No subject

and obvious reasons. Microsoft have tried to build and market a server
OS, and got one good enough to fool some of the suits, but not to actually
do the job. It's no surprise people are moving to Unix, or in some cases
back to Unix. 

The only susprise is that, it many cases, people see Linux as a viable
alternative to things like AIX, IRIX, Solaris and HP-UX. Those certainly
aren't perfect, but they're all solid products and they all have strong
organisations behind them, both support and marketing.

> Linux has gracefully earned a place at the low-end to
> mid range (now high-end with IBM) Unix market through quality, fast
> development/patch cycles and technical excellence - with cost being a
> secondary issue.  Cost no object, I am very professionally happy running low
> to medium volume web sites on Intel/Linux servers.
> 
> The real market that Linux has succeeded in was formerly occupied by SCO,
> Irix, HP/UX, AIX, etc.  Yes, that does not contribute to the populist
> counter-culture "slay the Redmond evil-doers" desire, but it is a valid,
> real, substantive accomplishment of note.

Yes, indeed. 

Also, it does contribute substantially to reducing Microsoft's expansion
schemes. Even if they have all the desktops, it doesn't follow that all
the customers will buy expensive 2000 or XP servers, not when products
like e-smith are available. Nor does it follow that Windows CE wil prosper
in the embedded world.