generous, however, and add in the bit-part players. Maybe $2 billion for Linux consultancy worldwide?”

    Or, in your words:

    “For every large company making money from minding GNU/Linux servers there are many smaller companies. Canonical, Pantek, Rackaid, and many other.”

    Now, I’m going to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that Canonical is losing money by so doing.

    But would you care to explain to me what the difference between my (honest) view of the market and your (entirely unquantified) view of the market is?

    Because, as far as I can tell, I admitted that there are a number of smaller companies who make money out of Linux consultancy and services. And your rebuttal to my claims?

    There are, apparently, a number of smaller companies who make money out of Linux consultancy and services.

    I’m impressed by your ability to parrot my original point. I’m not yet lost, however.

  63. oldman says:

    “You are absolutely 100% right @ldman. It is defeated by people like you. People who don’t count because there are too few of you.”

    Are you sure of that Mr. K?

    “Do you really think your challenge is worth answering…sir?”

    Actually you did and you failed. FOSS doesnt work in this case and you only answer is to say that I don’t count. It isn’t an original answer BTW, I’ve heard it from true believers like you repeatedly.

    “How’s that robotic hand pump working for you? Any BSODs? Or, how about the dreaded GOD (Grip Of Death)?”

    What are those Mr. K?

    “Too bad there isn’t a FLOSS app for that. You’re stuck with the proprietary offering..”

    I would hardly call getting my work done stuck. But if that’s what you wish to believe, go right ahead.

    “Gee, how exiting it must be to be @ldman.”

    Actually its is far more exciting that to be a narrow little johnny one note like yourself Mr. K.

    I guess you in the end will go have fun with Linux Mr. K. the I will go have fun making music with my closed source applications that run on windows.

    And the world will continue in spite of eather of us. And I will keep posting here talking with Pog about IT whether you like it or not.

    Please feel free to join in when you have an original thought.

  64. Kozmcrae says:

    “actrually the devil is in the details Mr. K. Linux as a desktop is regularly defeated by details.”

    You are absolutely 100% right @ldman. It is defeated by people like you. People who don’t count because there are too few of you.

    How’s that robotic hand pump working for you? Any BSODs? Or, how about the dreaded GOD (Grip Of Death)? Too bad there isn’t a FLOSS app for that. You’re stuck with the proprietary offering.

    “Still refuse to answer my challenge sir.”

    Do you really think your challenge is worth answering…sir?

    If there is I wouldn’t know about it and I’m not about to go looking for it. I guess all the would-be Jimmy Pages out there who can’t afford all that crap will just have to wait. In the meantime the rest of the world can continue to use Windows or GNU/Linux or whatever they wish to do all the mundane stuff people do with their computers.

    Gee, how exiting it must be to be @ldman.

  65. Phenom says:

    @Ohio: “Maya and Softimage on Linux are another of those 2 universal binary things that basically run on any Linux distribution”

    Really? Then why Adobe support officially only Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® 5.5 WS, or Fedora™ 14 operating systems for their 64-bit version of Maya, and even no linux for the 32 version?

    And speaking of easy installation on something else, take a look here:
    http://baltazaar.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/installing-maya-2009-64-bit-on-linux/

    And of course, a pearl from the comments under the article:
    “i can’t make the deb files:
    Package build failed. Here’s the log…”

    Gee, I wonder, what kind of arcane magic one needs to do to install Maya on the venerable XP from 2001? None?

  66. oiaohm says:

    By the way Maya and Softimage on Linux are another of those 2 universal binary things that basically run on any Linux distribution. Items that Dr Loser makes out does not exist.

  67. oiaohm says:

    Really its funny when DR Loser is toast IVAN turns up what give a new face and you hope no one notices?

  68. oiaohm says:

    Ivan out of date idiot as normal gcc on windows does have 64 bit version. That can build 32 and 64 bit binaries. http://mingw-w64.sourceforge.net/

    Really you are the Mr. Ham Ivan. From now on you are Mr Ham her by transfer the title. You know nothing.

    Funny enough cl.exe 64 bit cannot produce 32 bit binary’s. This is why firefox went splat doing profile guide optimization with Microsoft compilers for 32 bit platforms. Profile guiding optimization information exceeded memory.

