M$’s Client Division Sinks Slowly Into The West

As expected, M$’s client division is doing poorly.

  • Windows OEM Pro revenue declined 19%, as Pro mix returned to pre-Windows XP end-of-support levels and the business PC market declined
  • Windows OEM non-Pro revenue declined 26%, primarily due to channel inventory drawdown and ongoing mix shift to opening price point devices

The drop was huge, though, meaning they’ve been diversifying sufficiently rapidly just to keep some growth on the bottom line. One wonders how bad it would have been if not for support from Android/Linux…

See? There’s a reason this is The Year Of GNU/Linux on the Desktop. That other OS has dropped out.

See 8-K Exhibit 99.1

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.

108 Responses to M$’s Client Division Sinks Slowly Into The West

  1. oiaohm says:

    Mind you I did not mention the other reason why by dos version 3.3 IBM position was complete screwed as DOS Plus that becomes Dr Dos and Z-DOS has appeared so meeting the DoD requirements no longer requires PC-Dos or CP/M. 3 relations of Dos are able to meet the DoD requirement at that time at the time of Dos 3.3. Basically everything goes to hell for IBM.

    DrLoser
    We live in a time where Micro$oft is releasing desktop GNU/Linux software and open sourcing huge parts of their technology stack. This is the acts of an ideology, defeated. A new dawn is approaching. A dawn of GNU/Linux.
    Microsoft is having to open source large sections of their technology stack to win government contracts around the world.

    So the same hell that happened to IBM is now happening to Microsoft. Remember the governments turning against IBM almost bankrupted IBM. History has some very big warnings for Microsoft current CEO.

    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/29/microsofts-new-code-editor-is-built-on-googles-chromium/
    Also it gets interesting. Yes the new Visual Studio code that has a Linux version is runtime shipping chromium so this means Microsoft will have to work on Chromium at least to the point of pushing out security updates.

    Its also like Microsoft putting clang on top of Microsoft complier back end.
    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2015/05/01/bringing-clang-to-windows.aspx

    Microsoft is going to learn that different linker back ends also introduce unique and strange bugs for poor developers. So sooner or latter Microsoft is going to be out of the closed source complier game.

  2. DrLoser wrote, “This is the acts of an ideology, defeated.”

    Not really. M$’s server OS is still in the fight and there still are many retail shelves devoid of competition. Then there are M$’s applications which are easily sold to slaves in business. It’s true that M$ will fail but we are not there yet. GNU/Linux has broken through M$’s lines, but the mopping up has only begun. It will take years more, simply because of installed base and inertia. Competition has emerged, not the final victory.

  3. DrLoser says:

    We live in a time where Micro$oft is releasing desktop GNU/Linux software and open sourcing huge parts of their technology stack. This is the acts of an ideology, defeated. A new dawn is approaching. A dawn of GNU/Linux.

  4. oiaohm says:

    Besides there is no point defending myself against your personal attacks DrLoser because you will not even believe that I don’t live in NSW that is in fact the case. So you are going to say a huge stage of bull crap about me.

    The fact TMR guys started saying bull crap about me is why I started playing fully underhanded.

    3 points make the MS Dos age happen.
    1 the cloning of BIOS
    2 Microsoft making msdos.sys to replace IBM part of PC-Dos.
    3 DoD requirements that end up forcing IBM hand in the 3.3 renegotiation of terms between IBM and Microsoft.

    Yes remove the DoD requirements and IBM may not have been backed as far into a corner and we may have see IBM attempt to sue Microsoft or other things. The problem here is the true story says that Microsoft had very little todo with how it got the Market share in the first place.

    Who is the most Important party to have OS market share. Its the ODM/OEMs. If you cannot get those on side you are kinda screwed. User functionality is consideration ODM/OEMs will do.

    If Microsoft lost the will of the ODM/OEM its market share would be screwed so fast is not funny.

  5. DrLoser says:

    But this is IBM. This company made its own chips better then Intel’s, its own software 100xs of times more complicated then DOS. Yet they felt the need to subcontract the most fundamental software for their PC to some tiny no-name company? Something that mind you, that company didn’t even anything to show for yet? What the xxxx was going on in their minds? All I know is I need to find some idiotic billion dollar company to sign a shitty deal with me one of these days.

  6. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser
    I can’t believe the stupidity of IBM back in the early 1980s. Microsoft must have had an inside man to get IBM to agree to such a bad business deal.
    IBM underestimated Microsoft and the PC Clone vendors that is all. If PC clone makers had not been able to make a functional clone of the BIOS image and microsoft had not been able to make a reasonable functional msdos.sys as a replacement to IBMIO.sys there would have been no MS-Dos age. The reality is without the IBMIO.sys bit that was what IBM coded PC-Dos was not functional. So there were two hoops that had to be defeated to make the PC clone age happen.

    By Dos 3.3 IBM had to agree to a far more liberal terms or risk ending up with PC Clones going in 1 direction and there own PC going in another and being application incompatible.

    Please note IBM not asking for exclusive is is part of the reason IBM got a lower price from Microsoft.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Microsoft’s contribution to DOS was hardware agnostic – it didn’t have any utilities for supporting specific PC hardware – the binaries shipped had just had DOS, the low level drivers (called the BIOS), the command interpreter, and a couple of other utilities (join, print, subst, replace, etc), IBM provided all the hardware specific utilities (mode.com, etc).

    DrLoser why does you link special mention the JDA around version 3.3 because that is whey PC-DOS and MS-DOS function unify yet they are still independently built.

    So Microsoft obliged them, for MS-DOS 3.2, we wrote a Microsoft version of all the utilities that IBM included in their PC-DOS.
    Please note this does not include the IBMIO.sys or other core parts sys command placed on a disc so it could boot other than command.com because these parts can include hardware particular functions that Microsoft did not code.

    DrLoser your cite does not back that MS-DOS and PC-DOS was exactly the same OS at all. At the beginning of the PC clones MS-Dos and PC-Dos were fairly different. IBM parts were missing.

    The development agreement with IBM allowed Microsoft to sell its contributions to the PC-DOS product to other OEM’s, and Microsoft shipped its contributions to OEMs as the MS-DOS product. It came on a 3 ring binder and included all the code Microsoft wrote.
    This first development agreement is why MS Dos 2.0 and PC-Dos 2.0 are not identical. PC-Dos had all of MS-Dos in 2.0 but MS-Dos did not have all of PC-Dos in 2.0 as Microsoft was not allowed at that stage to ship the IBM coded parts. Microsoft for MS-Dos 2.0 and what it provide to other OEM was required to make its own msdos.sys instead of IBMIO.sys. Its 3.3 where IO.SYS appears in MS-Dos being the IBM parts.

    Larry Osterman finds all the facts then miss interposer them DrLoser. A lot of Microsoft people do this. Reality they want to brush over the fact Microsoft required the JDA with IBM latter and if IBM had not have given it the two versions of Dos could have separated badly.
    http://www.easydos.com/sys.html The difference here Microsoft people want to ignore. Yes Microsoft was required to hand over the source code of command.com to IBM and IBM built their own. So the 2 core files of PC-DOS were in fact build by IBM being command.com and IBMIO.sys. The two core files of MS-Dos 2.0 being command.com and msdoe.sys were build by Microsoft. Interesting enough even latter on MS-Dos 3 files are all build by Microsoft while IBM still keeps on build for all of PC-Dos their 2 file solution.

    DrLoser the fact that OS core of PC-Dos and MS-Dos constructed of different number of files with onef 2 files and the other 3 files really does show a major difference. PC-Dos and MS-Dos are blood relatives but they are not twins.

    Really Microsoft people claiming that PC-Dos and MS-Dos are the same are in fact belittling IBM work.

  8. DrLoser says:

    I can’t believe the stupidity of IBM back in the early 1980s. Microsoft must have had an inside man to get IBM to agree to such a bad business deal.

  9. DrLoser says:

    Should anybody other than an outback transvestite even care about the difference between PC-DOS and MS-DOS, by the way:

    Here it is.

  10. DrLoser says:

    Posix contained stupid idea of platform conversion loaders so a.out from one Unix could be used on a different one.

    No it did not.

  11. DrLoser says:

    Have you ever considered an alternative career, Fifi?
    I mean, lingering under a lamp-post is so degrading.
    Perhaps you could become a Linux desktop salesman? I hear there is a need for that.
    It’s a lowly position, I know. Dougie has tried and failed. But you seem to have the ability to persist in mendacious unspecified nonsense that Dougie is too particular to manage.
    Give it a try, little lad. You can’t possibly do any worse than you have done so far.

  12. DrLoser says:

    IBM XT in fact early on did not run MS Dos as MS-Dos was only provided to the compatibles.

    Oh dear, Fifi.

    As Wolfgang Pauli would say, that isn’t even wrong.

