Linux: Who got it right, who got it very wrong?

Who predicted Linux servers would outnumber Windows servers by 2006? Who said one in five enterprise desktops would be Linux-based by 2008? We look back at the bad (and good) predictions made about Linux over the past decade.

.

Analysts picked up on the possibilities of open source pretty early on, particularly its ability to unify the long-fragmented Unix market around a single, consistent platform. The persistent incompatibilities between Unix distributions, each of which had been used by vendors to preserve their enterprise market share, led to great enthusiasm for Linux as an alternative, which was both open and far more consistent.

Back in 2000, Forrester Research pegged the Linux market — based on server revenues — at US$1.5 billion, to grow to US$2.5 billion in 2002 and US$15 billion in 2007. A 2002 Giga Information Group report was entitled "Linux has gone mainstream: are you up to it?" and predicted Linux would overtake Windows as the leading operating system on new servers by 2006.

Proprietary Unix is stone-cold dead

Forrester analyst Ted Schadler

A 2003 survey of enterprise shopping lists let Forrester Research conclude that these predictions were on track: 72 percent of respondents, the firm reported, were planning to use more Linux systems in 2004, a quarter were replacing Windows servers with Linux systems.

In the survey, only 46 percent of customers were holding off purchasing because of perceived lack of enterprise support — a concern that started to evaporate as IBM and HP led the charge to embrace Linux shortly after.

Forrester analyst Ted Schadler was effusive in his praise, declaring that "proprietary Unix is stone-cold dead" and warning that "laggard [independent software vendors] will regret their go-slow approach to Linux".

This decade, the success of Linux has created an imperative for companies of all types to be seen as being involved in 'open source'.

Such early enthusiasm appears to have been poorly considered: IDC's latest Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker found that Windows still accounted for 36.6 percent of fourth-quarter 2007 server shipments, while Linux accounted for just 12.7 percent. Even Unix, so readily dismissed by Schadler, continues to post growth, with 33.3 percent of server spending and 1.5 percent growth from a year earlier.

While their assessment of Linux's eventual market share may have been wrong, predicting strong growth for Linux has been a sure bet.

Last month, IDC vice president of research Al Gillen confirmed analysts are still jumping over themselves with joy over Linux, noting that the market had actually reached US$21 billion by 2007 — far oustripping Forrester's 2003 prediction. He predicted the Linux server business would grow at 35.7 percent year-on-year to reach US$49 billion by 2011.

Trickle-on effect still a trickle
The phenomenal growth of Linux may have proven that open-source software has what it takes to run real-world businesses, but the way hasn't been so clear for other open-source products.

Standouts like the Apache Web server and Samba Windows interconnection application, have become nearly ubiquitous within corporate datacentres. The Firefox browser has also won strong support, as has the open-source Thunderbird mail client.

However, these are token victories that mainly offer new options for home users and small businesses. No other open-source application has enjoyed anywhere near the massive commercial success of Linux through its creation of an entire services and support ecosystem.

Instead, they have served as game-changers — motivators to encourage for-profit vendors like IBM and Microsoft to up their game and offer extra value in their respective products.

Indeed, this decade, the success of Linux has created an imperative for companies of all types to be seen as being involved in "open source" — with a similar imperative to that created by "greenwashing", where companies portray themselves as being environmentally friendly or carbon neutral. This wave of change has been even more significant than sheer adoption numbers, since it has even pushed Microsoft to make concessions to interoperability such as its recent Office Open XML file format standardisation.

This carry-on trend, which might rightly be termed "sourcewashing", has fostered some interesting benefits — for example, the move to open-source Java, IBM's open-source Eclipse integrated development environment, or Computer Associates' decision to breathe life into its once premium-branded Ingres database by releasing it free to the world in an open-source version.

Other tools, such as the JBoss application server or MySQL database, gained huge momentum that helped them stand out in the market and effectively eliminated demand for low-end, proprietary tools in many categories.

Nowhere is the gap between philosophical acceptance and actual adoption clearer than on the desktop.

Some open-source leaders, however, have still failed to make a big mark, particularly in application categories where larger enterprise companies have thrown millions of dollars in development funding such as business intelligence and customer relationship management (CRM).

In 2003, Forrester published a report entitled "open source collaboration platforms: give it five more years" — but now, five years later, the collaboration market is still dominated by the likes of Microsoft SharePoint Server and IBM's Lotus/Domino combination. Open-source Web 2.0-styled products, such as wiki servers, are certainly gaining in popularity — but their effect outside the firewall is far greater than inside.

