ESR Says as PCs Get Cheaper, Windows Will Die

james writes "Eric Raymond reckons Windows will be obsolete because people won't be able to afford it soon." Owning the OS gives MS too great of an advantage. They'd sell the client for 5 bucks if it meant that they could still control Office, the server market, and the zillions of other markets that their OS monopoly lets them crush.

Comments

Er

[yatest5]

Is it just me, or are the artivel and the comment opposing viewpoints?

Eric Raymond reckons Windows will be obsolete because people won't be able to afford it soon." Owning the OS gives MS too great of an advantage. They'd sell the client for 5 bucks if it meant that they could still control Office, the server market, and the zillions of other markets that their OS monopoly lets them crush.

Re:Er

[PaulGibson]

Possibly they are opposing, but not necessarily. Yes, they would reduce the client to $5, but would then keep Office etc at it's current level ($199 +). This gets them a good pad. However, the consumer will still not want to pay $200+ in sw fees on a computer they pay $200 or less for. So in effect, I think Raymond's point could be that people can't afford the MS monopoly software anymore. What needs to be inferred is that The consumer understands this point. I believe that as Linux based GUIs get better (to the point where your average user can plug and play with it) and linux based WP/Spreadsheet/Presentation software is acceptable (ie can read the current standard format (ie MS Office), which is not too hard) then the consumer will actually understand this point because CompUSA will have these linux machines lined up next to the MS and Apple machines.

Re:Er

[nickynicky9doors]

Yabut... were I MS, I would, as ESR suggests, look to ways to separate the OS/apps from the box, such as thin client architecture and software as an online utility. If the box comes without an OS and apps but recommending MS and boots online to download/install the most uptodate, "ultimately configured" MS software then the customer might mindlessly separate the two and see the OS/apps as a licensed utility. The economics of doing away with the most part of manufacturing and distributing shelved software will give MS alot more margin to play with. Still, over the near term, as the need for standards and, independent bodies to maintain and further standards grows, the gap will close as standards will provide a platform for the Open Source/FSF communities to close said gap. What ESR said will prevail in that a large body of independent coders have and will come together to produce a competitive mass market product.

Excuse my morning rant, the nimbling of my fingers and the impact of the first brimming mug of coffee.

cheers

Re:Er

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the consumer will still not want to pay $200+ in sw fees on a computer they pay $200 or less for.

One small problem with this line of reasoning: Consumers usually by a PC as a delivery vehicle for Windows and Office. What the hardware costs in relation to the software isn't relavant. They are usually sold as a package, which ensures the price of a PC will never go below what a manufacturer can sell the hardware with Windows for profitably.

Oh lord.

[rebelcool]

More from this idiot. This is of course, assuming that microsoft has no business sense whatsoever and doesnt reduce price accordingly, or find other sources of revenue or one of a million other possibilities. Maybe if the company was ran by dumbasses. But wait, you don't get to be one of the largest in the world by being dumbasses. There goes that theory.

No, Eric, microsoft will not go away like you've claimed for several years. Linux won't win the desktop 'war'. Get over it. Nobody cares anymore.

Re:Oh lord.

[Clay Mitchell]

While ESR seems to be very zealous and into the (GNU)/Linux scene, he's it's worst enemy. While Microsoft may spread FUD, people look at this guy and "wtf is this idiot doing? what's he talking about?" if i didn't know better, i'd avoid linux for the sole reason i wouldn't want to be associated with that nut.

Re:Oh lord.

[Hamshrew]

RMS isn't much better, if you take that view. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a good guy, and I admire him for standing up for his principles. Both ESR and RMS do this. And I think it's great that people can fight for that. I do agree that they should both hold back a little... they sound more like fanatics than developers.

What Linux needs is a spokesperson... someone that we can point to and say, "He speaks for us!" (Or she... doesn't matter to me) But, whether it be a good thing or a bad thing, the interests of the Linux "community" are too diverse to agree on one person.

Re:Oh lord.

[EricKrout.com]

Oh lord.

More from an idiot who browses Slashdot with IE and enjoys trolling the waters.

First off, I don't think you even read the fucking article. You spewed off several sentences worth of drivel immediately after the story was posted.

Eric states that "'The only way to explain Microsoft's decisions over the past couple of years is to say that they know their packaged software business is doomed'". So please tell me where he's implying that the company as a whole is going to go bankrupt. Can't find it? That's because he says NOTHING OF THE SORT.

He's merely saying that their software monopoly just isn't viable as PCs continue to drop in price. Just look at how far ahead hardware is of software these days, and it's not hard to imagine a dirt-cheap PC being able to run most any computer program ever written at a useable pace.

Re:Oh lord.

[qurob]

He IS a ZDNet author after all.....

The only guys that was worth listening to was Dvorak, but in the past few years he's been a rambling idiot also.

I miss the old days of the "Hard Edge", before the Internet RUINED all computer magazines, most notably Computer Shopper.

Things can't remain the same forever though...

Re:Oh lord.

[CmdrStalin]

That's hardly the only place where Mr. Raymond has been making an ass of himself these days. He apparently spends more time stirring up flamewars on lkml than he does actually coding his magical kernel configuration machine. He has a tendency to make it sound like his pet project is the most important thing to happen to linux since TCP/IP; the huge threads he spawns would be amusing if he wasn't wasting the time and inciting the anger of the people who actually work on the kernel itself.

Re:Oh lord.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

mmm... Natalie

mmm... hot grits...

Re:Oh lord.

[NumberSyx]

he's it's worst enemy.

If not ESR or RMS, then who ? The Free and Open Software movement needs someone to represent them. By your standards ESR and RMS may be a little "Out There", but they say what needs to be said and aren't affraid to take a little heat for it. Have you ever heard Michael Dell speak ?, Ballmer ? or even Jobs ? They rant just the same about how their way is the best way. I would even go so far as to say Ballmer is a spaz. nobody calls them zealots and don't fool yourself, they are. The only difference is they wear $1000 suits and live in $20 million dollar houses. The question is who would be better ?

Re:Oh lord.

[rhost89]

<OT>
I agree, Dvorak has been a rambling nut for a couple of years now, and Computer Shopper is going the way of the dodo. I remember when it was a inch and a half thick, and now its probably 150 pages or so. Even still i subscribe to read Hard Edge.
</OT>

Anyhow back to the topic at hand, I dont think he sounds like a nut, he made some pretty strong poits, would you pay just as much for an OS as for the hardware itself? I didnt think so. M$ knows this and is desperately trying to change their buisness model to cope with the times. Kudos to them, either move with the times or die a stagnant horrible death, but i think its all for not. Too little to late and millions have allready caught on and refuse to buy into the "Software as a service" motto.

Re:Oh lord.

[waxmop]

cool dead milkmen signature. they rocked.

Re:Oh lord.

[Zeinfeld]

While ESR seems to be very zealous and into the (GNU)/Linux scene, he's it's worst enemy. While Microsoft may spread FUD, people look at this guy and "wtf is this idiot doing? what's he talking about?" if i didn't know better, i'd avoid linux for the sole reason i wouldn't want to be associated with that nut.

Interestingly enough the thread does not have any pro-ESR comments at this point. I think it is pretty obvious that the Linux community can interpret nuts as damage and route arround them.

In the early days of Linux the single biggest advantage Linux had was Linus who is a pretty reasonable guy.

ESR appears to be way over the edge on this one. First off he does not appear to know that OEMs already get Windows at deep discounts over the retail price. Microsoft does not have to provide packaging, retail discount, activation or first level support for those customers so the cost is probably more like $35 for XP Home.

ESR also appears to overlook that Microsoft has aggressively sold its own sub $350 PC, it is called an XBox and they sell them at Toys-R-Us. Equally Microsoft has not let price bar it from the Pocket PC market.

The other reason that ESR is wrong is that the lowest price PCs are typically sold as starter PCs for first time buyers. This is a market that requires the ability to run genuine Microsoft Word. Tomb Raider and AOL. Linux users buying this type of machine are typically buying a second, third or fourth machine to use as a cheap server.

Finally, anyone who has tried to get Linux up on a cheapie PC will know that it is far from simple. The parts used by cheapie PCs are often sourced from obscure vendors and finding a Linux driver often means writing your own. The people who make such machines are typically doing so on a shoestring and cannot afford the cost of development or the delay incurred. In many cases the whole profit on the low cost PC is made by buying parts on 90 days credit, making the machine in 15 days, charging the wholesalers on delivery and making the profit on 75 days worth of interest.

Re:Oh lord.

[FooKuff]

Who better than ESR? How about my dog? She's really cute and everyone likes her. Seriously though, my vote goes to Eben Moglen (General Counsel of the FSF). That guy is fookin' amazing. And I don't think pairing up RMS and ESR is remotely fair to RMS. There's no comparing the two. RMS' contributions to free software are huge, both in terms of code donated and in terms of leadership and ideas. ESR comes nowhere close. The first thing he should do is forget that open source stuff, and join the free software movement.

Re:Oh lord.

[cappadocius]

So please tell me where he's implying that the company as a whole is going to go bankrupt. Can't find it? That's because he says NOTHING OF THE SORT

The original poster doesn't really say anything about miscrosoft going belly up either.

The argument of the article is that as prices fall, the percent paid to microsoft will be greater than the profit made, so Windows won't have a presence on very low priced machines. The poster points out that the fee paid to M$ isn't a constant. When they need to lower that fee so that windows will still have it's monopoly, they will. The columnist's logic makes perfect sense, as long as M$ does not respond to them. In the short run we will probably see this happen. But M$ would have to be, in the words of the original poster, "dumasses" not to respond by lowering their prices so as to preserve their monopoly.

Of course that itself presumes the DoJ won't interfere with M$, which is itself not certain.

DoJ: "So it's agreed, you have to charge $100 for your OS"

M$: "But Linux doesn't charge any money at all!"

DoJ: "Ha Ha Ha ...... Ha"

Re:Oh lord.

[DJPenguin]

Linus? There's a chap who can't get on anyone's nerves, he's too nice! :)

Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd venture that:

No, Eric, microsoft will not go away like you've claimed for several years.

is implying that they'll go bankrupt.

Re:Oh lord.

[Lumpy]

Huh?
Oh yeah and Steve Ballmer is the perfect CEO?
have you even paid attention to what he does and says in public?

sorry, but if Steve Ballmer was my CEO, I'd be ashamed to work there. The man is embarassing.

Re:Oh lord.

[yatest5]

If not ESR or RMS, then who ? The Free and Open Software movement needs someone to represent them. By your standards ESR and RMS may be a little "Out There", but they say what needs to be said and aren't affraid to take a little heat for it. Have you ever heard Michael Dell speak ?, Ballmer ? or even Jobs ? They rant just the same about how their way is the best way. I would even go so far as to say Ballmer is a spaz. nobody calls them zealots and don't fool yourself, they are. The only difference is they wear $1000 suits and live in $20 million dollar houses. The question is who would be better ?

Nah, the difference is that the corporates spout the bullshit to sell more stuff. The open source guys spout it because, er why? Because they're zealots.

Re:Oh lord.

[wfrp01]

The register is running a story relating ESR's frustration with Linus' ability to review and apply patches. The article doesn't happen to mention that ESR has made a habit of publically admonishing and patronizing Linus on the kernel list. Or that ESR has patches of his own that just don't seem to get merged into the main tree. I really wish ESR, RMS, Ballmer, Theo, Bill, Larry, et al (who's al?) had spent just a few hours of their childhood watching Sesame Street instead of taking their toys and playing by themselves in the corner.

But like you say, the community generally seems able to route around the damage.

Re:Oh lord.

[PinkStainlessTail]

What Linux needs is a spokesperson...

And in an ideal world this would be Linus himself. Calm, intelligent, and reasonable (and kinda dishy too!). But he's got better stuff to do, or so he claims...

Re:Oh lord.

[BinxBolling]

...he made some pretty strong poits, would you pay just as much for an OS as for the hardware itself? I didnt think so.

If the hardware is useless to you without the OS, and the total cost of the two together is still within reason, why wouldn't you?

Yes, the hardware can still be useful to some people without Windows, but not nearly as many. Being cheaper than Windows isn't enough to let Linux win. It has to provide customers with more value for their money than Windows. And as long as most applications that most people want to use run on Windows but not Linux, Windows will beat Linux on the desktop.

Re:Oh lord.

[NumberSyx]

for those customers so the cost is probably more like $35 for XP Home.

I don't know about XP, but when ME was THE consumer OS, even smaller chain stores got it for under $25. If you order a Dell system and you get your reciept, it lists Windows at a cost of $0, which in corporate speak means the cost is so small they can recoup its cost on other parts. But you are right, at $350, the most expensive part of the system is the motherboard, with integrated sound, video and possibly network interface, a $35 OS is probably one of the cheapest parts, if not THE cheapest part of the system.

Re:Oh lord.

[Bobzibub]

ESR may or may not be a nutter but he does speak the truth. The costs of software vis hardware is climbing for low end PCs.

Game consoles are typically sold at a loss to expand market share and manufacturers recoup their costs by selling games. I don't think games haven't come down in price over the years have they?

I've heard that the Windows OS licence for a Pocket PC is about $5.00. So how low can they go? There are fixed costs included in producing these products. Companies have to provide support and design-build-package them too. Would MS drop its OS to $2? Perhaps if it can sell services!

Commoditization(SP) of the pc market is very real. As you say, manufacturers are quite competitive at the low end. This also affects pdas, phones, all the trinkets that we used to pay big bucks for. I was the prowd owner of an IBM PC, and a Palm 5000. Both very cheap now (Dammit!). Now that the low end of PCs can play games and surf the web, do word processing, how can PC prices --- for your mom be justified at over $1000? Once a low end pc can manipulate video, I can't think of any use for the average user which would require an expensive PC. Then the price will inevitably drop to $100 or so which *will* squeeze OS software providers. Would MS be willing to pay for design-development-packaging-support of a sophisticated OS that generates only $10 in revenue? I doubt it.

Many on /. would pay big bucks for the latest pc because thats our thing. We are not representive of the general PC market.

Dude, Your getting a Dell! $999->$899 and counting:
http://wwwc.us.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offer s/specials_ 3x_special61.htm

Re:Oh lord.

[nologin]

ESR appears to be way over the edge on this one. First off he does not appear to know that OEMs already get Windows at deep discounts over the retail price. Microsoft does not have to provide packaging, retail discount, activation or first level support for those customers so the cost is probably more like $35 for XP Home.

Apperances can be deceiving. True, the Microsoft OS can be literally given away with a new PC, but that's because Microsoft makes up the difference easily with applications.

For instance, take Microsoft Office. Add SQL server. Add Exchange Server. These are all packages that you have to shell out big bucks for. Have I even begun to reach the equivalent functionality level of a Linux distro? The answer is no.

But, I know one thing. The pocket book will definitely be far emptier with the so called "Microsoft Tax" (all of the software listed above) compared to Linux.

Couple it with the fact that a lot of businesses go with a complete Microsoft end to end solution, your desktop cost becomes mostly software. Can you guess who the greatest beneficiary is?

Re:Oh lord.

[Refrag]

Everyone calls Ballmer a spaz. You're not making any great revelations here.

Re:Oh lord.

[tapiwa]

Linux does need these "nuts" as you call them.

Every movement, (and yes, I do think that Linux is part of a movement) needs a few extremists to get the ball rolling, and start people talking.

The Malcom Xs, the Ghandis, the (whats that woman's name, the one who fought for the female vote??).....

They were all extremists, but they did succeed in bringing public attention to their movements.

The important trick for our "spokesmen" will be knowing when linux has reached a level of maturity that such extremism becomes unnecessary.

If you ask me, we are not there yet, so .... keep going ESR!

Re:Oh lord.

[KH]

> (who's al?)

Weird Al?

But you mentioned him already with "Larry".

Re:Oh lord.

[rogueroo]

The Malcom Xs, the Ghandis, the (whats that woman's name, the one who fought for the female vote??).....

Elizabeth Cady Stanton perhaps? Susan B. Anthony maybe?

Re:Oh lord.

[SirSlud]

Society honours is live conformists (Balmer, Gates) and it's dead trouble makers (ESR).

It really doesn't matter if people buy a zealot's rants. It's the ideological equivilent of 'branding'. The ideas will assume a much more moderate and socially applicable tone should the seeds the ESRs and RMSs are planting today take cultural root in the next few decades, and thats what matters.

Nothing changes in one day by the work of one person. Sadly, those who stand up and talk for forward-thinking principals are usually branded as extremists today, but only a fool doesn't aknolwedge the fact that they themselves are more interested in starting a slow social shift in attitudes rather than expecting the world to drop everything and follow their lead tommorow.

Re:Oh lord.

[Tackhead]

> I would even go so far as to say Ballmer is a spaz.

"so far"?

After seeing "monkey boy" and "developers", I suppose one might also go so far as to describe the Grand Canyon as a ditch.

Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on. Give Airsick Raymond some credit.

Didn't he manage the patches for FetchDoggieMail for a few weeks?

Hasn't he taken over the Jargon File and helped Free Software by corrupting many of the defintions in it??

He's our guy.

Re:Oh lord.

[Stackis]

What Linux needs is a spokesperson... someone that we can point to and say, "He speaks for us!"

Linux has a spokesperson.......in fact it has hundreds of thousands......they're called the "Linux Community"

Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanger. Margaret Sanger.

Re:Oh lord.

[mikecarrmikecarr]

They rant just the same about how their way is the best way. I would even go so far as to say Ballmer is a spaz. nobody calls them zealots and don't fool yourself, they are. The only difference is they wear $1000 suits and live in $20 million dollar houses.

Are you saying that more money implies credibility? I disagree but let's assume that you're right:

1. Wasn't ESR part of the Red Hat IPO?
2. Isn't ESR on the VA board of directors?
3. Do you see ESR scrambling for work in the midst of the `tech slump'?

I think that if money buys credibility that ESR has it in spades. And he didn't have to start a monopoly to do so.

Just MHO.

Re:Oh lord.

[megalomang]

No, what the $0 means is that if you want to remove the OS to save money, you will save a whopping $0, so it's not worth your effort.

I'm sure Dell has to pay a significant amount of money for their licenses.

The $35 OS is not by any means the cheapest part of the system. The keyboard and mouse combine to cost approximately $10. The integrated audio costs less than $10. The integrated video costs around $10. The north/southbridge chipsets cost about $30. The fans are less than $5 each. The 3.5" floppy is less than $10. The CDROM drive is less than $35. The case is probably $30. The power supply is less than $20. Non-M$ bundled software is nearly free.

The ONLY things that likely exceed the cost of M$ OS are the monitor, the CPU, and maybe the DVDROM or CDRW drive.

At profit margins that are less than $50 for the low-end PCs, $35 is a large piece of the pie.

For palmtops, the margin is very similar. The battery and the high-end embedded processors and memory are still pretty expensive. In the future, manufacturers will likely take a loss on the initial sale of their hardware and try to recoup their costs on the sale of services. Here, M$ is killing them. But, M$ is trying to remove the service source of revenue as well, so hardware manufacturers will be even worse off.

Re:Oh lord.

[ComputerSlicer23]

No that means the cost of it is in the base price. OEM's use to pay for the MS for everybox sold period. Don't know if that is still the case. Even if it doesn't ship with any MS products on it. The price being zero means you don't save any money but not taking it.

Re:Oh lord.

[Chiasmus_]

I believe I know exactly how M$ would respond to such a DoJ action...

IN A.D. 2006
WAR WAS BEGINNING.
GATES: What happen?
BALLMER: Somebody set up us the fixed OS pricing!
BALLMER: We get signal!
GATES: What!!
BALLMER: Blue screen turn on.
GATES: It's you!!
D.O.J.: HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN !!
D.O.J.: All your fixed OS prices are belong to us.
D.O.J.: You are on the way to destruction.
GATES: What you say !!
D.O.J.: You have no chance to profit make your time.
D.O.J.: HA HA HA HA ...
BALLMER: Bill...
GATES: Take off every 'lawyer'!
GATES: You know what you doing.
GATES: Move 'laywer'!
GATES: Subvert justice.

Re:Oh lord.

[lblack]

Why would the linux community need a spokesperson that we can point to? We already have hundreds. Thousands, even. They all have their niches, they can all be spokesmen for the bit of things that they handle. Other people can oppose their viewpoints.

ESR and RMS serve a purpose. They are fanatics -- that's because they're motivated by something more than a desire for a free, open-source, stable operating system that can compete in server and desktop markets. They have a belief in underlying principles of which Gnu/Linux is merely an effective example.

The great thing about the Linux community is that there is no authority beyond the self-defined ones such as kernel maintainers, auditors, etc. We do not need, have not needed, nor will ever need a "spokesman" who can sum Free Software, Open Source, Linux and GNU up. Such a spokesman would be a farce, because so many within the community would disagree with whatever simplification or bent they spouted.

What we need are better and clearer channels of communication, but that has been getting better for quite some time now, and doesn't seem likely to stop.

It's good that there are fanatics, and moderates, and all sorts of people in the community. They're all fighting the good fight, for different reasons, and good for them.

l

Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The ONLY things that likely exceed the cost of M$ OS are the monitor, the CPU, and maybe the DVDROM or CDRW drive."

Another Slashbot that fundementally misunderstands the PC business.

The OEM's technical support costs FAR outweigh the cost of "M$ Wind0z3". And the #1 factor which affects technical support costs is the software installed on the machine.

They use Windows because Windows + Windows Tech Support is far cheaper than Any Alternative + Alternative Tech Support. Even for Linux which comes at $0 cost. When someone fixes that situation, then Windows is dead in the water as a boxpusher OS. Until then, Windows goes out on 99% of the machines.

Re:Oh lord.

[jasonbw]

Microsoft has aggressively sold its own sub $350 PC, it is called an XBox and they sell them at Toys-R-Us

something about this i find very funny.

Re:Oh lord.

[fr2ty]

It's good to see ESR's statements stimulate discussions everywhere,
no matter if we call him idiot or guru.

But I don't get this one:
"Finally, anyone who has tried to get Linux up on a cheapie PC will know that it is far from simple."

Am I right that you have installed a Linux distribution recently?
As for a typical home installation with low speed networking, I doubt that.

Most installations I was involved with worked just fine.
I had some 5-6 six year-old scsi controllers, cheap stuff, and no drivers.
I replaced them with other cheap scsi controllers.

Setting up a Linux machine usually works fine.
There can be trouble sometimes, trouble that a windows user will never be bothered with.

But, to say it again, in most cases it works fine.
How cheap do you want your computer to be?
Is buying a different 20$ sound card such a big problem?
Cheap parts can easily be replaced by other cheap parts. There are drivers too.
Checking a hardware compatibility database at your vendor's site, is that such a big thing?

Saying that everybody knows that setting up Linux on a cheap machine is a widely known pain just isn't true anymore.

Re:Oh lord.

[susano_otter]

Yes, but the community still needs a leader. Personally, I vote for Colonel Kurtz.

Re:Oh lord.

[yomegaman]

I believe he was talking about cheapo Packard-Bell-style nightmares that you might see at Walmart or something. These machines have been known to feature strange video, sound, and modem chipsets for which no Linux drivers are available. Certainly they do not include SCSI host adapters! :-)

Re:Oh lord.

[jcast]

Linus gets on my nerves--he's too nice! :)

Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that if money buys credibility that ESR has it in spades. And he didn't have to start a monopoly to do so.

Gates and Ballmer got their money by running a profitable business over a couple of decades. (Yeah, yeah, there's room for argument about how ethically they ran that business.)

ESR got his through a bit of stock-market luck.

Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough the thread does not have any pro-ESR comments at this point. I think it is pretty obvious that the Linux community can interpret nuts as damage and route arround them.

To use an overworn cliché: "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

Even if what you say about no pro-ESR comments holds true now (I haven't read through all the comments yet), the fact is there are still 450+ comments here, and thus he's still percieved as somehow important to the community, and can still be quoted as some sort of authority on it. Outside journalists are unlikely to pick up on how little respect ESR gets for quite some time.

Re:Oh lord.

[tchansen]

"What Linux needs is a spokesperson..."

"I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees!"

with apologies to Dr. Seuss.

Re:Oh lord.

[Zeinfeld]

Is buying a different 20$ sound card such a big problem?

Since ESR's premise is that the cost of XP at approx $35 will kill the deal we have to assume that $20 is a big deal.

Cheap parts can easily be replaced by other cheap parts. There are drivers too. Checking a hardware compatibility database at your vendor's site, is that such a big thing?

Hah! do you think that cheapie machines have vendor web sites?

Good luck trying to work out which obscure variant of the S3 command set the embedded video chip implements. If it is an S3 that is, it might be something else entirely.

It would be easier to find Lord Lucan than documentation on many of these machines. So write your own is not likely to be a cost effective approach.

Having had bought cheapie PCs for the sole purpose of running linux I would recommend anyone wanting a linux box to pay a bit more for a custom build and select decent parts from vendors who actually support Linux. Not only will it save grief, you are more likely to have the machine last more than 18 months.

Re:Oh lord.

[linzeal]

You know ESR would be slappy happy with linus if he just tried to submit some patches to theo a few times. We should encourage this.

Re:Oh lord.

[megalomang]

First off, support costs spread across all customers. I know most computer geeks would like to think everyone else calls support all the time. I don't know any companies that provide such good support that it can add more than 50% to the total cost of selling OEM windoze OSs (assuming more recent M$ OSs which is precisely what the discussion is about). Remember that support calls are not limited to OS-only issues, but also drivers and hardware troubleshooting, therefore the costs are not all attributed to the OS. You cannot make the argument that drivers are part of the OS any more than you can say the hardware is part of the OS.

Secondly, you only further drive my point that the OS is absolutely not the cheapest part of the system. In particular, I address your quote of my previous post. You only make that quote more correct.

I think what you are trying to say is that the OS is more of the cost of a system than seems obvious. While that may be true, it is becoming much less the case in the XP and 2K versions of windoze. My neighbor is almost 70. I installed Xp on his machine and he has not once called me for help in the past 2.5 months since then.

M$ is removing the support burden from the OEM reseller. Ideally, the OEM version of the software should be getting more expensive due to this factor, but it doesn't seem to be the case since users also want to upgrade to the retail product to take advantage of the "less hassle" factor.

Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm sure Dell has to pay a significant amount of money for their licenses.

You have a link or some such to back this up? Since those contracts are secret, how would you know how much/little Dell pays?..

Re:Oh lord.

[fr2ty]

You are right with the video card issue.

I was referring to the website of the vendor of your distro.

For example hardwaredb.suse.de

I didn't have to replace cheap parts very often yet.

What?

[autopr0n]

Yeh, whatever. I'm like so sure that microsoft wouldn't lower their prices or anything like that if the alternative was loss of their monopoly.

And hasn't M$ been pushing CE as a platform for low-end home equipment?

Re:What?

[gmack]

Thay can't lower prices. To ensure their massive cash flow they need stock prices to keep rising and the only way it will do that is if they post revenue increases.

The Desktop market is already dead for them. Too many buisnesses don't see the point of upgrading beond W2K. Office has the same problem. THis all has nothing to do with Linux.

The server market is the one place Linux is actually doing damage.

CE isn't making it's development money back.

WebTV was a big flop.

What's left X-BOX. Cell phones?

We have a company too used to being the dominant player to be able to break into new markets and going by the spew of new products into new markets lately they know the old revenue stream is dying.

Re:What?

[mshiltonj]

I'm like so sure that microsoft wouldn't lower their prices or anything like that if the alternative was loss of their monopoly.

With Win* selling for $25, MS will eventually run out of their gadzillion dollar cash reserve, and be about the same size as Red Hat.

I can live with that.

Re:What?

[JWW]

Please mod this up.

It took this long to get someone to realize that while Microsoft can charge whatever it wants for Windows, if the price isn't high enough, they can't pay their bills.

Re:What?

[thetman]

"Thay can't lower prices. "
Yes they can.

"The Desktop market is already dead for them."
No it isn't. Granted, the upgrade cycle has slowed, but userbase continues to grow.

Re:What?

[thetman]

Care to put some money on that prediction nitwit?

Re:What?

[GTRacer]

Wait, wait, wait... I don't know the hard numbers (do you?) but I'd be amazed if they had to take a hit from their cash reserves if Win* sold for $25 a pop.

How much, per copy, can it really cost when they sell a hojillion of these things a year? Sure they have really high dev and support costs, but surely they must be selling Windows far above actual cost.

This reasoning of mine of course excludes income from other lines and assumes no net loss incurred for reducing the retail/OEM price of the OSes. No profit, maybe, but no losses either...

GTRacer
- Still kinda want an Xbox

Re:What?

[rseuhs]

Yeh, whatever. I'm like so sure that microsoft wouldn't lower their prices or anything like that if the alternative was loss of their monopoly.

Wrong, the alternative is Bill Gates selling the other half of his stock and buying his own island.

No microsoftie so far could explain to me why Bill Gates himself sold more than half of his stock already and is continuing to sell thousands of shares every week.

Re:What?

[nomadic]

No microsoftie so far could explain to me why Bill Gates himself sold more than half of his stock already and is continuing to sell thousands of shares every week.

His actions make sense to me. If had his stock portfolio I'd have sold them all and bought my own island already, even if I was convinced they'd double in value down the road. Hell, after that first billion do you really need more money?

