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."
As the memo says, they only way to "eliminate" OSS is to understand a process. Ironically enough, the entity searching for this "process" will in the end, find itself.
This is much like the ancient greek story OEdipus Rex, where he searches for a murderer and finds himself to be the person for whom he was searching. IMO, Microsoft in itself is the type of thing that drives OSS projects. The desire for non-corporate software, because of their greediness in terms of money, and inefficency of their products, and the desire to re-invent the wheel to be better than the current one, with input from all parties interested.
In order to combat the fees, the source code must be free and open, such that nobody will ever be able to claim it as their own and stop reproduction of it. And with OSS, anybody that sees a better way to do something, can contribute it. Whereas with the corporate model, you must write your programs to your manager's specifications, making innovation difficult at the developer level.
So in the end, the drive for OSS is to get away from the monolithic corporate model, which Microsoft ultimately represents. To destroy OSS, they must truly make their products more efficient and cause people to desire to migrate back to their software despite licensing fees.
Just some thoughts on the statments contained in the memo... maybe they're right, maybe they're not.
This reminder of halloween document more than shows us that the ONLY important remedy in the M$-DOJ case is to force open protocols and open data exchange formats. Everything else is just a bonus or bogus. Even restrictive OEM contracts would not uphold long, but proprietary protocols and data formats might have the potential to break neck to OSS development
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
It is true that closed-source projects can make one sort of deadline and stick to it. That's the "we'll ship by" sort of deadline. That's not the kind of deadline that knowledgeable users generally need.
The sort of deadline that open-source projects can generally meet is the "we'll get a nightly build up every night" and the "we won't call it version 1.0 until we're ready" sorts. These will do just fine for knowledgeable users. No closed-source company can meet this kind of commitment.
Notice that the one thing that for-profit, closed-source developers cannot do no matter how hard they try is ship bugfree software on a hard schedule. No one can. What they can do is ship version 1.0 when they said they would, and charge you for the service pack, and then charge you again when version 2.0 comes out with the features that you paid for in version 1.0 actually working.
Here's where the libre software is so wonderful. The total cost of ownership may be higher, lower or just the same as the closed source stuff, but the total benefits of ownership are generally much higher.
Folks like to say that you get what you pay for, and that's almost true: when you buy something you won't get any more than you pay for. The payment makes an upper bound on what you get. That isn't true when someone gives you something. The initial cost of $0.0 makes a lower bound on the value.
With libre software you get what the developers claim they're delivering, and sometimes a lot more. You don't have to wait for a deadline or an official release to start using the latest version of GNUfoo; you can keep trying it and start using it when you say it's ready.
Ask yourself: is it really an advantage for the closed-source companies to ship buggy crap that isn't ready, so they can meet a deadline? It is for them; it lets them gouge you and make a payroll. Is making a deadline that way really good for the customer?
See what I've been reading.
"Unfortunately, (emphasis mine) the story about Linux saving Amazon millions [cnet.com] was not as bad for Microsoft as it was good for Linux."
What is so unfortunate about something not being harmful to MS? Does harming MS somehow benefit others? Somehow a large, or at least very vocal part of the linux user base thinks so. I see the same feeling in the article:
"Reproducing what is available on a Microsoft desktop will win some users, but it is not enough. It may yet turn out, however, that Microsoft's licensing will provide that impetus to switch."
Now for the authors here, I can almost see a reason to want MS to lose market share. Their readership is made almost entirely of linux users and they are operating under the assumption that for there to be more linux users, there will have to be less MS users as if the number of potential computer users were a finite quantity of persons and organizations that will use MS *or* linux.
This assumption is just wrong. Number one, a majority of those who use linux on the desktop also use windows on desktop via dual booting or have multiple machines. Secondly, this is grounded on the notion that everyone who wants to use a computer for anything is already doing so and that the odd individual who purchases his/her first pc tomorrow will not possibly be a linux user. This might be the case for someone who heads to best buy and picks up a new system with winME preinstalled, but it neglects the guy who is first introduced to computers at his linux using friend's home or the second grader who browses her first website in a volunteer supported, linux based school computer lab. These are the people who will most likely stick with linux because after a few months becoming familiar with kde, mozilla, etc, they will have litle patience to "wait while windows builds a driver information database" or reboot for every "general protection fault in crappycode.dll"
Even so, this is only beneficial to people who make their money from a linux using market. As a user who loves linux and uses it almost exclusively, I don't care how many other linux users there are. I certainly don't feel like it's *unfortunate* when something doesn't hurt MS. I use linux becaues it does what I want it to, and as long as it meets that requirement I could care less what liscense the new MS product is released under or how many people buy their products.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
True, most projects don't make it out of the gate, but they don't all have to. Just because most projects fail doesn't mean that others don't succeed. The fact is that there are projects to fulfill just about every desire you could have on a computer. Web browser, instant messaging, servers, office suites, some games, programming tools, etc. etc. Sure, lots of projects fail and die, but enough succeed to make the system viable. If you don't believe me, try running a linux system for a little while.
Straw men. What does this have to do with the previous argument, where you said OSS projects are all stillborn? Here you point out two that are actively in development and consistently improving, contradicting your earlier statement. Both Windows and Linux are moving targets, and just because both projects like to tout improvements with varying degrees of rhetoric doesn't mean that one is less viable than the other. Where's the argument here that says OSS is bad?
As far as I can tell, no such thing has been shown. Granted, OSS may not have lived up to all the Windows-killing hype, but that doesn't make it any less competitive. The availability of free tools that you have near total control of is a very powerful incentive for a lot of people, and will continue to be so in the future. The OSS promise isn't really "World Domination" as so many like to talk about, it's actually the opposite. It's about freedom from world domination by any one entity, and it's about personal empowerment. Linux, *BSD, et al. are still going strong, and in this sense they have completely delivered on the OSS promise.
I've really never understood this argument. True, OSS is a non-commerical hobby for many, but for many others they have been hired to work on OSS as their job. Companies use what they create as "tools" to make money, not as money makers themselves. How many software companies make money off of MS Word sales? One. How many companies make money by using MS Word as a productivity tool? Countless. Paying someone to develop GPL software is like purchasing a bunch of MS Word licenses. You're paying for your software (which you get complete control over BTW) and you make your money actually using the thing rather than selling it. That's where the profit motive actually lies. And even then, how does this relate back to the overall premise of your post that OSS is bad? Just because someone makes something as a non-commercial hobby doesn't mean it's a bad piece of work, nor does something have to be a commercial success to be a good product.
Overall, your post is a load of shit troll-boy. There are plenty of disadvantages to OSS, but you sure didn't hit on any of them.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."