    Ivan you are out of date idiot.

    Maya was ported on performance. Softimage was ported because Maya was ported. Note neither support OS X.

  69. Ivan says:

    “Massive threading internal applications like Blender also run faster on Linux than Windows.”

    I’m going to choose to forget that blender is not a threaded application for a moment and ask for you to provide a benchmark proving this.

    I’d also ask why would anyone want to use gcc on windows when the developers limit it to 32bits only?

    Even hobbyists like you, Mr. Ham, can download the 64bit version of cl.exe and compile anything to their hearts content taking full advantage of 64-bit CPU’s.

    Why would you want to use a product with developers that clearly do not care enough to provide full functionality to their users?

    “So Maya…. all your big 3d rendering engines. Yes they release Linux versions based on performance issues.”

    So Autodesk provides linux ports of Softimage and Maya because of performance? I think I’ve heard everything now… tell us another one!

  70. oiaohm says:

    Gcc compiler and anything else using multi-process design. Dr Loser runs faster on a Linux system than a Windows system because of the system fact Windows OS is slower at starting processes than Linux or OS X. So the application under performs on Windows.

    Even stuff using multi-threading design. Linux can and does start threads faster.

    Massive threading internal applications like Blender also run faster on Linux than Windows. Blender also is better on Linux than OS X reason memory management of Linux is better than the OS X memory management. Linux can compress duplicate ram blocks something OS X and Windows cannot do. So Maya…. all your big 3d rendering engines. Yes they release Linux versions based on performance issues. So running them on windows you are running under performing copies.

    So single threaded applications windows rules right??? Nop its even slow there.

    Only advantage windows has is desktop applications due to having a bias to active window system. This also goes the way of the dodo with systemd and ulatancyd.

    Should I keep on going. There is only a many thousand apps that don’t run there best under windows. All due to technical differences between windows and linux OS kernels.

    There are also quite a few thousand application that perform poorly on OS X offering. Again operating system design limitations.

    Proven it a stupid claim does not take much more than looking at what OS kernel limitations are to see there is a problem with running applications on Windows and OS X at times.

    Of course there are items like digikam that are part ported to windows but missing features. Then there are also applications like cinepaint that don’t exist at all for windows.

    Basically you are a emperor with no clothes walking down the street and don’t know it DR Loser.

  71. Dr Loser spews lies, “Red Hat make their money entirely out of Linux server consultancy and services (entirely being short-hand for 90% or so), and they are the only company to do so.”

    Many companies do the same. RedHat is probably the biggest after IBM but Suse is no slouch.

    For every large company making money from minding GNU/Linux servers there are many smaller companies. Canonical, Pantek, Rackaid, and many other.

    So, Dr Loser is lost.

  72. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    “Stupid claim there are many decent programs that are Linux only or only work there best on Linux. Just because something is ported to windows or IOS does not mean its operating as well as intended.”

    Well, stupid it may be. In fact, stupid it almost certainly is.

    There’s an easy way to prove “stupid” (although it doesn’t prove “many”).

    Name one, my friend. Just one.

  73. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    Just to reinforce Clarence’s point here:

    “For other purposes, however, Windows servers are chosen by a margin of 3 to 1 over Linux. From an overall revenue point of view, Linux is last.”

    Let’s accept Red Hat’s current annual turnover, including Unearned Revenue, at a tad over $1 billion this past year. Let’s assume a very healthy growth of, oh, I don’t know, say 20% in a recession/depression, which brings it up to $1.2 billion including Unearned Revenue for the next year.

    I have no problem with that.

    Now, as far as I am aware, Red Hat make their money entirely out of Linux server consultancy and services (entirely being short-hand for 90% or so), and they are the only company to do so. Let’s be generous, however, and add in the bit-part players. Maybe $2 billion for Linux consultancy worldwide?

    I wonder what the equivalent figure for Windows consultancy and services would be?

    You could ignore Microsoft entirely, and it would still come to a couple of orders of magnitude greater.

    See, there’s no real money to be made out of consultancy and services on LAMP stacks. Active Directory, Exchange, Sharepoint, Biztalk, etc … at that point, you’re talking serious possibilities of revenue growth.

