5 ms·

Linux on the desktop is still irrelevant (although I do love it, so it's been great for this consumer). But what fraction of the web wouldn't exist today if not

Linux on the desktop is still irrelevant (although I do love it, so it's been great for this consumer). But what fraction of the web wouldn't exist today if not for Linux servers and Apache? Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems?

mishmash 17y ago
No, you have a point about open systems in general, to which I agree wholeheartedly, I simply referring to consumer-facing devices. And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does.
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  The consumer doesn't have to want an open system. The importance is that they're there, keeping the others honest.
- papachito 17y ago
  > And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does. Not really, the thing is that MS has a monopoly on the desktop, hard to reverse that trend. Look at Apple, even with their billions of dollars in revenue, they only get 5% of the desktop, Linux is at 1-2% with $0 in campaigning, so not that bad really.
lurkinggrue 17y ago
The internet was based on open technologies and we wouldn't be where we are without that. Companies want to reverse that trend and close it up and we do need to fight that. We don't want the future to be AOL.
GHFigs 17y ago
Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems? I'm willing to say that consumers are better off because Linux and Apache are used in places where they are the best tool for the job. I am not convinced that being open is inherently the best thing for anybody. How much of the web wouldn't exist if not for people just trying to make a buck? Would Y Combinator?
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  Open systems and making a buck aren't mutually exclusive. See e.g. the MacBook.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    My point exactly.

mishmash 17y ago

No, you have a point about open systems in general, to which I agree wholeheartedly, I simply referring to consumer-facing devices. And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does.

JulianMorrison 17y ago
The consumer doesn't have to want an open system. The importance is that they're there, keeping the others honest.
papachito 17y ago
> And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does. Not really, the thing is that MS has a monopoly on the desktop, hard to reverse that trend. Look at Apple, even with their billions of dollars in revenue, they only get 5% of the desktop, Linux is at 1-2% with $0 in campaigning, so not that bad really.

lurkinggrue 17y ago

The internet was based on open technologies and we wouldn't be where we are without that. Companies want to reverse that trend and close it up and we do need to fight that. We don't want the future to be AOL.

GHFigs 17y ago

Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems? I'm willing to say that consumers are better off because Linux and Apache are used in places where they are the best tool for the job. I am not convinced that being open is inherently the best thing for anybody. How much of the web wouldn't exist if not for people just trying to make a buck? Would Y Combinator?

stanleydrew 17y ago
Open systems and making a buck aren't mutually exclusive. See e.g. the MacBook.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  My point exactly.