  13. DrLoser says:

    So DrLoser at the time companies wished to keep their applications source code closed to everyone.

    What? Pure gibberish.

    Sorry 1982 you say you were in the DoD supply at the time. How often did you hand over the source code.

    What? Pure gibberish.

    Tell us all, Fifi.

    When did you graduate from the need to use adult diapers?

    When did you finally accept that you are completely unemployable?

    Nice little red leather miniskirt, however. Thank heavens for Google Maps!

  14. DrLoser says:

    Both PC-Dos and MS-Dos are based on 86-Dos but they are in fact not the same.

    Explain how not.

    Fifi.

  15. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser I see off topic hey lets say common complier problem solved.

    So DrLoser at the time companies wished to keep their applications source code closed to everyone. Sorry 1982 you say you were in the DoD supply at the time. How often did you hand over the source code.

    Posix contained stupid idea of platform conversion loaders so a.out from one Unix could be used on a different one. It was just as big as hack as fat com.

  16. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser I see you are going to stick to the same incorrect and invalid argument.

    PC-DOS or MS-DOS as it later became known as.
    This is a mistake.

    Both PC-Dos and MS-Dos are based on 86-Dos but they are in fact not the same.

    Please note the IBM XT was marketed as a toy. Never targeted DoD at all.

    So idiot DrLoser is focusing on IBM PC/XT. The time frame you need to be looking at is the time of the IBM PC compatible. There were way more than 3 operating systems at that point. Most disappeared fairly quickly.

    The two DoD winners were Dos and Posix. How the world would have been different if that had been different.

    As you said youself that IBM had no interesting in DoD with the XT machine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DOS_operating_systems
    Read and give up DrLoser.

    PC-Dos Ibm is marked as the creator and MS-Dos Microsoft is makered as the creater.

    Guess why DrLoser. Ibm build PC-Dos from source themselves. Microsoft and IBM with Dos shared source code with each other. So its like OpenBSD vs FreeBSD. No matter what stupidity you wish to pull Dos is not in fact a single operating system.

    IBM XT in fact early on did not run MS Dos as MS-Dos was only provided to the compatibles. Yes there were minor differences between the compadibles and a true IBM XT. I had the fun in school of have a spery x86 compadible and a true IBM XT next to each other with all versions of MS Dos and PC-Dos it was great fun displaying to idiots like you DrLoser that MS Dos and PC-Dos were different. Yes stupid PC-Dos 2.0 would run on a compatible but the reverse MS-Dos 2.0 would not work on a genuine IBM XT. DrLoser this is why you are so far up the creek looking at a IBM XT.

  17. DrLoser says:

    But tell us again how Stratus VOS hardware fault-tolerance works, Fifi.
    You were awfully persuasive on that one.
    Not.

  18. DrLoser says:

    Since Fifi has conspicuously failed to provide a cite as to the relevance of DoD contract tendering to the original IBM PC, the entire issue is basically moot.

    But just in case anybody else is interested in this “three vendor” thing. I worked as part of a sub-contracting team for a DoD project in Northern Virginia in 1982. (Fifi was barely out of adult diapers at the time, let alone officially unemployable.)

    It was a comms-based project. It featured Intel hardware, and the platform was basically an Intel MICE. But, most importantly, the language in question was Fortran 77.

    So, let’s see which of the three original IBM PC/XT Operating Systems supported Fortran 77, shall we?

    1. DOS – yes, it did. Admittedly, it took a bit of work:

    True, Microsoft Fortran 3.31 stinks. However, the current version, 4.1
    is full ANSI F77 and is quite OK. Luckily they have not put all the
    highly nonstandard DEC extensions in it.

    2. CP/M: I have no idea on this one. Fairly obviously, if CP/M had gained enough traction, or if the DoD was willing to pay, then the option of Watcom Fortran would have been easily ported. If indeed it was not ported in the first place.

    3. UCSD p-System, as represented by Softech. Came with a Fortran IV compiler. Difficult to see how you couldn’t convert this to a Fortran 77 compiler, if required by the DoD.

    In other words, Fifi, and once again it has nothing at all to do with your original claim:

    1. There were indeed three independent vendors of OSes for the IBM PC/XT.
    2. Even given the requirement for three independent vendors of software — which you never even mentioned in the first place — there were indeed three independent vendors.

    I was there at the time.

    You were not.

  19. DrLoser says:

    Another frilly little idiot hawking his red leather miniskirt wares from under a lamp-post heard from:

    UCSD p-System programs did not run on MS Dos or CP/M without using any The SofTech Microsystems, Inc supplied parts so p-system byte code failed the DoD listed requirements.

    The requirement from DoD was a solutions that can run on 3 independent supply lines. This was not only hardware but also software.

    The requirement from the DoD was completely irrelevant, Fifi. I believe we have established that. You have certainly never once provided a cite to the contrary.

    Three independent vendors offering three clearly differentiated products (not PC-DOS and MS-DOS, as you originally claimed) and three separate OS alternatives for the IBM PC/XT.

    1. PC-DOS or MS-DOS as it later became known as.
    2. CP/M.
    3. Softec Microsystems Version IV.

    Strangely enough, even Wikipedia is prepared to put it on record that the three original OSes on IBM PCs were

    1. DOS
    2. CP/M-86
    3. UCSD p-System

    You can’t even get it right, even though you google-splat extensively, can you, Fifi?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

  20. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser the idiot does not know when to keep mouth shut.

    UCSD p-System programs did not run on MS Dos or CP/M without using any The SofTech Microsystems, Inc supplied parts so p-system byte code failed the DoD listed requirements.

    The requirement from DoD was a solutions that can run on 3 independent supply lines. This was not only hardware but also software.

    Wrong. Softec Microsystems Version IV ran on the PC/XT. It was an independent OS. It did not depend upon the presence either of PC-DOS or of CP/M. In fact, it even supported BIOS calls (to what extent I can no longer remember).
    Running on XT was not part of the requirements in fact. 3 independent supply lines was the requirement.

    COM files have nothing to do with it.
    The move with COM files is what knocks Softec out the running because its able to provide solutions that end user can choose the OS.

    3 independent supply lines is to reduce risk of tampering as well.

    Microsoft MS-DOS Operating System Programmer’s Reference Manual, document number 8411-310-02, part number 036-014-012, from 1984. This manual listed the services provided by MS-DOS 3.10. I made heavy use of the functions under int 21h (which interestingly enough, start almost identically to the services provided under CP/M). The manual also covered items like writing device drivers and loading executables.
    Also you need to read your cites more carefully.

    PC Dos and MS Dos are in fact different. PC Dos has IBMBIO.SYS and MSDos as msdos.sys this is not the only difference. They are in fact independent builds from the same source in fact PC Dos does have some of it own modifications that never appears in MS Dos.

    Sorry DrLoser you an idiot on this topic.

    Requirement was that the program had to be able to run on 3 independent vendor supply lines. OS being the same between the hardware was a failure.

    Remember the Posix standard comes out of the same requirement.

    The fact of the requirement is something people miss.

    COM files have nothing to do with it.

    This is the problem as soon as DrLoser says this means he does not understand the history of what happened. The demand for a unified binary independent to OS platform is very old. The com fat binary was one of the earliest form.

    Without the 3 independent supply line requirement items like UCSD p-System might have stood a chance.

    Binary compadible DrLoser. Take a Windows binary its 2 independant platform compatible Ie Windows and Wine.

    Linux binary coded to Unix standards scary enough is at least 6 independent system compatible. Unix standard mandates Unix systems support a list of Linux syscalls and loaders.

    DrLoser Quit your nonsense yourself. You are idiot who has no understanding of the old DoD independent supply demonstrations. Yes its like a modern day plug fest between implementations. Note the word implementations. Unless something has more than 1 implementation it only counts as 1 supply line no matter how much hardware it runs on.

  21. DrLoser says:

    Even by Fifi’s generously verbose standards, that was the biggest load of piffle I have seen in a long time.

    I can’t be bothered to demolish the lot of it, piece by piece, so let the following stand as a representative sample of how oiaohm really can’t get anything right.

    Wrong UCSD p-System is not binary compatible so cannot be demoed as a Independent vendor. The same com file can run on MS Dos and PC Dos and CP/M if coded correctly. The 100 byte offset to start of execution is identical between all 3 OS solutions or as you want to call it correct two. Yes vendor could demo 3 independent supply lines running the solution.

    Wrong. Softec Microsystems Version IV ran on the PC/XT. It was an independent OS. It did not depend upon the presence either of PC-DOS or of CP/M. In fact, it even supported BIOS calls (to what extent I can no longer remember).

    COM files have nothing to do with it.