A Forrester survey in 2005 of IT decision makers in Australia and New Zealand found that local businesses were still lagging North American counterparts in enthusiasm for open source.

In that survey, only 18 percent of firms were using Linux in production, and 82 percent respondents had no plans to adopt non-Linux open-source apps like Sugar CRM, the Open Workbench project management system, and the PostgreSQL database. Equally telling, only 10 percent of respondents were using or planning to use open-source software on the desktop, compared with 26 percent across the Asia-Pacific region.

A decade and a half after Linux appeared, it has succeeded in changing the terms of reference for the world's software producers.

The end of Microsoft? Hardly
Nowhere is the gap between philosophical acceptance and actual adoption clearer than on the desktop where — despite critical praise of recent Linux distributions such as Ubuntu and the backing of Sun for the OpenOffice productivity suite — Linux has still failed in its mission to supplant incumbent Microsoft and its Windows-Office dominance.

Early Linux-fuelled enthusiasm wouldn't have predicted the apathy the market has shown for the far lower-cost solutions offered by the open-source community. In late 2002, a Giga report projected that "the arrival of attractively priced competing office suites combined with dissatisfaction with current Microsoft licensing plans will create upwards of a five percent market share loss" for Microsoft.

Betting against Microsoft in any industry has always been a bad idea. In a March Forrester presentation, Giga's optimism proved misplaced: "The lack of a viable, enterprise-ready alternative to Microsoft Office — particularly an alternative to Outlook — will keep Microsoft firmly planted in the enterprise for the foreseeable future," Forrester concluded.

Ditto the desktop, where Windows continues to reign supreme. In 2004, IDC predicted that growing Linux adoption would push the operating system from three percent market share to seven percent by 2008, with sales of PCs running Linux to hit US$10 billion. Even those figures paled compared to the predictions of Siemens Business Systems, which in 2003 predicted that Linux would have captured 20 percent of the enterprise desktop market by 2008.

It is now 2008, and Windows is still the dominant operating system; if anything, Mac OS X has supplanted Linux as the alternative desktop of choice. Linux is out there, but erratically: it runs, for example, on ASUS's popular Eee mini-notebook PC and in March was chosen by IBM for low-cost PCs to be shipped to customers in Eastern Europe. Despite a few isolated purchases, however, desktop PC purchases are still all about Windows.

Open source as a force for change
A decade and a half after Linux appeared, it has succeeded in changing the terms of reference for the world's software producers. IDC believes the services and software ecosystem around Linux will grow from US$18 billion in 2006 to be worth over US$40 billion by 2010.

Open-source software, once derided as the unsupportable and unreliable work of hobbyists, has secured itself a place at the table of many a large enterprise, although in ways that were different than many expected even five years ago.

By promoting a culture of transparency and forcing independent software vendors and service providers to add value in new ways, open source can be lauded for shaking up an industry that was ripe for a change. Instead of thinking in terms of market domination and customer lock-in, the industry is now prepared to work for its lunch — and to respect the customers' desire for a better option, whether it's open source or otherwise.

Talkback

Thank you

As a citizen of the United States I wish to thank the countries of Australia and New Zealand for transferring large amounts of your national currency to Microsoft. As an American corporation, Microsoft contributes significant revenue to our Federal Government. That revenue was used in our invasion of and subsequent occupation of Iraq. To this day your dollars continue subsidize this effort. President George Bush would thank you himself but he has finally made the connection that the less he says, the better off he is.

Richard ChapmanRichard Chapman May 15th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

All roads lead to tax ...

So instead you propose placing that currency in the hands of Sun, IBM, HP .... oops - no real alternative [again]. I know lets all build our own free version - a new prediction for 2009 perhaps.

C stutleyC stutley May 15th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

Free Version

There already is a "Free Version" of UNIX - The GNU Operating System. It could be the answer everyone is looking for. Linux, because it is effectively owned by IBM, due to its massive $1 billion investment in it in 1999, is (and will always be) devoted to the corporation. There is nothing wrong with that. But a viable and truly free alternative to Microsoft can be created thru the GNU project.

Russ JamesRuss James May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

Nope, VERY wrong

Russ, although IBM donates resources (hosting, developers, money) to GNU/Linux (yes, G N U/Linux), they don't own it. No single person or entity OWNS Linux and cannot, therefore, claim sole control and beneficiary of it.