Re:What?

[madfgurtbn]

Thay can't lower prices. To ensure their massive cash flow they need stock prices to keep rising and the only way it will do that is if they post revenue increases.


I'm afraid you've got it backwards, there. To ensure their high stock prices, they must continue to increase earnings year over year.

Re:What?

[bpowell423]

hmmm... I hadn't heard that little newsbyte yet (about Bill selling his stock)... He doesn't think MS is going to do an Enron, does he? Then again, if I had the money he has, I'd like to think that I'd give most of it away, keep, oh, say, a few billion to live modestly on :) and retire. 'course I probably don't have the personality required to make those billions in the first place.

Re:What?

[rseuhs]

So you would sell your stock for money because you don't need any more money?

Re:What?

[nomadic]

Well, if you have it, might as well sell it. I mean, what else would you do, leave it in a big stack on the curb when you move out of your house and onto the island?

I probably wouldn't care about making any more, though.

Re:What?

[majestyk2000]

I'm pretty sure a lot of his 'sold stock money' goes to this:

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/694130.asp

Says 24 billion so far and counting.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, giving away more than $20 Billion isn't a bad start - www.gatesfoundation.com

Windows Bundles

[CptLogic]

To be honest I don't think teh majority of Windows users actually bought a copy from a store.

When you go to the shops (or mail order) and buy a new PC, usually they have a software bundle with them and that's where you get your copies of Windows and Office (Well, mostly MS Works) from.

Because of this, and because it's very difficult to buy a PC *without* Windows, I don't think that this is at all true.

Chris

Re:Windows Bundles

[Carpathius]

There's a store just down from my house that sells PCs they build. They make it quite clear that you can buy a PC for $300 (yes, $300). Oh, and you can buy XP for $100 (or whatever it's going for).

They do a good business and are moving into a bigger store, but I'd guess there aren't a lot of first time buyers there -- still it's really nice to see a store break out the cost of Windows and show people just how much it costs them.

Sean.

Re:Windows Bundles

[DrunkenPenguin]

"...To be honest I don't think teh majority of Windows users actually bought a copy from a store." Majority or not, but those who did keep Microsoft alive and kicking. Thank God that number is decreasing.

Re:Windows Bundles

[HCase]

the point of the cost is that when a pc costs $350 new from a store, that the microsoft software would be taking up say, $200 of the price the store had to pay to get the system set up. that would only leave them $150 for the components, labor, and profit. with that little revenue left going to the store it wouldn't be profitiable for them to put window on it anymore.

Re:Windows Bundles

[Peyna]

The store doesn't pay nearly the same that you and I do to put MS software on all those computers.

Re:Windows Bundles

[shut_up_man]

Agreed... my new laptop came with two OS options: XP Home Edition or XP Professional Edition.

So now, for the first time in my life, I have paid cash money for a Microsoft operating system.

I feel so dirty.

Re:Windows Bundles

[BlaKnail]

I think what the point is that the OEMs will lose money by buying Microsoft licenses once computers drop far enough in price. Hence PCs will come with linux installed, for OEMs to remain profitable.

I think the problem is that the most cutting edge PC will always be expensive enough for OEMs to make money with windows installed

Re:Windows Bundles

[Squirrel Killer]

The store doesn't pay nearly the same that you and I do to put MS software on all those computers.

No, but it pays enough that $350 is the break point for them to consider dumping Windows (at least according to ESR.

-sk

Re:Windows Bundles

[richardbowers]

That's the point of the article -- if you buy a PC bundled with Windows and all, the people selling it have to pay for Windows and for the hardware. So far, when PC prices have dropped, the hardware manufacturers have taken the cuts -- Microsoft's prices haven't changed.

The article assumes that microsoft's prices will continue to be inelastic in the face of price pressure -- which is one of the many definitions of monopoly pricing -- and that hardware distributors will respond by dropping Windows.

The counter argument, made in numerous threads and by the story editor above, is that before that would happen, Microsoft would actually start responding to price pressure. Sure, that would kill their financials, and start forcing them into negative revenue growth, but it won't "kill Windows on the Desktop".

The article doesn't have to do with people buying/selling the OS separately.

Re:Windows Bundles

[tomstdenis]

Not true. I bought my PC in parts from the store and I still use Windows. Not everyone will "move away from windows" even if windows doesn't come with their PC.

Besides suppose Dell sold PCs without windows [which would be stupid], the end user would just run off to future shop and pick up a copy anyways.

Believe it or not, the 99% of end users in america are not OSS zealots and they just want an OS that can install easily, supports more hardware, is easier to setup [new hardware], has more software written for it and of course is the center of alot of attention.

This "monopoly" that MS holds is very ficticious. I bought my PC in parts and as a result I could have easily installed BSD on it.

Tom

Re:Windows Bundles

[Anonymous Coward]

If you only knew how much OEMs paid for Windows you would know how much that store is ripping you off....

Re:Windows Bundles

[Weh]

even if you don't buy windows you help MS by using it.

Re:Windows Bundles

[Drachemorder]

Well, I assembled my PCs from parts, too, and one of them DOES have a copy of Win98 on it, which I bought legally several years ago. And any computer I get in the foreseeable future will have that same copy of Win98 on it. I have absolutely no intention of upgrading to XP or any other MS OS.

I think a lot of other people would do the same thing if they already have, say, a Win98 install disk lying around somewhere. If they understood that they actually ARE paying for Windows when they buy their new system, they might be a lot more open to the idea of saving some money by installing an earlier copy of Windows which they already own. Most of the money MS makes off of XP is going to be from OEM sales. There aren't all that many people who'll pay to upgrade.

Re:Windows Bundles

[CactusHack]

Are there any major PC retailers that make it obvious and easy to purchase a PC without windows on it? Dell seems to claim they do, but on their web catalog it's impossible to find. I've helped people buy computers from the Dell website, and have fun choosing different options using their select boxes and trying to get the price down as far as I can. Just think if you could select "No OS" or "Linux" and see the price go down from $800 to $650. I think that would turn some intelligent heads. It's very painful to buy a PC and pay good money for Windows/Bloat/Fragmaster, only to install Linux or FreeBSD over it.

Re:Windows Bundles

[HCase]

i don't see how this relates to the previous comment or the article for that matter. i have windows on my computer, i also built it from scratch and previous system parts.

the $350 is in reference to the price sold, with software, and your local megastore. with prices continuing to drop, by the time the system prices hit $350 a store will no longer be able to make a profit selling a system with windows on it because the cost after part, labor, and software licensing will be over $350.

when buying/building a more expensive system or when getting the software seperately this doesn't apply. its only in reference to system built and sold by companies with os and software included.

Re:Windows Bundles

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but that's because you're a dumbshit who's too stupid to install and use Linux. You even admitted it in a prior post.

Re:Windows Bundles

[dmeiz]

I saw a short TechTV segment about Walmart selling PC's without any operating system at all. I took a look at the website and found some half-decent systems at half-decent prices. Hopefully this link will work for you.

Re:Windows Bundles

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you'd have us believe sales of MS Windows are decreasing? ahhhahahahhaahahaa
Perhaps their % share of the market is decreasing (also unlikely), but their absolute sales aren't dropping.

Re:Windows Bundles

[thetman]

As is the majority of the rest of the public. So ESR's prediction will not come true. That is the discussion we are having here in case you haven't noticed.

Re:Windows Bundles

[CactusHack]

Sweet! That is exactly what I was looking for. Who would have thought...WalMart of all places. Thanks!

Re:Windows Bundles

[tomstdenis]

I'm not too stupid to use linux, in fact I've installed and used it on a number of occasions.

My conclusions were that most of my software worked only in Windows and I saw no reason to keep up with Linux. Also that SP'ing the kernel [aka building a new one] is too much trouble then its worth.

See there are two boats I could be.

1. I use Win2K, all my hardware/software works and its easy to configure [e.g. control panels and stuff]. Updating the OS is a matter of clicking on an icon and it does binary patches automatically.

or

2. I use RH linux where most of my hardware works but not alot of the software [e.g. TV, CDR]. Its a bitch to configure and never gets the right monitor refresh rate correct on the first try [if I shut down gnome via CTRL+SHIFT+BACKSPACE and run it again it might work] and where updating the kernel is a manner of downloading, installing, configuring, building, re-configruing, re-building, updating LILO, rebooting, finding out it doesn't work...

etc...

I mean I develop my own software but when it comes to setting up a computer I much rather spend 1/8'th the time using pretty and functional GUIs

you can be "smart" and sit in boat #2 all you want, that's your *choice*. I simply choose to sit in boat #1.

Tom

Re:Windows Bundles

[tomstdenis]

Since when was that a breaking point?

What if the mobo+sound+network+case+etc [except the CPU] was less than the CPU?

A computer is not complete without the CPU.

Similarly to many people a computer is not complete without Windows.

You might say "ah lets use a different CPU!" [or OS] but the point is 99% of computer owners don't even know what "linux" is, let alone how to use it.

In order for Linux to win it must emulate the UI of Windows. Its really that simple. People [including myself] like point and click type UI's. I mean I don't want to wave through random directories and commands and god knows what just to setup a new NIC or something...

Tom

Re:Windows Bundles

[sofar]

Because of this, and because it's very difficult to buy a PC *without* Windows, I don't think that this is at all true.

nonsense, I'm typing this on a exotic laptop brand that bundles their laptops with about 7 M$ CD-ROMS normally.

It took me two words to get it without an operating system (well, without winblows that is) in the order I placed with them:

-Without Windows

it's now humming with joy from being 100% M$ free!

Don't whine, just *ask* for it to be delivered without windows, or else take your business elsewhere. I have also found out that shops that advertise selling PC's without OS are actually cheaper!

Re:Windows Bundles

[HCase]

that was the breaking point set up in the article and is the only reason i'm using it. the problem with that argument is that a computer can be complete without windows. people don't think linux because it isn't pushed by the vendors. if they see a box with a linux distro that looks and acts very similiar to windows and costs quite a bit less then they just might go for it. these budget boxes aren't being built as gaming rigs or for uses that require windows. they family wants a computer to be connected, help with school, for email, etc, and for those uses a prepackaged linux box should work just fine, and on cheaper hardware then a windows box.

the linux gui's are getting better and better as time goes by and they still have a bit left before it gets to the articles break point. is the guy who wrote it right? is he just full of bs? i dunno, but it does bring up an interesting point. i think windows will stay pretty popular for a bit long though.

Re:Windows Bundles

[tomstdenis]

Very true. The problem is that Linux doesn't fully emulate Windows user interface which means it won't be a mainstream replacement.

Tom

Re:Windows Bundles

[CptLogic]

>>Don't whine, just *ask* for it to be delivered without windows, or else take your business elsewhere.

That's great if, like me, you can merrily build your own system using whatever OS I like.

For the average PC user, who buys a PC for home and small business, that's not going to necessarily be the case. They want a PC they can take out of the box, turn on and use.
In fact if a computer says "Does not come with Windows" I know many people who wouldn't buy it.
I know only a handful of people, all in IT, who would actually think that to be A Good Thing.

Just because us Geeks don't necessarily want to pay extra for Billware on our new toys doesn't mean the majority of the market share our opinions. That alone, will be enough to ensure Bill gets paid for the desktop OS for the forseeable.

Chris.

Re:Windows Bundles

[rseuhs]

and because it's very difficult to buy a PC *without* Windows,

Not anymore

ESR is one of the 1% of the population that can actually thing farther ahead than 2 weeks.

Microsoft the percentage of PC-maker's revenues that go directly to Microsoft has multiplied by at least 10 in the last 10 years.

Do you really think that PC-makers don't react?

Re:Windows Bundles

[rseuhs]

I bought my PC in parts from the store and I still use Windows. Not everyone will "move away from windows" even if windows doesn't come with their PC.

True, not every computer. But many.

For example, here at the university, we have a lot of computer that run the whole day Internet Explorer to display ONE SINGLE website. (It's for administration)

And yes, the site works fine in all browsers.

You really think anybody would pay 100$ for that?

Linux will benefit a lot when PC-vendors don't force-bundle Windows anymore.

Re:Windows Bundles

[sofar]

Well You're missing the point here:

I was referring to the fact that someone complained that PC's were hard to come by without OS. getting then with M$ is no problem, and has never been an issue (anywhere).

BTW, the company that sold the laptop just happens to include the following line somewhere in their price index:

"- No Windows installed - $xxx price reduction"

that *hardly* scares puter novices off, and is a very reassuring wink from the company to us geeks.

Even the average user who drops into a puter store for a quick PC asks about 'windhose'. those who don't silently accept the fact that they get it on their PC.

The point is: although all the normal *users* should be able to get PC's with M$-W without problems, we *geeks* should also be able to get them *without* it. IMHO this is left as an excercise to perform for every geek when he buys a new setup.

Re:Windows Bundles

[HCase]

yeah, hopefully it will get to the point where it can at least be a real competitor and create some true innovation though. what will be will be and only time will tell i guess.

Re:Windows Bundles

[Anonymous Coward]

And any computer I get in the foreseeable future will have that same copy of Win98 on it.

Hey folks. I think we've identified the guy who says Windows is buggy and unreliable, and always will be.

I can put Yggdrasil's first release of 'Plug and Play Linux' (they called it LGX at the time) on a machine and call it unstable too.

Wanta buy my Slackware 3.2 CD-ROM? I'll sell it to you cheap.

Re:Windows Bundles

[JWSmythe]

Tom,

Put what you said in different context. In '91, you bought a new computer, you had the choice of [PC/MS/DR]Dos or Windows, from small stores, or MSDos & Win3.1 from a large retail store.. Microsoft took the monopoly position. People only know how to work Win[3.x/95/98/NT/2k/XP] because it was given to them, and they didn't have a choice. Either learn it, or don't use your computer. If Linux was anywhere near what it is today, the users could have been using it just as easily..

As I recall, some retail stores were using other Windowing managers in '91, but MS got the sweet contracts, and managed to beg and buy their way into the majority share.. Good business for that. That's why you see Compaq, Dell, and HP in all the big retail stores. They do the same thing.. But MS had the stragity of saying to the big OEM's, "If you sell MS, you can't give the option of anything else." That's why we haven't seen OS/2, BeOS, *nix on any of those systems..

Most end users don't know shit about installing an OS. They can point and click. I worked retail computer stores for years.. If they get a DOS prompt, they're lost. They couldn't install a driver for Win9x to save their lives.. That's why they bring it back to the store..

If there were Compaq, Dell, and HP machines in the store, with a Windows, OS/2, BeOS, and Linux, with identical hardware, and proper pricing for the OS's (assuming OS/2 and BeOS were even still available), people would be buying Linux machines with the OS preinstalled..

"You can have this computer with Linux for $300, or with Window for $400". Consumers are cheap bastards, and would jump at the Linux machine, with a current interface and well put together package.. Even office environments would thrive with a nice copy of StarOffice, or something of that sort on it..

It'll be years and years before we see Linux even coming close to that age. Maybe if it had been this well developed in 1995, it would have 50% market share, but not yet today..

Today, I point to various computers in my office and home, and tell people, "That's Linux". My girlfriend sat down, knowing nothing about *nix, and clicked the Netscape icon, and started browsing.. That's all most people do. Browse, and read Email.. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, just someone capable of moving a mouse.

Wether it's Windows or Linux, they'll still take it to a store for new hardware. Most end users have never even considered opening the case of the computer themselves.. It's like opening the hood of your car to check the oil. They leave it to "professionals".

Re:Windows Bundles

[WNight]

This isn't really much of a problem. I know nobody gives Joe Sixpack much credit, but I'm sure that after having seen a few different looking desktops (all in the MS line, from 95/2k/XP) that he could probably clue into clicking the little button in the bottom left corner, or double-clicking an icon that looks like a envelope and says 'E-Mail'.

In fact, I think the low-end users are going to be the first target. Not only do stores have a financial motive to provide Windows alternatives, but the low-end users don't expect much out of a computer they bought for the same price as a gaming console.

Re:Windows Bundles

[jedidiah]

You're the real Zealot here.

Linux already supports a wide array of hardware, has a significant array of software and is relatively easy to configure new hardware for.

For the crowd that would never consider building their own box, Linux is suitable NOW.

Sour grapes won't change that.

The moment the current version of WinDOS becomes older than common hardware, it quickly begins to use it's edge in ease of configuration.

Re:Windows Bundles

[jedidiah]

It's a lot easier to do without a Microsoft OS than it is to do without a CPU. A computer simply cannot function without the latter.

Things might be merely "uncomfortable" without the former.

Setting up a new NIC has NEVER been horribly difficult in Linux. This is just gross ignorance on your part.

Infact, with the strong likelihood that ALL SUPPORTED DRIVERS are alread installed onto your Linux system, there's a strong chance that installing a new NIC on Linux will be EASIER than with WinDOS.

OTOH, with more and more hardware being included as "standard", arguments like yours are becoming a red herring.

Re:Windows Bundles

[jedidiah]

???

My TV and CDR software all worked "right out of the box". This is true from Mandrake 7.2 and includes 3D hardware acceleration as well.

OTOH, Win2K has a nasty habit of having a suitable (but less than ideal) driver for your hardware but not telling you. Plus, Win2K might not even have a driver for your particular bit of hardware.

With Win2K you're in the same position as if you owned an iMac.

That's simply the nature of lemming marketing.

BTW, I haven't NEEDED to build my own kernel since Slackware '96. You bringing it up is simply a weak ass red herring. Also, the package based distros can update kernels (as well as anything else) the same way that Win2K does: binary packages.

Unless your kernel is somehow BROKEN, there's no need for anyone to rebuild their own. Even if your kernel is somehow broken, you could just install another distro fresh.

Without the added complexity of global binary configuration databases, the Unixen are all quite flexible when it comes to moving user config data and applications around. Isolate your personal data and you can wipe and reinstall the core OS at will with less impact than a Windows upgrade.

BTW, it was problematic Windows upgrades that prompted me to start that sort "upgrade" scheme to begin with.

Re:Windows Bundles

[jedidiah]

mom & pop operations don't suffice as counterexamples here.

If they don't have any volume OEM discounts, they have nothing to lose from doing business as they see fit rather than how Microsoft tells them.

Re:Windows Bundles

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think if you could select "No OS" or "Linux" and see the price go down from $800 to $650.

Except that MS isn't getting anywhere near $250 from your Dell-with-Windows-preloaded. More like $25 or so.

Sorry, moron.

Re:Windows Bundles

[mpe]

In order for Linux to win it must emulate the UI of Windows.

Which UI might that be, considering Windows has been through quite a few recently

I mean I don't want to wave through random directories and commands and god knows what just to setup a new NIC or something...

Except that that is an A/MI (Administration/Maintanance Interface) issue.
Most of the time people understand the difference, one of the worst things about Windows is blurring the distinction, so users end up struggling to do "techie" tasks. There is even a whole set of third party addons to Windows to explictally prevent end user alteration...
When you look at things it's somehow strange that the fuss made about installing hardware is about needing a special interface to configure it, rather than needing a screwdriver to get it in the box in the first place...
Do you have a car where the engine can be overhauled from the driving seat too?

Re:Windows Bundles

[mpe]

Infact, with the strong likelihood that ALL SUPPORTED DRIVERS are alread installed onto your Linux system, there's a strong chance that installing a new NIC on Linux will be EASIER than with WinDOS.

But shouldn't need to be a part of the user interface in the first place. Indeed it makes a lot of sense for a computer to be capable of running it at least a "user mode" for everyday usage and a "maintanance mode" which covers such things as installing/uninstalling applications and drivers, altering critical system settings, etc.
When in "user mode" some things simply cannot be altered at all, no risk of accidentantally deleting something important. Also you probably want applications to not be usable in maintance mode...

Re:Windows Bundles

[mpe]

For the average PC user, who buys a PC for home and small business, that's not going to necessarily be the case. They want a PC they can take out of the box, turn on and use.

For anything other than the smallest of small business the only way you can have that is through something like either LTSP or an Xterm.
For many places preloading the machine with anything gives no advantage, the first thing which needs to be done is to replace the OEM install with something subject to their corporate standard...

Re:Windows Bundles

[tomstdenis]

Really want to test that? Lets pull two random non-guru's off the street and see who can setup a new USB scanner or something the quickest.

Let's see...

In windows. You plug in the device, chances are it will detect it and ask for the disk. Perhaps a reboot [not always as is the case for my zipdrive and LG scanner].

In linux. It might recognize the device, chances are the kernel will not have been configured with support for it. The user not knowing how to modify his kernel [or the modules] will be stumped. Even if an RPM is available chances are it was for a kernel 2 versions ago and doesn't work [e.g. dependency errors]. Even if they manage to rebuild the kernel [like I have] even with USB Scanner support checked, they will marvel at the fact that The GIMP doesn't detect it.

Mock me as you will, but I am not a newbie to computers. I certainly am a Newbie when it comes to linux though. Mock me as you will, but my technical skills in Linux represent what an "advanced newbie" will know. So if I can't figure it out [even though I'm well versed in how to use compilers and write software, see my website for some examples] then chances are some newbie off the street [so to speak] will not figure it out.

See when you pull your head out of your butt and realize that the average user is not technically versed you will see how Linux is flawed.

Note that I never said "Kill Linux". By all means I respect what they are trying todo. My position is just that they are not there in terms of useability which is why [despite all your groans and moans] Windows is still very popular.

Tom

Hmm..

[zapfie]

Most people don't even know that there are other choices than Windows, and still rely on Windows applications. What will these users use instead? What would PC manufacturers put on their PCs? Somehow I think Windows is still going to be around for a while..

Re:Hmm..

[zapfie]

Why is this redundant? Browse flat (ignore threads).. please tell me which comment posted before this that this is redundant to?

Amazing logic.

[TheConfusedOne]

News flash: Product fails because no one's buying it.

Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity. You can either afford the box or you can't. Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking.

The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. That means that in their mind it's free, not a major portion of the actual cost. As long as that price is hidden it won't be a factor in a purchasing decision.

The single best thing we could get out of an MS settlement (since we're not going to get the break-up that they deserve) would be to require all PC sales adds to prominently display the cost of Windows and the percentage of total cost that it represents. That would certainly open a few eyes.

Re:Amazing logic.

[-brazil-]

Even more important would be to stop the NDA-protected OEM license that disallows companies to sell dual-boot systems. I can't imagine a more effective Windows-killer than widely available pre-installed dual-boot systems.

Re:Amazing logic.

[stubear]

Really? I can't imagine a more widely avialable way to waste hard drive space. As an OS is a tool, pick the one you need.

Re:Amazing logic.

[einhverfr]

I agree with Raymonds conclusions but not his logic (he seems to be doing worse these days ;)

Here is my reasoning: There are two markets for PCs-- They are an absolute necessity for the corporate environment because without them, larger companies cannot move the information in sufficient quantity or speed, nor can the process the inforamtion fast enough to remain competitive in today's environment.

In the home market, they are a luxury, but are slowly becoming more necessary.

The real problem is that hardware is progressing much faster than software, and this leads to a couple of very bad scenarios for Dell, Compaq, HP, etc. and also by extension Microsoft. If hardware is more powerful than necessary, it stays around a bit longer. This means fewer sales for PC manufacturers and often longer upgrade cycles in the IT world. We are already seeing sluggish sales, and the IDC has forcasted very modest growth in the next couple of years-- we may already be in the flattening phase.

In the PC manufacturing market, there is a strong economy of scale, but this is even more noticeable in the software world where the vase majority of expenses fall under R&D and marketing. Shrinking markets mean higher costs both of hardware and of software. Again, this is far more deadly in the software market than in the hardware market.

The single best thing we could get out of an MS settlement (since we're not going to get the break-up that they deserve) would be to require all PC sales adds to prominently display the cost of Windows and the percentage of total cost that it represents. That would certainly open a few eyes.

To be honest I have never understood this logic-- the breakup plans were very bad from a marketplace perspective. Why should we breake one predatory company with two monopolies into two predatory companies with one monopoly each? IMO, this could have drastically harmed Linux and all competitors and created a baby-bell situation (referring to local service, not long-distance). Furthermore, two predatory companies are far more agile than one, and so I would FAR prefer to see Microsoft deemed guilty and only slapped on the wrist than broken up. (That way, further predatory activity could be handled by civil suits which even when unsuccessful have been shown to be effective in most circumstances, as per IBM.) Basically, I feel that we are dealing with the IBM of the early PC market here, not Standard Oil.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Boiler99]

Exactly why you may need more than one tool...

Some people might need more than just games and basic office suite components, just so that you're informed of anomalies such as this. Take for example the people who develop software...they may want to develop on a stable OS that will let them run their test code in a protected environment, so they run a *nix variant...but then they want to turn around later that evening and bust out some CounterStrike with their friends. Some people need dual boot. If you've ever tried to stop a program in windows that you're developing that managed to find a nice infinite loop or something you fat-fingered, and it gives you the message "This application has refused the shutdown command." you'd know what I mean. Kill -9, where are you?

I'm not saying that the people who need dual boot would buy from one of the pee-cee manufacturers either, but hey, there are uninformed people out there who don't understand why someone would need more than one "tool" in their box, so I can't assume anything.

Re:Amazing logic.

[ch-chuck]

"The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. "

Yep, Msft as the 'default' system shipped with each PC is the vigorish & tax on PC's that made them billions and billions. I've been bashing my boss for years that "The hardware's cheap, it's the software that kill's you" and he STILL, this very morning, asks for "Could you setup Joe in shipping with a computer? Doesn't have to be anything fast, just an old pc with access to the database". So I wrote back, "Once again, the hardware's cheap, the software's expensive: it's going to cost about $500 for the software", to get a full Windows ME and Access 2000, to legally install the Win98 and Access 97 that we use on workstations, paying for features that we don't want or use anyway, because we don't really have any consumer 'choice', altho Msft apologist claim that 'consumer choice' is what made Msft the giant it is today. And have you seen what Monopoly price gouging prices individual Office components are?? $300 each!!!

Re:Amazing logic.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Why should we breake one predatory company with two monopolies into two predatory companies with one monopoly each?

Because theoretically, each of the monopolies (OS, browser, office suite) bolsters the others. Breaking them apart would (we prayed) elminate this cross-monopoly effect.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows isn't free? I've *never* bought a copy of Windows seperately. The last MS product I purchased was MS-DOS 5.0 upgrade. I've either pirated it since then or received it free (yes, free, I didn't pay for it) with my PC. Usually I just get a copy from a friend and burn it.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Wal-Mart is beginning to sell PC's without Windows installed. $399 for a 1Ghz Duron OS less PC without the monitor. Getting the same machine with windows, $498. That means that the OS makes up approximately 20% of the total cost of the machine. Plus this is a PC that Joe consumer is going to see everyday while shopping.

Re:Amazing logic.

[macrom]

Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking.

Well, a quick look on Newegg shows that Windows XP purchased with hardware runs $140 for a single copy. A jump to look at current prices for Office XP shows us $180 when purchased with software. OK, not the greatest price, but not the hundreds of dollars that you might think. After all, to compare OSes (not office apps, because StarOffice takes the cake there) RedHat 7.2 Professional is selling for $199.99 over at Outpost.com. Hmm. As far as a consumer goes, this is the equivalent purchase. Yes, there are cheaper distros out there. Yes, we here know that you can download ISOs of various distros for "free", but that's not a valid comparison. Consumers as a whole are not going to do that -- they want point and click, graphical installation programs like Windows has given them for years.

Given this info, Windows isn't all THAT expensive. If the cost is $140 for XP as a single purchase, I'm sure the big PC builders like Dell, Gateway, Compaq get them in lots of 10,000 for much, much cheaper. So the whole cost of your OS is probably a very small part of your overall system price, depending on how much your system really is.

As a gamer, I'd probably build a system around $2500, maybe more. This is without Office -- if you go to Dell's (or others') site, they'll charge you at least $200 to upgrade to Office XP. But let's say they get XP for $100 :

$100 / $2500 * 100% = 4% of the price of my system. I think most people would be willing to pay an extra 4% to get something they're already familiar with. At any rate, it's certainly not a major portion of the cost of the computer.

greg

Re:Amazing logic.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

News flash: Product fails because no one's buying it.

Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity. You can either afford the box or you can't. Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking.

The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. That means that in their mind it's free, not a major portion of the actual cost. As long as that price is hidden it won't be a factor in a purchasing decision.

Yes, logic is amazing, isn't it? The fact that so many consider it a luxury makes it all the more clear--if some offers them a CHEAPER box, they'll buy that one instead. They don't have to know or care how much of the cost goes towards Microsoft.

If all the average user wants to do is browse the web, read e-mail, and let their kids type their term papers (they probably don't even need to read *.DOC files) then either KDE or Gnome would give them all they need TODAY. So a vendor can install and set up one of those, and magically cut the price by $100 (or whatever). Which would mean a vast number of users running a computer without a Microsoft OS, a Microsoft browser, or any ability to read Microsoft formats.

At the very least, this will force Microsoft to ALWAYS sell (at least to OEM) a very low cost version of their OS. Maybe we'll see a low end Standard Home Edition and a high end Enhanced Home Edition?

Re:Amazing logic.

[mcc]

To be honest I have never understood this logic-- the breakup plans were very bad from a marketplace perspective. Why should we break one predatory company with two monopolies into two predatory companies with one monopoly each?