    Yes, it was indeed the third OS on the original XT, all from different vendors. As I say, this means nothing whatsoever in the context of Fifi’s original argument — even though he was insistent that it did — but it’s worth getting the facts straight. Not that Fifi would ever bother to do so. From my cite:

    The UCSD p-System compiled programs into p-code, which was very similar to what Java compilers do. The UCSD p-System was a complete operating system

    Quit your nonsense, oiaohm.

  22. oiaohm says:

    1. Rubbish. There is no evidence whatsoever that IBM considered the DoD when they first went looking for an OS. I don’t even imagine that they considered the DoD a potential customer for the device.
    Note Its not IBM selling MS-Dos devices all the IBM stuff was branded PC Dos. So this was not IBM this is what the clones did. We are talking here how HP and Dell got their big government contracts not how IBM helped Microsoft.
    2. Rubbish. PC-Dos and MS-Dos are essentially the same thing. PC-Dos was written by Paterson as a Microsoft employee. That leaves only two independent vendors.
    We know this yet MS-Dos vendors at the time claimed independence to win the contract. In fact Microsoft did not correct the error.
    3. Rubbish. The third independent vendor, as if it matters in this context, was Softech with their commercial version of UCSD p-System. I’d have thought you would have known that

    Wrong UCSD p-System is not binary compatible so cannot be demoed as a Independent vendor. The same com file can run on MS Dos and PC Dos and CP/M if coded correctly. The 100 byte offset to start of execution is identical between all 3 OS solutions or as you want to call it correct two. Yes vendor could demo 3 independent supply lines running the solution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_file
    It is possible to make a .COM file which will run under both operating systems, a “fat binary”. There is no true compatibility at the instruction level; the instructions at the entry point are chosen to be equal in functionality but different in both operating systems, and make program execution jump to the section for the operating system in use. It is basically two different programs with the same functionality in a single file, preceded by code selecting the one to use.
    Appearance of compatibility enough to fool pen pushes.

    It doesn’t matter how many OS sources the original IBM PC had.
    Incompetent idiot DrLoser I am not talking about the IBM PC I am talking about the PC Clones that made Microsoft dominate.

    Yes IBM PC is kinda a turning point but its the Clones that get Microsoft market share.

    “The great thing about [insert product X here] is that it is entirely a creation of FLOSS! You will never be locked in to [insert product X here]! Why, tomorrow, after you have spent $1 million on [insert product X here], you will be able to exercise the Four Freedoms!”

    DrLoser this is exactly what happen in Munich and other places. Salesmen say what ever you need to get the contract. Of course FOSS is just software. As a hardware vendor you want the on going supply contract so if selling FOSS will result in you keeping the supply contract you will.

    Having Linux appear in stores shows you commitment to it so increases you means to win government contracts.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2014/01/28/cumulus-scores-a-coup-dell-to-offer-open-source-os-on-top-of-networking-hardware/

    Of course worded more nicely. Dell and HP do sell FOSS solutions word way more professionally than idiot you DrLoser.

    The key sales point of FOSS from HP and Dell is no secret back doors that countries like china could be worried about.

    And they sure as shit don’t work for IBM or Dell or HP or Samsung or Huawei.

    DrLoser this is where you a completely wrong. They work for all 5 companies selling into particular countries have to sell the FOSS side.

    Surprisingly, Robert, that is precisely what a Gnu/Linux channel salesman would do. Why would a salesman care about either inefficiency or customer phone tag? They care about commission.
    Correct and if the saleman cannot sell FOSS correctly in particular markets will not win the government or business contracts so will not get the commission.

    Yes selling in Retail even if you move zero units is important to winning contracts in business or government in-particular countries. CEO are happier to buy from a vendor who presence they can see.

    Any thoughts on the Ubuntu Tax yet, folks?
    Exactly why we use Debian. HP ships Debian installed machines.
    http://www.itpro.co.uk/92071/debian-linux-gets-hp-seal-of-approval
    has for a very long time.

    DrLoser you want a name
    Geoffrey Wade, worldwide Linux marketing manager
    Yes there are official Linux sales people inside HP and Dell. There job is to move hardware not exactly software. If selling the FOSS side of the software will win the contract this is exactly what the hardware vendors will do.

  23. DrLoser says:

    Any thoughts on the Ubuntu Tax yet, folks?

    You know it’s out there. You just won’t admit it to yourselves.

    Oh, the unspeakable horror!

  24. DrLoser says:

    I do say, I think I am in need of professional help, as Robert has me speaking to myself now.

    Spamming up this blog with nonsense, demands and half-truths is what I do and it entertains me as I have no life to speak of.

  25. Dr Loser says:

    Now, what’s interesting here is that there are actually people selling more-or-less pure FLOSS out there.

    These people fall into the other two categories I mentioned earlier. But they don’t work for Canonical. And they don’t even work for Novell. And they sure as shit don’t work for IBM or Dell or HP or Samsung or Huawei.

    Can you guess the categories, kiddies? You won’t like the people involved. But can you guess?

    (It’s relatively simple to guess either one, to be honest. I’d hardly want to embarrass any of you with a simple intellectual exercise that you were doomed to fail, would I?)

  26. Dr Loser says:

    Me?..I’m just a blabbering idiot that enjoys arguing as I am a cranky ol’ bloke.

    Well, you said it, ral33. Who am I to disagree with your self-assessment?

    You caught Robert off-guard for a moment there, but he’s nowhere near as stupid as you seem to think he is.

  27. Dr Loser says:

    And whilst I wait for other comments on my original three categories of “GNU/Linux desktop salesmen” to filter through … you remember the categories? Channel, Service and Corporate Rip-Off?

    … One immediate comment to make. I defy any of you to deny this.

    Not a single salesman in any category so far presented is actually selling FLOSS.

    If what is sold is FLOSS, it is entirely a by-product. FLOSS is a complement to the sales process. Can any one of you imagine a salesman beginning his spiel as follows?

    “The great thing about [insert product X here] is that it is entirely a creation of FLOSS! You will never be locked in to [insert product X here]! Why, tomorrow, after you have spent $1 million on [insert product X here], you will be able to exercise the Four Freedoms!”

    If anybody out there seriously believes that either (a) a salesman would act that way or (b) an IT manager with a budget in six figures or more would waste time listening to the pathetic little Douglet, then let me disabuse you of that belief.

    It has never happened. It is not happening. It will never happen.

  28. DrLoser says:

    In retrospect, I do believe Robert is onto something here. Microsoft is down on revenue and I feel Linux will be the underdog that whips the llama’s ass.

    Me?..I’m just a blabbering idiot that enjoys arguing as I am a cranky ol’ bloke.

  29. Dr Loser says:

    That Mexican Restaurant Chain start-up thing, Fifi?
    It was actually an important turning-point in the history of IBM PC machines in the 1980s.
    I’m rather surprised that you’re so pathetic that you can’t even google-splat a cite for it. Here, let me help you. The relevant terms are:

    “3000 Mexican Restaurant Murto”

    You may be worthless on every single other nonexistent skill that you purport to have, Fifi, but we can all agree that you can google-splat like no other.

    Substitute Murto for some other term, if you so wish.

  30. Dr Loser says:

    There is certainly no lack of giant government IT projects where huge money was spent and the end result was worthless.

    An interesting and very pertinent observation, ram.

    It’s pretty much why I decided against the opportunity to work for IBM in 1983. And I would do the same now, for pretty much the same reasons.

    And it’s pretty much why I won’t work for “software houses” like Cap-Gemini or Logica any more. They no longer offer the customer value for money.

    And it’s pretty much why I object to the IT of governments world-wide being taken over by the Big Four Accountancy Corporations. Because that will lead to nothing but waste.

    And don’t get me started on Oracle or SAP or the like.

    Rather difficult to see what it has to do with Microsoft, though, isn’t it?

  31. Dr Loser says:

    PC-Dos, MS-Dos and CP/M made up the 3 independent vendors to win the contracts. Yes its an old United States Department of Defense requirement that was removed in modern times.

    1. Rubbish. There is no evidence whatsoever that IBM considered the DoD when they first went looking for an OS. I don’t even imagine that they considered the DoD a potential customer for the device.
    2. Rubbish. PC-Dos and MS-Dos are essentially the same thing. PC-Dos was written by Paterson as a Microsoft employee. That leaves only two independent vendors.
    3. Rubbish. The third independent vendor, as if it matters in this context, was Softech with their commercial version of UCSD p-System. I’d have thought you would have known that, Fifi.

    Also, rubbish in general. I inadvertently quoted the bit of your argument where you were only marginally acting like an ignorant ninny. The quote I should have repeated was:

    <blockquotekurkosdr Something to remember without government contracts of the time requiring multi hardware supply leading to x86 licensed to mutli suppliers the PC clones would not have happened.

    That one is definitively a blatant mistruth.

    It doesn’t matter how many OS sources the original IBM PC had.

    This has nothing at all to do with the origin of PC clones.