  74. oldman says:

    “You still try to defeat GNU/Linux in detail.”

    actrually the devil is in the details Mr. K. Linux as a desktop is regularly defeated by details.

    “Like I said @ldman, there’s no FLOSS application that will bring life to your robotic pleasure hand.”

    Still refuse to answer my challenge sir. Produce the equivalent of the combination of Finale, the Garrtian libraries Symphonic choirs for creating music. Those applications are a detail that you can defeat.

    Of course you know that you cant.

    “I can understand you’re upset about that. But you need to stop thinking with your disk.”

    Upset, about having the right tools for the job. you truly are an idiot Mr. K! I just get my music composed, and thats that.

  75. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon when you need to handle load you will be back to Linux again. Windows don’t scale.

    nginx + java or php that converted to native code and load balancing. Common combination these days.

    In a few months IIS could be number 3 in all metrics of web servers. Apache then Nginx then IIS. Reason Apache and Nginx both scale very well. IIS does not.

    Anyone developing a website using ASP.NET is a idiot. You are locked out of running on Linux, Solarias or anything else that scales by choosing ASP.NET. PHP and Java both have more tested premade libraries for web development than .net.

    Linux from all OS surveys of webservers SSL secure sites is over 60 percent. Non secured is also over 60 percent. When it come to web-servers Linux is dominate.

    IIS is less than 15 percent of all websites and dropping.

    I like Clarence Moon that Oracle had to buy Sun out to save them that it does not count as a death. So by Clarence Moon logic the C64 is not dead. Its still alive as a brand name. As a company its no more.

    Bob Parker
    “Another factor in it all of course is that every decent FOSS program gets ported to Windows and IOS anyway. I think that anyone committed to FOSS could not restrict the target platforms without hypocrisy.”

    Stupid claim there are many decent programs that are Linux only or only work there best on Linux. Just because something is ported to windows or IOS does not mean its operating as well as intended.

  76. Clarence Moon says:

    Do you understand the difference between web servers as a class and servers in general, Mr. Pogson? Many non-critical applications of servers can be easily satisfied with Linux at a low acquired cost and server operators, being sensible, often choose Linux for those situations. If a web site can live with Linux and MySQL and PHP and Apache, it would be silly to do otherwise. You would only spend the additional money if you needed the advanced services from ASP.NET and IIS.

    For other purposes, however, Windows servers are chosen by a margin of 3 to 1 over Linux. From an overall revenue point of view, Linux is last.

  77. kozmcrae says:

    “If she had been running any software that was windows only, she would still be running windows.”

    She uses her computer the way most people use their computer.

    You still try to defeat GNU/Linux in detail. Like I said @ldman, there’s no FLOSS application that will bring life to your robotic pleasure hand. I can understand you’re upset about that. But you need to stop thinking with your disk.

  78. oldman says:

    “It seems reality diverges from Clarence’s statement.”

    Actually Pog, the uptick may be as component systems for larger applications (i.e. Peoplesoft, Citrix) and the front end web sites for a lot of smaller vertical market applications, some of whoch are in them selves very important. These systems tend not to be public facing, and therefore do not get counted.

  79. Clarence Moon wrote this nonsense, “Linux still in last place in servers behind Windows, Unix, and IBM Mainframe OS.”

    Silly. I haven’t seen a mainframe since the 1980s but I have seen a Hell of a lot more GNU/Linux servers than that other OS. The web sees the same thing.

    This list of web hosters shows 7 using that other OS and 28 using GNU/Linux out of the top 42 providers. Then HPC has 90%+ GNU/Linux. It seems reality diverges from Clarence’s statement. The IDC data covers revenue so the bloated price of that other OS swamps unit share.

    I thought I would share this find: A survey of neuroscientists found most use GNU/Linux on their systems except as virtual clients systems. So even on the desktop there are niches where GNU/Linux is more prevalent.

  80. oldman says:

    “you have the sheer gall to accuse me of being “mathematically challenged?”

    Careful my dear doctor, this is Pog’s site after all…

  81. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    I’m genuinely astonished by your mathematical incompetence. What, you throw one totally unrelated percentage (not even normalised, mind you) against another, and you have the sheer gall to accuse me of being “mathematically challenged?”