*sighs*
this has been gone over a million times, but i'll try to do it here as best i can.
horizontal and vertical monopolies are *very* different things. the point of such a move would not be to immedately break microsoft's OS stranglehold. the point would be to prevent microsoft leveraging its OS monopoly to create and maintain monopolies in application areas.

The idea is that microsoft's app division has, if they so desire, direct access to all sorts of internal things that no one outside microsoft has. If MS were split into two companies, then *all communication* between the apps and OS microsofts would have to be above-ground and visible to outside-microsoft entities. For example, if MS-Apps wants to embed a web browser into the OS, then they have to publicly ask MS-OS if this is possible, and MS-OS will have to create some kind of public object framework or plug-in architecture that would make such a thing possible and publish the interface to it. The end result of this would be that MSIE can be embedded into microsoft windows, but if netscape or opera so desires they can embed themselves into the OS as well because the manner in which MSIE did this was documented. There would be three upshots of this:

• MS-OS would be forced to create more flexible and almost certainly superior interfaces because (to continue the above example) they'd be designing "an architecture to embed a web browser in file browser windows" rather than just copy&pasting code from internet explorer into the windows graphical shell. (i will attempt to refrain here from attempting in detail to explain how years before windows 98 was even thought of, apple had a plan to use something called opendoc to eventually merge any web browser you liked into the OS, because it not relevant..)
• It would be an important first step toward levelling the playing field insofar as software apps go. Microsoft would still have an intense head start insofar as money in the bank and product inertia goes, but if the DOJ forced MS to fully document the Word file format then microsoft word would be forced to compete on its own merits. (Never mind that all of MS Word's real competitors are now dead; never mind that after all the time MS has had for a head start, MSWord would probably win on its own merits anyway..)
• If MS was forced to document everything for the public, then projects like WINE would have an exponentially easier time.

You could of course say that the DOJ could just force MS to publicly document all interfaces, but MS has a quite clear history of basically spitting in the face of any legal judgements passed on them. Ensuring and enforcing compliance with something like "MS, you must publicly document all interfaces to the OS" would be near impossible, especially since MS has made it clear they are very good at avoiding obeying legal judgements. Witness the early 90s "no product tying" consent decree. . . this is just the *only* way to absolutely make certain that MS-Apps is not recieving preferential treatment, to ensure that the two divisions can only communicate by publishing APIs. Nothing else works. Moreover, once MS-OS and MS-Apps were seperate companies whose survival is not necessarily dependent on each other, if they continue to give each other preferential treatment then their respective stockholders will NOT be happy.

This does not mean that a breakup would solve all problems. However, i think it would be an important first step towards allowing some fresh air in to the OS Apps industry, i believe there are a number of things that can only be achieved by breaking up MS. I believe that if MS-Apps was forced to compete the same way normal companies are, other companies might be able to create viable competing products, and those products might be ported to and make viable MS-OS's competitors. It may be it is too late to reverse the damage MS has done to the software industry in sucking up basically all of its resources into one entity. I don't know. Still, though, i would say that splitting up MS is certainly a valid course of action, even if it is not the most logical one.

Does this make sense to you?

Re:Amazing logic.

[sammy baby]

As an OS is a tool, pick the one you need.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

OS's are tools. I don't know of anyone who only owns one tool. I have a whole kit.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Jeremi]

The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. That means that in their mind it's free, not a major portion of the actual cost. As long as that price is hidden it won't be a factor in a purchasing decision

Consumer goes to Best Buy and sees a row of PCs with Windows selling for $500-$1000. Then he goes to the next aisle and sees a row of PCs without Windows (but otherwise the same), selling for $300-$800. I think he can then put two and two together.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Ooblek]

I thought I'd mention that my Grandfather just bought an e-machine that boots XP of of a flash ROM. I think the conculsions ESR came to were based on some not-so-great research. PCs will become cheap, but the most likely scenario will be that sales of the "loadable" version of windows will drop, but you'll get it pre-loaded in the flash rom when you buy the PC.

We also have some smart terminals at work that cost $300.00 that run WinCE. They are used to connect to Windows terminal services. I believe you end up paying some sort of fee for the amount of maximum user connections you need anyway. Still, this beats buying even a $500-$1k machine if you just need it to run the Citrix client.

Re:Amazing logic.

[jsmyth]

The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. That means that in their mind it's free, not a major portion of the actual cost.

I believe the point was more that the vendors would have a harder time justifying "the microsoft tax" than the users - of course, if Microsoft reduce their price substantially, or if vendors refuse to install or support Linux/*BSD, then this is all moot - you are right in that situation, as the public would have nothing to compare their $450 box with (if the $350 Linux box beside it is equal in features, why the extra $100?).

how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking.

You can get that information from most vendors - you can even ask for a price "with no OS" sometimes :-)

Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity.

That's a WHOLE other issue... PCs are rapidly becoming a commodity. Again that was an observation made by ESR. TVs, Cars, VCRs, HiFis, all are becoming accepted commodities more than luxuries, even though in pure subsistence terms they are recreational more than necessary...

Re:Amazing logic.

[tyrant]

C'mon man, what terrible "OS" comparisons. You compare a bare bones XP OEM disc with no manual which must be purchased with hardware, against a full professional distribution of Redhat 7.2.
Just click on detailed description on the outpost site to see what you get for for your $199.99. Hardly just an OS is it?

Given that info windows IS all that expensive. Check out this manufacturer. Redhat 7.2 pre installed for $29.

Re:Amazing logic.

[cduffy]

The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. That means that in their mind it's free, not a major portion of the actual cost. As long as that price is hidden it won't be a factor in a purchasing decision.

Right -- the decision isn't in the mind of the consumers, but the OEMs. As soon as the OEMs find that they have to toss Windows to make a cheaper PC than everyone else sells, that's when some of them toss Windows.

Re:Amazing logic.

[decipher_saint]

"Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity."

What!?!

Re:Amazing logic.

[saintlupus]

Some people might need more than just games and basic office suite components, just so that you're informed of anomalies such as this. Take for example the people who develop software..

...they can already set up their own dual boot system without any help from Dell.

--saint

Re:Amazing logic.

[trb]

Not only that, but the consumer goes to Best Buy and sees the Windows PCs running lame M$ screensaver (the app usually active at retailers), and then sees Linux running muy macho jwz xscreensaver. Once there's a row of Linux PC's at Best Buy (and therein lies the rub), M$ is d00med for sure.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Eimi Metamorphoumai]

Did you read the article? The whole point was that it's not a deal breaker now, but as prices drop it becomes more and more significant. His price point was $350. When you compare a Windows machine for $450 (and no office) to one at $350 (which all the free office software being made), things start to look different. $100/$350 * 100% = 28.5% of the price of the system.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read This Your numbers are WAY off.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Magius_AR]

Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity.

That's slowly shifting to be untrue. Give it a few more years.

Magius_AR

Re:Amazing logic.

[Hostile17]

RedHat 7.2 Professional is selling for $199.99

Yes, we here know that you can download ISOs of various distros for "free", but that's not a valid comparison. Consumers as a whole are not going to do that

I can get a full version of RedHat 7.2 from Cheapbytes for $3.99 plus shipping and Handling. Granted I don't get phone support or a nice printed manual, but this is balanced by the shear amount of software I get. Developement tools, Mail/Web/FTP/Telnet Servers and clients, alot of other stuff as well that cost extra from Microsoft.

Re:Amazing logic.

[jheinen]

"I can't imagine a more effective Windows-killer than widely available pre-installed dual-boot systems."

Hah! Don't get me wrong, I've been a Linux user for years, but I've been playing around with WinXP for a couple of months, and I can tell you for certain that a dual-boot consumer PC will doom Linux. The average PC user has no use for 90% of the stuff that comes with the average Linux distro. Add that to the fact that XP is simply much easier for the average person to use, and you will quickly get a whole lot of people bitching about the wasted HD space being taken up be the difficult to use Linux partition. I'm sorry, but XP wins hands down when it comes to the functionality that the average person needs. E-mail, multi-media, word docs, and some games. That's about all the average person needs, and XP makes these things trivially easy. Just about anyone can fire up XP and figure out how to rip a CD or install a game in a matter of minutes. It is simply not possible to do that on Linux.

Linux still has a long way to go before it can rival XP in the average person's needs department. I really wish people would forget about the whole "Linux on the Desktop" issue. I don't think we'll ever win as long as we keep playing catchup to M$. To really make inroads on the desktop, a competing OS has to be basically idiot proof, and do everything XP does, only easier, faster, and more stable.

Re:Amazing logic.

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

If you've ever tried to stop a program in windows that you're developing that managed to find a nice infinite loop or something you fat-fingered, and it gives you the message "This application has refused the shutdown command." you'd know what I mean. Kill -9, where are you?

Why are you Unix people so clueless? I develop on Windows. If an app does something "fat-fingered," task manager will kill it 99% of the time. If not, well, where is kill? Here:


D:\>kill -?
Microsoft (R) Windows NT (TM) Version 3.5 KILL
Copyright (C) 1994-1998 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved

usage: KILL [options] <<pid> | <pattern>>*

[options]:
-f Force process kill

<pid>
This is the process id for the task to be killed. Use TLIST to get a valid pid.

<pattern>
The pattern can be a complete task name or a regular expression pattern to use as a match. Kill matches the supplied pattern against the task names and the window titles.


Get your facts straight before you flame.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

The proper way to look at is that the software is cheap, the hardware is even cheaper, it's the labor that's expensive, and it's the knowledge that's valuable.

Meaning that the real cost of having you setup and maintain the machine is far more than $500, and that the total cost is most likely squat compared to the value of the data in the database itself.

Just trying to put your objection in perspective.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Boiler99]

I have a clue, and I'm terribly sorry but here's what my Windows 2000 command line spits out:

E:>ver

Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]

E:>kill -?
'KILL' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

E:>

How about that? And I haven't had the luck you have with "99% of the time" either, it's more like 75% depending on what you're doing and what crashes. Hell, Active Desktop has crashed on me more than once thanks to Outlook, and it hard-locks.

So sorry, YOU get your facts straight.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Boiler99]

I mentioned that in my reply, but thanks for reminding me.

I was replying to the poster's assertion that there is never a need for more than one operating system, not the fact that anyone who would actually need that would actually buy from a PC manufacturer.

Re:Amazing logic.

[iggie]

Even simpler would be to mandate that every copy of every microsoft product shipped from Redmond carries the same price tag - wether its going to OEM, or retail. All Windows cost the same, all Offices cost the same, etc. This would have the desired effect that OEMs will not 'bundle' anything. The consumer buys the hardware and the OS seperately - thus 'feeling' the cost of their OS, and would also preclude Microsoft from engaging in licensing deals and having any sway over the OEM market. At the store, next to your PeeCee (Windows sold separately!), you would have a box with Windows (for $100 or whatever), a box with Linux (for $20 or whatever), etc. That's what I would call restored competition.

Re:Amazing logic.

[LMCBoy]

"The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase."

The average computer /manufacturer/ thinks this as well. A friend of mine tried to get a Windows rebate from Dell. He was told it wasn't possible, because Windows came free with the computer (ha!).

Re:Amazing logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check this out: The store, without violating the GPL, can sell its own Linux Distro which is essentially just like some other Distro, but with a different logo. Now the store charges $25 for the BestBuy OS, and of course the cleuless salespeople push the clueless customers into buying it, because on that particular OS, they get to keep $24.50 out of the $25.

Re:Amazing logic.

[jedidiah]

Why do you Lemmings insist on using commandline tools for tasks that don't require the same under Unix? The lot of you whine about how things are so easy under WinDOS and so hard under Unix and then come up with gems like this.

Where's WinKill?

Why isn't the ForceKill option accessable in the menu context of the application?

Why are captive-lemmings forced to hunt through the system?

Re:Amazing logic.

[jedidiah]

I dispute your claims.

My mother-in-law stands as a stark counterexample against your claim that any idiot with a copy of XP will suddenly be able to start ripping CDs. She can't.

She is fundementally technophobic and no amount of tweaks to the Microsoft UI will change that.

XP is no more idiot proof than Linux is.

Re:Amazing logic.

[RMSIsAnIdiot]

WinKill is called "Task Manager" moron. If you had read my post, the command line is a last resort, kind of like when your piece-of-shit X-Window System locks up.

Re:Amazing logic.

[jheinen]

Just because she can't do it on both is in no way an argument that XP is no more idiot proof than Linux.

That would be like saying that if I can't lift a Volkswagen, and I can't lift a Mack Truck, then the truck is no heavier than the Volkswagen.

All that's proven is that I'm too weak to lift either.

Re:Amazing logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer goes to Best Buy and sees a row of PCs with Windows selling for $500-$1000. Then he goes to the next aisle and sees a row of PCs without Windows (but otherwise the same), selling for $300-$800.

Consumer asks salesperson: What's the difference between the machines in these two aisles?

Salesperson: Well, those less expensive machines can't run the software most people use. And they won't run most games. And you won't be able to access some websites from them, because they use an incompatible browser. And they're harder to use.

All your scenario does is drive up the amount of Windows piracy, as people buy the Linux or OS-free machines and wipe the HD so that they run Linux.

Also, your price differential is off -- OEM licenses for Windows are considerably less than $200.

Re:Amazing logic.

[jonelf]

I've never heard of booting XP of flash ROM before. Where did he buy this monster and
how huge is that ROM anyway?

I like the idea of having the OS on a flash ROM because that might finally make my PC boot faster than my 13 years old flame-bait-machine.

Re:Amazing logic.

[mpe]

Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity. You can either afford the box or you can't. Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking

If we are talking entirely about "home" machines then the luxury argument makes sense. Where they are being used for work purposes the luxury argument dosn't really make sense.

Re:Amazing logic.

[mpe]

The idea is that microsoft's app division has, if they so desire, direct access to all sorts of internal things that no one outside microsoft has.

This is a problem even if the rest of the planet will be given acess to this information at some time in the future. Since the apps division has a time advantage here. They can have a product ready to ship whilst any competitor is still at the development stage.

If MS were split into two companies, then *all communication* between the apps and OS microsofts would have to be above-ground and visible to outside-microsoft entities.

Assuming that you can ensure a complete split. Which may be tricky especially on things such as share ownership. You'd effectivly need something like a ban on any entity holding shares in both companies.

You could of course say that the DOJ could just force MS to publicly document all interfaces, but MS has a quite clear history of basically spitting in the face of any legal judgements passed on them.

Which in most cases would be cause for the judge to "throw the book at them". i.e. impose the most punitive judgment the law allows them too (and if needs be complain that the law needs ammending because it forced something inappropriatly lenient.)

Ensuring and enforcing compliance with something like "MS, you must publicly document all interfaces to the OS" would be near impossible, especially since MS has made it clear they are very good at avoiding obeying legal judgements.

Probably because the judgments had no effective "teeth" or enforcement. Proper "teeth" would be something like "by not documenting any API or file format. Microsoft shal have been demed to have placed any software which uses that file format (and any derived work) into the public domain". Proper enforcement might well look something like a BSA "raid".

Re:Amazing logic.

[mpe]

Even simpler would be to mandate that every copy of every microsoft product shipped from Redmond carries the same price tag - wether its going to OEM, or retail.

Or even simpler have no difference between an OEM and a retail copy. Only discount Even simpler would be to mandate that every copy of every microsoft product shipped from Redmond carries the same price tag - wether its going to OEM, or retail.

Or even simply have Microsoft sell Windows. Which is the same thing regardless of if it is going to an OEM, an end user or a third party reseller. OEM's can also buy Windows direct from Microsoft, from a reseller or from another OEM...

This would have the desired effect that OEMs will not 'bundle' anything.

But it would be possible for retailers (the likes of Dell, Compaq, etc are also retailers) to bundle an OS with a machine, in the same way they sometimes bundle a scanner or printer, etc. The point here is that the customer can typically buy just the computer (or just the printer) if they want to anyway...

So will ESR be

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprised by Windows?

./, please post *more* idiotic ZDnet editorials

[lukeduff]

ZDnet's infalliable crystal ball has never lead us wrong.

Re: ESR

[baywulf]

ESR: Keep your grubby hands away from my $50 million ... er ... $25 million ... $5 million ... $1 milli... five dollars...

Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[arcanis]

I'm a college student, and I know that I can't afford anything near the amount of money that Microsoft wants to charge for office.

Even if they start giving away windows for free, people are eventually going to grow tired of spending another few hundred bucks for the next version of office with no worthwhile new features. Meanwhile, there are other products available that are catching up, like Star Office. Even if Sun's going to be charging for Star Office in the future, I don't think it'll be nearly as expensive as MS Office.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[filtrs]

I totally agree with your point.

If MS loses anywhere soon, it will be in their constant upgrade/upgrade/upgrade parade for Office and related products. Individuals and companies will continue to upgrade Windows (since it comes with that new PC they just HAVE to get), but most people are perfectly happy with old Office '97. MS pushing the upgrades and dropping support for older versions is a MUCH bigger turn-off than buying a new PC with a flashy OS desktop on it.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[yatest5]

If MS loses anywhere soon, it will be in their constant upgrade/upgrade/upgrade parade for Office and related products. Individuals and companies will continue to upgrade Windows (since it comes with that new PC they just HAVE to get), but most people are perfectly happy with old Office '97. MS pushing the upgrades and dropping support for older versions is a MUCH bigger turn-off than buying a new PC with a flashy OS desktop on it.

Newsflash - MS makes its money from businesses. Home users all pirate the bloody stuff.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fud. Most universities (mine included) offer many pieces of microsoft software for $5 apiece, fully licensed for the rest of your life. I got office XP and Windows XP pro (full versions, not upgrades, mind you) for a whole $10. Microsoft does this to I suppose, hope to gain market share in the future (kind of like how the drug dealer gives you the first hit or two for free...). But, hey it works for me!

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[PoiBoy]

If you're a college student, chances are that you can get Microsoft products very inexpensively. I'm a grad student at the University of Michigan, and I bought a copy of Office 2k for $35 a few years ago. IIRC, the price hasn't risen, and a complete (i.e. not just an upgrade) version of WinXP Pro is $45. The first place to check with is your university's computer sales department or just check with the helpdesk and have them refer you to the right people. Even if your school doesn't have a deal with M$, there are some web sites that act as clearinghouses to sell students most popular software at the manufacturer's student prices.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[sql*kitten]

I'm a college student, and I know that I can't afford anything near the amount of money that Microsoft wants to charge for office.

You're modded as funny, but I'll answer anyway: isn't the Student Edition of MS Office something like $99? And even if it was too expensive, as a student, you are unlikely to need the full features of office anyway and could buy the much cheaper but still quite useful MS Works.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Cro Magnon]

I don't know why you were modded "Funny", I would have given you an "Insightful". When I bought my current PC, Gateway gave me a choice between M$ Office, and Corel (at the time I was still mostly using Windows), and Corel was significantly cheaper. I strongly suspect that StarOffice will be comparable to Corel.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a student, you can more than likely
get a student discount at any number of
vendors.

Office will cost you about 20 dollars. So,
destroys that rant...

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably got a pirated copy: Here is what they claim they are charging.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably are talking about pirated copies: Here is what they claim they are charging.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Fez]

On IU campuses (and the Regional campuses associated with it) most all Microsoft Products are $5/cd because of the deal they have with M$.

Which means:
Office XP: 3 CDs, $15
Office 2k: 2 or 4 CDs, $10-20
Windows (Any of XP Pro Corp, 2k Pro, ME, or 98se): 1 CD, $5
Visual Studio 6: 5+ CDs, $25

I don't know about other students, but that's a pretty good deterrant to Piracy for me.

It also gets the students familiar with Microsoft's programs, which has its own set of interesting implications.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[nomadic]

Or just use Wordpad. Very few college students need anything more complicated than that.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[rseuhs]

... could buy the much cheaper but still quite useful MS Works.

Or the even cheaper and more useful (than MS Works) StarOffice/OpenOffice....

Yeah, I know: Oh my god! It's not from Microsoft! THE HORROR!!!

I think Sun should change their company name to "Master Sun" and start selling "MS StarOffice".

People like sql*kitten would fall for it, I'm sure about that.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[elefantstn]

Not true, really. Anyone who needs to footnote a paper is past Wordpad's capability.

Back to the original point, though -- the only real reasons to use Office over Star/OpenOffice are 1) document interchange or 2) very advanced features. Both of those only apply to the business world for the most part (SO/OO can easily handle paper-type things in .doc format).

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[nomadic]

I guess that's my social science background; we were supposed to put citations in parentheses in the text itself (Smith, 1994).

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[elefantstn]

Heathen!

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

But as as student you could buy Office with a academic discount of about 70%, making the price $149, which isn't that much if you seriously need/want it.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Broccolist]

Another alternative to office that is good for starving college students is LaTeX. It takes a bit of tech savvy to learn how to use it, so I wouldn't advocate it for Joe User, but it really isn't any more complicated than HTML. Very nice for CS students, because its support for mathematical symbols is far superior to office's, and you can use your favorite text editor to edit LaTeX files instead of suffering office's weak and crashy WYSIWYG editor.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[j7953]

I don't know the specific license terms of MS Office, but a problem with many student licenses is that they don't allow commercial use. This means if you work as a self-employed [put computer job here], you cannot legally use the software for your business, which makes the purchase kind of senseless. Why would I spend $99 if it means I have to be careful with what I use the product for? Yeah, I could use it for my business anyway, but then, if I'm not going to care about the license anyway, I could just as well get an unlawful copy for $0.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a college student, why do you want MS Office at all? It's not like you have clients that send you .doc files and you can't say no to them. It's not like the secretary you hired only knows how to use Office.

If you're not in business, you are free to use the best tools for the job. Office doesn't even make the cut.

Re:Yeah, but people can't afford office, either.

[joeaggie]

MS Works! hah! thats funny http://engr111.tamu.edu/ thats a freshman engineering course that you take your first semester in school.... if you notice you'd need word, excel, and powerpoint! M$ has wormed itself in quite nicely, these guys want powerpoints for the final project!

Umm no.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the price of a PC falls below $350, Microsoft will no longer be viable.

My iPAQ cost less than $350, and it still seems to run Windows.

Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easier to afford now that the *TOTAL* cost has come down. I had to save for a year in college to buy a Pentium 133 for $2400 and I was getting a good deal at the time. It's all relative.

Price point is not the only factor.

[2Flower]

Okay, so the idea here is that once PCs drop to a certain level of cost, the idea of paying Microsoft a huge sum goes out the window. Two problems. One, which has already been noted here, is that Microsoft can just lower their own prices.

But two, and most importantly: What ELSE are you going to install on that computer if not Windows? Linux? Then we get into the 'is Linux ready for the desktop' thing. It doesn't matter if Microsoft charges your first born son, if they're the only viable, usable OS available for Joe Q. User to check their e-mail and read the web with, they'll still get payment even with ultra-cheap computers.

Of course, if some OS steps up to the plate to replace them for free/cheap AND the PCs drop in cost, then we've got something. Perhaps OEMs will start developing their own user-friendly, stripped down blends of Linux to ship with new PCs?

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[-brazil-]

It doesn't matter if Microsoft charges
your first born son, if they're the only viable, usable OS available for Joe Q. User to check their e-mail
and read the web with,

Why the hell? I'd say that those tasks are exactly where Linux is perfectly able to replace and outperform Windows most completely.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[JordoCrouse]

Two problems. One, which has already been noted here, is that Microsoft can just lower their own prices.

But two, and most importantly: What ELSE are you going to install on that computer if not Windows? Linux?

Of course not. Linux is not ready for the desktop. In fact, if we hit the mainstream, we would probably crash and burn horribly. Then Microsoft would triumpantly return, and we would be relegated to eternal obscurity.

We need Microsoft to continue dominating the desktop right now, so we can quitely finish the revolution without getting egg on our face in the process. Its like a magician - we keep Microsoft and the media focusing on our inability to get on the desktop, and in the meantime, we will quietly replace them on all the other processors that really matter (servers, PDAs, game consoles etc...)

Keeping Microsoft fat, dumb and happy is the only way to kill the dragon.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[BitwizeGHC]

Game consoles will never appreciably see a trong Linux contingent for exactly the same reasons that the desktop won't: there's too much money to be made continuing with the same old proprietary business model.

Linux successfully invaded the server space precisely because nobody saw any money in turning commodity x86 boxen into production-quality servers at first.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[blang]

MS can lower their consumer prices, however, they're still happy to charge up the wazoo for business licenses ans server stuff.

For once, I think the megacorps may do something good for linux. CFO says to CEO "We spent 150 million in MS licenses last year, can you believe that?"

CTO then says: Give me 10 % of that money, and I can put together a large team of linux developers and testers. There are plenty of projects we can put them on to oust MS from the desktop.

In 3 years, MS license cost will be less than $10 mill. And I can also save you 50% of your PC hardware budget by running more frugal software.

Conservatively, your investment will pay back in less than 1 year, and over the next 5 years, your ROI will be 4500%. How about it, boss?

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that those tasks are exactly where Linux is perfectly able to replace and outperform Windows most completely.

But, sadly, it doesn't and you are wrong. Too bad.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[LiENUS]

I think the best replacement for the desktop would be something like beos, however of course beos kinda went kaputz
itd be nice if some of the hardware manufacturers (Dell, hp, whoever) got together and made something POSIX compliant with an X server and such so you could recompile most *N*X software and have it run, but with BeOS's multitasking/user interface. and started slapping this on the lowend 350$ pcs they sell, if one of the wines was ported youd have a decent os which would run a good deal of the software out there.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[dillon_rinker]

Yeah, I guess that whole Windows NT thing just appeared out of thin air. Or maybe it was in response to Linux 0.01...

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[rseuhs]

One, which has already been noted here, is that Microsoft can just lower their own prices.

Can they?

Well, they could. But what most people forget is:

Microsoft is lead by the big stockholders.

So Bill Gates has 2 options:

1) Continue selling stock (he sold more than half of his already) and keep rising prices and revenues short-term.

2) Save Windows-long term, but ruin the next income statements and transferring HIS OWN STOCK into worthless piece of paper.

For the last 5 years, Bill Gates has done strategy 1) and there is no sign he'll change his mind until he has sold the rest he is still holding. (Hell, can't anybody do some research?)

But two, and most importantly: What ELSE are you going to install on that computer if not Windows? Linux? Then we get into the 'is Linux ready for the desktop' thing. It doesn't matter if Microsoft charges your first born son, if they're the only viable, usable OS available for Joe Q. User to check their e-mail and read the web with, they'll still get payment even with ultra-cheap computers.

I know this is heard so often that most people think it's true. But it's not.

MS DOS replaced Apple Macintosh, remember?

Because it was easier to use? I don't think so.

User-friendliness isn't as important as people think, but it's an useless debate anyway, because SuSE which has all OS-configuartion nicely integrated in KDE is more easily usable than Windows TODAY.

And with KDE3 coming out next month...

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if some OS steps up to the plate to replace them for free/cheap AND the PCs drop in cost, then we've got something. Perhaps OEMs will start developing their own user-friendly, stripped down blends of Linux to ship with new PCs?

What about Lycoris Linux?
http://www.lycoris.com/
http://slashdot.o rg/article.pl?sid=02/02/26/132520 1

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Technician]

User to check their e-mail and read the web with, they'll still get payment even with ultra-cheap computers.
Alternate OS'es do email and web just fine. That is not the problem. The problem is alternate OS'es will not run most of the other software on the store shelf. Office applications are not the problem. I bought Star Office off a retail shelf and it does run on Linux and Windows. It was right next to Word Perfect for Linux. Most other desktop applications require MS Windows to run. Don't believe me? Fine, go get this years Turbo Tax and install it on your Linux system. I have not seen the Linux version on any store shelf. Until this changes, we will be stuck with the Windows Monopoly. We are stuck with the Windows monopoly because that is the base that almost all desktop applications run on top of.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Ayende Rahien]

Well, he might just decide to drop the price of the share short-term, for the long term profits, and in the mean time, buy some more shares himself, at the lower price.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[cduffy]

What of embedded systems? For a long time, there've been folks making money off having the dominant embedded systems OS be proprietary. Nonetheless, some open source companies are making an impact. (I work for MVista, btw, and so am more than a bit biased on the subject). There've been folks for a long time who've seen money in operating systems for routers, set-top boxes and PDAs, yet there are companies using Linux for all of these purposes.

The point I'm trying to make is that while there may be money to be made doing the proprietary thing, if going to open source drives your costs and development time down sufficiently (and it drives them down pretty darned far!), it can still be the most profitable thing to do in the long run. Maintaining your own OS and development tools is expensive; use OSS for your base (and outsource all the parts that only support your application) and focus on whatever distinguishes your product, and you can get more done faster -- and that's good for the bottom line.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[rseuhs]

... I didn't even start to talk about what that would mean to the employee's moral.

If Bill Gates does that (destroying MSFT stock price short term) a lot of employees would quit.

I don't say it's impossible that Microsoft significantly lowers the prices, but very unlikely.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[WNight]

Actually I think the one place that Linux is ready for the mainstream is in cheap net-ready computers.

If you buy an office computer you want something that could run MS Office, or something close to it, likely.

If you buy a $300 computer at Wal-Mart for using the inner-net to talk to relatives, likely you don't care what it comes with as long as it does what's needed.