  32. Dr Loser says:

    DrLoser wrote, “there are no Dell or HP salesmen whose sole job is to sell Dell or HP computers with Linux preinstalled.”, moving the goalposts again, despite Dell, HP, and others selling millions of GNU/Linux PCs of all kinds. Someone is selling those units. He wishes to remain ignorant of that fact. Denial.

    Denial of what? I’m not denying that Dell, HP, and others are selling millions of GNU/Linux PCs. I think the number is more likely in the hundreds of thousands, but that’s not a denial, just a different estimate.

    The discussion here is about Gnu/Linux channel salesmen, Robert. I am of the opinion that they don’t exist in any real sense. You can change the line of discussion if you wish to pure numbers sold, but that would be “moving the goalposts.”

    Why on Earth would any business have a salesman whose sole purpose is selling GNU/Linux or any other product? That would be highly inefficient as customers would have to play phone tag just to buy a system.

    Surprisingly, Robert, that is precisely what a Gnu/Linux channel salesman would do. Why would a salesman care about either inefficiency or customer phone tag? They care about commission.

    You’re basically agreeing with me that Dell and HP almost certainly have no channel salesmen whatsoever who are devoted to selling Gnu/Linux, aren’t you?

    In which case, this category (number one of my original three) features no Gnu/Linux salesmen at all.

  33. dougman says:

    One more thought, the difference between RedHat’s subscription and M$ future subscriptionware.

    At least with RedHat one gets support: https://access.redhat.com/support/offerings/production/sla

    I am willing to bet with MS’s subscriptionware you get none.

    Eh.

  34. dougman says:

    Linux does not need sales people as it sells itself. People wanting it know what they want and how to get it.

    Whereas with M$, they just ram all sorts of crap down a businesses throat and before you know it the total comes out to be $100K+!!

    The real kicker is some of these asshats get really upset, when you mention anything regarding Linux. Like red in the face, total psycho and blabbering style. Reminds me of the M$ trolls that grovel here.

  35. ram says:

    oiaohm said: “Yes one of the big things is governments do have massive power to effect how the IT world is constructed.”

    I totally agree! It is also the reason so many IT contractors engage in bribery. Getting governments to shift policy pays off much bigger than trying to sell systems on their merits.

    There is certainly no lack of giant government IT projects where huge money was spent and the end result was worthless.

  36. oiaohm says:

    Why on Earth would any business have a salesman whose sole purpose is selling GNU/Linux or any other product? That would be highly inefficient as customers would have to play phone tag just to buy a system. Of course Dell and HP have more general employees offering a variety of goods and services, including GNU/Linux.
    The reason called product knowledge. The means to sell a product effectively requires knowing it. Advertising Linux or even Microsoft products the wrong way can bring customer complaints. Effective displays and marketing material takes effort.

    Channel salesmen are for helping out retail outlets. For all of china there are only 4 official dell staff that are Channel salesman. 1 each for Linux/Windows server and 1 each of Linux/Windows Desktop. The rest are general staff.

    Out of all the salesmen out the Channel salesmen are a true minority.

    Basically a all the decanted channel salesmen of HP and Dell world wide could fit in one jumbo jet. There is a chance that the reason why the USA don’t have any is that USA wages are classed as too high.

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-trains-windows-sales-people-to-bash-linux-the-horror-2009-9
    Yes Microsoft has provided places like best buy in the USA with free training with anti Linux bent. Yes Microsoft directly funds there own channel staff to sell their product. Of course Microsoft does not want to consider that Dell or HP who are more worried about moving the hardware than the OS it contains could also be advertising Linux. Really for Dell or HP bottem line it makes very little different if a Linux or Windows machine goes out door. The most important thing is the machine goes out door.

    If Dell or HP don’t provide Linux machines in particular markets some other parties would make the sales instead so it is required for Dell and HP to sell the fact they provide Linux and provide the retail support in markets with entrenched Linux.

  37. DrLoser wrote, “there are no Dell or HP salesmen whose sole job is to sell Dell or HP computers with Linux preinstalled.”, moving the goalposts again, despite Dell, HP, and others selling millions of GNU/Linux PCs of all kinds. Someone is selling those units. He wishes to remain ignorant of that fact. Denial.

    Why on Earth would any business have a salesman whose sole purpose is selling GNU/Linux or any other product? That would be highly inefficient as customers would have to play phone tag just to buy a system. Of course Dell and HP have more general employees offering a variety of goods and services, including GNU/Linux.

  38. oiaohm wrote, “The existence of Linux Channel salesmen existing in different countries has been true since about 2004. Of course some countries like the USA still have zero detectable.”

    HP, Dell and others long ago shipped GNU/Linux desktops to businesses who demanded it. Michael Dell did push GNU/Linux in USA briefly, even occasionally making it easy to find on the website or allowing M$ to “compete on price”. I think M$ paid a huge sum of money to buy Dell’s loyalty in USA but not enough to buy Dell’s loyalty in emerging markets. It’s too bad many USAian businesses don’t look past the next quarter. Lacking that vision makes them easy pickings for M$ with their huge bank accounts.

  39. oiaohm says:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/28/dell_canonical_ubuntu_china_pcs/

    This is a good example of Dell OEM channel staff working with Ubuntu. Interesting enough if you search LinkedIn profiles for Dell china staff you will find listed on people resume as working in the Linux OEM channel. You also from HP ones in China as well as many other companies.

    Interesting question can you do tax, bank….(all the key financial operations) in that country using Linux? If answer is yes you will most likely find OEM/ODM have Linux retail channel staff in those countries pushing retail displays.

    The existence of Linux Channel salesmen existing in different countries has been true since about 2004. Of course some countries like the USA still have zero detectable.

    Linux channel staff is a chicken/egg problem except we know what comes first. They only appear after the key country financial systems are Linux user compatible not before.

    Yes PC Dos and MS Dos as competitors was required or supplying USA government and others would not have been possible.
    This is part only minorly wrong.
    And while I’m at it, this is a blatant mistruth.
    Its not a blatant mistruth its a historic fact. In fact this is DrLoser being a lier as normal.

    Ever wondered why early PC and MS dos was CP/M compatible. There was a historic USA requirement that all solutions had to be sourced from 3 independent vendors. This was for protection in case of war someone buying out a key vendor and closing them down.

    PC-Dos, MS-Dos and CP/M made up the 3 independent vendors to win the contracts. Yes its an old United States Department of Defense requirement that was removed in modern times. Other countries treated with the USA mandated the same requirement. This is why MS Dos got so far into many governments so fast 1 it was cheep 2 it was passing the 3 independent vendor requirement.

    Posix standard work came out of also getting past the 3 independent vendor requirement. MS-Dos without PC-Dos would not have got across the 3 independent vendors. Yes if someone else had won that 1 contract history could have been completely different.

    In fact DrLoser has been pointed to the articles about parties selling GNU/Linux before. Really turning my filters off to see that DrLoser is a moron who fails to learn anything.

    Yes one of the big things is governments do have massive power to effect how the IT world is constructed.

    Really DrLoser you asked me to tell the truth and when I do you are a true and absolute moron.

  40. DrLoser says:

    When every DrLoser presume something he is almost always wrong.

    And presumably I am occasionally correct, Fifi.

    No cite on that, as usual… Do feel free to offer any particular example that enters your head via the usual high-frequency microwave channels.

  41. DrLoser says:

    Yes PC Dos and MS Dos as competitors was required or supplying USA government and others would not have been possible.

    And while I’m at it, this is a blatant mistruth.

  42. Dr Loser says:

    And yet again I, the “Microsoft Troll,” seem to be the one burdened with actually thinking about the question of “Linux salesmen.” Why do I think about this? Because it’s an interesting question, that’s why. Robert and oiaohm (certainly) and a preponderance of the other posters here use it as a mindless slogan and a sort of hot-water bottle when they go to bed and want to dream lovely comforty sweet dreams.
    Me? I like to examine things a little closer. Even if they turn out not to be quite as comfortable for my presuppositions as I might have hoped.

    So then. All comments on my original three classifications are very welcome to me.

    But not a single one of you has come up with the real people who are responsible for “selling” Linux, are you? I’ve told you that I can think of two important categories (there may be others). And I can promise you that you won’t like the people in these categories at all.

    But then again, you are all in statu pupillari here, are you not? Think for yourselves for once.

    Who out there is actually selling Gnu/Linux and FLOSS?

  43. Dr Loser says:

    thr there are channel sales people for Linux inside HP and DELL you can dig out their LinkedIn profiles.

    Robert was reluctant even to come up with a starting point for discussion of Linux salesmen, Fifi.
    I came up with a starting point.
    You came up with a baseless supposition, sans cites.

    Are you beginning to see a pattern here, Fifi?

    I guess this is from DrLoser the idiot who does not bother doing research before commenting.

