Slashdot Mirror
Halloween Document Revisited
GroundBounce writes: "The front page of LWN has an interesting three-year-after analysis of the predictions in the Halloween document, which was "leaked" from Microsoft around Halloween of 1998. It's interesting to see how their predictions have/have not panned out."
I can't remember where I read it (it might have been slashdot) but somebody recently was comparing Microsoft currently to IBM in it's last years of domination in the industry.
There are a lot of things in this article that support that theory too. Particularly Microsoft's concentration on proprietary protocols. Like the IBM of old Microsoft are trying to suck everything into their evil empire and proprietize (if that's a word) everything they can... including the internet.
Now, if I said to any Slashdot readers (and some preschool picture book readers) that I thought somebody could control the internet for their own benefit, and be truly successful at it you'd probably just point at me and laugh. And that would be quite fair I think. But not Microsoft. They're still trying to tame this internet thing.
You'd think after the success [sarcasm] of Push internet technology (remember active channels) and the microsoft network in it's original incarnation (now reduced to virtually an MS owned webring and AOL ripoff) and, speak of the devil; AOL's attempts to make the internet branded with AOL for anyone that uses it.
After all this has anyone ever come out on top of the internet? No. Of course there have been plenty of successes, but the internet still remains a global brand-name-independant network.
As the internet grows more it's that very size and reach that prevents it from becoming the MICROSOFT-InterNETWORK.
IMHO, this quest for making everything proprietary is just Microsoft going out of their way to piss people off. And much like the IBM keeping everything IBM attitude of past decades they risk screwing themselves royally because of it.
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
Personally, I think that there has been a fundamental change in the marketplace during the last three years that Microsoft didn't anticipate. Three years ago, they were trying to figure out the best way to protect their interests from the likes of Linux and the rest of OSS. However, while they were concentrating on the external enemy, they missed the internal one. With Windows and Office 2K, Microsoft developed a product that is good enough for most people. That, combined with the subsequent major falloff in PC sales that accompanied the tech bust, meant that people had no reason to buy their software in the huge numbers they had previously been buying them in, and they certainly didn't see much need for further updates. Why pay for more software when what you have works. I would argue that OSS software is superior in most ways to CSS, but the simple fact is that most of Microsofts recent sales falloffs have not been attributable to OSS. Rather, we are seeing a general falloff in sales, mostly due to the fact that people don't need to buy more MS software. Thus, we have seen many of the recent (scared sh*tless) tactics that MS has been using. I'm sure Linux is still on Microsofts radar, but their real worry right now is how to get people to pay for something they really don't want or need, because their current business model is unsustainable long term. Therefore, they are making stupid moves that just serve to make people mad (licensing, Passport, copy protection). This is both good and bad news for Linux. It's good news because Linux has an opportunity to move in and usurp the reigning king. On the other hand, it could be very dangerous for OSS in general. There are few things deadlier than a cornered animal, and right now Microsoft has been backed into a pretty tight corner.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
It occurs to me that talking about projects killing each other is assuming the Microsoft paradigm - that there can only be one dominant force in any market. Also, many comments on the KDE/GNOME (or Linux/BSD, or which Linux distribution will "win" or "die next") situation assume that there can only be one "winner."
However, who is to say what is the "natural state" of the OS/software market? Is it a winner-take-all market, as Microsoft would (a) like to be the winner of, and (b) like us to believe is the natural way, or is there room for multiple vendors? When there are open protocols, there is no technical reason limiting the number of clients that use a given protocol. There is also no compelling market force.
Take for comparison word processors vs. web browsers. For word processors, Microsoft Word takes advantage of "network effects" with its closed-format document format. That is, the more people that use that format, the more valuable it becomes. Similarly, a new word processor purchaser deciding between closed formats will surely choose the one with the bigger installed base, or at least the one that most of their clients use - which, at this point, are probably the same. The network effect is why Microsoft wants us to think that the OS/software market is a winner-take all situation - this leads to the decision to buy the latest version of Word, simply because you're afraid to get left behind by everyone else upgrading their version.
On the other hand, web browsers are dealing with an open protocol. Anyone can write a browser - and several parties have - that can render some form of HTML and communicate to http servers. On an open platform such as Linux, there are several to chose from and there's no reason to worry that you've chosen the wrong one. That is, as long as the protocol stays the same, you could just as well write your own browser as pick one of the existing ones.
On Windows, there's strong disincentive against any browser but IE, since it is preinstalled, and you can't really avoid that. However, if you're willing to go through the effort, you can get another browser installed.
Open protocols are why KDE vs. GNOME, Linux vs. BSD, or which Linux distribution to choose is not a big deal - just about any application you could want for either system either runs on the other, or a clone does. Then it's just a question of personal preference, but there's no danger of obsolescence.
When it comes to distributions, there's the danger that your distribution vendor will go under, but then again, so what? Once you've got your kernel, utilities and applications installed, it's pretty simple to keep them up to date.
Microsoft is trying so hard to kill other browsers by making its web server work best with its client. Fortunately they are limited in how much they can extend the protocols by their server customers since a company setting up a web presence doesn't want to shut out any potential customers.
That's all I can think of for now, and sorry I can't summarize or introduce it better, but it's late. I hope there was some nugget of insight for someone out there.
I don't have a link handy, but a while ago I read a very interesting essay where the author made the observation that the government doesn't have to legislate or force standards in order to affect a change. The government is such a large purchaser of computers and software that they could simply use their huge purchasing power to influence the market in the direction of open standards if they wanted to. If the government refused to buy into proprietary standards, many companies would support open standards rather than loose a customer that size.