Which
companies stand behind Linux today? I mean really stand behind
it, and not just give it lip service? It's companies such as
Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell and Oracle. We're talking the who's who of
American technology vendors.
No mention of Sun? Why not? I think Sun qualifies as a "who's who of American technology vendors," don't you? And who are these nameless companies giving Linux "lip service?" Name them. Why are we left to speculate and parse these cheap rhetorical tricks? I think the implication -- and the bias -- is clear. More from Mr. Vaughan-Nichols:
Who's
using Linux? Everybody. Small companies, Fortune 50 enterprises,
nonprofits, governments. Everybody.
Everybody? That little startup in Redmond may have a thing or two to say about that. I get the point, though, that Linux growth is great. But everybody? Why go to that extreme? Seems pretty pejorative to those who may choose another system for perfectly legitimate business or technical reasons. Then there's this:
Looking
ahead to 2005, I only see this trend continuing. The older
Unixes are going to continue their decline. Yes, Sun will do its
darndest to slow that down with Solaris 10, but it'll do as well as I
did in ordering the ocean not to wash away my sand castle when I was a
kid.
Again with the absolute extremism. If we presume that the ocean did, indeed, wash away Mr. Vaughan-Nichols' sand castle when he was a kid -- despite his direct orders -- then we are left to conclude that Solaris will also be washed away by the ocean, or in this case, Linux. Despite our "darndest" efforts, though. Yet we sell Linux on our systems. And we sell Solaris on our systems, too. But Solaris, for some reason, will not survive this? Perhaps it's because Solaris is an "older" Unix, as Mr. Vaughan-Nichols suggests, and, therefore, is doomed to failure. Solaris will die, in other words, not just "decline," according to this analogy because remember that the ocean washed away and presumably killed Mr. Vaughan-Nichols' sand castle. Amazing. And what's up with this "old" bit, too. I mean, the stuff in Solaris 10 wasn't all written in the Summer of Love. And the guys writing this code seem significantly younger than Mr. Vaughan-Nichols.
I must admit. I don't get this extremest, absolutist thinking. And I don't get putting down Linux's Unix cousin simply to make the legitimate point that Linux had a good year. I don't put down my cousins. Do you?