    I guess this is from Fifi the sort of axe-wielding murderer and psychopath that Robert so often complains about. Have you considered an honest, polite, response, oiaohm? Even once?

    [Robert] They don’t actually sell GNU/Linux. Copies and licences are $free but they do sell and service real computers running GNU/Linux.
    [oioahm] This by Robert is exactly how Dell and HP channel salesman work.

    Both I and thr have pointed out that this means that they are not Linux salesmen, oiaohm. In fact, Robert points this out in the bit that you quote.

    Leaving aside the brutally honest fact that these people do not service the computers, you and Robert are at loggerheads here. Robert is confusing my first category with my second category, which is charging money for “added services.” (Nothing wrong with that, btw.) You are basically confused.

    No, Fifi, there are no Dell or HP salesmen whose sole job is to sell Dell or HP computers with Linux preinstalled. None. Dell and HP salesmen, those that are tasked with selling into channels such as Walmart, Best Buy, Frys, PC World, John Lewis, I don’t actually care whether this is a recent list so don’t bother picking nits it is just an example of selling into a channel … ensure that as many Dell or HP machines as possible, at as high a marginal value as possible, enter the channel.

    The OS is a complete irrelevancy when it comes to that aim. Consequently, and I repeat, these guys are not selling Linux.

    Yes countries that officially have Linux Channel salesmen have more Linux retail displays.

    In which case it should be very simple to partially refute my observation, Fifi.

    Name a single country with an “official Linux Channel salesman.”

    I’m not aware of a single one. But, yes, there might be one … go dig it out.

  44. oiaohm says:

    thr there are channel sales people for Linux inside HP and DELL you can dig out their LinkedIn profiles.

    1. Channel salesmen. If you see Linux desktops in a retail store, the channel salesman is responsible. Since these guys obviously work for an OEM, I very much doubt that it even crosses their mind that they are “selling Linux.” They are actually selling HP or Lenovo or whatever, and they’ve been given a broad portfolio across whatever OSes their CEO thinks will sell. They’re not going to discriminate either in favour of or against Linux. Consequently they are not Linux salesmen.
    I guess this is from DrLoser the idiot who does not bother doing research before commenting.

    They don’t actually sell GNU/Linux. Copies and licences are $free but they do sell and service real computers running GNU/Linux.
    This by Robert is exactly how Dell and HP channel salesman work.

    There are Linux Channel salesman from OEM for particular countries not every country. Yes countries that officially have Linux Channel salesmen have more Linux retail displays.

    When every DrLoser presume something he is almost always wrong.

  45. DrLoser says:

    Now might also be a good time to mention the Ubuntu Tax once more, Robert.

    You are, of course, fully aware of the existence of the Ubuntu Tax?

  46. DrLoser says:

    You weren’t very good at identifying what Linux salesmen do, were you, Robert?
    As a matter of fact, your silly little picture of a trainer standing by a large Ubuntu banner rather made my point for me, but whatever.

    Now, to be fair, you have at least engaged in the conversation. Not with any noticeable success, but the night is young. I’m sure you have better thoughts on the subject.

    Regrettably, if you simply address the three cases I have put up for your attention, you are going to miss the two very obvious categories of “Linux salesmen” that I left aside for further consideration. Neither of which category is particularly appetising. But we can get to that in due time.

    Meanwhile, Robert: those three categories I proposed.

    Can we agree that
    a) None of them are selling the Linux desktop in any meaningful way? and
    b) None of them are actually selling FLOSS in any meaningful way?

    Because both of those propositions, based upon those three categories, are self-evidently true.

  47. thr says:

    They don’t actually sell GNU/Linux. Copies and licences are $free but they do sell and service real computers running GNU/Linux.

    Didn’t he just write that? Yes, he did:

    1. Channel salesmen. If you see Linux desktops in a retail store, the channel salesman is responsible. Since these guys obviously work for an OEM, I very much doubt that it even crosses their mind that they are “selling Linux.” They are actually selling HP or Lenovo or whatever, and they’ve been given a broad portfolio across whatever OSes their CEO thinks will sell. They’re not going to discriminate either in favour of or against Linux. Consequently they are not Linux salesmen.

    Pull yourself together, Robert.

  48. DrLoser wrote, “I don’t really see these guys as dedicated Linux salesmen”, having completely overlooked Dell’s salesmen pushing GNU/Linux to real consumers and businesses in India, China and elsewhere, advertising prices and NOT hiding differences, in about 2K stores. They don’t actually sell GNU/Linux. Copies and licences are $free but they do sell and service real computers running GNU/Linux.

  49. DrLoser says:

    Fifi is fantasising again:

    kurkosdr Something to remember without government contracts of the time requiring multi hardware supply leading to x86 licensed to mutli suppliers the PC clones would not have happened.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    (A far more accurate, and certainly much funnier, argument for the inception of PC clones is, in fact, that $3,000 wasn’t considered enough in 1982 as seed capital for a chain of Mexican restaurants.
    (Go on, Fifi, look it up.)

  50. DrLoser says:

    [DrLoser] Any thoughts yet on what kind of salesmen Linux now has?
    [Robert]Uh, every legacy OEM and some new ones, leaders in every line of IT, and many millions who just want IT that works.

    Here’s a picture of Dell’s people at work…

    Followed by a random picture of a bloke leading a training session. (The distro in question would appear to be Ubuntu rather than Debian, but that’s a side issue.)

    Trainers are not salesmen, Robert. Nor are legacy OEMs. Nor are new OEMs. Nor are leaders in every line of IT. Nor are “many millions” of anything at all.

    You seem to be stumbling over this very simple question, Robert, so I will save you further embarrassment and proceed directly to my follow-up:

    Linux does indeed have salesmen; they just don’t sell the sort of thing that you want them to sell. How could they? The stuff you demand is cost-free. You don’t make a commission on cost-free.

    I see three broad categories of Linux salesmen:

    1. Channel salesmen. If you see Linux desktops in a retail store, the channel salesman is responsible. Since these guys obviously work for an OEM, I very much doubt that it even crosses their mind that they are “selling Linux.” They are actually selling HP or Lenovo or whatever, and they’ve been given a broad portfolio across whatever OSes their CEO thinks will sell. They’re not going to discriminate either in favour of or against Linux. Consequently they are not Linux salesmen.

    2. Red Hat/Ubuntu/SuSE SLED salesmen. Now, these people are actually selling Linux. More precisely, they are selling their company’s services built on top of Linux. Which means that they are not sellling the Linux desktop, because none of these companies builds their services on top of the Linux desktop.

    They are indeed Linux salesmen, however.

    3. IBM salesmen and the like. These sleazbags probably constitute the biggest slice of the pie. These people have no alliegance to Linux. Their company has no alliegance to Linux. Their only aim in life is to rip the customer off with unnecessary and very expensive services which may or may not involve Linux at some point … it’s immaterial to them, although the silly line that Linux has a lower TCO helps them rip the customer off. And, even more than category 2, they are not selling the Linux desktop.

    I don’t really see these guys as dedicated Linux salesmen, either.

    Basically, Robert, what these people are selling is seldom, if ever, what you would regard as FLOSS.

  51. dougman says:

    Considering you have not provided any information substantiating your claims regarding myself and my sold business, then that shows us you are nothing but a liar. Besides that, I’m not the one trolling incessantly about Win-Dohs on a Linux-centric blog.

    Also, the term ‘Snake-Oil’ is disingenuous, as ‘Snake-Oil’ is an expression that originally referred to fraudulent unproven medicine, and as there is nothing fraudulent or unproven regarding Linux, then again your statement is illogical.

    Get a life? Sure buddy, sipping lemonade on my back porch, soaking in the sun, life is good. Too bad you are sitting in a darkened cubical and actually hating your IT job fixing Win-Dohs.

  52. satrain18 says:

    Get a life, Doug!

  53. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr Something to remember without government contracts of the time requiring multi hardware supply leading to x86 licensed to mutli suppliers the PC clones would not have happened.

    Yes PC Dos and MS Dos as competitors was required or supplying USA government and others would not have been possible.

    The fact the current PC world existence is based on Government demands on companies means government demands could undo the complete house of cards.

  54. kurkosdr says:

    No, just wondering why IBM didn’t choose to play as dirty as Microsoft.

    As I said, they did. With their PS/2 line. It just didn’t work because the clones (with the help of MS) had pushed IBM out of being the top dog.

  55. ram says:

    “Wait a minute… did you just cheer for an incompatible and proprietary architecture by IBM? IBMer to the core, I guess.”

    No, just wondering why IBM didn’t choose to play as dirty as Microsoft.

  56. thr says:

    Better yet, and I dare you, go start-up your OWN business!

    But better make it one that does not rely on selling snake oil and Linux. Then you might have a chance. Actual technical competence might also help.

  57. dougman says:

    Re: Doug is known to install Linux on customers’ PCs without their permission. That’s why his business jet-computing.com went bankrupt.

