Enlighten me on this issue please...

[dnns123]

I saw this on digg.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10020587-16.html?hhTest=1

So summarize everything, it says that Adobe should team up with Google and other big corporations and unseat Microsoft.

My thoughts on this was, Why do we need to unseat Microsoft; whats wrong with it? In my opinion, Linux advocates are becoming a little too aggressive.

The idea for optimization of Adobe CS for Linux is fantastic, but the part where it should "find compelling reasons to work together to unseat Microsoft" is off mark of what the goal is supposed to be.

I get the feeling that Linux users are feeling like David and Goliath in the Bible. Linux users as David ofcourse; wanting to topple the giant.

[bp1509]

d

[blueturtl]

To answer this question in full would probably take up multiple pages of posts, but let me try to summarize my view on it anyway:

Getting rid of Microsoft is not in the spirit of Ubuntu nor is it probably even what most Linux users want. There are however a good few that do want to see the software giant gone.

The main arguments for people who want Microsoft gone are probably as follows:

Microsoft as a company has been found guilty of illegal business practices aimed to hurt it's competition.
Where there are no illegalities there are shady motives. Microsoft has been found to go to extreme measures to ensure that it retains it's market share often at the cost of consumers. It does not want to make the best product, but rather to make sure there are no other products to choose from. A lot of the problems people face in computing today are direct or indirect results from this.
Related to the previous; Microsoft is effectively holding back innovation (as much as I hate that word) in the IT industry.


Does this answer your question?

[bashveank]

Microsoft needs to be dethroned because they hold a 80%-90% share of the market and a monopoly is hardly conductive to an innovative marketplace. Microsoft doesn't have to disappear completely, they just have to be taken down a notch in order to bring a competitive, and thereby innovative, market back.

[Hilipatti]

To answer this question in full would probably take up multiple pages of posts, but let me try to summarize my view on it anyway:

Getting rid of Microsoft is not in the spirit of Ubuntu nor is it probably even what most Linux users want. There are however a good few that do want to see the software giant gone.

The main arguments for people who want Microsoft gone are probably as follows:

Microsoft as a company has been found guilty of illegal business practices aimed to hurt it's competition.
Where there are no illegalities there are shady motives. Microsoft has been found to go to extreme measures to ensure that it retains it's market share often at the cost of consumers. It does not want to make the best product, but rather to make sure there are no other products to choose from. A lot of the problems people face in computing today are direct or indirect results from this.
Related to the previous; Microsoft is effectively holding back innovation (as much as I hate that word) in the IT industry.


Does this answer your question?

I'd also like to add one more reason:

Microsoft isn't exactly pro-open standards either, (see above for why) and that's why it would be pretty beneficial to have them gone. Since for as long as they are dominant they can pretty effectively prevent open standards from being used, which mainly hurts competition and linux.

Then again recently the issue of open standards has become more important, as fas as I can see. We've already seen Microsoft cave in, atleast slightly.

[swoll1980]

How about better hardware support for *nux? With out MS 90% + market share there would be better hardware, and software compatability across the board.

[FuturePilot]

I would say getting rid of Microsoft completely would not be a good thing. Rather it would be better to just knock them off their high mountain top to level the playing field a little more.

[pytheas22]

I'm no fan of Microsoft and wouldn't mind seeing it gone, but that's only half the battle--to really win and promote "innovation," we need to change the culture of the IT industry so that it embraces free software and open standards.

If we "dethrone" Microsoft, it's likely to just be replaced by another proprietary-software conglomerate. Frankly I don't know why people hate so much on Microsoft in particular while so many other software and Internet corporations are just as bad. I don't trust Apple, Adobe or even Google any more than Redmond.

If the Linux community enters into a coalition with companies like Google and Adobe that succeeds in overtaking Microsoft, I suspect that the Linux people would be thrown back into the ditch the minute Microsoft is defeated, so that Adobe and Google could continue to profit on the proprietary-software model. It's true that Google in particular has been an important backer of a lot of free-software projects, but I've always felt that it's done so only in its own interests, not because it really wishes to promote the ideals upon which free software is built. After all, Google's own software (Picasa, Google Earth, etc.) is rarely released with any free code.

If Linux were to partner with other major players in the IT industry, we would have to do so only under the condition that they start sharing code and removing artificial barriers to progress as much as the Linux community does. Otherwise we'd play monkey-in-the-middle in a war between Microsoft and its adversaries that, no matter what its outcome, would offer us only more of the same: marginalization in the public eye, lack of capital, little legal or political influence, etc.

Anyway, maybe I've read too much Richard Stallman, but that's my take.

[Daveski]

If we "dethrone" Microsoft, it's likely to just be replaced by another proprietary-software conglomerate. Frankly I don't know why people hate so much on Microsoft in particular while so many other software and Internet corporations are just as bad. I don't trust Apple, Adobe or even Google any more than Redmond.

I think is it just down to size (or perceived size). Lots of people 'hated' IBM long ago - this has been redirected towards Microsoft BECAUSE they are such a huge part of any computer users everyday world.


It's true that Google in particular has been an important backer of a lot of free-software projects, but I've always felt that it's done so only in its own interests, not because it really wishes to promote the ideals upon which free software is built. After all, Google's own software (Picasa, Google Earth, etc.) is rarely released with any free code.

Indeed - no for-profit company is alturistic, and why would they be? Philosophical choices are usually for individuals or communities, not companies whose goal is to make money.

Personally I would like the computing population to be informed and aware of the choices they make, and if that choice is to purchase restrictive licenses for Microsoft products (or Adobe etc.), then that is perhaps a good choice for them - the key is to make sure that they know they have made that choice and to understand why.