All it would have to do is have a browser, email client, few games, and a basic office suite (not a lot, just enough for balancing a home budget or writing a letter to the relatives), work with standard printers, and be able to save to floppies or CDRW.

The hardest part of that is the printers, many of which are becoming windows-only.

If I was setting up a relative with a cheap computer and I didn't want calls for support I'd put on Linux, run ext3 (keep it from dying if they unplug it), and set it to boot into X without a password where I'd have removed the icons for everything except the apps I mentioned.

Ideally I'd compile the kernel with the kernel-print messages disable, or use one of the boot-picture mods to hide them. That way they don't see anything confusing.

It's only if you have more sophisticated users who've used a computer (with Windows) and want exactly the same thing, where Linux has a hard time substituting. Linux may not be as friendly as WinXP but it's certainly better than Win95 and I know relatives who still use that. (Well, and 3.1, but they're really backwards.)

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Juniper is another big one-- they run FreeBSD on their routers.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[NumberSyx]

User-friendliness isn't as important as people think, but it's an useless debate anyway, because SuSE which has all OS-configuartion nicely integrated in KDE is more easily usable than Windows TODAY.

I don't know who said it, but they said it well.

Usability is not everything. If usability engineers designed a nightclub, it would be clean, quiet, brightly lit, with lots of places to sit down, plenty of bartenders, menus written in 18-point sans-serif, and easy-to-find bathrooms. But nobody would be there. They would all be down the street at Coyote Ugly pouring beer on each other.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[j7953]

One, which has already been noted here, is that Microsoft can just lower their own prices.

But isn't that the point? Currently, Microsoft can charge insanely high prices for Windows. If the PC prices continue to drop, they might have to have to adopt their prices to the actual market situation. In other words, they cannot operate with monopoly pricing any longer.

Of course Microsoft can and will continue to sell Windows for quite some time. The question is, can they continue to sell it at whatever price they demand?

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[atta1]

One more thing most people will want it to run that a lot of people are forgetting... AOL. That and Yahoo messenger, MSN Messenger (I doubt we'll be seeing MSN Messenger for Linux anytime soon) or some other widely used chat client. Until those apps run under Linux, Windows will rule the consumer market.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[WNight]

You can already use MSN under Linux. There are multi-network chat clients (like Trillian for Windows) that do it.

And yeah, AOL's software would be handy to run.

I think AOL should port their software to Linux, perhaps putting the OS on the disk as well, so that people can buy a bare PC, stick the AOL disk in, and go.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Ayende Rahien]

Raise the pay checks, then, god knows that they can afford it. Never mind the fact that stock options doesn't matter that much today.
MSFT stock did a dive when dot com busted, went from ~120$ to about third that much in a couple of months, no it keep floating on the verge 60$ for quite some time.

http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting &m ode=basics&symbol=MSFT%60&selected=MSFT%60&chart=5 &elem=0

I didn't heard about a lot of employees quiting then, and they would certainly won't quit now.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[daviddennis]

This is already being tried. I saw something suspiciously like this at Fry's - a Linux system with all major applications (WordPerfect, KDE email, Mozilla) for sale for something like $50 less than the cheapest alternative.

It was wierd, though - it seemed like it was deliberately set up to prevent people from using more than one application at a time - this is really weird considering that multitasking is a core strength of Linux. They used an odd graphical menuing system that would reappear every time you existed a program, sort of like DOS or the first versions of the Mac.

Strange. But a promising idea if someone does it right.

D

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if Microsoft charges your first born son, if they're the only viable, usable OS available for Joe Q. User to check their e-mail and read the web with, they'll still get payment even with ultra-cheap computers.

Uh, for stuff like that, MS doesn't have an advantage; heck, they're not even competitive with many other OSes. If you just want to check email and read the web, Linux is ready, and has been for many years. For that matter, so is OS/2, Amiga, BeOS, MacOS 7.5, and a bunch of other dead platforms. Email and web are trivial.

The pressure to use MS comes from other directions (Word and Excel documents, custom software, etc).

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[A Bugg]

I finally got around to installing linux on my machine after a couple of years of having the red hat CD's and i would love to work completely in linux cause i am sick and damned tired of windows crashing. So trillian will work under linux or is that srictly for windows, and what would you recommend i use to replace MSN under linux, because i need to talk to my girlfriend and thats pretty much the only reason i continue to boot into windows. Thanks.
andrew bugg

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[macshit]

Yeah, but that quote is intended to show that `interesting', or `cool' (style) can sometimes trump `usable' (function).

Windows is a poster child for the sacrifice of style in the name of usability -- who on earth would claim it's either interesting or cool?!?

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[mpe]

Windows is a poster child for the sacrifice of style in the name of usability

In many ways it isn't an especially good example of "usability" anyway.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[mpe]

The problem is alternate OS'es will not run most of the other software on the store shelf.

It isn't a matter of if the software is on the store shelf it's a matter of if the software is what is needed...

Until this changes, we will be stuck with the Windows Monopoly. We are stuck with the Windows monopoly because that is the base that almost all desktop applications run on top of.

This is a classic "chicken and egg" issue...

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[Technician]

This is a classic "chicken and egg" issue...
True! What makes it worse is Microsoft is trying to tie into both the chicikens and eggs. Chickens = Windows on every PC shipped, Eggs = enticing application developers to use MS standards. Many applications will not run without MS Internet Explorer installed, even though they have nothing to do with the internet. (I have a Windows 95 box with the first version of 95 that came without IE.)
The good news is MS hasn't figured out how to exterminate the free chickens (Linux) and eggs (Word Perfect, Starr Office, Gimp, Mozella, etc.) which are considered weeds that threaten his crop.

Re:Price point is not the only factor.

[WNight]

I did a quick search on Google and came up with two names of clients that (I think) support MSN. GAIM and EveryBuddy.

No idea on the details.

You could always get your girlfriend using Trillian in Windows, then she could be on multiple networks at once and you could use ICQ to talk to her...

You might want to suggest that she use Trillian regardless, it's a pretty cool client and it doesn't have ads or anything. Not only does it let you be on multiple networks at once, but it lets you be signed onto each network multiple times and you pick which name to use when you open a chat window. (Lets me talk to people using either my gaming ID, or my real-name work ID.)

Industry Strategy

[1/137]

But he has not taken into effect the combined microsoft plus PC industry strategy, which goes like:

(1) Build a fast expensive computer

(2) Write an operating system that uses all the resources of (1) just to run a word processor.

(3) Go back to (1)

That can keep the price of both inflated indefinitely. Hopefully someday people will think "Gee do I really a 1 GBit Quantum computer just for the latest version of Word?".

Re:Industry Strategy

[unformed]

Actually, yes you do?

Why, might you ask.

Ahh, naive child; you need the Latest and Greatest Intex Thinking Machine(R) to run the Latest and Greatest Virus(R). What kind of a product would Word be anyways in ten years, if it can't propagate a Reach, Extend, Embrace, and Conquer(R) virus through the Office Assitant(R) life-size android.

Re:Industry Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE and Gnome are so much more bloated than Windows... so much more that I can tell you where to put your fud...

Re:Industry Strategy

[1/137]

Uhhh. I'm not a big fan of either. I probably know what I'm talking about, though, because I'm a high energy particle physicist and I use my computer for, well, computing. So when your desktop computer is a gateway to a Mosix cluster and you notice how well X runs even with mad jobs being launched by your group underneath you, then you'll be as qualified as me to comment. Your probably not though.

Re:Industry Strategy

[nomadic]

Let's be honest here; even though computers these days are a few hundred times as fast as they were 10 years ago, Linux really isn't that much faster.

All OSes bloat to fill up the available CPU usage.

Re:Industry Strategy

[rcharbon]

Related note: try running Windows 95 on a modern Pentium system someday. You'll be stunned.

The price of windows is hidden

[dalassa]

As long as the price of windows is hidden under the price of the PC most people won't notice. How many people even know that you can supposedly get a refund for windows if you don't use it. It is the same thing as IE, other browers are free, but as long as IE comes with the computer and you can't get rid of most people won't bother looking for an alternative.

PC's below $350? Not bloody likely.

[TrollMan 5000]

There will always be a sufficiently large portion of the population wanting to buy the latest and greatest in bleeding edge hardware. $350 barely covers production cost of these machines. (Think case, motherboard, any periherals, it adds up!)Perhaps in the future when a much less-expensive means of production is discovered, we will find new high-powered PC's under that mark.

Right now, the latest video card is roughly $350. To spend that type of money for an entire machine means searching in the bargain rack for years to come.

The worst part is....

[OverDrive33]

People would buy it and use it for five bucks.

Re:The worst part is....

[Melantha_Bacchae]

OverDrive33 wrote:

> People would buy it and use it for five bucks.

Don't be too sure. The top selling computer (iMac 2) on Amazon for all time doesn't run Windows. 10 (Macs) of the 25 top selling computers on Amazon don't run Windows. The Windows PC market is in the dumpster right now. The higher priced Macs running OS X are selling just fine. ;)

Don't worry Linux, OS X is ready for the desktop *now* and has joined the fray. You little penguins have time to get your act together.

"Heart can reach where hand cannot. Climb over any wall..." Mothra (via Moll) "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

Re:The worst part is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course individual Mac models outsell individual PC models.

There are something like 10 types of Mac you can buy vs. literally thousands of brands/models of Wintel-type boxes.

Old News

[mosch]

Wow, this is shocking. First ESR claims that Microsoft is doomed. What's next, RMS claiming that the GPL is the One True License, or JWZ saying that Netscape sucks now?

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean to say that netscape hasn't always sucked? ;)

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape has not always sucked. Originally it was very cool, especially in comparison to the very slow and buggy Mosaic.

Ahhh.. nostalgia from my first year on the internet, 94.

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Please adjust your rose colored glasses. Netscape was only less slow and buggy. It crashed all the time and was full of half-done crappy features. It was the best alternative, but it still sucked very very hard.

The web was just so kewl that we learned to live with it, especially because all of the important stuff could be still accessed with a nice stable news client.

Doubtful...

[iPaul]

First off the $350 PC won't be a very interesting machine. The cutting edge new video card to play games with... A bigger hard drive because the cheapo ones are too small... Monitor pricess... No, the $350 PC won't be a very popular box. I don't see many people interested in marginal systems.

Second companies don't really care how much they pay. Talk to a large, fortune 500 purchasing department and they are paying twice what you and I pay - even from the local superstore. They will happily continue to order PCs with Windows.

Re:Doubtful...

[-brazil-]

Who the fuck needs a cutting edge new video card, when the perfectly fine games of 1 year ago are much cheaper anyway? How is a normal user ever going to fill up his "cheapo" 10GB drive? Just because YOU are a geek with a hardware fetish doesn't mean everybody else is.

Re:Doubtful...

[iPaul]

I remember when I first got a 40 meg drive. How could I ever hope to fill it. I did. (I wasn't a geek at that point, just lots of WordPerfect documents and Lotus spreadsheets).

Then I got a 100 meg drive. How could I ever hope to fill it? I did.

Then I got a 400 meg drive. Yep, I filled it.

Holy Cow! Two gigs! Yep, filled that, too.

My laptop has a 20 gig drive. I have almost filled it. Most of the crap I fill it with are games, video, pictures, applications software. I think the JDK and development environment I use might be a gig and a half. The other 17 or so gigs I use are just games, apps, and assorted crap, work documents, etc. Hell, I don't even know what's really in there.

When I do purchase hardware the geeky stuff rarely pushes me over the edge. Normally, compilers, text editors and such are not bandwidth hogs. Unreal was a CPU/GPU hog. Let's not forget Quake. Wolfenstein runs a tad slow on my Mac, so does that nifty little MP3 player's visualization. Nope, it's the games, media players and applications software that pushes me over the edge.

Re:Doubtful...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that in the business world its a client - server network. Not a lot of demand on the client these days . And with the economy on a down side, companies need to trim there budget. Guess what.. I.T.s chunk of the pie is too high as it is. And Microsoft loves pie.
After using OpenSource software a person starts to wonder why Micro$oft should get any pie.

You mean, just like MSIE "died" ??

[walterbyrd]

Just because an MS product is not profitable does not mean it will "die" as in go away.

If MS has to give away windows for free, that will just cause windows to proliferate even more. Which means that MS will have an even tighter grip on the industry.

Re:You mean, just like MSIE "died" ??

[zeronode]

If MS has to give away windows for free, that will just cause windows to proliferate even more.

Umm isn't Linux basically for free?

They'll think of something

[glh]

I'm guessing MS will come out with yet another version of Windows for the sub $350 PC. "Windows XP lite edition" which basically will replace the home edition. It'll probably sell for $50 or so. Either that, or it will be a subscription- for $20 a month you get to "lease" the software and use MSN.

Re:They'll think of something

[spaten-optimator]

Curse you! Don't give M$ any ideas!

Hrm, not like anyone working for Microsoft reads Slashdot, if they did, they probably wouldn't work there for long...

Re:They'll think of something

[ergo98]

Hrm, not like anyone working for Microsoft reads Slashdot, if they did, they probably wouldn't work there for long...

Huh? Villainize Microsoft as much as you want, but as far as tech employers go Microsoft is by far among the best (I don't work for them, but by what I've heard. This great treatment of employees is one of the primary reasons why MS is where it is today). Because of that I'm often baffled by so many in the industry, working for companies that stuff you in tiny cubes and treat you as chub meat, go out with fangs out against Microsoft.

Plenty of people from Microsoft read Slashdot (and I doubt as sinister "covert operatives" either. It's (sometimes) interesting stuff whether you run Linux or not. I have FreeBSD on a firewall, but apart from that it's all Windows baby, yet I read Slashdot), provable if you've had a link on here and you see the hits come it from Redmond.

ESR will still be able to afford Windows

[gowen]

... because his VA Linux stock has made him fabulously wealthy. Do we need anymore reasons why we shouldn't take the latest ramblings of this pillock seriously?

Re:ESR will still be able to afford Windows

[BitHerder]

You realize, don't you, that this essay was written when VA was at $239? Current share price is $1.81.

Unless the dude bailed ASAP, I doubt he's "fabulously wealthy".

Re:ESR will still be able to afford Windows

[gowen]

Err. Yes.

In a very real sense, that was the point (note to self: use smileys in future for dealing with the seriously humour impaired)

Re:ESR will still be able to afford Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if he sold at the right time. That $36 million is now worth about $268,000.

Re:ESR will still be able to afford Windows

[l33t j03]

You realize, don't you, that ESR was locked in? He was bragging about how rich he was in that article, yet by the time he was actually allowed to convert any of that money into cold hard cash, his wealth had shrunk to a pittance.

That article was a perfect illustration of why ignorant geeks will never succeed in business. They don't understand even the most basic of principles, such as the difference between liquid and non-liquid assests.

Dumbass.

Re:ESR will still be able to afford Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice karma.

Windows won't die for a long time

[genkael]

I think Eric is misreading the situation. If a PC goes below 350 bucks, people will be willing to spend much more for the OS. The reason for this is simple, 350 bucks is nothing relative to today's cost of a PC, thus $350 + OS

People won't move away from Windows for 1 of 2 simple reasons, "I don't have time to learn something new" or "I can't transfer my MS Office documents to ". While there are falacies in both arguments, end users are a stubborn ignorant bunch for the most part.

Linux will have a heck of a time breaking in on the desktop due to the illusion that there are no apps and that it's difficult to install. All slashdoters know this isn't true.

Re:Windows won't die for a long time

[bonch]

People won't move away from Windows for 1 of 2 simple reasons, "I don't have time to learn something new" or "I can't transfer my MS Office documents to ". While there are falacies in both arguments, end users are a stubborn ignorant bunch for the most part.

Actually, those arguments are totally valid. If the makers of alternatives to Windows don't recognize them and address them, well, good luck with that.

Re:Windows won't die for a long time

[Cro Magnon]

The people would be thrilled with a $700 PC (350 for hardware, 350 for Windows), but if Dell/Gateway/CompUsa charges $350 for the whole thing, and Windoze costs them $200 [1], where's their profit margin? If any of these companies chose to pre-load Linux on their machines, their cost would drop from $200/machine to $79 [2] for 1 CD which they could copy as much as needed. Installation is no longer an issue. In a free market the vendor could offer Linux machine much cheaper than Doze machines, which would encourage users to try it.

[1] The amount is probably less, but since its per machine instead of one CD, M$ still loses in cost.

[2] I've seen RH CD's at $79. Most distros, including RH's low end, are much lower than that.

Re:Windows won't die for a long time

[rseuhs]

I think Eric is misreading the situation. If a PC goes below 350 bucks, people will be willing to spend much more for the OS. The reason for this is simple, 350 bucks is nothing relative to today's cost of a PC, thus $350 + OS

Wrong, first PC-makers will stop force-bundling Windows

Because sending more than 10% of their revenue directly to Microsoft isn't that cool.

People won't move away from Windows for 1 of 2 simple reasons, "I don't have time to learn something new" or "I can't transfer my MS Office documents to ". While there are falacies in both arguments, end users are a stubborn ignorant bunch for the most part.

But most people stop being ignorant subborn bastards as soon as it saves them money.

If they bought a PC without Windows (see above), Windows @ 200$ suddently doesn't sound that attractive.

no, that's bloat...

[Anonymous Coward]

He said the best illustration of this is the handheld PC market, where Microsoft software powers relatively expensive devices, but has no presence in the lower-end market.

Microsoft software has no presence in the lower-end handheld market because their software is more featureful (or more bloated, depending on your interpretation), and therefore does not fit in less memory or run on slower processors.

If anything, as machines get cheaper and faster, Microsoft software will become more viable, because they have more money to spend on R&D creating fancy gizmos which use up the extra memory and speed.

Dreaming

[lowlypeon]

PC prices haven't actually dropped that much in quite a while. They just get bigger/better/faster/more. Raymond is kind of right that PC makers can't afford to sell a Windows PC at less than $350. Which is why they're not going to sell one at less than $350.

I guess he figures that the only reason for .NET is to cover for a loss of income from the Windows monopoly, but I think he follows the logic WAY too far.

Do you honestly think the OS die?

[Neck_of_the_Woods]

Come on now, if anything Microsoft has proven to be a little smarter than the average bear. Do you honestly think that they will not at some point in time give the OS away for free, then start charging for the service. ----> see .net ----

In one respect he is right, at some point in time Windows as a purchase will become a moot point, but if they give it away to retain controll of the market and sell everything else under the sun packaged as .net they have just shifted the paradigm on you. Your still going to pay my friends.

One way or anouther, I gona find ya... I gone getcha getcha getcha getcha one way or anouther...

Re:Do you honestly think the OS die?

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of another company which eventually had to give away its OS for free..

It's happened already!

[Lxy]

Apparently the /. editors don't consider this newsworthy. I've submitted it several times to get it rejected, I suppose if ESR had submitted it they would've posted it.

Walmart.com is selling PCs without Windows. In a Cnet article (sorry, don't have the link) Walmart announced this because the cost of Windows is offsetting the cost of cheap hardware and Windows is making the computer too expensive.

Re:It's happened already!

[jimand]

CNET link to this story is http://news.com.com/2100-1017-842375.html

Re:It's happened already!

[ch-chuck]

That is interesting - I wonder if Msft is pestering WalMart for the customer list?? Because we just KNOW those are used with pirated OS's because EVERYONE uses Windows. There was an article once about that, but I think it was Msft license shops getting strongarmed to snitch on what companies are making large purchases of "PC's Without Windows".

Re:It's happened already!

[Atlantix]

Cool, now how many people that use Walmart for all their computer needs know how to run Linux? I'm thinking these customers will either buy a copy of Windows at full retail price without question or they will let their geek friends install a free copy for them. Now when Dell leaves an option for no OS, then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

huh. Here's the comment above their "Computers without Operating Systems" section (Microtel systems)

New From Microtel -
PCs Without Operating Systems

Perfect if you already have a licensed copy of Windows for your new PC or want to run an alternative operating system.

Woo hoo! They get it.

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Walmart.com is selling PCs without Windows.

And they aren't a bad deal, either. I ordered two of them the other day, when they get here I'll let you know how they run Linux. I know I could build them cheaper myself, but I really don't have time for such activities anymore. It's time consuming enough to get the OS running how I want it. I'm willing to pay a few extra $$$ to save myself that step. If they have some success with this format, maybe other companies will start offering OSless machines.

Re:It's happened already!

[gowen]

This kind of thing? (PDF file) (The original webpages linked to by the reg have gone. Here is an ugly mirror

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

You will note, of course, that the only operating systems available at walmart.com are Windows XP upgrades. No linux. The idea of preloading some KDE-based distro may sound good, but you'll probably need to have something as good as Redmond Linux at zero cost in order to make it feasable. People would get upset when they try to install TurboTax and it doesn't work, so you'll have to make WINE seamless so that they can install Windows apps without even knowing it's not windows. If the settlement causes Windows to provide all APIs with ample notice and documentation and patent-free, then it may be possible in the future to have WINE support windows apps without the average user even being to tell. Linux could rule the desktop without anyone knowing it had actually occured.

Re:It's happened already!

[teamhasnoi]

Tom's Hardware Guide has a little write up about this too. And Applelinks and The Register and Gamespy and Geek.com. Whew! I submitted this and was cruelly rejected as well.

Google is your friend!

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

I submitted as well and was rejected. peh. What happened to the good old days where "microsoft free" would get an editor to post anything. Oh wait, what article am I responding to... oops.

Re:It's happened already!

[Slashamatic]

Could someone help Walmart with a Linux preload? A Linux system with GUI and OpenOffice that could be quickly rolled onto these boxes would help a lot, especially if a warning message is attached saying that the s/w is unsupported and provided at no charge as a service to the customer. If the customer wishes to purchase and install other s/w, they can, but it is illegal to use unlicensed s/w.

When you see the price of Windows/Office unbundled, it is a lot harder to justify the cost of legally purchasing them. Ironically, the MS anti-piracy measures and new pricing will help Linux a lot.

Re:It's happened already!

[Void_of_light]

our walmart offers 3 versions of Linux Redhat,Suse and Mandrake

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because you are not a part of the "core" or the boys club.

Basically if you dont know Hemos,taco, and michael they instantly "reject" (in fact it's a script.. I know this for a fact)

your name is not in the accept bin of the reject script.

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

I managed to find the story here.

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dell server line is available with no os.

You'll need to add a better video card if you want to use it as a desktop tough.

Re:It's happened already!

[Spoing]

Unfortunately, the PCs Wallmart is selling without an OS don't have the same hardware as those they are selling with an OS. One example: All machines that are bundled with an OS get a monitor as well. There are other per-machine differences that make a comparison difficult at best.

Because of that, you can't figure out if the machines actually sell for less if no OS is bundled with them. Very annoying. (If anyone has figured it out, post a followup.)

Either way, it is promising that such a large retailer did start offering these blank systems.

Re:It's happened already!

[mmascari]

Here is an example of 2 computers that appear to be the same except for the OS. Neither include monitor.
Without OS $599 With OS $698

Re:It's happened already!

[BlowCat]

Because we just KNOW those are used with pirated OS's because EVERYONE uses Windows.

Oh, yes, we just KNOW those computers are used with stolen monitors, because EVERYONE uses monitors.

Seriously, if you are using Windows, don't assume that all other people use it. And if you are "pirating" software, don't assume that all other people do the same.

Re:It's happened already!

[chris_7d0h]

..and SlashDot* does support creation of links, in order to avoid the copy-paste syndrome.

* a ripp-off name of MS. DotNet, waiting to get it's owners sued.

Re:It's happened already!

[Spoing]

You're right. Those two look to be the same except that one doesn't have an OS. $99 difference.

Unfortunately, there's no way to absolutely confirm it without poping open the case.

Re:It's happened already!

[screwtheNSA]

Just how is software "unlicensed", and how does it become illegal to use it?
First sale, yes, that's SALE of any product, software, cars, CDs and so on are SOLD first, THEN you get to read some arcane "license" packed deep inside MS boxes. Sorry, THAT is not legal either!

It is NOT a license simply because MS stated that it is, it MUST have YOUR signature and "his" signature on a CONTRACT OF LICENSE, THEN and ONLY then is it legally binding!

When you pays your money, you buys your goods, your goods are yours to do with as you see fit, and there is NOTHING MS can do or say about it!

Placing a pricetag on software ELIMINATES MS "ownership, right and title" to THAT package!

Look at your driver's "license"....does that also not require YOUR signature BEFORE it is valid?
Even the states REQUIRE your signature before anything is "validated", MS is NOT the law and can NOT enforce EULAs on you at their discretion.

Prior sale rules OUT any clauses MS might have included within their products. No matter what ANY attorney states, it is not legally binding upon the end user simply because he/she clicked OKAY to the agreement during installation of his/her software. It was paid for BEFORE the "agreement" was known or viewable, which makes such tactics ILLEGAL and NON BINDING in ANY court of law.

Show me even ONE binding license or contract that neither requires or needs any signatures from either party upon it to be legally enforceable, not one I dare say has ever been created nor upheld in any court proceeding!

*Same software CD, six machines...SAME "license".....ALL non binding*!

Software is "sold" NOT licensed, or it should be freely given away as a condition to such a license. Anything else is not legally binding.

Re:It's happened already!

[Alsee]

Unfortunately, there's no way to absolutely confirm it without poping open the case.

Perhaps someone can get them on the phone and say they are doing some reasearch regarding a Slashdot News article, and would like to know if the hardware really is *identical*. Sounds like a good social enginering project. If you plan on submitting an article to slashdot you could legitimately claim to be a freelance reporter :)

-

Re:It's happened already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, why not just buy both systems and check them out yourself, then submit your reciept to Slashdot to be reimbursed for your expenses.

Windows for $5???

[diablo6683]

Haha, at University of Texas at Austin, Windows XP professional corporate edition is 5 bucks at the student store. Yay class action lawsuits :)

Re:Windows for $5???

[Dr Fro]

That's not necessarily a class action lawsuit result.

Purdue's had M$ software here for yeas for $5 a CD - OS upgrades, Visual Studio, Office, "Learning X" tutorials.

They figure any money they lose with college students (and it probably isn't that much... I would't be surprised is Purdue ponied up for the deal) will be more than made back when, once graduated, they demand that their cubicle always be stocked with the latest M$ apps.

..
On a side note... what are the chances that all the judges that have been involved in this case used Word when writing their decisions.

Re:Windows for $5???

[Anonymous Coward]

That has nothing to do with the lawsuit. UT has a multi-million dollar license with MS for the use of its software by faculty / students.

considering

[Ender Ryan]

Considering that WindowsTM can cost as much as a cheap PC these days, not to mention OfficeTM, this truly might be the case.

Whatever happens, SOMETHING is going to have to give, either the pricing of WindowsTM and OfficeTM or the software people use.

Microsoft is going to have to drastically cut prices, or lose a huge segment of the market in the near future. This must be why they are trying so hard to go with a "renting" scheme, but I don't think that's going to be workable anytime soon.

So no matter how things work out, Microsoft's profits are probably going to drop sometime soon, they can either cut prices to hold onto the market, or lose a large part of the market.

That's how I see it anyway. Anyone see why that's not the case?

CmdrTaco

[Spankophile]

Wow.. professional journalism at its best.

Taco would like you to believe that MS only controls the Office market because of Windows. I guess that's why it's the most popular office suite for Macs too?

Windows lets MS control the server market? Ummm, how about (cross platform) Apache? Aren't you the one that posts surveys every two months about how Apache dominates? Maybe you mean that since MS only needs to write for one OS, they can focus their energy on things other than porting?

I of course can't really argue the "zillion other markets." I guess he means hardware, and games, and a zillion minus 2 other things.

God forbid they control those by making excellent products (mouse wheel, optical mouse), and excellent libraries (DirectX). Don't forget, Windows didn't always rule the gamers world.

Re:CmdrTaco

[makapuf]

Taco would like you to believe that MS only controls the Office market because of Windows. I guess that's why it's the most popular office suite for Macs too?

Ahem, YES. Because if 90% of desktops are PCs, when you're on a mac doing anything, you generally want to be able to open a word document.

So, windows monopoly -> word monopoly -> even on macs makes perfect sense for me.

Open Letter to Linus Torvaldez

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an open letter to Spanish Linux creator Linus Torvaldez. I really hope that these few criticisms are addressed soon.

Dear Linus,

I have always felt that Linux is a nice operating system (for hobbyists and geeks), but there are some areas where it is seriously lacking, especially when compared to its main competitor, Microsoft Windows.