    Satrain, my dear fellow, that is a tall order. Do share your evidence to back-up that mouth of yours for the rest of the class here.

    Instead of stroking to porn and playing video games in Alabama, perhaps you should get a job? Better yet, and I dare you, go start-up your OWN business!

    If you are going to run around telling lies, perhaps you should land a job as a politician.

  58. DrLoser wrote, “Any thoughts yet on what kind of salesmen Linux now has”.

    Uh, every legacy OEM and some new ones, leaders in every line of IT, and many millions who just want IT that works.

    Here’s a picture of Dell’s people at work…

  59. DrLoser says:

    Maybe he can join forces with former Linux Advocates guru Dietrich Schmitz.

    Whatever happened to the loveable and hugely informative Dietrich, btw? One moment his incisive blog (featuring guest appearances from world-renowned Linux experts like Katherine Noyes) was all the rage, and the next minute it basically disappeared!

    What’s even more sad is that Robert never once found reason to mention it in his sidebar. Even though every single one of the links on his sidebar has basically been broken for a year or more.

  60. thr says:

    True. Doug is known to install Linux on customers’ PCs without their permission. That’s why his business jet-computing.com went bankrupt.

    Ill news, that. Doug will be sorely missed by the computer owners of Maryland. Chuckle. Maybe he can join forces with former Linux Advocates guru Dietrich Schmitz.

  61. DrLoser says:

    I’ll give you a clue, however.

    Red Hat has a very large sales force. Red Hat sells stuff. An enormous amount of stuff, as it happens.

    I live to help people out with their various levels of cognitive dissonance, Robert.

    Tell me, what do Linux salesmen sell?

  62. DrLoser says:

    The world seems to be ignoring M$’s client division, which is all I ask. I don’t want to make all of M$’s salesmen unemployed. They can sell flowers on the street-corner for all I care.

    Well, we have to distinguish between Microsoft’s client division and Microsoft salesmen here, I think, Robert.

    First of all, despite your fond hopes, there’s rather a lot of people who use the products of Microsoft’s client division out there. In twenty years or so, that may change. Not so much in the immediate future, however.

    And secondly, the thing about salesmen, you see … and you may not know this, because I can’t really imagine you ever selling anything to anybody … is that, well, they depend upon commission.

    And the way that commission works, Robert, is that you have to sell a heck of a lot of stuff. Like, say, Office 365. Or Azure. Or advertising for Bing. Or Server 2015. Or any number of Microsoft products, really.

    All of those things seem to be earning Microsoft salesmen oodles of commission, Robert. They can probably afford to pay willing peasants like you to drag the tractor around their palatial back garden and pot a few plants for them.

    Oh, and thirdly? This interesting class of “Linux salesmen.” You seem reluctant to describe the breed, and what they do.

    I wonder why?

  63. DrLoser wrote, “The world can only spend so long completely ignoring what Robert Pogson tells them.”

    The world seems to be ignoring M$’s client division, which is all I ask. I don’t want to make all of M$’s salesmen unemployed. They can sell flowers on the street-corner for all I care.

  64. kurkosdr says:

    True. Doug is known to install Linux on customers’ PCs without their permission.

    Lol, is there any evidence of this happening? I assume he didn’t do any registering of the client’s needs and the windows apps he used to cover those needs, but did he at least transfer browser bookmarks?

    Or it was relentless paving-over?

  65. kurkosdr says:

    I never did understand why back in the age of DOS and OS/2 that IBM didn’t “grow a pair” and modify their hardware to run IBM operating systems really well and Microsoft ones extremely poorly, or perhaps not at all.

    Because IBM stopped being dominant in the IBM PC market ever since the first 100%-compatible clones made it big (the first one was Compaq).

    They tried to do what you say, with their PS/2 line of computers which broke away from the IBM PC, but since the market was literally flooded with cheap PC clones, not just the ones assembled in an attic but also from enstablished brands like Compaq, not everyone wanted to plop big bucks for an incompatible and proprietary architecture…

    Wait a minute… did you just cheer for an incompatible and proprietary architecture by IBM? ABMer to the core, I guess.

  66. DrLoser says:

    And in other news, it’s quite possible that MSFT stock will hit $50 by the end of the month. (It’s up from $48 to $9 today.)

    Not bad for a utility stock that was sitting at $38.65 a year ago.

    Never mind, I’m sure the West is beckoning to all the other Microsoft divisions, as well. The world can only spend so long completely ignoring what Robert Pogson tells them.

  67. DrLoser says:

    Any thoughts yet on what kind of salesmen Linux now has (as opposed to pre-2000 or other stipulated date), or now needs, Robert?

    It’s a question worth asking, I feel. Particularly since you often ascribe the current Year of the Linux Desktop phenomenon to these worthy souls.

  68. satrain18 says:

    Now crawl back into your cave and install Linux Mint on some hapless victim’s computer. True. Doug is known to install Linux on customers’ PCs without their permission. That’s why his business jet-computing.com went bankrupt.

  69. ram says:

    With Intel and other hardware manufacturers increasingly supplying hardware where Linux is supported but Microsoft is not, Microsoft’s future looks extremely dim. I never did understand why back in the age of DOS and OS/2 that IBM didn’t “grow a pair” and modify their hardware to run IBM operating systems really well and Microsoft ones extremely poorly, or perhaps not at all.

  70. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr
    God f@!%dammit, what happened to the good old Microsoft that just sold you a product and supported it (with security patches)? Now the whole place is run by retarded hipsters, and they insist on pusing upgrades (8.1, 8.1 Update1 and Nov2014) as updates, silently and without the user realizing what happened before it’s too late.
    When dealing with second machines like schools do from with between 10 to 50 different models the reality is Microsoft has never supplied a working OS at least once every 3 to 6 month a percentage of the computer would be screwed by a update. Only ones that have had working are those who turn over their computers every 3 to 4 years and kept fairly much unified models with that the fault becomes about 1 once even 8 to 9 years.

    The lack of driver development unification under Windows has been causing problems for years. Yes people running Linux on random hardware run into same kinds of issues. Microsoft hardware support has not been perfect.

    One of my prior motherboards I got was because the OEM’s were not providing updated audio drivers for service packed XP. Yes no service pack the audio worked with service pack 1 or greater audio drivers failed.

    There is a reason it has got worse. Since Windows 7 the OS on a computer is sold as is where is meaning the hardware maker has on contract requirement to update their drivers to deal with Microsoft changes due to updates either.

  71. kurkosdr wrote, “Repairs and re-reboots (one reboot for the patch, another for the GPU driver reinstallation or to fix the antivirus) are indeed part of the daily routine for users of the Microsoft Windows 8.x operating systems.”

    Amen, brother! Welcome to GNU/Linux the operating system that will work for you and not against you. I recommend you try Debian GNU/Linux after this weekend’s release. Despite systemd’s inclusion it will be a far better experience. Welcome to Freedom!

  72. kurkosdr says:

    Then there are re-re-reboots and slowing down and cost.

    Normally, I would reply to this with a sarcastic note. But after the monster Nov2014 update (KB3000850) that caused all kinds of problems, from broken GPU drivers to avast not working, I won’t. Repairs and re-reboots (one reboot for the patch, another for the GPU driver reinstallation or to fix the antivirus) are indeed part of the daily routine for users of the Microsoft Windows 8.x operating systems.

    God f@!%dammit, what happened to the good old Microsoft that just sold you a product and supported it (with security patches)? Now the whole place is run by retarded hipsters, and they insist on pusing upgrades (8.1, 8.1 Update1 and Nov2014) as updates, silently and without the user realizing what happened before it’s too late.

    Windows 7 has received more patches than a kid during summer vacation and it never broke. Because they were all updates, not upgrades. What the hell went wrong since then?

    Windows is like those Windows RG caricatures of the past now, and Windows users are now using a 5-year-old OS if they want things to work as they should (and I am not refering to the UI). We got transfered in a bizarro world were every misconception FOSSies had about Windows is true.

  73. oiaohm wrote of GNU/Linux desktop feasibility, “The question is how small of company does it become non viable.”

    In my experience, even one PC is enough. LTSP pays handsomely for even a couple of PCs. I’ve worked in schools from 150 students to over 500 and GNU/Linux worked well for us in all of those. I worked in a school of 1400 students once but they didn’t have a single PC in any classroom except the lab. Just fighting malware makes it profitable to convert a single PC to GNU/Linux. Then there are re-re-reboots and slowing down and cost. Time does cost money but just once. An infinite future makes that one-time cost dwindle into insignificance.

  74. oiaohm says:

    thr of course lets remember that Google themselves is behind having a Linux Desktop environment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu

    Interesting right over half Google desktop computers runs on Ubuntu then over 25 percent run OS X and windows makes up the crumbs.

