Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:55:41 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Wes Peters <softweyr@xmission.com> Cc: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Digital, Intel, Silicon Graphics (fwd) Message-ID: <19971009145541.15494@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199710090449.WAA01811@obie.softweyr.ml.org>; from Wes Peters on Wed, Oct 08, 1997 at 10:49:31PM -0600 References: <199710081200.VAA04024@word.smith.net.au> <199710081200.IAA17975@hda.hda.com> <199710090449.WAA01811@obie.softweyr.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 08, 1997 at 10:49:31PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote: > Peter Dufault writes: >> I did everyone a disservice by not providing background, and by >> taking one paragraph and forwarding it. What I noticed was that >> someone who generally knows what he is talking about in an informal >> setting (note - informal) is not considering the internet OS's. >> And it is the same across the board - I may read "Linux" in a New >> York Times article about "hackers" or "computer security experts >> with ponytails", but I'll never see it in a discussion of "Windows >> NT overtakes Unix". > > But, sir, his numbers don't jive with the report I forwarded here last > month, from a generally well-respected research firm, that indicated the > *total* UNIX marketplace currently as being something like *40 times* > the size of the *total* NT marketplace. Again, I agree with Mike: he > must *not* have done his research very carefully. *Soomebody* hasn't done their research carefully. How can we tell who it is? You'll recall that I doubted them at the time. For the record, I doubt the others too. The truth lies somewhere between, but there's so much between that neither report helps much. Back in 1982, I decided that I would write a free UNIX (what a crazy idea! At least, that's what people thought at the time). As you know, it didn't happen, and when I finally got to work with UNIX hardware (late 1986, 68020, System V.2), I was convinced that UNIX had had its day, and that the new, wonder replacement was Microsoft's OS/2. I took some convincing to see just how wrong I was. I think it was the biggest misjudgement I have ever made. >> The fact is that WNT will ship more than Unix if it hasn't already, >> I was just surprised that it had happened. > > Don't be surprised when you find out it hasn't happened, and that your > compatriots figures were, shall we say, fictitious. From whence does he > devine the total number of NT sales? I've never seen Microsoft release > those figures. Likewise with Solaris, SCO, HP-UX, AIX, et al. > > An article I spotted somewhere this summer suggested that by the end of > 1997, Linux will have overtaken MacOS as the second most installed OS in > the world, still staying well ahead of NT, or anything else. Sorry, I > have no idea where this article was, and no attribution for the > figures. It didn't surprise me nearly as much as your posting. It's funny, isn't it, just how few hard facts are known about these things, when you consider of what overwhelming importance they are to world business. >> Gates waved his hand a few days ago and announced that business >> users should now switch to NT, and that home computers should follow >> after W98. > > Apparently you didn't notice when he said the same thing in 1995. > Remember? Windows 95 is the operating system for homes, Windows NT is > the operating system for businesses of all sizes. The stated purpose of > the Win95 branding system requiring that your application also run on NT > was to ascertain a large number of 32-bit applications compatible with > NT, even though the vendors were intentionally making Win95 > applications. Amazing how little Win developers really know about their > own bread-and-butter. Does that surprise you? If they understood the situation, they wouldn't be there. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971009145541.15494>