• File sharing. Windows has long been superior when it comes to making large amounts of files available to third parties. Even early versions of Windows automatically detected and made available all directories thanks to the built in NetBIOS-powered file sharing support. But Microsoft has realized that this technology is inherently limited and has added even better file sharing support to its Windows XP operating system. "Universal Plug an Play" will make it possible to literally access any file, from any device! I think universal file sharing support needs to be built into the Linux kernel soon.
• Intelligent agents. With innovations like Clippy, the talking paperclip and Microsoft Bob, Microsoft has always tried to make life easier for its customers. With Outlook and Outlook Express, Microsoft has built a framework for developers to create even smarter agents. Especially popular agents include "Sircam", which automatically asks the users' friends for advice on files he is working on and the "Hybris" agent, which is a self-replicating copy of a humorous take on "Snow-White and the Seven Dwarves" (the real story!). Microsoft is working on expanding this P2P technology to its web servers. This project is still in the beta stage, thus the name "Code Red". The next versions will be called "Code Yellow" and "Code Green".
• Version numbers. Linux has real naming problems. What's the difference between a 2.4.19 and a 2.2.17 kernel anyway? And what's with those odd and even numbers? Microsoft has always had clear and sophisticated naming/versioning policies. For example, Windows 95 was named Windows 95 because it was released in 1995. Windows 98 was released three years later, and so on. Windows XP brought a whole new "experience" to the user, therefore the name. I suggest that the next Linux kernel releases be called Linux 03, Linux 04, Linux 04.5 (OSR1), Linux 04.7B (OSR2 SP4 OEM), Linux 2005 and Linux VD (Valentine's Day edition). Furthermore, remember how Microsoft named every upcoming version of Windows after some Egyptian city? Cairo, Chicago and so on. I think that the development kernels should be named after Spanish cities to celebrate Linux' Spanish origins. Linux Milano or Linux Rome anyone?
• Multi-User Support. This has always been one of Microsoft's strong sides, especially in the Windows 95/98 variants, where passwords were completely unnecessary. Microsoft has made the right decision by not bothering the user with a distinction between "normal" and "root" users too much -- practice has shown that average users can be trusted to act responsibly and in full awareness of the potential consequences of their actions. After all, if your operating system doesn't trust you, why should you trust it? (To be fair, Linux is making some progress here with the Lindows distribution, where users are always running as root.)

  With Windows XP, Microsoft has again improved multi-user support. Not only does Windows XP come with a large library of user pictures that are displayed on the login screen, such as a guitar and a flower, it also has "quick user change". This makes it possible to login as a different user with a simple keyboard shortcut, and the good news is: programs from the old user keep running in the background! Beat that, Linux!

• Programmability. Microsoft has always been known for making computer machine power accessible to end users. The operating system comes with many helpful tools such as VBScript, a programming language especially useful for developing intelligent agents as mentioned above, and QBASIC, a truly innovative "hacker" tool that makes it possible to develop even sophisticated applications without much foreknowledge. Scripts can even be embedded into documents such as Word files. This together with the mind-blowing Windows XP shell, which now also has amazing features like "autocompletion" (you no longer have to type all those long paths) and a scrollback buffer, makes Windows XP the "hacker's choice". Linux should stop "dumbing down" users with pretty pictures such as in KDE or GNOME. Also, I think that a BASIC interpreter should be an unremovable component of the Linux kernel.

I also find it disappointing that Linux has not embraced new technologies such as Digital Rights Management which will finally make it profitable for artists to sell their intellectual property on the web. The content industry has calculated that it loses about 450 trillion dollars per day to piracy. If this continues, the economic effects will be devastating. Richard Stallman has supported DRM for years and made it a fixed part of his GNU/Hurd operating system -- Linux should not hold back progress in this important area. DRM should be made part of the Linux Standard Base (LSB), and Linux distributors should put "DMCA-Compliant" buttons on their websites. We all know that Linux would never have been created without strong intellectual property protection as enforced by the FSF, so let's not be hypocritical.

On the plus side, I have found Linux an absolutely superior operating system for viewing pornography. Porn is loading much faster than on Windows, especially with the Cox and Love kernel patches and powerful porn browsers such as Pornzilla. This is truly an operating system written by geeks, for geeks!

Sincerely,

Bruce.

Re:Open Letter to Linus Torvaldez

[sharkey]

"Linus Torvaldez"
Like Exxon Valdez, but without harming the environment.

Re:Open Letter to Linus Torvaldez

[Anonymous Coward]

and Linux VD
I wonder if my HMO covers treatment for that.

But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be DOA?

[max cohen]

Didn't he also say NT 5.0 would be DOA because of it's bloat and tardiness? I really wish ESR would stop making so many "predictions." It'd be a good move for his reputation and everyone else in the OSS community that feels the effects of the blanket associations with his comments.

ESR also seems to forget...

[Raptor CK]

...that the ideal computer always costs $5000.

Re:ESR also seems to forget...

[meloneg]

Can we at least give Dvorak credit for this. He's been making this claim for at least 15 years.

Re:ESR also seems to forget...

[Raptor CK]

No, *we* can't... but you're more than welcome to point that out.

I wasn't aware that Dvorak had said it first, or that he had said it at all. Mainly because *I've* been complaining about that for at least 15 years. It's entirely possible for two people to make the same obvious observation. It's not like I invented anything groundbreaking, just that I can't spec a computer for less than that without compromising somewhere along the line.

Re:ESR also seems to forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was Pournelle.

Good point.....but theres a flaw in the logic

[CDWert]

This is a good point, I must admit I never though directly about this as a consequence of the reduction in PC costs, BUT theres a flaw in the Logic, software has ALWAYS cost more (since the late 70's) than the hardware itself, it may cause a shift, but certainly not the demise of MS.

MS would sell..hell give copies of Windows away if it meant they could continue their other markets, Less than 1/3 of MS income comes from desktop operating systems. Now that said they dont want to loose it but certainly it wont kill them.

Re:Good point.....but theres a flaw in the logic

[Zathrus]

Less than 1/3 of MS income comes from desktop operating systems

From the 10-Q filed on Feb 8, for the 3 months ending Dec 31, 2001, in millions:
Desktop Platforms: 2,678
Desktop and Enterprise Software and Services Revenue: 6,435

Which makes desktop platforms 41% of the revenue of that division.

Consolidated earnings from all divisions were $7,741 million. Which makes desktop OS's 35% of their total revenue.

So, you were pretty close on the 1/3 bit, but it is MORE than one third of their revenue, not less than. And, more importantly, you go tell any business person on this planet that they are going to lose one third of their REVENUE and see what kind of reaction you'll get. I'm not talking profit. I'm talking base revenue.

I agree that what ESR predicts is, well, utterly wrong, since MS isn't stupid, but to say that they could give Windows away for free or nearly free and not notice it just shows that someone needs to go read a financial statement or two beforehand.

Re:Good point.....but theres a flaw in the logic

[rseuhs]

So, you were pretty close on the 1/3 bit, but it is MORE than one third of their revenue, not less than. And, more importantly, you go tell any business person on this planet that they are going to lose one third of their REVENUE and see what kind of reaction you'll get. I'm not talking profit. I'm talking base revenue.

Exactly. Microsoft's net profits has declined from about 40% to 30% (probably because of XBox)

Losing 35% of revenue would mean losses for Microsoft.

Re:Good point.....but theres a flaw in the logic

[screwtheNSA]

Adding another revenue stream into the river, one sees that the total revenue has just been divided up into 1/4, 1/3 or less/more BECAUSE of MS adding X-box revenue, or lack of it now. The actual revenue is tallied, but with a losing product like X-box, that too must be included. All profit/loss(P&L) lowers the total capital gains overall when stretched across multiple product lines, one will see a lower income over cost because X-box has yet to entrench itself deep enough in the gaming "scene".

MS "could" give away copies, but even I will admit MS has lgitimacy to charge something for what they have. I for one would love to see MS being broken up into at least three sub groups, run by NOT BILL types, and NOT connected with IT in any fashion either. To allow NOT BILL to maintain a grip on the subs would, or should reinstate anti-trust charges against MS for violating court orders, and violations such as this, would also bring contempt of court charges for going counter to the judges order, and willfuly I might add as well.

What SHOULD be ordered is that MS can no longer supply their software pre-bundled on ANY machine sold in the U.S.. This should never have been allowed, and if it is allowed, then MS should be ORDERED to INVALIDATE any "license" agreements their software has, even more so that they all come UNSEEN and do not have a copy of a "license" YOU, the customer must sign, clicking is NOT a valid form of contract or licensing, since MS considered the "license" to be legal and binding, it MUST be SIGNED by the SELLER and PURCHASER to be valid. No contract in this(U.S.) is legal nor binding without signatures! Why do you think you must SIGN your driver's "license" folks, even if it has YOUR pic on it? Even the STATES REQUIRE your hand signed signature for validity, MS can not supercede ANY state's requirement/s, or can they now?

New PC? Sorry sir, none of our products are loaded with windows, it's illegal to sell a PC with the "system" pre-loaded.
We "can" load windoze for you, at the going rate of $99.00, plus $25.00 service charge for our tech's time if you want to go that route.

That is what SHOULD be the method to business, not the way it currently is.

If MS wants to give away software, that's their business, but it should not be forced upon them, or anybody for that matter.

Microsoft is all about power, not necessarily cash

[Pop n' Fresh]

They want to be the ultimate arbiter of information exchange. If they see that role in jeopardy because of falling hardware prices, they will lower their software prices. This is the company that annihilates other companies by giving away what everyone else is selling, they can afford to take less profit on the OS if it means prolonging their monopoly.

viability was never an issue

[tanveer1979]

Though ERS is right to a point, i disagree to a certain extent. Viability was never the real issue. Till now windows has given insecure buggy code. Much better alternatives are available, and inspite of this even many techies go to windows. The key thing here is monoply. A large percentage of the PC's are on windows. Kids are brought up on windows. Though reduction of hardware costs will bring about a change, this wont be making a significant dent. In the fastest developing markets, namely Chine, India etc., most of the windows 98 on home PC's is Pirated. A large percentage of PC owners want to play fancy games and surf the net without frills. Though it is possible on Linux to, it is still though of at real tough by novices. Moreover many home PC owners have pirated games, utilities etc., on their systems. Getting back to the the point, it wont be the cost which will be the major factor. Interoperability will be the major key. The monoply will start breaking, but still hope is not near. And the way US laws are going, who knows what surprises are in store. Money talks, and M$ got lots of it.

(Pleasantly) Surprised by Slashdot

[Zico]

It's beautiful to see that even the main Slashdot guy recognizes what a naive ass Eric Raymond is. Hey ESR, seeing as your predictions always turn out wrong, please go back to amusing us with your boasts of how rich you are. *cough* I mean were. ;-)

$350 PC's

[asv108]

Ok lets just go along with this for a second and assume MS has no business sense whatsoever and would not adjust the OS price accordingly, will $350 pc's really be the norm? Even as PC prices continue to fall, it seems that most people are continuing to pay around $1500 or so for a computer because that is what they expect to pay for a computer. Systems that are really cheap have a negative stigma amongst consumers because they assume the computer is obsolete and will not meet their future needs. People are gobbling up multi GHZ machines even though a pIII would work for must people's needs.

Re:$350 PC's

[richardbowers]

It depends on who's doing the buying. Right now, the people with money to spend on PCs are largely the small to mid-size businesses, and they aren't spending $1500. Power gamers and 3d editors aren't the ones that will keep Windows going -- if they were enough, Apple would have been/stayed on top from the late 80s onwards.

Microsoft's dominance has never come from the big spenders, but from the rank and file, and the assertion of the article is that they may lose those people -- even if they keep the niche of the big spenders.

Re:$350 PC's

[mbrubeck]

Even as PC prices continue to fall, it seems that most people are continuing to pay around $1500 or so for a computer because that is what they expect to pay for a computer.

If this story were published eight years ago you would saying, "People are continuing to pay around $2500 for a computer because that is what they expect to pay..." Today's $1500 price for a mid-range computer is ridiculously cheap from the perspective of the preceding decade. Sure, there's a lag between actual hardware costs and consumer expectations, but we're already seeing the norm pushed below a thousand dollars, and in another five years I doubt that many people will expect to pay more than a few hundred.

Re:$350 PC's

[BoneFlower]

Keep in mind that many people use their computing needs as a baseline, that they will not purchase anything less than that. Whenever I look at a new system or an upgrade, I buy the best I can possibly afford- If I pay 50% more than I need to, for something I can keep using twice as long, in the end I save money and trouble by not replacing/upgrading as often. Thats how everyone in my family buys PCs, thats why my mom has lasted three years and with some heavy cleanup of the HD could last probably another 6 months to a year easily...

I purchased a 1.6Ghz PIV box yesterday? Do I need it? Not by a longshot. Right now I could never hope to come close to maxing out my capabilities. But three years from now, I will need something like this. If I had bought a 500Mhz system(around what I consider my bare minimum) yesterday instead, I'd spend less than half what I spent on this... but I guarantee you in 6 months I'd be upgrading. THen after a minimal upgrade, 6 months more I'd upgrade again, within a year I'd probably have spent more than the 840 I spent on this one.

I look to the future- I buy the best I can afford, it saves money in the long run.

He doesn't read Slashdot, apparently

[mblase]

Software like Linux also inherently has more appeal to many non-English speaking countries than software generated and controlled by big American firms, Raymond pointed out, which is becoming a significant issue as PC growth outside the US becomes the industry's main driver. "Countries like South Korea are finding that open source is a precondition to their economic and cultural autonomy," he said.

I thought we'd already seen that countries like South Korea find open source to be a convenient excuse for serving as a spam gateway. Win some, lose some, I guess....

ZDNet

[rootmonkey]

ZDNet is just trolling again. /. needs to stop posting these trolls/banner traffic for ZDNet. Move along.

What *would* kill Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Successful copyright regulations is what would kill Windows. Right now people can afford Windows, because buying Windows means being able to use all the (free and non-free) software that runs on Windows. The fact is that if you're stuck using only legitimate software (no WinZip for you), you probably have a better software selection on Linux.

Different Versions

[mlknowle]

What a stupid article!

Sure, MS will keep the prices marching up - but it won't be that big a problem because:

1. People WILL pay it

2. Most people could never know where / how to by a PC without windows.

3. Microsoft will sell different versions ("home" m "Office," "Pro," "God-like," etc, each priced appropriatly - so people like my poss can waste money buying "Pro," because they think that they are important enough to need it - for word processing...

4. Honestly - do you REALLY think that if MS started to see a major slip in marketshare they woldn't cut prices very quickly? Hello - they may be EVIL but they damn well arn't STUPID!

Re:Different Versions

[jwinter1]

>2. Most people could never know where / how to by a PC without windows.

Just go to Walmart.

I think that "most people" will be able to find their way there. Since it did just pass GE to become the world's largest company. But maybe you're right.

That was quite possibly...

[$0 31337]

... one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while. Sure, Price is a factor in PC sales but whether a person goes out and buys a copy of windows or downloads an open-source OS ultimatly comes down to what they're familiar with. My mother would love to go out and purchase a new PC for 350$ but if it doesn't have a copy of windows with it, she'll simply go out and buy one.

Re:That was quite possibly...

[Drachemorder]

Actually my mother (who is VERY computer-naive) would probably call me and say "Can you install Windows on here?" At that point, I'd dig out my old Windows98 install CD, go to her house, and put Windows on her computer.

Against MS's EULA? You bet, but I don't consider EULAs to be valid anyway. I have a Win98 disk which I actually bought. If I should choose to install it on two of my own computers (or in this case, the computer of an immediate family member), MS shouldn't be able to stop me. I bought that CD, and as long as I'm doing it privately, I'll use it however I darn well please.

I think a lot of folks would do the same: install an older copy of Windows or ask the local alpha geek to install it for them.

Re:That was quite possibly...

[$0 31337]

Which is another possibility, sure... I just don't think that cheap PCs are going to sink windows. They may cut prices for the OS but that certainly won't sink Microsoft. The one thing I wanted to get across is that while some changes may take place, this isn't going to be the death of windows or the major rise of open source operating systems on machines that used to be windows based.

Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[anomaly]

I can remember a time when all of our applications and data were locked into proprietary hardware and software solutions. (Wang word processors, among others.) The next step was to break our dependence on one vendor to supply the limited set of choices.

Today our data can be stored on many different manufacturers' hardware, but we are largely locked in to one vendor's OS because of proprietary file formats. (And the same architecture, to boot.)

Long term I hope that our data is freed from that prison. We continually re-engineer systems to perform the same functions on different platforms because of the mindset imposed by the prison. However, we are a little closer today. Things like SQL allow us to migrate data reliably from one database to another. I can foresee a time when application vendors allow reliable interoperability, but it will be a while.

It also occurs to me that MS is in a bit of a pickle. There was a time when new applications provided greater functionality, and people migrated to them because they were superior, or at least people perceived that the new features were useful enough to justify the change.

Eventually the functionality of the applications on the market increased to the point where they were functionally very similar, and most consumers didn't need much more in the way of application functions.

Outside of a major paradigm shift, I don't think that many people competing with MS need to do much besides catch up. They are getting closer each year. You can't continually embrace and extend because at a certain point, it's just too much trouble. As an example, my MS desktop here at the house has 93 different typefaces. I use about 10. If you gave me 500, I would still use about 10. I just looked at my Linux system, and it has 2200 typefaces installed! I still use about 10.

Even if MS makes their OS and apps do 5000 new and snazzy things, most people simply won't use them. Look at the Outlook-based emails that are sent in Arial or Tahoma, and the documents that are printed in Times New Roman. People stick with the deafult because it's too much to think about to do otherwise. My hope is that we break free from the prison imposed by proprietary interfaces and formats.

Regards,
Anomaly

Ps - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[Anonymous Coward]

God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

Please, keep religious spam out of slashdot. It is a technical forum.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[anomaly]

I find that much of what is posted on slashdot is religious in nature. Apparently the most popular religion represented on this forum is naturalism.

I merely represent the "loyal opposition" of being a technologist who has a different philosophical perspective than the majority.

Don't like my posts? Don't read them.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[Null_Packet]

You might be a troll, but I just can't resist the last comment about people's use of Fonts in Outlook. I personally would love to whack the kneecaps of everyone who uses weird-ass colors in Outlook and lame fonts.

Or I might be a Troll :)

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[Anonymous Coward]

God loves you and longs for relationship with you.

Sorry, I already had a fling with God briefly once before... He was very possessive and kind of a psycho. I had to move, get a new, unlisted phone number, and eventually get a restraining order against Him.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Ps - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

hey god boy, dont post this shit here. Read nietzsche my friend god is dead. Its amazing how you can invalidate your whole post with one little siggy line. "After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave--a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown.--And we--we still have to vanquish his shadow, too. " -N

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[ethereal]

Yeah, what's up with people who want their text to be all blue, so it looks just like a hyperlink. We have a word for people like this: morons.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[magister707]

Ps - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

whatever you're doing to evade my sig-nullification, stop it. that sort of claptrap is precisely the reason i try to avoid looking at sigs.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[Creedo]

Nietzche was a self- aggrandized idiot. His followers today tend to be the same.

Creedo

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[anomaly]

There's no need to resort to profanity.

I'm no great student of his, but if I'm not mistaken, Neitzche's point was that our philosphical approach had rendered a transcendent God irrelevant. With all due respect, I beg to differ with him.

Taking score right this minute - Nietzche is dead, God is alive.

And does existentialism make your life more enriched? Is it a world view that works? Are you satisfied with it? Does it fit with the evidence that surrounds you of intelligent design?

Finally, why does my philosophical outlook with respect to God's relevence invalidate my logic?

Surely it may color your opinion of my perspective and my writings, but does it make my logic flawed?

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

look im not going to get into a flame war, but people who blindly believe in things (ie faith) are dumb. sure you can take alot of the philosophies of christianity (or whatever i just assume) and apply them to things, but to believe that there is some being with great powers watchign over us is absurd.

its a security blanket. it keeps you safe and happy.

id rather live in the real world instead of lolipop land.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

"Nietzche was a self- aggrandized idiot. His followers today tend to be the same."

wait wait cause i fell off my chair laughing

"aggrandized" -To make appear great or greater.

um isnt that sort of like what you did by using the word aggrandized instead of something simpler like say obsessed or perhaps self indulgent. both of which, dont make him any less of a genius.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[anomaly]

I'm not looking to get into a flame war, either.

In fact, I bet we agree on many more things than we disagree on. For example, I think that blind acceptance is foolish, too.

I would like to ask you a question, though: Have you ever really examined the evidence behind Christianity? If not, how can you say that it's blind belief? If so, what did you study?

The God that I serve and worship requires that I use my heart, soul, MIND, and strength in my service to him.

I cannot disconnect my intellect and still be true to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I do live in the real world. In many ways it would be easier for me if there were no God. After all, if there's no right or wrong, then I could merely do as I please with no fear of retribution from anyone other than other people. That would open many doors for me. Since there is an absolute right and wrong, I live within the constraints. That *is* the real world.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever really examined the evidence behind Christianity?

As a recovering Christian, I ask you: What evidence?

Bugger off, godboy. Grow up and stop believing in fairy-tales.

Re:Here's to the end of proprietary interfaces!

[anomaly]

I'm sorry that you had an experience related to Christianity that causes you to consider yourself a recovering Christian. Much of what calls itself Christian today bears little resemblance to the movement that overturned the Roman world with no weapons, and shaped the course of history even to this day.

What evidence? Fair question.

How about this:
1. The Bible is more well documented than any other work of antiquity. I'll have to look it up to be sure, but it has at least one, possibly two orders of magnitude more copies than ANY other work. This documents that the consistency of the contents has been maintained over time. We have a VERY high degree of certainty that what we have today is EXTREMELY close to what the original writings contained. This puts to rest many of the theories which claim that the miraculous stories were made up generations after Christ's death.

2. Archaeological evidence is consistently in concert with the writings in the old and new testaments. Again, lending credibility to the overall story told by the biblical writers.

3. Christ's resurrection is so well documented that it can be considered a documented fact - a better documented 'fact' than the lives of any other figure from ancient history.

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the greatest authority on legal evidences in the 19th century, came to this very conclusion after a thorough examination of the historical record. The essence of his verdict, as the famous Royall professor of law at Harvard, was that any unbiased jury openly examining the evidence would inevitably come to the conclusion that Christ had risen from the dead. Greenleaf suggested that any cross-examination of the eyewitness testimonies recorded in Scripture would result in an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth." (quote from article at www.equip.org)

The Bible is a unique book - unlike any other - which contains the story of a God who loved mankind enough to become a person, live among us, and be wrongfully put to death. This God conquered death, and through that act, opened the door for restored relationship between a Holy God and unholy mankind.

There is *so* much more that can be said, and I'd be happy to offer more evidence and information if you are interested. We could talk about manuscript evidence, eyewitness evidence, internal and external consistency tests for reliability, prophetic evidence, statistical probability as it relates to the accumulated evidence, and much more.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Sadly, probably not...

[nesneros]

MS has a will to succeed which rivals any other corporate or non-coporate entity out there. True, the future might show that they don't hold the sway that they currently do, but predicting the demise of MS seems foolhardy to me. MS has always done whatever it takes (legal or illegal) to keep themselves up. I imagine that their coporate structure and culture will keep them that way for quite awhile, regardless as to the price of the devices their software runs on. I'd argue that their lack of penetration into the low-end handheld market has more to do with their inability to shrink their code than the price of the device it runs on.

hardware functions vs.

[simpl3x]

software functions... it seems that the more that can be accomplished through hardware/hardware optimized software (check out this article: http://www.theregus.com/content/3/24182.html), or through browsers, the less relevant an all encompassing os becomes. but, who exactly will be able to discern this? the way to create an environment, where this opinion becomes fact is to get a browser capable of application support on the market--mozilla--and to make the office application a commodity--open office. but a great amount of coordinated work needs to be accomplished, and certainly in the case of sun/java, coordination seems to be difficult to obtain.

ESR, new show on CBS

[Microsift]

Everybody Slams Raymond

I care...

[jlusk4]

Linux won't win the desktop 'war'. Get over it. Nobody cares anymore.

I do, I do! But I agree w/you, ESR is a total gadfly.

Re:But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be D

[DodgyGeezer]

Exactly! In fact, NT5 turned out to be the best OS release from MSFT ever. I haven't reinstalled it in the 2 years that I've had it installed, which is exceptional for a MSFT OS. The thing is pretty damn stable.

Here's the problem with that argument...

[deadgoon42]

If the price of the PC goes below $350 (yeah right), the the "Microsoft Tax" will still be included in the price. I work for a very large computer manufacturer and I'm sure they get Windows for our machines at a bulk price, but it is still a substantial part of the purchase price. The computer prices are falling (at least at my company), but they are also reducing margins per computer. It's call a price war and it was brought on by slumping PC sales. So computer companies are selling for less, but they are making less per computer and it has nothing to do with the price of components or whatnot, it's simply capitalism (competition) at its best. So as soon as demand goes back up, so will the prices and all Microsoft will know is that more units are being shipped and they are making more money. Being a monopoly, they can charge as much as they want and the middlemen (i.e. computer manufacturers) just have to deal with it.

ESR (rolls eyes)

[Pope Slackman]

Does anyone even listen to this guy anymore?

I know I stopped shortly after he got his "Hey! Look at me I'm filthy rich!"[1] article on the front page.

C-X C-S
[1] Believe me, "Sex tips for Geeks" didn't help his case, either.

Why must hardware cost more than software?

[Ars-Fartsica]

ESR is predicating his argument on the notion that hardware must necessarily cost more than the software that runs on it. He's obviously never negotiated a contract for a site license for Oracle.

ESR has made predictions of MS dying before - every time they are usually followed by growth in MSFT as they move into new markets and drive Windows further into the economy.

Re:Why must hardware cost more than software?

[Zapdos]

You are a member of the 8% of the Earth's population that is relatively wealthy. If you were part of the 92% you would know the answer.

Re:Why must hardware cost more than software?

[Anonymous Coward]

and of that 92%, probably 5% is even in the market for a computer anyway. or do you buy into the idiotic notion that people who don't even have phone service or reliable electricity wasnt or need a pc??????????

Re:Why must hardware cost more than software?

[Zapdos]

You are the idiot, and you assume allot. Last I looked most of India, China, Phillipines, Africa, South America etc have phones and power. They just will not buy any software when free software exists.

Re:Why must hardware cost more than software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I looked most of India, China, Phillipines, Africa, South America etc have phones and power.

maybe turn off your horseshit and visit some of these places before you make such a ridiculous assertion. how many people in china do you think have even used a phone once in their lives?????

Re:Why must hardware cost more than software?

[Zapdos]

I have been on 6 out of seven continents. I will skip going to Antarctica. I have 18 years in the USN Pacific Fleet. My assertions have some basis. You on the other hand are word challenged. Last time I looked was only a couple of months ago.

Re:Why must hardware cost more than software?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why don't you tell us the answer, oh wise one. Oh wait, you don't know, either, since your presence here almost certainly is a product of your being in that 8%, too.

Re:Why must hardware cost more than software?

[BinxBolling]

ESR is predicating his argument on the notion that hardware must necessarily cost more than the software that runs on it. He's obviously never negotiated a contract for a site license for Oracle.

Or looked at the video game console market, where consoles are actually sold at a loss, because the real money is in games.

Or met anybody who listens to a lot of music, as such people can easily spend far more on CDs than on a decent stereo system.

The TRUE price of MS Windows Ware..

[mlati]

has always been 0CHF, that's why they give away IE free!..

whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

whatever

Can they afford the subscription?

[Titusdot Groan]

I don't think the issue will be with buying the initial version of Windows/Office but the ongoing licensing fees. For a middle class family a computer is a big purchase and it has to last 4 or 5 years. It's hard enough to afford the internet connection without then adding yearly MS fees.

I think by trying to extort the maximum amount they can out of there business users Microsoft is going to be in the position of eliminating themselves from the consumer market.

The interesting thing is that at some point companies like GE are going to realize that the millions of dollars a year in licensing fees could hire a lot of Linux developers to work on StarOffice and Redhat. And since most of their internal process control/CRM software is going web based all they need is a browser.

These two things could force MS into the position of needed to compete with Liberty/J2EE for it's very survival.

Well, I can dream.

My Prediction

[WildBeast]

He didn't mention a date. So I predict that ESR prediction will come true within 40 years from now.

Hmm. Itanium & MS Gang up on everyone

[OS24Ever]

What if to get the next version of Windows .net or whatever you ahve to buy the 64Bit CPU.

It only runs on Itanium, and Itanium systems cost (theoretically) more than a loaded G4 Power Mac. The Windows Faithful would have to spend $4000 a machine for hardware, what's another $300 for the OS?

I mean the way they are acting towards the 9 dissenting states, this seems like something they'd do without even blinking. Though I don't know how Intel would take it.

*smacks self*

[BitHerder]

Dammit! Must learn to read irony! Dammit! Dammit!

I hate to say this, but...

[jtseng]

This is just another story to get more /. eyeballs on their site and generate banner revenues except this time it's a pro-community piece. Couldn't we ban Windows- or Linux-based op ed pieces on ZDNet altogether? They just seem to be all hot air.

Wishful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

ESR has been saying this for years. He is a Libertarian, and true to neo-classical fundamentalism, is searching for a plausible line of attack to assert that an economy can function properly without democratic oversight by way of anti-trust laws. It has been a more common approach to concede that monopolies harm everyone but the monopolists, but to justify them by way of asserting the priority of private property rights, or demonstrating that government intervention is prone to corruption and therefore we are better off with serial monopolists. The elegance of neoclassical modeling is compelling, but does not seem wholly to correspond with reality.

From the antitrust trial...

[Rogerborg]

... came the wonderful assertion that Windows is only as cheap as it is because Microsoft are such nice guys.

Their internal figures showed (they claimed) that the optimum price point was about $800. Sure, they'd lose most of their market to competitors or piracy(*), but they'd keep enough (in the lucrative corporate sector in businesses that are tied in) that they'd actually make more profit. Hands up who believes them.