    And on an unrelated but far more important matter, you need to stop patronising your better half. There is no possible good reason to hold her up to ridicule in front of a bunch of strangers by describing her as “the little woman” who is ” mathematically challenged.”

    Particularly the second, since I’m in a first order predicate logic sort of mood. It proves nothing about me; it simply insults your poor wife.

    Stop this right now, please.

  82. oldman says:

    “After my daughter’s X hacked into her Microsoft loaded Windows laptop she installed Ubuntu. No more hacking. ”

    ANd that works because the software she changed to either was FOSS and was cross platform, or was good enough for her needs. If she had been running any software that was windows only, she would still be running windows.

    And that is a reality that the true cult here, the cult of Linux can’t get around Mr. K.

  83. Clarence Moon says:

    “Clarence Moon Sun lost most of it market not to Windows but to Linux”

    Sun still in business oiaohm, just change name to fool men down under. Sun sell servers with Linux, too, but Linux still in last place in servers behind Windows, Unix, and IBM Mainframe OS.

  84. Kozmcrae says:

    “Bob Parker, what exactly can one do with a laptop with Freedos? I can think of one single thing – install Windows on it.”

    After my daughter’s X hacked into her Microsoft loaded Windows laptop she installed Ubuntu. No more hacking.

    As a member of the Cult of Microsoft Phenom can only think with his disk. Anything beyond Microsoft doesn’t exist.

  85. Bob Parker says:

    I think what happens in Thailand is that the lower strata just don’t have a computer at all so ownership goes to those a bit further up the tree. I guess that making other choices goes with having the higher education.

    Another factor in it all of course is that every decent FOSS program gets ported to Windows and IOS anyway. I think that anyone committed to FOSS could not restrict the target platforms without hypocrisy.

  86. Clarence Moon says:

    All that I can say, Mr. Parker, is that every time that I have been to Thailand, I have not purchased a computer at all. The thought would never have occurred to me.

    I commonly buy my new computers from Dell and get the latest Windows version. At the office, they give me a Dell with Windows Enterprise on it from their site license authority.

    One thing that your post shows is that Microsoft does not have any monopoly on desktop OS for computers since your own experience proves how the consumer has a widespread choice. Mr. Pogson’s only complaint can be that not enough people pick what he considers best. But that is not Microsoft’s fault.

  87. Bob Parker says:

    Yes the Freedos boxes are obviously destined to run $3 Windows. The Linux boxes are a different matter. I could have had $3 Windows on the box I bought because it did come with Freedos as it was on display. However the tech just installed Ubuntu as if it was something he did frequently so there is a demand for it. It’s not uncommon to find guys using Ubuntu here who only do web surfing, email etc and don’t even know what they are running. You can buy Win boxes here cheaper than Linux because the maker gets paid to install spyware with the windows. A lot of Dell stuff fits into that category.

  88. Phenom says:

    Bob Parker, what exactly can one do with a laptop with Freedos? I can think of one single thing – install Windows on it.

    I am afraid the same fate comes to most Linux laptops. People would buy one to save a few coins, if that would be the case (and it seldom is), then rush to their closest geek acquaintance and get a perfectly illegal copy of Windows.

  89. Bob Parker says:

    I’m really puzzled why organisations like Lotus Tesco in Thailand split their computer offerings in roughly equal parts between Freedos, Linux and Win 7 since I’m told by the Microsoft shills here that Linux only has a 1% share. Also I could have sworn that the new ASUS X44H laptop I bought last week came with Ubuntu installed as I ordered it.

    Oh I know, just figured it out. These apparent Ubuntu boxes are really Win 7 with a skin that makes them look like Ubuntu. So in the non Apple world it’s Windows 99% Linux 1%. Yeah sure.

  90. Ivan says:

    “The consumers who have been forced to take M$’s stuff don’t want any more.”

    This would be a wonderful argument to use if KDE, Gnome, and Canonical hadn’t told their users to piss off and use something else if they didn’t like the experience.

    Or are the ‘Trillions’ of Linux users just not consumers, Bob?

  91. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon Sun lost most of it market not to Windows but to Linux.

    Windows servers nuked stuff like netware. Complete different market segment.