    So why does the Linux Clown Posse want the Desktop? It’s inconsequential after all. But your thinking is probably that the world is only a good place if users have the ‘freedom’ to choose between 10 desktop environments of which 10 are half-arsed.

    Linux: a journey to mediocrity.

    Exactly what is wrong with being mediocrity. Lot of companies using Linux desktops don’t care as long as the resulting OS is
    1 fast to restore after issues
    2 gives very few issues correctly managed.

    The reality is there are a lot of big companies using Linux as there primary desktop environment. The question is how small of company does it become non viable.

  75. thr says:

    “The only market Micro$oft has any real influence in is the desktop, a fact that is more inconsequential by the day.”

    So why does the Linux Clown Posse want the Desktop? It’s inconsequential after all. But your thinking is probably that the world is only a good place if users have the ‘freedom’ to choose between 10 desktop environments of which 10 are half-arsed.

    Linux: a journey to mediocrity.

    “If the world remains predictable, Apple and GNU/Linux will surely vanquish Micro$oft there too.”

    Predictable? The Linux Clown Posse has been predicting Microsoft’s downfall since the dawn of Linux. It has not come to pass. Just as the Avengers aren’t real.

    Microsoft being vanquished is about as likely as the coming of the Year of the Linux Desktop. In plain words: wishful thinking by the Linux Clown Posse. That you have to throw Apple in the mix shows your desperation.

    You also should not mix things up: Android is not successful because of Linux, but because a juggernaut by the name of Google produces it. That difference is always hard to grasp for the Linux Clown Posse, especially for Robert who continues to believe that people are a) buying Android devices because of Linux and b) consciously supporting Linux. Once a scientist, now a (f|t)ool spouting propaganda.

  76. LinuxGentlesir says:

    If Finland with its concentration of R&D companies all biased toward open source tools can only manage 10%, that says to me that the numbers probably represent the growing use of Android based phones amongst the population.

    Android? Android devices outsell PCs by a 3.5+ ratio. Smartphones was a market Micro$oft once owned. Their marketshare went from a virtual monopoly to a nobody in the course of a year or two. Let that sink in.

    The only market Micro$oft has any real influence in is the desktop, a fact that is more inconsequential by the day. If the world remains predictable, Apple and GNU/Linux will surely vanquish Micro$oft there too.

  77. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Watching Micro$oft’s business over the last few years is kind of like watching a slow-mo trainwreck.

  78. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    I just care that we can do networked displays/sessions. If there is another good way to do that, I could live without X. It’s not magic but very useful. I really would not like an OS where you have to touch the machine to control it and to interact with it. That’s just silly.

    Multi seat solutions with weston and others are fairly nice.

    http://www.hardening-consulting.com/en/posts/20131006an-overview-of-the-rdp-backend-in-weston.html

    Losing X11 will not lose means to control computer by network. Mostly that has been a bit of baseless fear. Wayland might mean limited compositor selection when working over network. Unless a KMS driver ends up added to the Linux kernel to support network graphics.

  79. oiaohm wrote, “Linux Desktop crowd is mostly unified that X11 has to be left.”

    I just care that we can do networked displays/sessions. If there is another good way to do that, I could live without X. It’s not magic but very useful. I really would not like an OS where you have to touch the machine to control it and to interact with it. That’s just silly.

  80. oiaohm says:

    With client division going down, it means that the other divisions are flourishing! I would call this a brilliant business strategy.

    The interesting point is the other division in the Microsoft break down that is flourishing is Azure. This is causing a conflit include Microsoft as you can see in the recent VS product. Dominate number of Azure users are Linux based. So the reason why Microsoft balance sheet is looking good is in fact Linux. Yes Microsoft sells support services for Linux as well as Windows these days.

    Yes the old joke of Microsoft Linux might in fact come true.

  81. oiaohm says:

    With client division going down, it means that the other divisions are flourishing! I would call this a brilliant business strategy.

    Pogson, only you would care about the client division. The world is changing, and MS are changing along. At the same time, the Linux desktop crowd is fighting over Wayland vs. X. So sadly obsolete.
    I would not be too sure. Wayland is not vs X. X11 will remain after Wayland becomes the dominate for a fair while. Legacy closed source application support mandates it.

    Linux Desktop crowd is mostly unified that X11 has to be left. The question is how to leave X11 without breaking too much application compatibility.

    Really trolls say their is infighting where there is not.

    Wayland vs Mir that is a true infight.

  82. DrLoser says:

    Incidentally, have you figured out the difference between a pointer and a pointer-to-pointer yet?
    That’s an even simpler question.

  83. DrLoser says:

    Actually, that’s not quite fair.

    I’m also interested in your inability to understand basic IT concepts, Robert.

    This weekend topic: declarative languages. Interesting things, declarative languages. They’re certainly not procedural languages, by definition. However, it is possible to argue that they are a subset of functional languages, in the sense that both rely on an underlying engine. For functional languages, of course, this is the REPL. For declarative languages, well now …
    Modern system configuration (for some definition of “system” … it doesn’t have to be an OS boot system) increasingly relies upon a declarative language with a suitable engine behind it.
    systemd, for example, works in that precise way.

    Now, far be it from me to suggest that you have no clue whatsoever about declarative languages, Robert. Please disabuse me of this no doubt temporary misapprehension.

  84. DrLoser says:

    Anyway, this is yet another dull rehashing of your inability to understand the legal system, Robert.

    I’m more interested in your inability to understand the concept of “a salesman.”

    What sort of salesman are we talking here? Why were there none before 2000 (or pick DoJ year of your choice)? Why are there so many now? Who employs these salesmen? Who do they sell to?

    I’ve already pointed out that there were <idefinitely Linux salesmen before 2000 (or see date qualification above). You have conveniently chosen to skate over this obvious fact.

    Your turn, then. What empirical knowledge do you have that Linux salesmen have operated since 2000 (qualified as above)?

    And why did it take them so long after 2000 (qualified as above) to make any sort of appreciable dent in the market?

    You’re just guessing, aren’t you?

  85. DrLoser says:

    See Sherman Anti-Trust Act: “Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony…

    And Microsoft (being presumed by you here to be the legal equivalent of a person, as company entities are wont to be) did not make such a contract or engage in such a combination or conspiracy.

    Because, if they did, and what with those activities being declared illegal, they would have been convicted in a court of justice, would they not, Robert?

    And they weren’t.

    You can call them unethical. You can call them monopolists, if you will (but strictly in a “populist” way, not in a legal one). You can call them monsters, you can call them slavers, you can call them anything you like.

    But you can’t call them criminals, because they were and are not criminals. To be a criminal, you have to be convicted in a court of law.

  86. DrLoser says:

    Fifi is getting nit-picky again, I see.

    Redhat sells subscription for Support, Training and Consultancy

    Yes when you buy Support or Consultancy subscriptions you get so many Training Units from Redhat to spend on Training as part of Subscription. So reality is Subscription value does not tell us how much is Redhat RHEL and how much is Redhat Consultancy helping companies develop own solutions.

    And when you buy consultancy from Microsoft, they help companies develop their own solutions. Or you can buy training from Microsoft, in the same way that you can buy training from Red Hat. Both companies offer subscription services. Both sell server licences.

    Oh, and if you want to run CentOS or another Linux distro on Azure, you can. So that little “Red Hat is platform agnostic” bit of drivel also vanishes into thin air.

    Nobody likes to admit this here, but the business models of Microsoft and Red Hat are strikingly similar. As far as I can make out, even the pricing for various services is roughly equivalent.

    You want to know why? Because both Red Hat and Microsoft are commercial companies, operating in a commercial market, where the laws of supply and demand operate today in much the same way that they always have.

    This idea of Robert’s that the mythical “Gnu/Linux” offers an unbeatable cost/benefit equation, simply because the notional cost is $0 (although in real terms it is anything but), is blown out of the water when you consider Red Hat, isn’t it?

    People install Red Hat in commercial environments, not because they don’t have to pay for it, but because they derive substantial benefits.

    People do not install Debian in commercial environments because, well, from a commercial point of view, it’s worthless crap.

    (I’m sure somebody will spout on about web hosting. Fine, feel free. In a massively commoditised market like web hosting, Debian actually works very well — as does practically any other distro you care to think of.
    (But for more general commercial purposes, Debian sucks. Even though it is free at the point of acquisition.)

  87. oldfart wrote, “The sherman anti trust act specified law suits. Law suits are not for criminal acts.”

    See Sherman Anti-Trust Act: “Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony…
    Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony,…
    it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited…
    The word “person”, or “persons”, wherever used in sections 1 to 7 of this title shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.

    Everything M$ did was intended to restrain competition. They weren’t just doing business.

    Felony:“the term felony, in American law, has lost this point of distinction; and its meaning, where not fixed by statute, is somewhat vague and undefined; generally, however, it is used to denote an offense of a high grade, punishable either capitally or by a term of imprisonment.”