(*) And now a bonus Piracy Pop quiz: If Microsoft lost 1 million x $100 Windows sales because they pushed the price to $800, how much would they claim that their losses to piracy would be:

• $100,000,000
• $800,000,000

Heck, maybe they should push the price to $100,000 a user, then they could claim to be losing trillions that they're rightfully owed, mostly in foreign markets, and the Dubyamint would have to step in and start kicking asses and taking names. Hmm, or perhaps we shouldn't put ideas like that in their heads.

Re:From the antitrust trial...

[markmoss]

Umm... From what I see, the only reason that corporations tolerate MS's bullcrap (daily crashes, frequent upgrades forced by file incompatibilities, etc.) is that "everyone knows how to use Windows." Lose the low end, and the only way they could hang onto the high end would be to actually _be_ better. And we all damned well know that there are several better options for a server OS under $800, and it would be mighty hard to justify paying $1300 for Windows + Office on the desktops...

I think that in the long run, Windows is going to get pushed out because of excessive costs -- but it's not the direct sale price of the product that will do this. As soon as MS sees itself losing ground at the bottom end, they will spin off a low-priced, slightly crippled Windows to keep their hold on that market. The real excess costs of Windows occur AFTER you buy it: Everyone loses hours a week to crashes, and to having to reboot the server after every security patch. You also buy Office. You get locked into Office because of incompatible files. You get forced to buy Office again every 3 years because of incompatible files -- and if you manage to finally freeze things at XP, someday MS will shut off the product activation service for this, so when your HD crashes, you'll HAVE to buy the new version. You have to buy expensive virus filters and subscribe to update services just to slow down the Outlook viruses. Viruses e-mail company trade secrets to China. People lose more hours cleaning up after viruses. Your virus filters strip off attachments that people needed to get their jobs done...

Re:From the antitrust trial...

[nomadic]

From what I see, the only reason that corporations tolerate MS's bullcrap (daily crashes, frequent upgrades forced by file incompatibilities, etc.) is that "everyone knows how to use Windows."

Plus, everyone knows how to cope with MS problems from frequent use.

An example:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Hit control-alternate-delete, click on netscape, then close the program."

After Bob installs Linux on everyone's desktop:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Ok, open a terminal window, type "ps auxwww", then a vertical bar character, then "grep netscape", then find a netscape process with a high CPU usage, mark down the process id number, then type "kill thatnumber". If it doesn't work, do "kill" then dash 9, then the process number."

Windows also, to be honest, has a slightly easier way to do certain things.
Installing a new program:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"Double click on the installation program, then follow the directions on the screen."

Post-Linux:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"It's an RPM, so you have to do rpm -i then the filename."
"Ok, that's easy. Thought I'd have to compile it or something."
"Haha, no,you don't have to untar and compile it. All you have to do is use RPM."
"Hey, it won't run."
"Well, RPM just installed the source, so you have to compile it now."
"But you just said I wouldn't have to!"
"I don't remember saying that."

Re:From the antitrust trial...

[markmoss]

I'm no Linux expert, but it seems likely to me that these issues are not a problem with Linux so much as with the Linux "experts." They'll tell you a ridiculously overcomplicated way of doing something from the command line whether or not there is a point and click equivalent, just because they disdain using the GUI. First, if having to kill a process that froze is a common experience, this sort of implies that either that application or the OS has some bugs that ought to be looked into. (Like Windows!) Second, if it is something the average user should know, there should be, and usually is, an open source utility that does it from KDE and Gnome; this ought to be in the standard distros, and the gurus ought to teach that first...

As for the second example, assuming there is a reason to require compilation to install the application at all, couldn't the software be distributed with a script to do both the RPM and install?

The basic issue here is that user-friendly Linux distros don't exist because users aren't running Linux. Let MS fumble so as to make Windows non-viable on the $350 machine they are trying to sell to your Aunt Minnie, and someone would work out the details of how to make a Linux pre-loaded machine suitable for her real fast. But no one's going to bother if Windows Lite is going at an OEM cost of maybe $35.

As much as I hate Walmart

[cs668]

The fact that they are now selling PCs without an OS is an indicator that this may not be too far from the mark.

Re:As much as I hate Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be realists, here. Walmart just wants to rack up a few extra sales by cutting prices a bit and letting buyers deal with having to find a copy of Windows to pirate. The group of people likely to run an alternative OS isn't anywhere near big enough for Wal-Mart to notice them.

Re:As much as I hate Walmart

[cs668]

Walmarts reasons for doing it are not important. What is important is that the cost of the OS has become enough of an percentage of the total cost that they even consider it.

ESR:Surprised By Wealth!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only surprise he's in for is AMT on his taxes.

Does anyone know?

[jejones]

I expect that shortly Windows will be one of the most expensive components of computers...but that's just a guess; does anyone know the the terms of MS's deals with OEMs?

That's one of the reasons MS is trying to move its vic^H^H^Hcustomers to Danegeldware; just as you don't realize how much of your money the government seizes when they do it a bit at a time, you won't notice how much you're paying MS if you do it a bit at a time, and they can play the Polaroid game (sell the cameras cheap, charge mucho $$$ for the film).

We've had CHEAP PC's forever

[qurob]

Back in 1998 eMachines sold decent little machines for $399 and up, getting a TON of people into the market.

There's $399 PC's and $1599 PC's

Granted, not many people pay $4,000 for a PC like they used to. But the cheapest computers USED to be $1,299. I remember when that was a price point.

You can buy $99 PC's on eBay, and they'll probably do fine for what you want to do, hell I'm using a 400mhz (eek!) machine at work and I do web sites, images, tons of Word/Excel stuff....

I use a 300mhz at home and do the same stuff.

Remember boys and girls.

[LordOfYourPants]

In order to be taken seriously in computing circles nowadays, you should be referred to by a 3 letter acronym instead of using your full name.

How About Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait his answer to everything is: "I don't really care about that."

*smacks BitHerder*

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it! Must learn not to confuse irony and sarcasm! Damn it! Damn it!

Re:Microsoft is all about power, not necessarily c

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the company that annihilates other companies by giving away what everyone else is selling

So how, exactly, does this action differ from what the OSS movement advocates?

Say MS, or any other company for that matter, is willing to produce a product that implements the same functionality as that of a competing company, and to freely distribute that product at no cost. Now say that MS has enough resources that they are willing to do this for every software product that is developed by anyone, thus diminishing the potential return (profits) on producing a new software product. The effect of this is that it lowers the incentive to product new products by other parties, as you argue. This argument presupposes that the primary incentive for producing new software products is monetary. If this is true, then what is the incentive for OSS people to develop new software? In effect, they are doing exactly what MS is doing -- diminishing the return on producing new software products in a given domain. Is this bad? Why then, is it bad for MS to do it?

about your final quote

[mirko]

"Pirating software is like..."

• You don't suggest it is bad (rob a dealer or actually claiming ways to free oneself from some addiction is quite positive)
• You don't necessarily suggest one may smoke the crack... Just steal it

So, it is quite a good quote but double-edged.

Re:about your final quote

[Bingo Foo]

Pirated but unused software has zero effect. Stolen and unsmoked crack is different, since the supply of crack is scarce.

Bingo Foo

The consumer market is not where the money is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft (and lots of other big computer companies) know that the consumer market (e.g, average joes) is NOT where the money is.

The money is in the business/corporate market where you strike out contracts licensing thousands of copies of your software for x years to a company. This is constant and long term revenue.

The consumer market exists solely to make your product known and widely used by the populace. These people then work for companies who buy the popular software on the consumer market because that's what their employees know and are comfortable with.

So in short, consumer market is to gain popularity while the business market is for the big bucks. Contray this this poorly thought out and narrow minded editorial, Microsoft will see consumer market pricing shifts and adjust accordingly. They are a 20-some year-old behemoth that has been making excellent all around business decisions that has made them the top of the market. There are going to keep this track record up. That's the (sometimes) sad truth.

He's got a great track record....

[JohnTheFisherman]

Like this little gem. Conspicuously absent link from the story, don't you think? ESR prediction story on /., clearly topical.

Re:He's got a great track record....

[Anonymous Coward]

What year was that posted ?

Unix standard ls format says that it was Dec.2001.
In which case 6 months is not yet up.

Hint to the slash maintainers. How about including years in article dates.

Re:He's got a great track record....

[NorthDude]

you have the year in the URL...

Re:He's got a great track record....

[bribecka]

What year was that posted ?

December 2000. The interview was apparently done at a conference in Fall 2000.

What is up with this guy (ESR)? How can someone make such sweeping yet totally incorrect predictions all the time? I've decided not to listen to anyone who goes by their 3 initials...they usually turn out to be friggin idiots.

Re:He's got a great track record....

[smagruder]

Hint to the slash maintainers. How about including years in article dates.

Yup. This is a no-brainer bug that has gone unfixed for years now. I even reported this as a bug and it was closed for no apparent reason.

What's with not including years in article dates???

Re:He's got a great track record....

[cpeterso]

What year was that Slashdot story from? Why does Slashdot omit the YEAR on their stories? The Slashdot archives are utterly useless without a YEAR, people.

Re:He's got a great track record....

[I Want GNU!]

What year was that Slashdot story [slashdot.org] from?

Read the url again: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/13/216237_F.sht ml

Right where it says 00, that's the year. So, with Microsoft collapsing six months from 12/13/00, I guess it will collapse by June 2001! Great!

Re:He's got a great track record....

[Alsee]

I even reported this as a bug and it was closed for no apparent reason.

It was closed because it's not a bug. It is a feature.

-

Except for one thing

[rfc1394]

Sure, Price is a factor in PC sales but... OS ultimatly comes down to what they're familiar with. My mother would love to go out and purchase a new PC for 350$ but if it doesn't have a copy of Windows with it, she'll simply go out and buy one.

If you bought a car for $3500 (or $35000) and discover that you have to spend another $1850 ($18500) for the engine you are going to be very angry or if you discover this ahead of time you will probably not buy it. If a PC sells for $350 it's going to be a hard sell to get someone to also then spend an additional $185 for the full version of Microsoft Windows 2004 (list price for a copy when you do not own a prior operating system). Even if it's $85 or so it's still a bit expensive for the home buyer. The only way they will get that much money for a copy is if they do what they've done with XP; impose anti-copying controls so strict that they virtually cannot be evaded. Which will encourage even more pirates to try to break it and may start another cycle of trying to implement even more draconian licensing systems.

In essence, they will not be able to charge the kind of prices they have before and they will either have to cut prices (almost a certainty) or see people stick with older and cheaper versions or perhaps used copies or bootlegs. (very likely)

I suspect that this may eventually trigger a copyright lawsuit that gets lost by them if they (or the SPA) really try to enforce their no transfer rule on bundled software, a restriction the Supreme Court has ruled was not permissible back in the Bobbs-Merrill case back near the turn of the (19th) Century; despite what the software companies claim, their mass-market software is sold, not licensed and is subject to the "first sale" rule.

Inexpensive computers are going to be real trouble for Microsoft's bottom line.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

Re:Except for one thing

[$0 31337]

You raise some good points, however, I don't believe that 85$ would be out of the price range for a copy of windows. People routinely pay 50$ for a new game or more for other applications. While Microsoft may have to make some adjustments, I don't think that it will be a windows sinking problem.

So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

Exactly. In fact, by making the claim that Microsoft can not lower their prices and survive, ESR is making the argument that Microsoft is not a monopoly.

The classic definition of monopoly power is that a company has the power to price above marginal cost - or the cost of producing an additional unit. While we know that real life is a little more complex than this classic definiton, by making the argument that M$ will crumble if forced to lower their prices, ESR is actually saying that Microsoft is not a monopoly...that the current pricing scheme used by M$ is driven by the market.

In one statement, ESR just poked a hole in his own argument without even realizing it. Nice job!

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[rseuhs]

ESR is no monopoly-whiner, which I find very refreshing.

In one statement, ESR just poked a hole in his own argument without even realizing it.

Wrong, he sais that Microsoft can't sustain it, not that it doesn't exist.

And if you ask me, I always said that Microsoft had market-domination and not monopoly.

They lost their domination on servers already - desktops are next.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[BeBoxer]

by making the argument that M$ will crumble if forced to lower their prices, ESR is actually saying that Microsoft is not a monopoly...that the current pricing scheme used by M$ is driven by the market.

Actually, I think he means that Microsoft is currently using monopoly pricing, and has in the past. But when PC prices were higher, the market simply absorbed the monopoly prices and accepted them. Now that the market is changing due to the plummeting cost of every other component of the PC, Microsoft may no longer be able to maintain their pricing. Since the current structure of the company is based upon massive profit margins, the company could be in real danger if they have to give up their monopoly pricing and adapt to the market. Just because Microsoft may not be able to maintain monopoly prices in the future does not mean that they don't get those prices today. Or that they haven't in the past.

Monopolies come and go. Just because M$ may not have a monopoly next year doesn't mean that they didn't have one last year. By your logic, AT&T was never a monopoly since they aren't one today. All ESR is really arguing is that he thinks the market is changing to where M$ will not be able to keep their monopoly, and that they will not be able to adjust to that change. While you can argue about whether the market is actually changing to a point where M$ might have to actually lower prices, it's not really much of a stretch to believe that M$ would collapse if they had to go from their ~40% profit margins down to single digit margins like a lot of companies in the PC business.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[nomadic]

ESR is no monopoly-whiner, which I find very refreshing...And if you ask me, I always said that Microsoft had market-domination and not monopoly.

You're both wrong. Microsoft is a perfect example of a monopoly.

I'm not sure what your rationale is, but ESR apparently doesn't believe in monopolies, because their existence pokes too many holes in his libertarian beliefs.

If a company has overwhelming market dominance, and uses that dominance to actively prevent others' entry into the market, that's a monopoly. I'm not sure which definition of the word you subscribe to.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

No - he's not a monopoly whiner...but he has said that MS is a monoply and that they have used that power to maintain and extend their position in the industry.

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/libgates.html
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5007

I DEFINITELY agree that he's not as strong a monopoly whiner as some others, but he does appear to rely on the monopoly power argument in some of his writings.

The way I read it, ESR's so-called "Microsoft Tax" is monopoly power...he can call it whatever he wants, but it is specifically in that "tax" that they price above marginal cost...and that "tax" can (and probably will) be lowered.

And yes, you are correct - they have market saturation. In my opinion, that's the result of them producing strongly competitive complementary goods (Office suite, IE) for their OS. Some of that is the result of predatory market practices, probably...but some of that is also the result of good marketing and good business sense...both of which have resulted in their capability to price above cost.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

My logic has nothing to do whatsoever with the passage of time. AT&T certainly was a monopoly - as was US Steel. The primary test of a monopoly is whether or not you can price above the actual cost of your product.

I think you lack an understanidng of anti-trust theory. You state that MS needs 40% profit margins to survive...to cover their costs? If so, then that 40% is not really profit, is it?

Furthermore, MS is not going to lose the ability to price above cost just because prices are dropping. Their licenses and market saturation absolutely ensure that. What they will lose is some of that margin between actual cost and the cost the consumer bears. The only thing that would result in MS losing monopoly power would be a drastic change in their licensing practices.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

I agree that MS is a perfect example of a monopoly. I was simply stating that if what ESR describes were true, then MS couldn't be a monopoly because, according to traditional anti-trust theory, monopoly status has everything to do with price and marginal cost. Sorry I wasn't clear.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[nomadic]

Oh, I was responding to the guy who responded to you; whatever ESR's rationale for why Microsoft isn't a monopoly, I'm fairly sure it has to do more with his personal beliefs than any actual economic mechanisms that might preclude it from being one.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

Right..."Microsoft Tax" == Monopoly power. It doesn't matter what you call it...

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The primary test of a monopoly is whether or not you can price above the actual cost of your product.

I think you need to clarify that. EVERY business prices above the "actual cost" in order to make what's known as a PROFIT.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Most likely, if MS' profit margins went from 40% to 10%, their best mercenaries would desert them, thus driving them into the red. Meanwhile, their stock would go from $65 to $12

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

...ah yes - the issue that has plagued Neo-classical economists for years...in the "Perfect Competition" model (which we are NOT an example of, but we often strive to be as close to that as possible), we should observe a "zero-profit-equilibria" (related to the concept of "Natural Price"). There are some implicit costs included in the cost of production (opportunity cost, overhead, etc) that the company also applies to their product's pricing scheme that result a positive cash flow.BR>

Now, you and I both know that real world markets are far more complicated than neo-classical economic theory. So, my (regretfully abbreviated) explanation above probably doesn't completely jibe with you. That's fine. Market fluctuations, short-run vs. long-run industry adaptions to the business cycle, geographic differences in demand, etc etc etc all have an impact on pricing and profit...it's far more complicated than what I describe. Far more complicated than I have the time to get into right now. But - when anti-trust theory is concerned - we always revert back to that basic question of "Are they pricing above marginal cost?" One of the real tricky parts in answering that question is coming up with an accurate way of assigning cost.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[rseuhs]

If a company has overwhelming market dominance, and uses that dominance to actively prevent others' entry into the market, that's a monopoly.

What you do is a redefinition of the word.

Microsoft *had* a monopoly on x86 about 15 years ago, but today, I'd call it market domination.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[BeBoxer]

The primary test of a monopoly is whether or not you can price above the actual cost of your product.

Which Microsoft does. To the point that they have cash just piling which they don't know what to do with. To the point where a good argument can be made that they are defrauding stockholders by not paying dividends.

You state that MS needs 40% profit margins to survive...to cover their costs? If so, then that 40% is not really profit, is it?

Um, profits are not the money used to cover your costs. It's the money left over. You know that and I know that. I never stated that M$ needed a 40% profit margin to cover their costs because, duh, then it wouldn't be a "profit" margin would it?

I also know, and I'll bet you also know, that the long term survival of a large publicly traded company is due in large part to the value of their stock. Losing money is OK as long as wall street is happy with the way things are going and keeps the capital flowing. Making money is not enough if wall street doesnt like the way things are going, and your stock crashes. Wall street expects companies to keep performing at least as well as they have in the past. If Microsoft's profits plummet due to changing market conditions, the company could be in serious jeprody even though revenues might be sufficient to cover the real costs of developement, production, and support.

The only thing that would result in MS losing monopoly power would be a drastic change in their licensing practices.

By this logic, as long as Microsoft never changes their licensing practices, they will never loose their monopoly. Even if everybody stopped buying their product, they would have a monopoly as long as the license was the same? You don't even believe that.

You may have a doctorate in anti trust law for all I know. But it appears you skipped Logic 101 during collage.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, he sais that Microsoft can't sustain it, not that it doesn't exist.

Well, if Microsoft can't sustain it, then obviously their current price is driven by the necessity to continue operations => is controlled by the market => MS does not have monopoly power.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you call him stupid?

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

Absolutely, I agree - their stock price would drop if their profit margin dropped from 40%. Can we say for sure whether or not the company would fold if their profits dropped? No.

Of course you are correct that it would have a severe effect on their stock price if their 40% profict margin approached the more common 11-15% range. If any company could weather that type of storm, however, it would be Microsoft. They have proven time and time again that they can be a very flexible entity. I have confidence that they would adapt to fit the needs of the market.

We can all envision a future that does not have Microsoft in its current dominant position in the market, but my point is that it is not realistic to assume that this will happen in the near future (when ESR's magical $350 PC cost is reached) solely as the result of a change in pricing. It's going to take a lot more to dethrone Microsoft. Even if Microsoft were pricing and profiting more in line with their competitors, they still have the advantage because everybody uses their products. And that's not going to go away. For many companies, the thought of a migration away from Microsoft products is unthinkable. Regardless of pricing practices and competitive goods, companies aren't going to do this overnight. Rome may have fallen in a day, but Microsoft will not.

And, yes, you are right - I should have qualified that last statement a little more so that what I wrote was more precisely in line with what I was thinking. ;) Of course it's not the only thing that could result in MS losing their monopoly power. I do not believe that. However, everybody is not going to stop buying their product. You don't believe that, either.
What I should have said was: all other things held constant,licensing changes would have a stronger negative effect on their monopoly power than pricing changes would.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[clearcache]

Yeah, he did. But hey, we're all a little illogical sometimes. He just called me on it... ;)

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[jedidiah]

This is a rather disengenuous argument.

ESR is claiming that the ENTIRE MARKET that Microsoft now owns will go away. That doesn't get Microsoft off the hook for being a Monopolist. That merely means that they will eventually end up being the victim of historical change.

Infact, Microsoft has done more to eliminate the market for microcomputer operating systems and applications than Linux or falling hardware prices ever will.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[BeBoxer]

I'll take the definition behind door number three Monty: "foolish or careless" ;-)>

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[BeBoxer]

They have proven time and time again that they can be a very flexible entity. I have confidence that they would adapt to fit the needs of the market.

You are probably right. I think Microsoft's future will most likely be a lot like IBM. At one point IBM was the undisputed king of computers, and was in fact investigated for anti-trust violations. Now, years later, they are not really leading the industry per se, but they are definitely still a strong company. But I can still haveBut I can still have my d my dreams of Microsofts imminent Enron-style implosion, can't I?

However, everybody is not going to stop buying their product. You don't believe that, either.

No, not everybody. But a lot of people are starting to grumble. Especially overseas, and that's where I think a lot of the change will come from. American's don't mind being beholden to an American corporation so much. Especially one that is often portrayed as an example of everything that is "right" with the American economy. Other countries don't necessarily think it's such a good idea to be under the thumb of an American monopoly. Witness recent stories about movements towards open source in the German, Chinese, and Korean governements. Really, for what a single good sized govt pays out to Microsoft every year, they could probably keep development moving pretty rapidly on needed office software products.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[Alex Belits]

Wrong. Market has absolutely nothing to do with cost of operations -- if it was the case, no branch of industry or technology will be extinct by now, and you would be able to buy stone axes and bone fish hooks.

Monopoly can charge unreasonable price and still spend all those money on continuing "operations" that include unreasonable luxury, rampant investment around, buying the competition and other spendings that would be unnecessary to produce the product but are necessary to make monopoly maintenance worthwhile.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monpoly, then, ESR?

[mpe]

You are probably right. I think Microsoft's future will most likely be a lot like IBM. At one point IBM was the undisputed king of computers, and was in fact investigated for anti-trust violations. Now, years later, they are not really leading the industry per se, but they are definitely still a strong company.

But did IBM ever have such a narrow product line as Microsoft has?

Non sequitur

[FallLine]

"When the price of a PC falls below $350, Microsoft will no longer be viable," Raymond said in an interview with ZDNet UK. "The reason is that if you sell something below that price, you can't afford to pay the Microsoft tax and still make money." He said the best illustration of this is the handheld PC market, where Microsoft software powers relatively expensive devices, but has no presence in the lower-end market.

I am sorry, but this reasoning simply does not follow. Even if the hardware were free, it, in and of itself, has no effect on the affordability of the software itself. The customer, if anything, has MORE money to spend on the OS (remember, an OS can save or cost you time and effort). The only way I can possibly see his argument, ignoring his logic or lack thereof, is if the cheapness of PC hardware allows for a fundamental shift in attitudes to PCs and the price of the software (and hence the total price of the system, not the RELATIVE cost) is significant enough to influence this. But this is a stretch and it depends on MS keeping the price static [MS' sales far exceeds their development costs, so MS could slash the prices considerally and they could makeup for a lot of it with the increased sales.]

As for his whole palm vs PC argument, his premise is wrong. Palm and PocketPC have two very different approaches to the market. Palm knows its market is the PDA market, i.e., handling contacts, appointments, and other daily tasks, whereas PocketPC is about being a mini-laptop (which largely attracts the techies and trendy types). Well both the PocketPC OS and the tasks themselves demand a lot more expensive hardware. PocketPC also eats batteries for its intended uses like none other. I'd also argue that Microsoft's vision for PocketPC is fundamentally flawed given the battery limitations, the hardware for the next couple years, and the problems with data entry/input methods and screen size on anything the size of a PDA. The point being is that we have a lot of good reasons to believe the difference in sales has a lot more to do with other issues than just the licensing price difference between the two OSes. For instance, completely ignoring the price of the total costs of either units, I would not want PocketPC if I all I want to do is use the PDA as a PDA (the battery life and other issues are too significant to me).

Re:Non sequitur

[chromatic]

Even if the hardware were free, it, in and of itself, has no effect on the affordability of the software itself. The customer, if anything, has MORE money to spend on the OS (remember, an OS can save or cost you time and effort).

Would you buy a new car for $5000 if it required fuel costing $3.50 per gallon? After all, you've saved between seven and ten thousand dollars on the price of the car.

From a simple economic sense, you may be right. I'm not sure people want to see their bargains eaten up by recurring costs, though.

Re:Non sequitur

[FallLine]

This is a silly argument. The software costs the same AND the choices are the same no matter which PC you choose. The same elements that swayed you to buy Windows last time are still going to affect your decision. Now with a car, you might say your car affects the quantity and kind of fuel that you need to purchase, but this is just not the case here. Anyways, the software is not a recurring cost, at least not today.

That's not how PC are going to get cheaper...

[josquint]

PCs are going to get cheaper because they use cheaper hardware... that's what they've always done.

I've got entry level boxes from several companies, from sever different 'eras'. The ones that are still working are the older ones. Its AMAZING the hard drive failure rate on new cheap machines! I'm just starting to replace hard drives from 4-5 years back, but i've already replaced 25% of the drives from machines made 2-3 years ago!

Manufacturers cut corners were they can be cut. Were they have control, which is the hardware. That, and they're gettin a SWEET deal from software companies anyway!(at least the major companies)

Which begs the question: Do you really WANT them cheaper? I've seen a trend in our sales from the entry/home-use boxes to mid-line/commercial boxes. We now deal strictly in commercial lines (cpq evo over the presario, hp vectra over the pavilion, etc)just because of the better reliability track record and longer warranty. Although they are $60 to $100 more than the 'equivilant' home-line box.
.

Re:That's not how PC are going to get cheaper...

[BoneFlower]

Good points- The general advice shouldn't be buy the PC that best suits your needs, but to buy the absolute best machine you can afford. You get a better, more reliable machine and you won't have to have it repaired/upgraded anywhere near as soon as you will a bargain bin PC. If all you can afford is bargain bin, thats one thing. But if you have the 1000-1500 to spend on a PC, SPEND IT. You won't be sorry. Dont ignore a PCs cost... but don't look only at that. And only buy from big names unless you know what you are doing or have the advice of someone who does, smaller companies can have great deals and solid systems, but they don't have the same risks as big companies do if they flood the market with cheapo components.

What about linux cost.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.

An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a lot of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, ext2fs, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other UNIX file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows ext2fs out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.

According to Linux advocates, an alternative to ext2fs would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).

The other proposed 'solution', ext3fs, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient ext2fs file system remain in ext3fs, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.

Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".

The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.

I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.

It's about profit margins

[Ms.Taken]

Let's assume that an OEM can have a 25% markup on it's machines and still remain competitive, and that assembly, support, advertising, etc. costs an average of $50/machine, and a Windows liscense costs $50. Now if the OEM is selling machines for $1,000, it's grossing $200. Subtract $100 for expenses, and they've still got $100 profit. If the price drops to $350, they're making only $70 per machine, which means they can't turn a profit if Windows is included.

Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that OEMs will all stop including Windows, or even that MS will have to drop the price. All they have to do is move the expense out of the initial purchase. They could give the OS away free to the OEMs with a three-month subscription. That way the OEMs could offer a machine that works out of the box, and three months later, the consumer starts paying Microsoft

OS die? Only be stronger!

[teamhasnoi]

Good point. If I might talk out of my a$$ for a moment:

Window$(TM)® will become 'free' as soon as .net is in a usable state. I believe they will go to a subscription service. There is nothing that Bill would like more than having Window$(TM)® used like electricity, water, cable, satellite, isp or (ha) garbage services. You'll get a bill every month; don't pay the bill, and no Window$(TM)® for you (and no computer). He is hoping that people will suck this up, 'cause hell! everything else is subscription based...may include features of PVR. Most likely off-site storage would be favored, since control of content would be with MS. Hardware copy protection would be moot, since everything would be installed though MS. (No way to install anything on site)

These suppositions assume that broadband will be widely available, and probably bundled w/ Window$(TM)® (MSN) MS will market this as easy to use! (MS will remotely repair and admin installs) and use passport for security (whoohoohaha....snif.) The more MS can push the death of the 'PC' as it stands now the better off they are.

The return of the network appliance?

Let me wake up from these nightmare visions! Ahhh! Ahhhh!

People pay for the software...

[Console]

not the hardware.
The situation is like with DVD's. The medium (hardware) costs maybe $1, but the #&%/s can still charge $20 for a movie (software).

Suppose Dell could make a PC for $10. If Microsoft charges them $350 for windows, the end customer will have to pay $361 (at least) for a Dell w/ windows.

This won't change until Linux or another OS can challenge MS on the desktop. I'd pay for MacOS X if only they'd port it to x86...

They would give it away...

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict MS will be giving Windows away in the near future, at least on the desktop. Windows is just a platform to push their web services. They are switching from a company that sells software to one that leases software. Windows will be the equivalent to your Blockbuster card, it's just a way to buy MS services.

I also figure you will be able to purchase MS services from any OS.