In fact, MANY companies benefit from GNU/Linux, hence, they benefit from the work some of their competitors did in improving the kernel and surrounding software. Also, there are other contributors that you miserably fail to realize, like Red Hat, contribute just as much or more than IBM. I think IBM sticks out in your head because they were then the only "proprietary" company that decided to make a big investment in GNU/Linux.

Last point, you mention "The GNU Operating System." Ummm, unless you mean GNU/Herd, an unrefined kernel, there really isn't such a beast. In fact, GNU's page "GNU Operating System" states it wasn't completed so GNU uses the Linux kernel. They have a list of sufficiently-Free distros to pick from - no proprietary stuff.

Better luck next time trying to drive some wedge where it doesn't belong. ;)

TKTK May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

RE: Free Version

Sorry, TK, but you clearly do not understand how the Free/Open Source Software world works.

IBM does not donate to the GNU Project - or the Free Software Foundation for that matter. It is philosophically opposed to both groups. That is why it and other industry players developed the term "Open Source."

As I correctly stated in my first post: IBM "effectively" owns Linux. The keyword being "effectively." Through their (and other corporate players) control of the industry trade group called the Linux Foundation they control the development of the kernel. Linus is an employee of that industry trade group. Effectively making him an employee of IBM and the other big players. As I said before there is nothing wrong with this. However, corporations have a set of needs, desires, and goals that are very different from (and frequently run counter to) those of home and small business users. The kernel Linux will always be developed in a way that advances industry goals.

IBM "sticks out in my head" (as you put it) because they are by far the largest financial backer of the kernel, Linux.

As to the GNU Operating System, again you are wrong, not only does the GNU Operating System exist, but there is no such thing as the "Linux Operating System." Linux is simply a GPL'd Unixoid kernel. A kernel in turn is only one small (albeit, important) component of an operating system.

While you are right, the "kernel" to GNU is unrefined, that is all the more reason that people should be helping to develop it.

In your last line, your paranoia seems to have gotten the best of you. No one is trying to drive a wedge anywhere. I'm just pointing out the obvious - namely, that the GNU system would be a much better choice for the desktop than Linux.

Russ JamesRuss James May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

RE: Free Version

Sorry, TK, but you clearly do not understand how the Free/Open Source Software world works.

IBM does not donate to the GNU Project - or the Free Software Foundation for that matter. It is philosophically opposed to both groups. That is why it and other industry players developed the term "Open Source."

As I correctly stated in my first post: IBM "effectively" owns Linux. The keyword being "effectively." Through their (and other corporate players) control of the industry trade group called the Linux Foundation they control the development of the kernel. Linus is an employee of that industry trade group. Effectively making him an employee of IBM and the other big players. As I said before there is nothing wrong with this. However, corporations have a set of needs, desires, and goals that are very different from (and frequently run counter to) those of home and small business users. The kernel Linux will always be developed in a way that advances industry goals.

IBM "sticks out in my head" (as you put it) because they are by far the largest financial backer of the kernel, Linux.

As to the GNU Operating System, again you are wrong, not only does the GNU Operating System exist, but there is no such thing as the "Linux Operating System." Linux is simply a GPL'd Unixoid kernel. A kernel in turn is only one small (albeit, important) component of an operating system.

While you are right, the "kernel" to GNU is unrefined, that is all the more reason that people should be helping to develop it.

In your last line, your paranoia seems to have gotten the best of you. No one is trying to drive a wedge anywhere. I'm just pointing out the obvious - namely, that the GNU system would be a much better choice for the desktop than Linux.

Russ JamesRuss James May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

Nope, VERY wrong

Russ, although IBM donates resources (hosting, developers, money) to GNU/Linux (yes, G N U/Linux), they don't own it. No single person or entity OWNS Linux and cannot, therefore, claim sole control and beneficiary of it.

In fact, MANY companies benefit from GNU/Linux, hence, they benefit from the work some of their competitors did in improving the kernel and surrounding software. Also, there are other contributors that you miserably fail to realize, like Red Hat, contribute just as much or more than IBM. I think IBM sticks out in your head because they were then the only "proprietary" company that decided to make a big investment in GNU/Linux.

