Sorry
Darkheart, I posted that one at work and didn't have the time to rebutt more of your points.
First of all, modified Linux source code (by the so-called "ameuters") does not automatically gaurantee that it will be incorporated into the next kernel release. It's passed among the hands of thousands of programmers who scrutinize it, test it, and modify it where necessary. If enough people positively view this addition it will later appear in the next release.
Microsoft does have a number of professional engineers working for them. But this number is dwarfed when compared to the tens of thousands that develop in the open source community who develop for the kernel alone, not the tools (which raises another point). Strip away everything that is not part of the actual operating system (notepad, games, IE, DirectX, Media Player, the fancy graphics, the sounds, Paintshop, etc...). Just because they come in a box labeled "operating system" does not make them part of the OS. They are tools. From "Microsoft's top 10 reasons to move to Windows 2000" -
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/gu ... pgrade.asp
Of those, how many are related to kernel imporvements?
#1. Value? No (besides, Linux is the best value)
#2. Reliability? Yes
#3. Mobility? No
#4. Managability? Could be. But again they only sell the tools. "Windows 2000 Professional is easier to deploy, manage, and support. Centralized management utilities, troubleshooting tools...." Therefore, No.
#5. Performance? Yes
#6. Security? Yes
#7. Internet? No
#8. Usability? No
#9. Data Access? Should be. But they only mention the tools. See here, "IntelliMirror lets you work on any computer attached to your network as if you are at your own desk". I don't care. Tell me what's been done to the kernel to improve data access?
#10. Hardware? Yes.
Of 10 points to use Windows 2000, 6 of them are directing your attention towards their tools. Tools are not part of an operating system's kernel. They are peripheral accessories designed to make things easier. Do you see what they are doing? They add lots of fancy tools, improve the GUI, add prettier sounds and flashier graphics, and call it their next OS release. But what's been done to improve the kernel? What has MS done to assure that the next OS I purchase will not give me the BSOD, will not drain my main memory until I'm forced to resart, will protect my private data from hack attempts, will run faster, and will run for longer periods of time? Nobody outside Micrsoft can answer these questions. It's propietary knowledge but it affects my life every time I sit down before my computer. I want to know these things, and only open source can provide me with that information. It's information that assures me that improvements are being made to the kernel, not just the surrounding tools. Do you get excited every time you hear the Windows startup sound, see the fancy wallpaper load, conveniently open IE and then browse your C:\ drive from within IE? Then you're getting excited over the tools, not the OS. And that's just the way MS wants to keep it.
Finally
Splitfire, there is no manufacturing in software development. The code you develop
IS the final product. There is nowhere for a solid engineering design to break-down during manufacturing when all you need to do is compile your code and burn it to a CD. Whereas in the automotive industry, good manufacturing practices are key.
I hate to re-visit this point but since I appear to be the only one here who actually works in an engineering environment, I must.
It's all about the money. Firestone knew about their tire problem before the public was made aware of it. What kept them from starting an immediate nationwide recall? The money. They originally attempted to see if the whole fiasco would just blow over because they knew if it didn't, they would lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Any private corporation probably would have done just the same. You think the engineers at Microsoft don't see the same problems we do? You'd be insane to think otherwise. But it's not in their hands. Somewhere at the Redmond campus a manager is looking over a bunch of numbers, trying to weigh the cost in dollars of having this engineering problem corrected. They must also decide if it's even worth fixing in the first place. You see, within the open source community, none of this bureaucracy takes place. Every problem gets fixed regardless of the additional time required or the number of people it will effect. Hence, the one-year delay in 2.4.0
Sun Microsytems uses Solaris systems almost exclusively. Digital Domain (the graphics company behind most James Cameron films) works on DEC Alpha machines running Linux. See this web site for a VERY long list of other companies using Linux in their day-to-day business operations -
http://www.m-tech.ab.ca/linux-biz/
Last thing for
Darkheart. The reason I know someone CAN land a $70k job from just casually playing around with Linux at home is because my roomate did just that. He had lots of networking/computing experience with Windows boxes. He noticed a trend here in the bay area. Those with UNIX/Linux experience are better paid. So he installed Linux on an old box. His first challenge was to make it into a DSL router. He found the resources on the net and had the thing working in a couple days. A couple more months and a couple more projects down the road, he now works as a Linux sys admin for a start-up company in San Francisco.