Not gonna happen

[AFCArchvile]

I just don't see the price of a PC dropping below $350 without a huge sacrifice of quality. Take e-machines, for example: the company name alone makes certified technicians shudder. They're the masters of corner-cutting and rock-bottom unit prices, and they've earned a bad reputation because of this. Only entry-level customers on a very tight budget tend to go for those now.

Figure in the push for faster and bigger, and you have another factor against lower prices. The Celeron is above 1 GHz now, and Microsoft and Intel have pounded it into the mind of consumers that a computer with a CPU running below that clock speed isn't worth jack. So in a way, Microsoft itself has been taking measures to prevent this from happening.

Sorry, bible thumpers; keep dreaming.

Re:Not gonna happen

[buckeyeguy]

Doesn't matter... the bulk of consumers who need a PC for the basic stuff (email, word processing) will look at one major feature: the price. $350 is a bit low for a decent PC, sure, but it falls in the price range (say $400-600 American) of other electric appliances: washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc. Certain CEO's 'thin client' visions notwithstanding, the PC *is* becoming a commodity appliance, for the commodity consumer, not the 3r33t d00d who carves his modded case out of solid aluminum. All that level of consumer cares about is that it works, and that they can afford it.

So wrong, it's unbelievable

[TechSceptic]

I have many issues with this guy's opinion.

First off, he believes price of PC hardware and software should synchronize. PC hardware is commoditizing. Although new tech is developing in this area, much of the IP are done. Software is a completely different beast. It cost a lot of money to develop. How can MS deliver for less than it cost to develop? Their margins is in the 40%. If they cut this much off, it still would not meet this bozo's criteria for a price low enough to justify.

Second of all, he completely dismisses the fact that after 25 yrs or more, people now expect certain level of capabilities from their PC. Business and home users will choose a cheaper PC only if it can do what they want. What good is a $350 PC going to do for me if it can't do the things I want? It's one hell of an expensive brick, if you ask me.

The third issue I have is my inability to reconcile this whole notion of free open source software with the need to earn an income by the millions of developers out there. On a large scale, other than Linux, I have not seen one example of this working in a capitalist society where people are motivated by profits from hard work. I do not understand this whole belief that software, music, and movies ought to be free. In capitalism, how does one become motivated to produce without possibility of gain? I believe many of the open source developers do what they do because they enjoy it. However, the vast majority of software developers write software to make an income. I believe most of the free software advocates aren't actually contributing to the cause. They're just tying to push the idea to get something for free. Then they go use Gnutella to steal music and movies. Sorry guys, modern society have already proven Communism just does not work.

Re:So wrong, it's unbelievable

[Dante'sPrayer]

I'll begin by telling that somewhat I agree with you. But there are lots of factors that you are ignoring, so please be patient with me if you disagree:

• "much of the IP are done..." in the field of PC hardware, you say. But remember that a lot of the software is already done; the protocols used to connect and browse the internet, for example, have been here a long time.
• "How can MS deliver for less than it cost to develop?" Maybe cutting on the multimillion publicity? Avoiding to spend so much programmer time in fixing bugs that should not have leaked into production? Cutting on the chrome and delivering the content faster and cheaper? OK, not delivering for less than it cost to develop, more like developing for less.
• "Business and home users will choose a cheaper PC only if it can do what they want..." And what do they want? Web access and Email? Done. Multimedia? about 85-90%, if not better. Games? Yes, that is a down point, but there are some. And you get a lot of software tools that are not going to be used by the average: editors, compilers, lots of libraries for about every language ever created. The downside is on the propietary file formats; but even then there is some support, and remember: if you stop creating them, you'll stop having trouble with them.
• About your inability to reconcile "free open source" with motivation from profit from hard work, that is at the very least a stingy subject. In the open source world, most frequently one does not become motivated by the possibility of gain; one produces first, because one wants, and then one is so happy with the results that one wants to share the creation with the world. It's a different process: one is motivated and creates, not creates because of the promise of reward. And I agree that is impossible to base an entire production model on this, but please notice that people is always going to do things because they like, and if that is shared everyone benefits. Do you think that I sat down a half an hour to write a reply because I'm being payed?

I hope not having been too rude. And, to the slashdot crowd: if that was reply to a troll I'm sorry, but I was getting inspired.

what happens when people can't afford software

[mr_gerbik]

They don't stop using the software and turning to cheaper alternatives... they start pirating it. Why do you think the piracy rates in China and Korea are higher than 90%? (Yes, higher than 90%!) Its because the people can't afford to shell out $150 bucks for the latest software, and at the same time, they don't want to fall behind the rest of us.

ESR is an idiot, and his rediculous predictions have done nothing more than make me laugh at his stupidity. Its pure nonsense.

-Ryan

MS will give Windows away soon

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is on a program to develop all sorts of other software. They will be making their money on them rather than the OS. For example, MS is now into competeting directly against SAP, People Soft, && JD Edwards. You can bet that they will give it away for a short time and then charge. This is exactly why DOJ sued MS (using their OS to control a monopoly), but with a few bucks to the right incoming staff, it appears that it will go away.
As much as I appreciate ESR, he does not consider that MS will move to a similar model of Linux (give away the OS and charge for other things).

Maybe not a good idea.

[clark625]

I love to order new computers without an operating system. I used to build them from components, but now I've found that for about the same cost (plus a lot less time) I can have a brand new computer sent to my door via my favorite on-line retailer. And since I don't want an operating system installed, I'm not going to be forced into buying it. And that's all well and good since I generally nuke the hard drive as my first order of business anyway.

Most consumers, on the other hand, are morons. I know this. If I get one more phone call at 1:00am because of some jack#$$ tried to upgrade to WinXP and somehow lost all of his data, I'm going to scream. I don't even like Windows.

Back a few years ago (it's been a while), Microsoft sent out a memo to all its OEM vendors about how it's bad for the customer to receive a computer without an operating system. The basic reason for this was Microsoft's fear of piracy, which I believe is legitimate. Far too many people who will purchase this type of computer from Wal-Mart will either pirate a copy of Windows or will buy a copy and then have a very difficult time getting it installed. All the various questions it asks always has people calling me at all hours.

So, give the thing an operating system. Bundle RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, etc into the thing without any cost--and give the end-user a "coupon" to use if they want to activate RedHat's (or whomever's) support. Sure, that will be for extra money--but the end user might be happy to pay for that support if it's needed. And it keeps him/her from having to run back to the store for a copy of XP.

Nothing annoys a non-computer person more than when they turn a brand-new computer on and all it says is "Not Bootable Devices Found" or whatever. At least give them a Linux distro with all of X's prettiness. Besides--they might actually like it.

That's just my $0.02

Re:Maybe not a good idea.

[ornil]

Is there any list of online retailers who sell computers without OS?

Re:Maybe not a good idea.

[saintNiX]

I do not know of the existence of a definitive list, but do check Pricewatch (http://www.pricewatch.com). I was able to purchase an Athlon box in June of 2001 from one of the Pricewatch retailers. The price on the unit at the time was $443 and included win98. They offered the choice of getting the same box without windows for $40 less, which I did. If this one retailer (LLC Technologies) offered naked pcs for less, then I am sure the other retailers would as well.

Re:Maybe not a good idea.

[clark625]

I can't think of a list off hand--but as another poster pointed out, a great place to start is pricewatch. I have purchased my OS-free computers from IBuyPower.com and I have to say that I am very impressed with the hardware. They do excellent work--and no, I don't get a discount or anything.

Re:Maybe not a good idea.

[Cro Magnon]

My concern is that someone will try Linux on their new Walmart box, and discover that it has a LoseModem! They'll shriek at Walmart, and M$ will have a PR FUD bonanza!

Re:Maybe not a good idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

The average /. reader is an idiot. Half of /. readers are below average. Are you scared yet?

Actually, it's hard to generalize about the average /. reader since reading is a mosty passive act and leaves no footprints that you can see. I think you mean "The average /. poster".

Yes way.

[Anonymous Coward]

goto www.pricewatch.com. You can price out a complete system which would have been state-of-the-art a year or so ago for about $300 WITHOUT WINDOWS, we are rapidly approaching the point where windows is 50% of the price of a low end system.

You didn't read my post

[TrollMan 5000]

I said $350 for bleeding-edge system.

One year old systems are halfway to obsolescence these days.

Re:You didn't read my post

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a computer Cel/800/256/40Gb for $274. It is most powerful of my home computers and it is my Linux web/Samba/cvs server running 24/7 with thousands of hits a day. Sounds like bleeding edge to me

The ESR Rap

[Anonymous Coward]

The ESR Rap

(Chorus:)
I am EEE ESS ORR, elite hack-ORR, hear me ROAR!
1.
I am of the hacker elite, can't you see?
fetchmail, blindfolds in nethack, er... (hum-hum diddle dee)
Bow down on your knees, don't you diss me!

(chorus)
2.
I am an author, I "wrote" New Hacker's Dictionary
Well, shit, so what if I done stole it from MIT?
I didn't get in there, so I figured they owed me!

(chorus)
3.
I am founder and leader of OSI
Now my Open Source show is really on the road!
Free Software? Hah! Show me dat code!

(chorus)
4.
I am ESR Skywalker, elite Jedi Knight
I'm packing mah gun and I'm ready to fight
You diss me and I'll send you to eternal night!

(chorus)
5.
I am wealthy board member, VA Something-or-other
Got plenty dollar bills, at least on paper
What's that? Dot.com crash? Oh fuck! See you later!

(repeat chorus to fade)

Don't forget multi-PC households

[Chuck Messenger]

I basically agree with ESR. But I think he neglects another important phenomenon -- households with multiple PC's. It has already become prohibitive for me, for example, to upgrade all my PC's to XP. I'm often running 5 PCs at home (mine, my wife's, the stereo, the basement file-server-cum-backup-box, and our daughter's). My sister has 4 networked PCs. Yes, some of these PCs are sort of slow (133 MHz), but they do the job!

Upgrading just these to XP would be absurd, cost-wise. Realising that I will never be able to afford the Windows upgrade path, I've begun experimenting using Linux. In the long run, it will mean I will always be able to afford an up-to-date OS. I mean, come _on_ -- I can buy a 133 MHz, 1 GB machine for $50, including shipping! Paying anything for the OS in that case looks like a pretty ridiculous proposition.

So it's not just that new PCs are getting cheaper, but also the advent of home networks with many older PCs. The average number of PCs per household is (I imagine) increasing.

Re:Don't forget multi-PC households

[Anonymous Coward]

if you already have a daughter, why is a computer acting as your cum-backup-box?

A possibility, BUT...

[Maul]

ESR is being an optomist. While I agree that this is a possibility, I don't see it happening soon. There
are a few reasons why.

1) These PCs must be everywhere. There are cheap PCsnow that you can get. Someone mentioned that you can get cheap PCs w/o Windows at WalMart. That is all and good, but these types of boxes must be available everywhere, from every manufacturer. I doubt we'll see Dell advertise a $350 box without Windows anytime soon.

2) There has to be an operating system to replace
Windows on these boxes that is cheap. Linux is
not it. This probably would be a great place for
BeOS to have stepped in. I always envisioned
BeOS as being the ideal non-MS OS for the average
user. Unfortunately, they no longer exist.
Another unfortunate aspect is that there needs
to be an OS that essentially will need to have
a monopoly on these boxes.
Of course, it could be an Open Source OS.

3) The said operating system needs to have a few
good applications for it. One would be a fully
standard compliant web browser. Another would be
a word processing program with features roughly
equivalent to MS Word. There are some other
necessary apps, like perhaps a simple image
editing program, email client, media player, etc.
Basically, programs to cover all the bases.

4) There will always be people who still buy
computers that price in the thousands. These are
people who need and want more powerful PCs.
I doubt most gamers would care for the $350 PC.
I think that the number of people willing to pay
thousands for a superior PC is still high enough.
If the economy gets worse, however, this might change.

Re:A possibility, BUT...

[Shimbo]

There will always be people who still buy
computers that price in the thousands. These are
people who need and want more powerful PCs.
I doubt most gamers would care for the $350 PC.

What is the X-box if not that? I know you mean high-end gamers who sneer at PS2 & friends. But actually the games market is slowing down, if anything. The last game I bought only required a 166MHz PC (OK it was cheap) but ones I bought years earlier needed a 133MHz. The price point for the typical game seems to be slipping down the range.

Linus Makes Microsoft Serve Us Better

[Anonymous Coward]

It maybe not good that Linux kills all the others.
I would like that Linux, Microsoft, IBM, SUN, BEA, Oracle and Apple all live together to produce best products and make reasonable money.
At least, linux will make Microsoft behave better.

Bugmaker

I've must have played too mcuh Starcraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering what Zealots had to do with any of this....

Blah blah blah, says Mr Three Letter-Acronym

[JimPooley]

<MandyRiceDavies>He would say that, wouldn't he?</MandyRiceDavies>

Re:Blah blah blah, says Mr Three Letter-Acronym

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir,
It has recently come to our attention that you made a reference on the popular weblog "slashdot.org", to an event that:
a) Predated the release of the motion picture "Star Wars"
b) Failed to occur in the United States Of America
and that you failed to provide explanatory URLs.

Please deduct all karma points and start again, replacing all references to Ms. Davis with unamusing innuendos about Monica Lewinsky.

If Linux advocates get cheaper, ESR will die!

[erat]

There's such a thing as quitting while you're on top. I guess ESR hasn't realized this yet.

He was a good spokesperson (if not self appointed; I don't recall voting for him), but nowadays he's just spouting off whatever stream of thought he has re: Linux and open source software.

Newsflash, ESR, in case you haven't read the other 100 or so posts of this ilk: when PCs get cheaper, so will Windows. MS will do whatever it takes to get Windows on PCs, even if it needs to make Windows into a loss leader. You don't become a multi-billion dollar corporation with $0 (yes, **$0**) of debt by not adapting to markets. If any OS is not adapting quick enough, it's Linux, not Windows. (Yes, I'm a Linux/*BSD advocate, but I'm realistic, unlike Mr. Raymond.)

Someone put ESR to bed... Quickly... Maybe he can tweak his geek sex howto or one of his other myriad unwarranted-but-written-nonetheless documents. Regardless, I no longer consider his rantings to be benefitial to open source development or Linux. Just my personal opinion.

Flame away.

E.

NC Alternatives to PC's

[Martin S.]

There are also increasingly numbers of alternatives channels, many more suitable for Home use.

Consider this service (www.kitv.co.uk) that I work on, Broadband Internet Access, via a TV, STB and no Windows in sight. Perfectly suitable for Joe Public's (none Geeky requirements).

The PS3 look's set to be completely broadband enabled and no Windows in sight.

There are a host of other alternatives, Convergent Devices, Wireless networked Web Pads, 3G Phones, and again no Windows in sight.

Re:Milan and Rome are in Italy

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when are Milan and Rome located in Spain?

Well, and Venezia is in Italy too, while you may find Venice in the US as well as in Italy.

:-)

What's wrong with his logic....

[scharkalvin]

The business world will never abandon Windows because they won't change the way they use computers. The cost of the computers used in business is viewed as an entire system, and software costs with support contracts are already a huge part of the total system cost. Even if the hardware got much cheaper it wouldn't budge the bottom line enough to make a difference.

The home computer market might be affected by this, but anyone who uses a computer at work will probably still want the same OS and software at home. MS already sells different levels of software between their home and enterprise users so they are aware of the price sensitivity.

If school boards can look beyond MS's bullshit fud they might consider open source to save money, but the reality is that they MUST teach what is used in the business world with real world hardware and software.

Walmart's experiment in selling computers without an OS will probably fail, though I hope they can make this program work for customers who know what they are buying.

Remember when...

[norvillerogers02105]

Didn't Microsoft get its start because computers were now "cheap" back in the 80s. Before the PC all you had were minis and Mainframes. It would be ironic if the same thing that made MS, I.E. cheap computers, also ended up bringing them down to the level of any other software company.

Commoditization of the OS

[MopOfJustice]

For many people, the value of a product has more to do with the price than what the product can actaully do. By inflating the OS price, Microsoft marketing is trying to make consumers think it's worth more than it is. In the past they would inflate a price to increase desire, then slash the price to make the product ubiquitous, then slowly raise the price again. Why should they change a strategy that has worked so well thus far?

As PC hardware becomes cheaper, the OS will become cheaper, especially whenever a competing product comes on the scene. Microsoft is big and can afford to forgo profits much longer than potential competitors, thereby forcing them out of buisiness. Kind of like OS2.

Loss Leader

[Anonymous Coward]

So Windows will become MS' loss leader. The will give away the razor (Windows) to see the blades (Office, Servers and Services). MS will not die because Windows and OSes in general become low price commodities.

Do you really think they are going to stand still?

[iridium]

The big problem with ESR's argument is that it assumes Microsoft will stand still and let this happen to them. I have to think they have slightly better business sense then that.

As prices drop they will begin to look for other revenue streams. In fact, they already have. Look at .NET. It is the underpinnings of a services based model (although they admit they don't quite know how to make money from it :). Products such as the XBox are putting Windows in new places and if the rumors of a "Home Station" end up being true then we'll continue to see them pushing it into other parts of the home.

Sure, Windows might change as the environment changes, but what else would you expect?

try this:

[Lord Omlette]

Next time you find something that's News for Nerds, and it hasn't been posted to slashdot, submit the story as you normally would, but include comments from some Open Source luminary who ISN'T quoted anywhere in the story or even remotely related to it. Guaranteed front page post.

Linus?

[Shade, The]

I'd certainly be happy to say he speaks for me, at least in a general, Linux community kinda way. I might disagree sometimes, but most of the time he's on the ball.

Re:Linus?

[jcast]

I'd certainly be happy to say he speaks in a general, Linux community kinda way. Unfortunately, he doesn't.

Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[JohnDenver]

The whole problem with ESR and RMS is they're preaching a religion when all we want are tools and options to get our jobs done. People don't liked to be preached too, they just want thier options. It doesn't matter if you're right and you have the insight of King Solomon, people still don't want to hear you preach.

Now, If you can explain the *REAL* benefits of a *SPECIFIC* Open Source tool, or *SPECIFICALLY* how the open source model may benefit those involved (Benefitting usually implies the bottom line somewhere), THEN you will get people listening to you.

Look at the evidence:

The IBM PC clone didn't need a spokesperson, it's value being a commodity tool available from hundred and thousands of manfacturers spoke for itself.

As did the birth of Internet's commercialization (Not the .COM bubble. (1993-1997)): Cheap communications medium offered by vast range of carriers (ISPs)

These products worked because:
1. They were cheap
2. They were valuable
3. They provided business opportunities for people to sell cheap and valuable products.

If you want Open Source to really take off, forget about a spokes person. Meet these three criteria, and Open Source will speak for itself.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[nomadic]

The difference is RMS isn't trying to preach open source. He thinks it's unethical to charge money for software, so takes action to provide an alternative. He has been, for the most part, successful. I've never gotten the sense that he has it out for MS in particular, and the bottom line, as you put it, isn't what he cares about.

ESR on the other hand, is trying to preach open software as a superior financial alternative, a notion that hasn't really been effective.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[gfxguy]

He thinks it's unethical to charge money for software, so takes action to provide an alternative.

No, he doesn't. He thinks it's unethical to sell (or even give) software without the source code, the full rights to modify the source code to suit your needs or fix bugs, and the full rights to redistribute the code (giving credit where credit is due).

He has no problem charging for software, it just doesn't make sense in his plan, since the code can then be given away to someone else.

On the other hand, he did say it was unethical for companies to sell you hardware and then require you to license proprietary tools (often with heavy restrictions) in order to work on that platform. Compilers are a great example - way back when, many companies actually required royalties if you developed a commercial application with their compiler. GCC was a way around this - build GCC with their compiler. Then rebuild it with itself. That was usually enough to get around those pesky licenses.

Kudos to RMS. I think he's horribly unappreciated.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[Radical Rad]

If you want Open Source to really take off, forget about a spokes person. Meet these three criteria, and Open Source will speak for itself.

And it is speaking for itself. The change that ESR is talking about is taking place. It is starting overseas but the effects will ripple back to the US and eventually turn the tide here.

I disagree with ESR about the MS tax killing their monopoly. Low cost/no cost PC's were tried and failed. Margins have gone back up for the vendors that didn't go out of business in the price wars. When a vendors margin is razor thin, then MS's ability to adjust pricing gives them even more control over that vendor not less. Of course the vendor could try to opt out of the situation by encouraging linux but then MS could use their competitors to effectively kill them before a linux PC took off. And soon they won't even need to use Dell for the dirty work because they will have their own PC line called Xbox.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[Rob Y.]

> The whole problem with ESR and RMS is they're preaching a religion when all we want are tools and options to get our jobs done.

> Now, If you can explain the *REAL* benefits of a *SPECIFIC* Open Source tool,...

If there's any 'religion' involved here, it's the current USA 'religion' of free markets, and the belief that competition is inherently good.

Rants against Microsoft are essentially rants against their practicies and the laws they've broken to monopolize the computer industry.

The main reason people are looking to Open Source to save the day is that in today's grossly distorted marketplace, the only model that can compete with endless Monopoly leveraging is free software.

Back when it was still possible to compete, companies like WordPerfect did a perfectly good job of providing people with the tools they needed. And charging for them. But today's ill-gotten 'network effects' render all other comparably-priced office software uncompetitive. That changes some when the price is too good to overlook. But even then it's hard, because desktop Windows stuff is not all that expensive.

Still, if you care about competition and the benefits it will provide, you've got to support Open Source, because, face it, there's no other game in town.

So if ESR and RMS resort to wishfull cheerleading and excessive MS bashing, look at that as a reflection of how frustrating it is to try to survive in this distorted market rather than resort to branding them as commies or whatever.

You may find them embarrasing, but that does not make them any less heroic.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[Eric Damron]

Sorry, I stopped reading your post 'cause it seemed like you were preaching... ;-)

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[EggplantMan]

People don't liked to be preached too, they just want thier options.

OSS and Free Software are based on ideas. They are the product of an applied ideology. When it comes to you having an option between proprietary and free software, that option only exists because these ideas were put into practice.

Whether you like it or not, RMS is a champion of free software, and he will preach about, and defend it. I am glad that we have someone like RMS; he will never betray the idea of free software in order to conform to the popular opinion, or the Paradigm Of The Week. In order for free software to continue to be made, we need the underlying philosophy to be known to its developers and its users. Hence the preaching.

We also need people that are willing to sit around and think about free software, how it can be applied, what it means, and how it fits into the big picture of software. This is very important to the continued well being and direction of the movement, and it is in that capacity that RMS and his colleagues serve. The ideological well being of this 'religion' that you speak of so derisively is the only thing that will guarantee that you continue to have your 'options'.

Furthermore you talk about the PC, saying it succeeded due to its 'value', but really, the superior product is not that which always wins. For example, Microsoft Windows, the failure(s) of Esperanto and the Dvorak layout (to defeat inferiors). I'm sure you could think of plenty yourself. I think in fact what made the PC successful was in fact IBM itself, and their ability to market it.

To get back to my point, free software needs a spokeperson and 'defender' (if you'll excuse my dramatic terminology) so that when it does take off it is not perverted from its ideals, which isn't so bad in my book.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[jedidiah]

The PC kludge-klone and the internet didn't have to deal with heavily entrenched monopolies. Moving from the likes of Compuserve or AOL to the internet was remarkably easier than moving from a $500 office suite to a FREE office suite.

You are comparing remarkably different situations.

Once a "standard du jour" has been established, it's very hard to get people to try something new. This is true even if the new thing is dramatically cheaper, dramatically easier AND has generally more useful features.

BTW, early PC's were only "cheap" if you had blinders on.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[Esoteric Moniker]

>And soon they won't even need to use Dell for the
>dirty work because they will have their own PC
>line called Xbox.

Yes, but if they try this the will be cutting off the one thing that keeps them in the public's good graces. Right now Joe Consumer believes PC's = Windows and therefore Microsoft. They belive that Word is the only word processing software that's any good and Internet Explorer is the only web browser available. Most people can't tell the difference between PC's and Windows right now, but they can tell the difference between PC's and consoles so if (when) Microsoft decides they don't need PC manufacturers anymore because they have Xbox a lot of people will become educated very quickly. Microsoft might have their Xbox platform but it will suddenly be a proprietary platform which people will most likley shy away from in favor of their traditional (and now uber cheap) pc's running whatever OS they pluck off the shelf (or preinstalled) at Wal-Mart

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[JohnDenver]

The PC kludge-klone and the internet didn't have to deal with heavily entrenched monopolies.

The PC kludge-klone dealt with IBM, a very heavily entrenched monopoly that dealt in both hardware and software. (Remember thier anti-trust problems?) The Internet competed with AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy. They weren't monopolies, but they were competition. The whole reason PC's and the Internet competed so well was because they were able to severely undercut thier competition, which is what Open Source aims to do and can do.

But in addition to undercutting, they also had to add value to make it worth people's while. People didn't migrate to PC's and then Internet because they were the moral thing, they did it because it was the better option, or it provided them with an opportunity.

Once a "standard du jour" has been established, it's very hard to get people to try something new. This is true even if the new thing is dramatically cheaper, dramatically easier AND has generally more useful features.

There have been many "standard du jours" which have been replaced with another layer, hence the term "standard du jour".

Lloyd: What's the Soup du Jour?
Waitress: Soup of the Day...
Lloyd: Mmm... That sounds good... I'll have that...

The truth is that when you do establish a standard, it stays around a long time, but not forever. New ideas based are usually implementing a layer on top of the standard, making the original standard less relevant to the end solution. (Standard du Jour) However, Technology is very stupid they it evolves. The logic and paradigms change very quickly like culture, and most paradigms are incomplete and flawed because most engineers aren't capable of designing coherant paradigms. Things get layered on top of another because nobody wants to get to the root of the problem. Eventually, there's an opportunity to get to the root and change the stupid standard. It usually takes a while to get to this point, but it does happen.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that the Open Source should focus more on giving people what they want and need, rather than trying to shove an economic paradigm, technology paradigm, and tools nobody knows what to do with...

The truth is: Most of us are pushing for the ideals. We just don't agree how to get there, so while one is talking morals (I'm not knocking morals), the other wants to hear results. If you're still not talking results, then people won't want to listen to you and you'll be labeled a crackpot, even though you were right.

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[PhotoGuy]

The whole problem with ESR and RMS is they're preaching a religion when all we want are tools and options to get our jobs done. People don't liked to be preached too, they just want thier options. It doesn't matter if you're right and you have the insight of King Solomon, people still don't want to hear you preach.

Boy, you hit the nail on the head there. I coudn't agree more.

People like Linus, Alan Cox, and many, many others provide leadership, results, and useful progress to Microsoft alternatives, without preaching a religion. It's much more useful, IMO, than the extreme Stallman aapproach.

-me

Re:Maybe Linux doesn't need a spokes person

[mpe]

If there's any 'religion' involved here, it's the current USA 'religion' of free markets, and the belief that competition is inherently good.

Problem is that in many cases you have the exact opposite of a free market and competition anyway. Either an actual monopoly (as with Microsoft) or a few large companies which appear to operate more as a co-operative cartel than being in competition with each other. The latter describes the record, movie and broadcast industries...

PCs not getting cheaper

[Pussy Is Money]

This argument has been made in the past but it died. Now ESR is regurgitating this -- why?

The PC pricewars came and went years ago. It was the age of the sub-$1000 PC, E-machines, Ellison's network computer, and all that. None of it happened of course. The market has stabilized since then. Computers are not getting that much cheaper anymore. You get a lot more value for your money each year: but in dollar figures the prices aren't dropping that fast anymore, if at all.

My prediction

[Carnivore24]

I predict that as computers get cheaper and cheaper prices of Windows licensing will increase to take up the slack.
This time next year you have a system that costs 899.99. The PC itself cost 599.99 but the license for the Windows OS will be 399.99. :(

ESR ... stating the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

leave it up to a gnu hippie

"When the price of a PC falls below $350, Microsoft will no longer be viable," Raymond said in an interview with ZDNet UK. "The reason is that if you sell something below that price, you can't afford to pay the Microsoft tax and still make money

the guy is a fucking genious! he should consider dropping the whole open source riot act and pursue a career teaching economics.

Quick, tell microsoft...

[Sebastopol]

Someone better tell Microsoft about this guy's discovery, and quick! I bet MS never thought of that! I mean, why would a half-trillion dollar company think about pricing models in a volatile market, especially forward looking?

This author is way to proud over his "discovery". What a noodge.

$5 in Hong Kong

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though it costs money to travel there, you get a vacation in the price.

Re: Please post this to the kernel list

[Slashamatic]

The above letter makes some very interesting points. It should be posted to the Linux Kernel list. For best reception in two months and a day's time.

indeed

[havardi]

They'd sell the client for 5 bucks

Or maybe give it away for free?
Or bribe other companies to use it?
Microsoft saw the big picture with Internet Explorer, losing millions of dollars just to steal the market. Of course they will do everything they need to do to maintain their monopoly. They'll be making their own railways and pipelines soons enough...

Sluggish PC Sales

[MikeD83]

I find it riddiculous that people are concerned about sluggish PC sales.

Do you see the sanitation business worried about people not getting the shit pupmed out of their septic tanks? No, because they know eventually home owners need their shit pumped.