Last point, you mention "The GNU Operating System." Ummm, unless you mean GNU/Herd, an unrefined kernel, there really isn't such a beast. In fact, GNU's page "GNU Operating System" states it wasn't completed so GNU uses the Linux kernel. They have a list of sufficiently-Free distros to pick from - no proprietary stuff.

Better luck next time trying to drive some wedge where it doesn't belong. ;)

TKTK May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

RE: Free Version

Sorry, TK, but you clearly do not understand how the Free/Open Source Software world works.

IBM does not donate to the GNU Project - or the Free Software Foundation for that matter. It is philosophically opposed to both groups. That is why it and other industry players developed the term "Open Source."

As I correctly stated in my first post: IBM "effectively" owns Linux. The keyword being "effectively." Through their (and other corporate players) control of the industry trade group called the Linux Foundation they control the development of the kernel. Linus is an employee of that industry trade group. Effectively making him an employee of IBM and the other big players. As I said before there is nothing wrong with this. However, corporations have a set of needs, desires, and goals that are very different from (and frequently run counter to) those of home and small business users. The kernel Linux will always be developed in a way that advances industry goals.

IBM "sticks out in my head" (as you put it) because they are by far the largest financial backer of the kernel, Linux.

As to the GNU Operating System, again you are wrong, not only does the GNU Operating System exist, but there is no such thing as the "Linux Operating System." Linux is simply a GPL'd Unixoid kernel. A kernel in turn is only one small (albeit, important) component of an operating system.

While you are right, the "kernel" to GNU is unrefined, that is all the more reason that people should be helping to develop it.

In your last line, your paranoia seems to have gotten the best of you. No one is trying to drive a wedge anywhere. I'm just pointing out the obvious - namely, that the GNU system would be a much better choice for the desktop than Linux.

Russ JamesRuss James May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

Free Version

There already is a "Free Version" of UNIX - The GNU Operating System. It could be the answer everyone is looking for. Linux, because it is effectively owned by IBM, due to its massive $1 billion investment in it in 1999, is (and will always be) devoted to the corporation. There is nothing wrong with that. But a viable and truly free alternative to Microsoft can be created thru the GNU project.

Russ JamesRuss James May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

Nope, VERY wrong

Russ, although IBM donates resources (hosting, developers, money) to GNU/Linux (yes, G N U/Linux), they don't own it. No single person or entity OWNS Linux and cannot, therefore, claim sole control and beneficiary of it.

In fact, MANY companies benefit from GNU/Linux, hence, they benefit from the work some of their competitors did in improving the kernel and surrounding software. Also, there are other contributors that you miserably fail to realize, like Red Hat, contribute just as much or more than IBM. I think IBM sticks out in your head because they were then the only "proprietary" company that decided to make a big investment in GNU/Linux.

Last point, you mention "The GNU Operating System." Ummm, unless you mean GNU/Herd, an unrefined kernel, there really isn't such a beast. In fact, GNU's page "GNU Operating System" states it wasn't completed so GNU uses the Linux kernel. They have a list of sufficiently-Free distros to pick from - no proprietary stuff.

Better luck next time trying to drive some wedge where it doesn't belong. ;)

TKTK May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

RE: Thank You

So what you are saying is that anyone that wasn't for the war should stop support M$ asap and switch completely over to free software :)

Stephen ShawStephen Shaw May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)

RE: Free Version

Sorry, TK, but you clearly do not understand how the Free/Open Source Software world works.

IBM does not donate to the GNU Project - or the Free Software Foundation for that matter. It is philosophically opposed to both groups. That is why it and other industry players developed the term "Open Source."

As I correctly stated in my first post: IBM "effectively" owns Linux. The keyword being "effectively." Through their (and other corporate players) control of the industry trade group called the Linux Foundation they control the development of the kernel. Linus is an employee of that industry trade group. Effectively making him an employee of IBM and the other big players. As I said before there is nothing wrong with this. However, corporations have a set of needs, desires, and goals that are very different from (and frequently run counter to) those of home and small business users. The kernel Linux will always be developed in a way that advances industry goals.

IBM "sticks out in my head" (as you put it) because they are by far the largest financial backer of the kernel, Linux.

As to the GNU Operating System, again you are wrong, not only does the GNU Operating System exist, but there is no such thing as the "Linux Operating System." Linux is simply a GPL'd Unixoid kernel. A kernel in turn is only one small (albeit, important) component of an operating system.

While you are right, the "kernel" to GNU is unrefined, that is all the more reason that people should be helping to develop it.

