I think the letter is not true but it brings up good points...

http://linux.com/newsitem.phtml?sid=1&aid=11143

A very nice satire piece though :)

Its kind of like the news notice that windows was releasing its own version of linux.

To be honest I can agree with some of the point made in that article, the software industry is worth billions and billions and isn't about to be funded by support contracts. Eventually you will have to pay for Linux, and when big software providers switch to Linux you will have to pay for that too, no one can realistic work for free, especially on such complexed projects. I love Linux for a server environment, but still use Microsoft because it's *good* for the desktop, have tried Linux but I prefer the extra choice of application for windows even though it may not be as stable.

I think there will be enough dist. out there of linux that youll always be able to pick one up for free, but if you think about it you do pay for linux now, walk into any store and the shelves are lined with linux dist. that cost 40-60.00 retail.

The letter is clearly fiction. While there amy be some truth to some of the comparisons between Linux and Windows, there are also some falsehoods stated, as well as other facts omitted.

Linux is free. Support for it, however, is not. That's one of the differences betweeen getting it for $3-$4 on a CD-ROM and purchasing it for $60-$70 (or more). Support packages are included in the higher priced boxed editions.

Microsoft cannot develop their own version of Linux. For one thing, Linux is controlled by its creator, Linus Torvalds. For another, Linux is an operating system reverse engineered to be compatible with Unix, a licensed operating system.

Microsoft could develop their own version of Unix, but why would they want to? It would clearly contradict their goal of establishing Windows further on servers and they offer no products to support it.

One thing the article omits is the lengthy list of enemies Microsoft and Bill Gates have made io the last several years. Many of them help support Linux simply because it can free them (and users) from Windows, at least to some extent.

As Linux improves, it will likely rise in popularity rather than decline. It needs much improvement in the installation process and driver support for peripherals. Windows still has a big lead in those areas, but it is a lead that is constantly diminishing.

What will happen in the future is anyone's guess. It will be interesting, though.

Originally posted by Duster
Microsoft could develop their own version of Unix, but why would they want to?

Actually, if I recall correctly, Microsoft did develop their own version of Unix, called Xenix (If I remember correctly). They however sold it to SCO in the 80's and now this Unix is known as SCO Unix.

(correct me if I'm wrong...)

Your memory is correct. In 1979, Microsoft licensed UNIX from AT&T and announced XENIX. They soon dropped it for MS-DOS (which clearly shows UNIX roots).

The next year (1980) SCO became a distributor for Microsoft XENIX and licensed the name XENIX.

The IBM PC was released in 1981 running Microsoft DOS and XENIX is pushed into the background at Microsoft.

AT&T announced official support in 1982 for UNIX and made its first commercial release: UNIX System III.

The following year, 1983, Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) delivered the first packaged UNIX System (called SCO® XENIX® System V) for Intel® 8086 and 8088 processor-based PCs. It provides small businesses with the first affordable business-critical computing system.


Some of this information is drawn from a timeline of computing at http://www.dimi.uniud.it/~miculan/Didattica/unix-history.html

Since Microsoft dropped its own version of UNIX early in its history, long before GUIs came to market and it made a deep committment to Windowsm it seems highly unlikely it would change course and go back 20 years.