    Sun was a slow dieing company in the year 2000. Before MS even released windows. Go back I said a particular year. Sun decline was written on the wall before MS put the boot in. Sun was laughing about Linux in 1995 by 1999 sun was talking about Linux taking there lunch. Remember sun big money was super computers. Not you crappy little business servers. Sun after 2000 started trying to make the crappy little business servers to make money.

    Basically sun got squeezed between a rock and a hard place. Linux on one side Windows on the other.

    We had 20 years + of jokes about Sun dieing before they folded into Oracle.

    History is important Clarence Moon of course a MS idiot would think Windows had something todo with Sun down fall.

    Do I expect Ms to fail the same way as sun yes I do. Question is who in the end is going to buy out Microsoft.

  92. Clarence Moon says:

    Other than a name change on their pay checks, I would bet that a lot of people would agree that Sun is still a going concern:

    http://www.oracle.com/us/sun/index.html

    Sun is not the behemouth in the server business that they once were, of course, but that was due to the dramatic success of Windows Server editions starting with Windows 2000 that enabled Dell, Compaq, and IBM to muscle in on SPARC territory with oodles of x86 based servers. That, in turn, paved the way for the low ballers with Linux.

  93. Phenom says:

    @Oldman, at least MS are not lead by a hippie loon, who paid billion and a half for an open source project, which could have been forked for free. 🙂

  94. oldman says:

    “The consumers who have been forced to take M$’s stuff don’t want any more.”

    And you know this how?

  95. There’s no upside to M$’s situation. The lock-in they have used for years against consumers’ choices now works against M$. The consumers who have been forced to take M$’s stuff don’t want any more.

  96. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon by you systems Sun Microsystems was a healthy company in the year 2000.

  97. Clarence Moon says:

    Well we can all go away for another 90 days, each smugly satisfied that Microsoft continues to make billions more each year or that PC licenses are in a decline. Some are certain that the decline in Windows client license revenues will surely tell in the long run and others are consoled by the overall robustness of the Windows ecosystem that keeps Microsoft as pervasive entity in the high tech scene.

    Win-win! That’s the way to keep all the balls rolling.

  98. Dr Loser, I know you are mathematically challenged. I can relate to that. The little woman is as well. But, please, you must realize that being off 11% is much worse than being up 1.5%…

  99. Dr Loser says:

    And to nail your prognostications to the mast, Pog, I believe you claimed that M$ would see an increase in (something, you never explained what, but we all assumed it had to do with overall profit), less than 1.5%.

    This has clearly not happened. I am relieved. I do not have to pay off on those bets. I will have to find another reason to give to charity.

  100. Dr Loser says:

    For “tsunami” read “Thailand floods,” btw. The inference is somewhat disgusting, either way.

    Can we have the next Krakatoa, please? For Freedom’s Sake, Lord, make it Now!

  101. Dr Loser says:

    Carried over from your earlier post, Robert (and I appreciate the fact that you are not trying to hide your embarrassing failure … just to dissemble.)

    “Revenue for the client division was down 6% and income down 11% as expected while PC shipments were flat.”

    And yet revenue as a whole for 2011 was up 11.9% from the previous year.

    Perhaps it’s not just the PC shipments. Perhaps it’s the software and services, dummy.

    “M$ is no longer tracking PC shipments because people aren’t buying their stuff.”

    Really? They aren’t? That would be a serious dereliction of duty to their shareholders. Evidence, please. And the putative fact that they do not release this tracking data would not count as evidence.

    “Now the shortage of hard drives will kick in and retailers will be looking for something else to sell…”

    Not about the OS, then; purely about the tsunami. Can you stoop any lower, Robert?

    “… and voila! GNU/Linux will appear on shelves along with Android/Linux.”

    Yes, apparently you can. Explain to me, please, how a GNU/Linux desktop or laptop (or even, rara avis, netbook) can do without a hard drive.

    Alternatively, explain how an iOS or WP7 phone requires a hard drive, whereas an Android phone does not.

    “People want small cheap computers and not Wintel.”

    You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it any more true. People want small, cheap Rolls Royces, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to dumpster-dive a Trabant just because it’s cheap.

Leave a Reply