In your last line, your paranoia seems to have gotten the best of you. No one is trying to drive a wedge anywhere. I'm just pointing out the obvious - namely, that the GNU system would be a much better choice for the desktop than Linux.

Russ JamesRuss James May 16th, 2008
Report offensive content Reply (0) (0)
Add your opinion

In order to post a comment, you need to be registered. (Sign In or register below)

Post your comment

Terms of Service - As a ZDNet registrant, and by using this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understand our Privacy Policy.

ZDNet Australia Live

Can HP bounce back?: HP's move to cut 27,000 jobs, reinvest in research and development (R&D) and generally get ... http://t.co/y2ajlh9V

Three tips for businesses to support connected customers: While the connected home offers benefits to the consum... http://t.co/psgHJelD

#Agedcare 30 servers to 7: BUPA redoes virtualisation: Most IT teams spend 90 per cent of today making sure that... http://t.co/HmVXHRQ7

[plug] #NBN cost-benefit analyses are so 2011 http://t.co/2mRUKI8G @TurnbullMalcolm has forgotten his CBA; sh/would he still do one? #zdnet

Can HP bounce back? http://t.co/LlAUcyYP

Who is Luke Hartsuyker? He must be the Apprentice FUDster. As PaulPC has already said regional consumers want, deserve and are entitled...

15 minutes ago by dickster on Regional review highlights NBN, mobile

Three tips for businesses to support connected customers http://t.co/W7Sr3RpD

by http://t.co/vmlLt4bh: Did RIM shelve plans to license BBM?: Research In Motion (RIM) had considered licensing ... http://t.co/z6VlO472

Did RIM shelve plans to license BBM? - ZDNet Australia http://t.co/j042NNOM

Did RIM shelve plans to license BBM? - ZDNet Australia http://t.co/qMNEifi1

Its good to see the NBN keeping up with the latest equipement & letting the people benefit from it. After all thats why it was a trial, ...

34 minutes ago by fibretech on NBN's Tassie upgrade to cost $1.3 million

#Google TV will revolutionize television once viewers understand it http://t.co/Pmie5zEC http://t.co/2GN4qz9j http://t.co/j3wf6jEF

RT @zdnetaustralia: NBN Co will spend $1.3 million upgrading some 700 network terminating units in Tasmania. http://t.co/6GWYMcZQ

Did RIM shelve plans to license BBM?: Research In Motion (RIM) had considered licensing BlackBerry Messenger (BB... http://t.co/G13GBXl4

Did RIM shelve plans to license BBM? http://t.co/KKPZVPOr

Did RIM shelve plans to license BBM? http://t.co/1AutUH8l

Are college students dependent on technology? http://t.co/4p3v9PZ9 via @ZDNet

30 servers to 7: BUPA redoes virtualisation http://t.co/dOR009Te

Govt urges telcos to team up against NBN Co http://t.co/Sn7pMhew

NBN's Tassie upgrade to cost $1.3 million http://t.co/iDlBr20I

Govt urges telcos to team up against NBN Co: The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Di... http://t.co/YVVOyRWA #suretelecom

by http://t.co/vmlLt4bh: NBN's Tassie upgrade to cost $1.3 million: NBN Co will spend $1.3 million on replacing o... http://t.co/FwL9gNKF

NBN's Tassie upgrade to cost $1.3 million: NBN Co will spend $1.3 million on replacing outdated network technolo... http://t.co/sIP3aI5l

RT @zdnetaustralia: Google found itself embroiled in a vicious tax debate this week. Serves it right? http://t.co/Ga14Yg6x ^ST

NBN's Tassie upgrade to cost $1.3 million: NBN Co will spend $1.3 million on replacing outdated network technolo... http://t.co/JYdFJbxj

NBN Co will spend $1.3 million upgrading some 700 network terminating units in Tasmania. http://t.co/6GWYMcZQ

30 servers to 7: BUPA redoes virtualisation: Most IT teams spend 90 per cent of today making sure that tomorrow ... http://t.co/XUeMXUbH

30 servers to 7: BUPA redoes virtualisation - ZDNet Australia http://t.co/PH4wzSvv

BUPA Aged Care CIO redoes virtualisation, achieves 30 servers to 7 http://t.co/apg5lb81 ^ST

30 servers to 7: BUPA redoes virtualisation: Most IT teams spend 90 per cent of today making sure that tomorrow ... http://t.co/a8M45uUs

Government urges telcos to team up with Telstra in negotiations with NBN Co http://t.co/TRCxJBxq ^jt

RT @zdnetaustralia: Government urges telcos to team up with Telstra in negotiations with NBN Co http://t.co/TRCxJBxq ^jt

An iPad for every child: Inevitable or impossible? http://t.co/I7uS8l9s Thx to @timbuckteeth for this; http://t.co/jxkqIRIp

Shadow Minister for Regional Communications Luke Hartsuyker has got it wrong. Regional consumers want improved mobile services AND the NB...

