On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:03, J Sloan wrote: > ... > > Unfortunately, it's not about being mainstream anymore - at this > point, it's about viability, period. > > If linux can't achieve enough of a critical mass on the desktop to > matter, microsoft will be able to leverage control of all the > onramps, so to speak, to the "information highway", and then it's > game over. Unless of course, you're content to use linux on a > hobbyist basis, without meaningful access to the most internet > content, constituting nothing more than small islands of hopeless, > irrelevant rebellion in a microsoft world.
Can you define what you mean when you say: - "enough of a critical mass" - "to matter" - "leverage control" - "onramps to the information highway" - "game over" - "meaningful access" - "most internet content" - "islands" - "hopeless, irrelevant rebellion" - "microsoft world" Suffice it to say I consider that paragraph to be nearly devoid of meaning. However, you may very well have a future in one of these domains: - Marketing communications - Public Relations - Generic vacuous persuasion - Elective representative in the U.S.A. Anyway, I don't believe that desktop acceptance has anything to do with Linux's long-term viability. One simple example among many, the fact that Amazon.com runs almost all of it's on-line systems using Linux, is enough to show that Linux has a secure future. Software development is far more efficient under Linux or other Unix-oriented systems. The only time one would use Windows is when writing Windows-specific software. The personal computing world will not end if Linux does not gain some minimal market- or "mind-" share. Look at the Macintosh. It has a small minority of the installed base of personal / desktop and server systems. But it remains eminently viable. The sky is not falling on Linux. > ... > > Joe Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
