Take a look at some Gates comments on Linux and Windows.
There are two versions of the story, from different sources.

Gates undaunted by linux

Gates: In ten years it's a windows and linux game

Do we really want our IT infrastructure run by a cut-down crew of admins who couldn't even copy a file without a GUI? So much for windows' primary "software value".

"On ITManagerJournal's question about how Microsoft is going to compete with the 50% Linux sales on new servers, Gates replied that 'my numbers are different, depending where you are getting them'"

So if i paid for a poll too, could i not also get the people running the pole to come up with a answer that fits what i wanted? windows sells more servers? if buying the numbers you want lets you sleep at night gates, go ahead, just don't lie about it.

"He said that a few years ago Hong Kong, China or Taiwan were not big Windows buyers, but now, as their economy & business sectors evolve, they are catching up with Windows orders made in the US."

where is he getting this from? its hard for me to believe that a poor nation would go "oh, let me go spend 50 bucks for something i already have and that i got for free and can still get for free"

check the article here: http://www.linuxquestions.org/news/linux242792.html

China has already announced that they're going to start instituting their own Linux distro, called "Red Flag." Besides being scary, its also a move to reduce dependence on imported software. So yes, that's what they're doing.

yes,
i think it is!

The arrogancy of Gates' saying MS has seen other competitors, implying they'll outlive Linux just as easily.. Brrrr!!

say what you will, but he is dead on in this quote:

it will be the software and always has been the availablity of more software to do more then the price of the OS or the hardware. windows proved that va apple back when both were starting. apple had a small handful of applications and windows (IBM PCs back then dos world) had hundreds of applications.

this is what linux needs is a wider range of usable applications that are 'mainstream' so to speak. yes linux has openoffice and firefox, but only firefox is known about due to the fubar with IE over the past year.

go out and grab 100 people off of the streat and ask them if they have ever heard of OpenOffice, then ask if they have hear of Microsoft Office... i would be willing to bet that 99 of 100 will of heard of MS Office, but maybe 1 o 2 out of 100 would of heard of OO.

marketing is a large key to linux that is MISSING IMHO.

i see it being windows Linux in under 10 years, but bill is not stupid, greedy, and power hungry without a doubt, but not stupid.

No - he's not stupid. He's an excellent marketer... That man could sell saltwater to the atlantic. But I do think the quote was off... Linux software needs little maintenance as well... I haven't tweaked a thing in weeks.

I agree and nor am I calling Gates an offender of any sort, however I do feel that when Linux reaches the stage whereby any average PC user can handle the system with ease and has the relevant applications to choose from "free" will become instantaneously more interesting than Gates'"software value", especially if you consider today's widespread threats to any Windows bases system taking ages to be handled and only to be succeeded by a next.

And as for software availability to make a product (Open Source or commercial) interesting enough, are we really waiting for a dozen packages that do the same thing? No, because if so not everyone would be using Nero to burn their CD's and Winamp to play their MP3's.

And that same value pretention is easily tackled with the same arguement mentioned above ; one security leak after another, Win always clogging up and dragging its feet in due time not to mention issues such as HDD fragmenting and all this is supposed to go under the name of "little maintenance"? I'm not familiar enough with Linux bases systems to properly judge the maintenance aspect just yet, but as far as I can tell today's Linux system, once installed, really does require little to no maintenance at all. Again, I'm new at Linux so don't shoot me on this one.

I feel the only thing Gates has undoubtedly proven that a medeocre product can be sold to the masses, just as long as you make enough noise about it (aka marketing).

The huge success of Firefox is a clear example: the threshold for migration has been lowered for IE users to such an extent people gladly will to ensure their online safety. My guess is that migrating to Linux is a bit too much to ask still for the average computer user.

One can only hope the Linux market will continue to be what it is today or larger even and without the Microsoft influence whispered about in the corridors these days :-/

Sorry if I went a bit offtopic btw...

That's indeed the great achievement of M$

Certainly migrating from IE to Firefox is fairly easy, and yet average users get stuck sometimes. I totally agree that migrating from Windows to Linux is a lot more of a chalenge for the same average user; and even when they manage to migrate succesfully, they get stuck with the software availability problem. Softwares like NERO, Winamp, Encarta, and for developers, Dreamweaver, VS.NET and Crystal Reports, just to mention a few, are just not available, and presumed substitute packages are not always at the same level of usability and productivity.

When I support Linux I support most of all, the CHOICE of having different OS'es, not just the open (read GNU) nature of it. I will gladly receive into the linux world commercial propietary ports of these softwares, because, sad as it may be, the GNU developers community is not enough to provide all the software needed for a widespread use of GNU/Linux. Examples of this are Kylix (Delphi) and VMware, which have been ported by their respective providers (Borland and VMware) and no other GNU products is ready to substitue them, IMHO. I will also happily receive Microsoft products like some of the ones mentioned above, although this is not likely to happen.

Again, I stayed a little bit off topic along with DJ_Gahan, but anyway, we are debating here.

How good or bad a software package is is totally based off someones opinion. If the answer was so clear cut there would never be any debate. Microsoft as well as Unix and Linux companies will all try and market their product like its the best. You don't market by saying how bad your product is and you are certainly not going to be willing to give up anything that might suggest so. I find it funny how people say "MS is lying Linux is more stable or blah blah blah blah" well duuuuuuuuuh they aren't going to say what you want them to say.

They will all make their software what they feel people want and what we can hope for is that its this drive that continues to push innovative software. Frankly I find Windows 2000/XP extremely stable. This would have never happened if Unix hadn;t put pressure on the business market and force MS to devolp Windows NT. Linux would still be all raw command line today most likely if it was for the pressure to create a more user friendly OS to compete with MS Windows.

Hardware is also an issue. Most new PCs come with a software modem. A hardware modem is an extra buy, not easy to find and usually more expensive than a software modem. For the averge user this is more of an obstacle.

Vijay

This is a common misperception. The dominance of Microsoft is based on a number of coincidences - the most important being the reverse-engineering of IBM's Bios. That made the PC-Standard. As a result, Microsoft got carried into everybody's home - riding on the wave of sicking hardware costs.

If, for example, Apple would have opened its hardware specification early enought, and concentrated on being an OS vendor, things would look completely different today.

as for Gates, he can shove Win XP clear up his ass cause I run that on my mom's and there so many programs that WIndows runs in the background that I can't stop all of them or the computer won't run. Also there is a lot of spyware that attack my mom's machine a lot, but I can't get rid of it all. I like Office, it's a great program, but WIndows has started to suck since Win 98. I also like Linux a lot better cause it's taking me less time to learn it's basics than Windows, also is much more stable, with lots of user help.

dar