1 hour ago by PaulPC on Regional review highlights NBN, mobile

RT @zdnetaustralia: Privacy Act amendments designed to strengthen Commissioner's bite hit Parliament: http://t.co/j5z9Doeo ^LH

Adaptive framework a mobile failure? Not quite, here's why http://t.co/nGRGHUNU

Oracle v. Google: Winners and losers http://t.co/UlTYfO05 #in

Telstra Game Center Leak, 35K users compromised, forces password change. Story thanks to @mukimu http://t.co/v3icqIMn

Just remember that Google haven't broken any laws here, they're just doing what all their other multinational competitiors do; minimise t...

1 hour ago by Pachanga on Much ado about Google's tax

ルイヴィトン バッグ : http://www.lovebagjp.com/ Louis Vuitton bags, Louis Vuitton pretension nose about,Louis Vuitton daydre...

2 hours ago by bundLourb on Reservoir blogs: Fan fakes Tarantino diary

シャネル バッグ : http://www.bagssalejp.org/ Chanel trap,chanel shekels,gucci bags,direct purse,poor recent Louis Vuitton keep...

4 hours ago by bybrinkLync on Reservoir blogs: Fan fakes Tarantino diary

I guess but in both cases, dead body!

14 hours ago by Doubt on National Botnet Network coming: Earthwave

I think it's for the very reasons you mention in your first paragraph that there is no CBA. With the ideological differences and vested ...

14 hours ago by RealismBias on NBN cost-benefit analyses are so 2011

Good points; but how do you establish consensus about the terms of reference of a cost-benefit analysis? What is to be included? How far ...

14 hours ago by Gwyntaglaw on NBN cost-benefit analyses are so 2011

I live in a small country town & have done since 2002. When I got to this town it had no mobile phone & no broadband. The only reason w...

15 hours ago by fibretech on Regional review highlights NBN, mobile

Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it is really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I...

15 hours ago by Uttedsips on Fujitsu Stylistic ST5011

Like most things in life, the devil is in the details. If a cost benefit analysis included a societal element, I'm certain nobody on eit...

15 hours ago by RealismBias on NBN cost-benefit analyses are so 2011

The coalition has done nothing else but keep changing their view over the last 2 years. -first it was "there is nothing wrong with the ...

16 hours ago by djz on NBN cost-benefit analyses are so 2011

Use the force Luke... FFS

16 hours ago by Beta on Regional review highlights NBN, mobile

michael kors outlet http://www.michael-kors-discount.com/#5923

16 hours ago by michael kors bag on Best iPhone travel apps

Hey butterflyeffecs and lex, Sorry you're not fans of this piece. But you're dead right in that it is the thoughts and experience of a se...

16 hours ago by LHopewell on Android fragmentation steers Vic Health

teen cams
http://www.aloe-vera.cz handjob

16 hours ago by MyncWenry on Fusion-io ioDrive (80GB)

We have fashional replica bags designer .Replica luxury bags sale here are perfect compromise of quality and price. The replica handbags ...

16 hours ago by Machelle on Telecom NZ CEO Paul Reynolds to leave

It's not a question of whether anyone at HSU would know how to do this, but whether they would have connections with people who could. T...

16 hours ago by meski on CT, phone clone

Fred, I can tell you what the difference between FTTN and FTTH is. FTTH means we will be developing technology and services that we sell ...

16 hours ago by andye on NBN FUD: will Abbott ever learn?

This story has been voted 12000 times in the last 24 hours!

19 hours ago, Is Bill Gates a great leader?

This story has been voted 10 times in the last 24 hours!

2 days ago, CeBIT 2012 opens: photos

This story has been voted 15 times in the last 24 hours!

2 days ago, Lenovo ThinkPad 3G tablet (32GB)

Facebook Activity

Keep up with ZDNet Australia

ZDNet Events Calendar

ZDNet Events Calendar