  88. oldfart says:

    “The Sherman ant-trust act calls it a crime anf the things M$ promised to stop doing are crimes.”
    The sherman anti trust act specified law suits. Law suits are not for criminal acts. Also as I noted but you convenitntly pass over the suit brought was ultimately unsuccessful because microsoft settled without admitting blame. Also brought up was the ancientness of the case it is 20+ years ago since the allegations were made in the suit by the DOJ, and the terms of the settlement have long since been met.

    “Cessation caused/permitted competition on the desktop to resume. ”

    What competition? Android is not a desktop OS and neither are its apps meant as desktop apps in anyone’s mind but yours and others of like mind . And then there is the little reality that Android is a completely new OS built for convenience sake on a linux kernel. ANdroid has no ability to execute Linux binaries as delivered. Oh you can follow instructions root your device and modify it to run a linux distribution. But only a very small minority cares about this ability. Furthermore most OEMs will only give lip service to supporting it. In most cases you are on you own as far as the ISV is concened.

    ” That’s why 2015 is a breakout year for GNU/Linux. Finland, for instance has exceeded 10% share for GNU/Linux on three days so far this month. That didn’t happen when M$ was suppressing competition.”

    If Finland with its concentration of R&D companies all biased toward open source tools can only manage 10%, that says to me that the numbers probably represent the growing use of Android based phones amongst the population. IMHO it says nothing about the use of the classical desktop and I will bet good money that if you subtract out android stats you will find yourself at best only 2-3% which IMHO is reasonable given the Open source orientation of a large portion of the countries R&D business.

  89. oldfart wrote, “your characterization of what happened as a crime.”

    The Sherman ant-trust act calls it a crime anf the things M$ promised to stop doing are crimes. Cessation caused/permitted competition on the desktop to resume. That’s why 2015 is a breakout year for GNU/Linux. Finland, for instance has exceeded 10% share for GNU/Linux on three days so far this month. That didn’t happen when M$ was suppressing competition.

  90. oldfart says:

    “That doesn’t mean we should forget their previous decades of crime.”

    You keep calling it crime when it was by law nothing of the sort. The US courts trying a case in the US said that it was not. Your disagreement with that judgement constitutes nothing more that your opinion, as does your characterization of what happened as a crime.

  91. oldfart says:

    “Google does not charge anyone for the product and definitely charges the same price everywhere. It’s advertising and opening opportunities for Google, not dumping.”

    We know you have used this load of crap to justify what is a transparent grab for monopoly on the part of google. Unfortunately in the EU it is not working any better for google than it did for microsoft.

    http://www.wired.com/2015/04/eu-google/

  92. thr says:

    “That doesn’t mean we should forget their previous decades of crime.”

    Hans Reiser is a criminal. Microsoft not.

  93. thr says:

    “One cannot compare M$ software subscriptions to Redhat OS subscriptions.”

    Of course not! It’s always apples and oranges when it’s convenient for the Linux Clown Posse.

  94. kurkosdr wrote, “That’s dumping.”

    No, it’s not.

    Google does not charge anyone for the product and definitely charges the same price everywhere. It’s advertising and opening opportunities for Google, not dumping.

  95. kurkosdr says:

    Google does not sell an OS

    But they spend millions in R&D to make an OS, and give it for free to OEMs. To gain dominance in some other market (web services). That’s dumping.

  96. luvr says:

    “they may abandon their bullying altogether and become a good corporate citizen.”

    I don’t know about you, but I, for one, won’t be holding my breath. Seeing is believing.

  97. kurkosdr wrote, “Google’s product dumping”.

    Oh, come on! Google does not sell an OS. The OEMs who sell the OS bundle it with the hardware and do sell at a profit. What’s wrong with that? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. When OEMs bundled TOOS with their hardware, did you complain? That harmed consumers. The only one harmed by Google/OEM bundling is M$ and “partners”. The world does not owe Wintel a living.

  98. Deaf Spy wrote, “The world is changing, and MS are changing along. At the same time, the Linux desktop crowd is fighting over Wayland vs. X. So sadly obsolete.”

    Correct, that M$ has grown up and seen the error of its criminal ways. It’s now beginning to work for a living with realistic margins happening. There’s still a ways to go but once they learn they can survive with the consumer knowing the cost of it all, they may abandon their bullying altogether and become a good corporate citizen. That doesn’t mean we should forget their previous decades of crime.

    At the same time, GNU/Linux is ready, willing and able to serve people on the desktop. That’s happening. Check out Germany’s weekday share of page-views from GNU/Linux:

    See the trend. People don’t care what you find wrong with GNU/Linux. It works for them.

  99. kurkosdr says:

    Windows OEM non-Pro revenue declined 26%, primarily due to channel inventory drawdown and ongoing mix shift to opening price point devices

    Anyone surprised? Sales of devices with larger than 9-inch displays have lanquished, because any machine from 2011 is more than capable of handling any task, save for professional cases and gaming cases.

    And in the under-9-inch department, Microsoft is definitely feeling Google’s product dumping (if it’s given out for less than it cost to make…).

    It’s called business, Pog.

  100. dougman says:

    One cannot compare M$ software subscriptions to Redhat OS subscriptions.

    I managed a few Redhat boxes a long time ago and a subscription model as an expense that you have to keep forever, is something bean counters always scrutinize.

    Linux always comes out ahead of Windows anyways and it is laughable seeing M$ trying to copy other business models.

    I can hear it now, “What we have to rent the software now?…for a year?? May as well use Linux now and do away with M$”

  101. Deaf Spy says:

    Microsoft Corp. today announced that revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 grew to $21.7 billion.

    With client division going down, it means that the other divisions are flourishing! I would call this a brilliant business strategy.

    Pogson, only you would care about the client division. The world is changing, and MS are changing along. At the same time, the Linux desktop crowd is fighting over Wayland vs. X. So sadly obsolete.

  102. oiaohm says:

    thr learn to read youself. Redhat does not provide the break down on what kinds of subscriptions their money is coming from.

    Subscriptions is a useful term for Redhat to 1 be truthful on investment reports 2 really not tell you anything about what department in Redhat is making the money.

    Training and services in their break down is anyone who does not use training credits or a consultancy or support subscription for services.

    The reality is reading the Redhat investor report without understanding what Redhat sells under Subscription leads to a major miss understanding.

    What in most companies would be sold as support services contracts are sold as consultancy subscriptions so it appears in an odd place in the Redhat balance sheet mixed up with RHEL sales.

    Yes it looks like Redhat is 100 percent Subscription driven but comparing to other companies you have to make sure you are comparing apples with apples. Redhat usage of Subscription is a little different. Legal but a different. Of course due to not having the information you really cannot compare Redhat cleanly with Microsoft or IBM who break out support services into own area.

  103. thr says:

    “Redhat earning reports are super vague on what section of Redhat is earning the money.”

    Super vague? Learn to read.

  104. oiaohm says:

    thr less than picture Redhat is not subscriptions to the OS.
    http://www.redhat.com/en/services/consulting
    If you have problem you can commission Redhat to act as a consultant and development team even if the final product ends up running on CentOS or Scientific linux.

    Redhat sells subscription for Support, Training and Consultancy

    Yes when you buy Support or Consultancy subscriptions you get so many Training Units from Redhat to spend on Training as part of Subscription. So reality is Subscription value does not tell us how much is Redhat RHEL and how much is Redhat Consultancy helping companies develop own solutions.

    Redhat earning reports are super vague on what section of Redhat is earning the money.

    Redhat is willing to work for their money if they have to by the Consultancy side.

  105. thr says:

    Hey, dougman, wanna know how Red Hat (a poster child praised by Robert several times here) makes money?

    http://investors.redhat.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=903376

    Just in case you’re unable to comprehend it, I will tell you the magic word: subscriptions.

    Now crawl back into your cave and install Linux Mint on some hapless victim’s computer.

  106. dougman says:

    Continuing further, “Standalone products are on the way out at Microsoft. Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella revealed Thursday that he hopes to strike a number of “annuity relationships” with both consumers and businesses alike, asking them to pay subscriptions rather than one-time fees. ”

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2913809/microsofts-nadella-describes-his-subscription-dreams-as-company-reports-revenue-growth.html

    Enjoy your rental software. LOL….

  107. dougman says:

    To reexamine what DrLiar stated, Microsoft has published its Q3 fiscal 2015 earnings report, and the company has made $4.98 billion in net income on $21.7 billion in revenue. Revenue has increased 6 percent from the same quarter last year, but net income has dropped 12 percent.

    So with that said, “Microsoft hopes it can make money by convincing customers to pay annual subscriptions to software products, rather than buy software licenses.”

  108. DrLoser says:

    Microsoft Corp. today announced that revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 grew to $21.7 billion.

Leave a Reply