[LINK] Linux poised for desktop failure: Gartner

[Frank O'Connor]

At 11:11 PM +1100 17/11/2002, Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:
>"database" - you missed out the inverted commas. Because if you're referring
>to Access, or Excel, those two may be able to 'talk to' databases, but
>databases they are not (or should not be termed as such). And MS-SQL, while
>being based on a now-reasonable codebase (though to be honest, you have to
>wonder whether it would have been better for them to wait till now ;),
>has its own set of serious issues (cf: bugtraq).
>
>I don't think that *anybody* is prepared to run enterprise-level, mission-
>critical 'databases' on Excel. The number of corporates that will trust Access
>with similar levels of, well, trust :) is growing fewer. MS-SQL, well,
>I guess you'd need to be on Bugtraq to be aware of its faults (because MS
>sure as hell are not going to tell you).


Sigh. Why does everybody I assume I mean a damn MS database if I 
mention MS Windows?

No, I mean little numbers like DB2. I mean Oracle, I mean Sequent. 
The only MS database I'd run would be MS-SQL ... which is OK. I mean 
the ability to run Filemaker for small systems and LAn development. I 
mean being able to run little utlities like Database Design studio, 
and RAD development environments for the major database vendors (who 
typically have crappy RAD development environments) I mean being able 
to use a huge number of developer editions of major Web database 
application server packages.

Show me a LInux variant on which I can find the sheer number of 
database and database developer options and I'll look at it. But you 
won't. You'll point me at MySQL. At ZOPE. At PHP. They simply don't 
server my needs, and it's very likely that they won't serve any major 
enterprises needs.

That's what I mean by database support. Are we clear now?

>
>>  >>  I mean if that enemy doesn't have ANY technical strengths then  your
>>  >>  'war' seems to be a bit of a non-issue doesn't it? ... and you  may as
>>  >>  well say that the whole thing is just a PR or ideological
>>  >>  fight. It's also worked the other way. MS has sucked a lot of stuff
>
>I don't think that anyone could say otherwise (PR or idealogical fight).
>I don't think that you could say that it has *ever* been otherwise when you
>refer to MS. What the Linux folks need to learn from is OS/2 :)


Agreed. But I don't think they have. That is my point.

>
>One day, perhaps before it is too late, MS will actually listen to what
>'Knowledgeable Folks' (as opposed to Joe Punter) say about their software,
>and do something about it - but you can believe that it's going to be just
>about the time that 'KF' spends more on the MS software than 'JP'.
>
>Since 'JP' far outnumbers 'KF' that's going to be awhiles in the future, or
>perhaps never.

Trouble is JP buys the majority of systems. JP basically wants an 
application launcher with a fairly easy to use front end. He doesn't 
want a Gnome of KDE shell ... which can make dragging windows for 
example a real adventure on even some high end hardware. He wants all 
his applications to work with a consistent interface. He's not a 
geek, and if rebooting or running a copy of Nortons fixes most of his 
problems - that's OK by him. He doesn't want to mess at low level 
with the system. He just wants it to work. His memory about when a 
system crashes, or is hacked or whatever tends to be very short.  MS 
provides everything that JP wants. Linux doesn't.

						Regards,