The same logic goes for computers, the next killer application will come soon, and then the PC market will once again flurish. It will continue this trend forever.

diversify

[f00zbll]

hasn't ESR noticed MS is diversifying it's business into games, tv and enterprise services? windows sales might become less important, but it's far from going away. get real.

MS Gives away software if need be...

[Junta]

For example, the studentdev.org thing they set up. Part of those programs was that students would get free copies of Visual Studio and Operating systems, to keep the students interested in developing for MS.

Lately, I haven't seen this so much, but I have seen the MSDN Academic Alliance, where they sell a massive license to a school for relatively cheap, and then allow all students in that school/deparetment to download all kinds of software for free legally. Included is stuff like Win2k Advanced server (which has a sticker price of nearly 4,000 dollars), and tons of applications. They will put the prices on the OS and development tools as low as they have to, just to keep corporations buying into their products.

Re:Price of Linux

[RoadWarriorX]

>> Sure Linux can be downloaded for free but some of us do not have broadband yet and support still costs money.
1) $150?? Get a copy of Linux from a friend, or buy it cheaply from some discount distributor....
2) Support? Do you actually pay for support of Microsoft products?

educational pricing

[aethera]

The reason some student versions cost ridiculously low amounts is not because MS wants to cut poor students a break. And it is unlikely that it is because they want to build up large groups of students proficient in Office so that they use it later in the work force. They have that market anyways.

Instead, check out the terms of the contracts that universities have to agree to to be able to offer those prices. I'll bet you find that most of that "discount" software you buy is paid for down the line in your tuition.

Thats the thing about a monopoly

[RogueAngel7]

Do you have ANY idea how many "illigitimate" copies of microsoft software come out of the company itself? They have had the ability to track (unaltered) versions of thier software through various means since windows 98 (that windows update shortcut + win 2k server versions send that information on request).

The reason they don't crack down is because they need the millions of people run illeagal copies of thier software so they can be the most prevolent software provider.

if everyone was suddenly forced to run ligitamite copies of MS software, MS would go out of business.

The company is not going out of buisness because of dropping PC prices, this guy needs to look at the whole picture.

RA7
-

Re:Thats the thing about a monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I'd let you know that the quote is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

There is a difference

Well he's right - in a warped sort of way

[PierceLabs]

The only thing is that, Microsoft already knows this and has known if for some time. Microsoft knows they won't be able to survive on Windows alone in the future - enter .NET. The whole thing behind .NET is about controlling the infrastructure that all these machines connect to. Thankfully our friends at the MONO project will help this along by making sure that .NET will be runnable on all platforms and thus open the door for Microsoft to control infrastructure without even having to develop the software for that infrastructure. Therein is the beauty of OpenSource.... don't *really* want to support a platform, make you spec open and people will do the work for you for free. Microsoft isn't stupid, and they are very good about executing on a plan - anyone who thinks that Microsoft will be harmed by the cheapening of PCs is simply fooling themselves, because those PCs will be connecting to Comcast backbones, assorted Fiber backbones, and server systems that Microsoft will have a large stake and control in - and because most people here crap on RedHat, AOL, and anything else here that makes money (and thereby competes with Microsoft to slow or temper their movements) - Microsoft is on the road to accomplishing what they've set out to do.

Interesting...

[gamgee5273]

A few months ago I found out that my university was in the midst of renegotiating the campus site licenses with MS. It seems MS wants to pull the OS upgrades out of the agreements - and they want us to roll all of the upgraded OSs back to their pre-upgraded status (basically the campus would be moved back to 98 and NT 4). Of course, they're willing to cut us a deal on XP Professional licensing...

Raymond's conclusions are on track. For numerous years the theory has been that MS really didn't care about the OS - they were more focused on productivity software. I would argue that .Net and the Xbox both point in the direction that MS really isn't in this for the OS - they want to have a more insidious avenue into the household via your entertainment center (Xbox), your e-commerce (.Net), your mobile communications (PocketPC). Ballmer and Gates both have said that MS is becoming this (fuzzy) "services company." When you consider the way they've backed bids with the DirecTV and AT&T Broadband buyouts and you can see that MS is only using the OS as a means to an end, not the end itself.

Of course WIndows will become obsolete, because there will come a point where MS won't care about your PC any longer because MS will OwN j00!

Re:Interesting...

[gamgee5273]

Oh, I should add to that that we don't have to roll the OS upgrades back, but for a while MS was making noises about that...

Not if you bought a winmodem

[yerricde]

I'd say that those tasks [reading Internet e-mail and browsing the World Wide Web] are exactly where Linux is perfectly able to replace and outperform Windows most completely.

Not necessarily. Those tasks require a connection to the Internet, and most users still connect to the Internet by using a modem to dial-up to an ISP. In general, name-brand PCs under $1000 tend to come with modems that do not emulate a Hayes modem connected to a 16x50 UART. Instead, they offer a proprietary interface to either a DSP or a mere DAC. These "winmodems" come with software that lets Microsoft Windows treat them as a Hayes on a UART, but most do not have driver support under any OS other than Windows. A few chipset vendors have released proprietary Linux drivers, but this doesn't help users of BeOS, Solaris operating environment, or *BSD systems (which are not dying).

Re:Not if you bought a winmodem

[-brazil-]

No shit, sherlock. I guess then the companies selling such a PC with windows would have to use one such winmodem with Linux sopport or a conventional modem.

Then the field will be leveled

[KE1LR]

If Microsoft decides to give away their OS and compete solely in the application space, then the war will truly have begun with Linux.

One day I want to be so infamous...

[Self-Important]

...that tens of thousands of people will see nothing but my initials and automatically know that I am being referred to.

Re:But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be D

[Penguinoflight]

No, they just didn't ship it :-) Windows 2000 did have more bugs than any other windows release previous, and it was supposed to come out in 1999. Microsoft delayed it so it wasn't doa.

Price Reduction is Questionable Solution for M$

[lysurgon]

...they'd sell the client for 5 bucks if it meant that they could still control Office, the server market, and the zillions of other markets that their OS monopoly lets them crush....

That depends on how much of that lost revenue they'd be able to replace by being able to "crush" those other markets. The real question is not how much of a PCs cost is M$ profit, but how much revenue M$ generates from windows licenses

At the moment, M$ is loosing money hand over fist trying to establish themselves in the Gaming Console, Handheld/Mobile and online services markets. Collectively, they've challenged the international top-dawg in each of these arenas (Sony, Palm/Nokia, AOL/TW) with no track record of success in any of them.

Moreover, they are trying to make a transition from a products (packaged software) company to a services (software-as-service, online services, etc) company, a feat few if any corporations have acheived without significant restructuring and loss of market share.

Even if they manage to gain a foothold in all of these new markets (don't count on it) or manage dominate one of them (even less likely), they will be unable to completely replace their current steady stream of revenue from Windows licenses. And if the price crunch were to hit before they managed to find another revenue stream... poof! No profits means no company.

Re:But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be D

[dillon_rinker]

Two words:

CODE RED. Kills default Windows 2000 installs.

I'll grant, though, that being born with a fatal disease is not the same as being DOA.

Knowing WalMart...

[isaac]

> That is interesting - I wonder if Msft is pestering WalMart for the customer list?

Considering Walmart's ruthlessly efficient business practices, I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart were selling this information to Microsoft. Not many people pay cash for any $400 purchase, so they probably have good data.

-Isaac

Nah, you both missed it.

[Erris]

What Raymond said is that the M$ model of revenue generation fails when the price of PCs hit $350. That's because their model cost too much for the vendor to pay, so the vendor will switch to more affordable alternatives. Tiger Direct is selling PC's for less than $500. My company is offering employees PC's (500MHz PIIIs with 128MB RAM 10GB Hard Disks) for $400. In an environment like that, M$ will have a hard time sqeezing money from vendors. Their cut will have to rise to an unviable percentage of the retail price for them to keep their revenue stream up. It's not like they are able to sell many $1000 SDKs these days, ha ha ha.

People who build their own PCs have seen how large the M$ tax is for a while. Dell, Gateway, whatnot, who are essential for the M$ monopoly can not sell a PC for much less than $1000. I can build one that spanks them all for less than $400.

They are an absolute necessity for the corporate environment because without them, larger companies cannot move the information in sufficient quantity or speed, nor can the process the inforamtion fast enough to remain competitive in today's environment.

What makes you think Microsoft has anything to do with that? Moving information quickly and easily conflicts with several Microsoft goals which are a direct result of their distribution and marketing model. Companies that rely on M$ in the future will be at a huge disadvantage as their competitors gain softare that costs less and works better. All this stuff should be as taken for granted as manilla folders and file cabinets.

The real problem is that hardware is progressing much faster than software, and this leads to a couple of very bad scenarios for Dell, Compaq, HP, etc. and also by extension Microsoft. If hardware is more powerful than necessary, it stays around a bit longer.

That's no much of a problem, except to M$. The software I use (Debian) is acutally using fewer resources as time goes on, not more. I'm also seeing real new features in user interface, programs available and software concepts in general. M$ blows and they will suffer for it, so will Dell and Gateway as their cusotmers are constantly dissapointed by stuff that looks the same as it did ten years ago while working no faster or better.

The one and only thing that can save M$ from collapse is Digital Rights Denial Legislation. They have many other failing giant industries to back them up on that: Telcos, Holywood and traditional publishers who will fail in the real internet world. Proping these companies up by denying constitutional rights is completely unamerican. The time to fight the stupids is now.

Re:Nah, you both missed it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read this. It explains why you're wrong.

Ray is correct...

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Eric Raymond is essentially correct on his assessment.

I am not sure if the $350 price point is the magic number but it could be that it is. Keep in mind that Wal-Mart now sells a 1 gig, 128 MB PC for $399 sans OS and monitor. PCs have been quoted sans monitor since the beginning of time. And, with the wide availability of free copies of linux in books and via download plus a lot of old copies of windows laying around, PCs sans the OS are marketable. Wal-mart thinks so. The white box boys know so. So too do the vendors that sell motherboards, chips and other parts as ordered by the most qualified of all buyers.

The interesting observation is the great sensitivity to this cheap PC issue during the DOJ antitrust trial. Microsoft tried very hard to convince the judge and the world that a typical PC costs $2000. The only reason for that is to downplay the impact of a $200-250 OS price from Microsoft. If PCs cost $2000, then the OS from the monopolist is only 10% or so of the total price. However, as Raymond points out, if the price is $350 or so, the OS from Microsoft could be 57% of the price. All of sudden, PCs sans OS are a lot cheaper. And, pricing PCs without monitors was engaged in as a practice to attract potential customers to the store. (Clearly no OEM thought a PC could be used without a monitor. And, few potential customers have spare monitors in their closet they want to use.)

The whole issue puts an interesting spin on the remedy proposed by the litigating states. Selling a bare bones OS may save Microsoft. It certainly reduces the burn of a $200-250 package included as part of a minimum purchase. This high minimum price also explains why the advertising from Microsoft often suggests that every single PC must have a browser, media player and any other gizmo software package that Gates thinks is neat. Gates can not be so stupid to think that all PCs do the same thing. Clearly he has more intelligence than that. It is simply a campaign to convince all consumers to not object to being forced to buy a whole pile of Microsoft branded applications before a competitor can make an impact on the market. Forcing the sale of the Microsoft branded media player is the next big push or force being applied to consumers. And, they are being forced to buy it if Microsoft and the DOJ can possibly do it.

The problem is (as Raymond points out) that all consumers are harmed by the process. Business computers may have no need for a media player. And, they certainly would prefer not to be forced to buy it for all employees. A media player is not going to increase the productivity of employees except in certain limited circumstances. And, if any customer has those circumstances, clearly they would prefer to pick and choose just which technology is best for their needs. Of course, the Microsoft plan is to prevent all customers from having that choice. The DOJ plan is likewise. The DOJ is now seeking to preclude all consumers from being to avoid buying a whole range of Microsoft branded products.

It is going to take more than just the while box boys and Wal-Mart. It will require IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell and others to sell PCs sans the OS (or PCs with a bare bones windows). Strange as it may seem, the litigating States may help save Microsoft from oblivian. Actually, Microsoft may figure this out on its own, although it may be too late by then.

Is this legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK refusing to sell a mobile phone without SIM-card has been found illegal several times, so could someone explain how this is any different?

And below $200, can't afford a CPU!

[GCP]

And below $100, won't be able to afford a power cord!

Silly claims. Windows is just one of the components. You can't use the argument that the difference between some price and the cost of components won't enable the purchase of Windows. You could easily make the same argument for a CPU or a keyboard or a mouse by leaving in the Windows but removing that other component from the cost calculation.

If Windows could be replaced by Linux, PC makers would do it and pocket the extra margin. Doing so makes the PCs unsellable, though. It's been tried.

So then if Windows and a CPU and keyboard, mouse, RAM etc. are mandatory, the price won't fall below the cost of the mandatory components -- at least not below the cost for the biggest players, and not for longer than needed to drive out smaller players and raise prices again.

Sex Tips for Geeks: Behind the Scenes

[update()]

I bit on this fake link yesterday and wound up laughing my ass off. Certainly more entertaining than the HOWTO I thought I was going to.

Hey, you've got to lose karma to get karma back, right? And it is on topic.

MS Office Student license.

[No Such Agency]

I bought Office 97 with a student license a few years ago, for $99 CDN. It came with *no* documentation, only a CD and an MS "certificate of authenticity". If it had not been available for that price, I simply would have sought it illegally, because on a grad student's stipend, $399 is not an option, period. Sadly, the student licenses mysteriously disappeared shortly thereafter - the campus IT store said "MS stopped offering them, it was a marketing trial".

Wordpad, while functional for ordinary student reports, really isn't up to the task of producing a professional quality M.Sc. thesis, with tables and figures. MS Works should be the basis of a false advertising suit, because it doesn't :-) Well, ok, it works, but in my limited experience it's surprisingly incompatible with Office (which was used in my lab)!

Re:MS Office Student license.

[Kwil]

Your campus IT store is full of it.

Check out this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/howtobuy/academic. asp

It's not as cheap as it was in 97, ($199US for Office XP Pro, $149 for Office XP standard), but it's still a deal off the normal pricing.

Re:MS Office Student license.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only "documentation" you are missing is a lame "Getting Started With Office" book. All the other docs are accessed electronically via Professor Clippy, even on the full bore boxed version of Office.

Re:MS Office Student license.

[Kope]

Actually, no product Microsoft offers is up to the task of producing a thesis. The bibliographical tools just aren't there.

Now, if you go with some good 3rd party add-on software (for around $500 or so) you can get the ability to do proper bibliographies. However, you still can't properly typeset the thing, and will end up with references not properly placed at the very least. If your school's thesis standards have strict requirements for typesetting you'll almost certainly have to either have it printed by a professional printing service or use TeX or LaTeX.

Re:MS Office Student license.

[sethg]

My wife wrote an 800-page Ph.D. dissertation with Microsoft Word. By the time she realized what a mistake this was, converting the whole thing to LaTeX would have been just as painful as finishing it in Word, so she pressed on with it, but the experience convinced her to ditch Word in favor of Linux.

Unfortunately, her experience with StarOffice convinced her to ditch Linux and get a new Windows machine.

Re:MS Office Student license.

[No Such Agency]

The thesis has been done for over a year. Since it was a M.Sc. thesis I used science journal style references (Smith et al., 1999) and an alphabetically-by-author listed literature cited section. Not a challenge, really. The worst thing about Word was its insistence on "autoformatting" my section headings, invariably the wrong way.

BTW, I don't know what print nazi school you were thinking of, but at mine nobody needed a "professional printing service" to produce a properly formatted thesis. That's why we have "desktop publishing", anybody with a computer more advanced than a Mac Classic can produce a thesis that's perfectly acceptable at Queen's. Good thing too, with tuition there, that's about all you can afford ;-)

It's a symbiotic relationship, that's why.

[FallLine]

To be honest I have never understood this logic-- the breakup plans were very bad from a marketplace perspective. Why should we breake one predatory company with two monopolies into two predatory companies with one monopoly each? IMO, this could have drastically harmed Linux and all competitors and created a baby-bell situation (referring to local service, not long-distance). Furthermore, two predatory companies are far more agile than one, and so I would FAR prefer to see Microsoft deemed guilty and only slapped on the wrist than broken up. (That way, further predatory activity could be handled by civil suits which even when unsuccessful have been shown to be effective in most circumstances, as per IBM.) Basically, I feel that we are dealing with the IBM of the early PC market here, not Standard Oil.

The reason why we should breakup the two monopolies into two seperate companies, i.e., applications and OS, is because their relationship is symbiotic. Each goes a long way to strengthen the other monopoly, but provides little to no benefit to the consumers by being one unit. In other words, Windows uses the applications monopoly to bolster its strength and vice versa.

Even completely ignoring the other duanting issues that an alternative OS has in facing MS' dominance on the desktop, MS' powerful applications can effectively stop the OS dead in its tracks. Let's say if Macintosh were to start encroaching on Windows' market share with MacOSX. You can be pretty safe in the assumption that Microsoft's Office package for Mac [not to mention IE] would not be encouraging this. In fact, today's MS would have lot of incentive to ensure that Mac Office is generally inferior. So not only would Macintosh (or some other mythical company) have to develop a competetive alternative (not just a "competitor") or else Macintosh would be competing with a substantial disadvantage. This is a non-trivial problem in this day and age. As mediocre as Office may be when you consider its market share, you're going to have to spend millions of dollars to make it anywhere near as good. And even then, you're going to have to worry about file compatibility with MS Office and the users are going to have to get training to respond to the difference.

Now if MS were split up, it may well be a very different scenario. The Office company would have an incentive to develop an equivalent Office suite (certainly > 5% of such a large market is enough to justify the full porting costs and then some) since they could further expand their marketshare or at least sell NEW Macintosh copies of their software. This, in turn, would at least allow the competition OS(s) to compete in more equal footing.

The situation is not terribly different with Internet Explorer (or Office) on Windows, where application growth is the objective. But I really don't feel like hashing this whole argument out here, just use your head.

The result at the end of the day is that Windows and Office are just good enough to retain their market share. Neither has sufficiently serious competition in their market to spur any real effort into improving the products, despite the fact that they're selling billions of dollars worth of product, more than enough to make vast improvements. Now I don't think there is necessarily room in the market to have any large splits within the OS market, and maybe even applications (e.g., 30/70 split), but I do believe that having credible competitors competing for financially viable portions of the market (say, 10% +) is both feasible and highly desirable in that it would cause MS to be much more responsive to the customers needs. When you combine this fact with the minimal or non-existant downside (I mean what benefit does the unified MS _really_ offer us?), I totally support it.

Yeah, well Chicago ain't in Egypt, either

[Anonymous Coward]

So where's the beef?

What replces it on these cheap PCs? PalmOS?

[slonob]

I thought this article was just the same old open source gospel. But it IS an interesting premise. Thinking of the PalmOS vs. PocketPC (WinCE) as low-end vs. high end makes you wonder if that explains the purchase of BeOS. Do you think they have an idea that people will be seeking a 2 dollar OS to run on their $200 computer? Never thought this before, but maybe. And maybe this is an excellent idea.

I have built numerous PCs for family members. You pay $400 or so for a fairly decent, complete PC. Then you pay, oh what did I pay now, over a hundred for Windows ME or XP or FU or whatever is out there. And I have to keep supporting this garbage. The users are often lost or make drastic mistakes. These operating systems do not do what these users need well AND they try to do A LOT of crap that these users don't need or even want. And the feature frenzy of Windows (and Linux if you ask me) seems to be the focus of the whole damn thing. Not stability. Not compatibility. Not security. Not, ugh, intuitive GUI design.

I've never been a BeOS bigot nor an MS basher (not all out, anyway). I never imagined how BeOS or an alternative OS could take off. Until now. Imagine going down to one of those cool places that sell all the guts for computer building and getting the OS, and a great OS, for the price of a floppy drive (sure you can get free OSes but imagine you are not a guru, fanatical freak for just one second). That could really change everything. And if this OS does not have all those never needed, never used "features" it could really change the whole equation.

People don't need XP. They don't need a machine and OS that is built to network on a corporate WAN. They don't need *nix either (too much of a learning curve and exactly the same sore thumb as windows is in the ->AVERAGE<- users' home). They need a solid OS that runs the scanner software, runs the digital camera, hooks up to the network so they can go to eBay, keep track of their taxes, does not drive them up the wall, etc.

So, get all the best games and software running on BeOS or some similar bare-bones and yet awesome OS, and you've got the biggest threat to Windows home market dominance we have ever seen.

How did it ever happen in the first place? why take a business machine home? Do you have a business printer at home? Do you drive dump truck for the family car if you drive a dump truck for a living? It happened because it was cheap as hell. The Mac was better, but the Wintel was cheaper and eventually had more software.

This is really fascinating to think about. What WILL happen when the PC is like buying a radio? What will it be like when that metaphoric radio is no longer treated like a precious piece of furniture, but instead as a simple disposable appliance? It WILL change everything, no doubt. Perhaps that's why windows pretends to care about hand-helds. Thankfully they just don't get it and perhaps ARE leaving a big hole for someone to move into. The hole is the low-end OS on the low-end but perfectly practical device.

-Slonob

I bet I could write for ZD net...

[NanoGator]

I bet I could!! The first thing I'd haveta do is label myself a guru, afterall gurus are smarter than non-gurus. Legally changing my last name to guru might have the same effect.

Then I make an obvious generalization like "PC's are getting cheaper." Other ones that work are "People don't want to pay for stuff.", "Linux will eventually be something people at home will care about.", and "PCs are getting faster." This makes me look like I'm experienced in the market and that I've seen trends before. This makes me look like I'm providing credible indsight into my topic. As long as I point out that things change, then any case I make is possible.

Then I employ a scientific process called "Although my observation proves that things change over time, the entity I'm trying to debunk will do the exact same thing forever and ever.", where my observation will eventually kill my target. Using the "PC's are getting cheaper" observation, I'd then say "But the price of Windows right now is $350, so I'm going to assume it will stay that way forever." Now I have some solid evidence to back my claim. Most people don't break things down into individual costs with every little thing they're interested in, so when I pass off logic like 'the OS will make up most of the price', people will assume that the OS is the bottleneck to preventing their PC from being free. It'll never occur to them that the reason they buy computers is to run software, so it also won't occur to them that the company getting money is the company providing service. They have dollar signs in their eyes, so I don't need to write much more here.

Here I look for some obvious details that don't readily bob up into people's minds, and I pass that off like my target has never thought of that. "Microsoft needs to realize that computers will eventually be cheaper than the OS!" I've found that most people will say 'really?' and will process that bit of information. Since they are busy people, they aren't likely to put too much thought into it. They'll file that bit of logic away, think I have a point, and then I maintain my guru status.

From that, I can draw my conclusion. "One day, computers will cost only a dollar, and the rest of the cost of the machine will be for Windows. Microsoft is doomed." And then I find a buzzword that makes it really sound like there's something new on the horizon who's hype will obliterate it. "Open Source software will make Windows obselete!", but I don't need to explain why. The hype makes everybody understand it. There's no point wasting my time bringing an interesting perspective here. Thank god for hype, it means I can write less and still get paid.

As you can see, the formula for writing for ZD-Net is very simple, and requires very little effort! Just remember to change your name to guru, that's the hardest part.

$2500 is NOT an inexpensive machine

[Hooptie]

Your homebuilt 2500USD Über machine is not what ESR is talking about. Using your math with this $499.50 machine from Best Buy $100 / $499.50 * 100 = 20% of the price of the system. I wonder how many people would be willing to pay that if they knew exactly what it cost.

Hooptie

windows cost

[geekoid]

It seems that ESR doesn't know that window charges about 20 bucks for OEM versions. This might be an impact when you can get a new PC for 100 bucks.
OR ms will drop is OS to free, the make money from OFFICE.
Of course if you can only sell OSs with DRM, MS will have a Monopoply and be able to charge what they want because the government makes them and there be no legal alternative.

*smack smack smack*

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it! Must stop mistaking yer mother for a sperm bank! Naahhh!

Another clueless zealot.

[codeforprofit2]

Since when are PCs getting cheaper? A new medium performance computer has costed basically the same for the last ten years.

Also from the article: "pay the Microsoft tax" What tax is that? Microsofts develop something, if you want it you pay for it like everything else. How is this a tax?

Now wonder the open source community has no credability.

Re:But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be D

[Dahan]

CODE RED. Kills default Windows 2000 installs.

One sound effect:

BZZZZT!

Only server versions of Windows 2000 default to installing IIS. The vast majority of Windows 2000 systems are running Win2K Pro, and are not vulnerable to Code Red by default.

Windows costs about $50

[GCP]

The cost of Windows to small OEMs is about $50, less at high volumes.

It's a mandatory component, just like a CPU or RAM or a keyboard. You don't say that when the price falls below X, you can no longer afford a CPU. The cost is whatever the cost is when you include all the components. The big players will use their purchasing muscle to get lower component costs and price so as to drive smaller players out of business, but nobody is going to price in a way that is independent of the cost of a mandatory component.

On the other hand, MS wants a broader consumer presence, so they may choose to create a separate "lite" version that they sell for less in order to make $350 computers possible. They could go all the way down to free for lite versions built around access portals to MS online services.

ESR's open source experience has apparently been more about politics than economics.

Re:Windows costs about $50

[Jason Earl]

The problem with this is that the OS is not a mandatory component. Take away the processor or the memory and the computer won't work. Take away Windows, and the computer will probably work better.

The fact of the matter is that some folks are already advertising computers without an operating system. In fact, you can now purchase computers sans operating system from Wal-Mart, and at the lower end of the spectrum this phenomenon is likely to increase.

Eventually OEMs that always ship with Windows will find themselves at a price disadvantage. No matter how big a discount Dell gets on the price of Windows, Wal-Mart can sell machines for less. And Wal-Mart doesn't have to worry about staffing up to do software support on their OS-less PCs. Currently Microsoft forces the OEM to support Windows. That means that Dell has thousands of employees whose entire job is to support Windows. By selling the computer without an operating system Wal-Mart neatly sidesteps this responsibility.

There is no question that ESR has mixed in a liberal dose of politics with his economics, but the basic premise is sound. The lower the price of the average computer gets, the more incentive the hardware OEMs are going to have to get rid of the Microsoft tax.

Re:Windows costs about $50

[mpe]

The cost of Windows to small OEMs is about $50, less at high volumes.
It's a mandatory component, just like a CPU or RAM or a keyboard.

Windows is not a mandatory component, even though Microsoft have tried hard to convince people it is. In many cases, especially in the corporate world, the requirement is to run something other than the OEM supplied version of Windows. Sometimes it'e even another version of MS Windows (with licences bought elsewhere), sometimes a completly different OS.
For that matter keyboards, mice and monitors arn't mandatory components. Computers can be uses either "headless" or connected to a KVM switch.

DRM is there already!

[scorcherer]

$ grep DRM /usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_DRM=y

Microsoft has recognized the problem since long...

[Florian]

...and that's why Microsoft is switching its business model from selling boxed sets to subscription services. This already is the case here in Europe where corporate/public service/campus licenses of Microsoft programs expire after 24 months (don't know about the US). With tying future Windows releases to .NET-based services, Microsoft will be able to charge much less for the installed OS, but get their revenue on subscription fees and by charging for each extra feature/service a user decides to employ. ESR's rhetoric is uninformed and makes the Free Software/Open Source community look stupid. Besides, the recent troubles of Linux kernel development show that the "Bazaar" model has its limitations/doesn't scale. As soon as a project has gained a certain size and complexity, you inevitably need centralized structures (see XFree86, FreeBSD, gcc, libc, Emacs, Mozilla...).

If Free Software/Open Source doesn't want to be (wrongly) put in the same bag as the dotcom bubble rhetoric of 1996-1999, it should dissociate itself from the rhetoric bubbles of ESR.

Hardware companies aren't paying a tax...

[Eric Damron]

"When the price of a PC falls below $350, Microsoft will no longer be viable," Raymond said in an interview with ZDNet UK. "The reason is that if you sell something below that price, you can't afford to pay the Microsoft tax and still make money."

Unfortunately this does ont mean that Microsoft will no longer be viable. It means that the price of PCs will never fall that low. Hardware companies are not paying a Microsoft tax, the consumer is the one paying.

This fact should make it crystal clear that Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are hurting everyone.

Correction:

[elefantstn]

I should have said the only real reason to buy Office, not use it. If you have it, came with your computer, got it for free, etc., you have plenty of reason to use it over SO/OO if you prefer it.

$350 !?

[apt-get]

Won't happen anytime soon. Box-builders could sell PCs for $350 now, but they (mostly) don't. There are a few companies out there that do sell ultra-low-end systems that would make perfectly suitable PCs for the typical user, but they're the type with the tiny ads on the 2nd to last page of Computer Shopper. The price/performance sweet spot is always much closer to the top of the performance spectrum than the bottom of the spectrum, and even the typical buyer intuitively knows this. You might be able to sell the occasional (example) K6-2 550 box with 128MB, 10gig, 8MB video card, 15" CRT, and 4X CDRW, but you won't make any $ at it. Most people want bigass monitors, stupid big HDs, crazy fast CPUs, tons of memory, etc. even though a more modest machine would get the job done. It will always be this way, just like it is with other products like homes, cars, TVs, etc -- the product that is cheap and "good enough" doesn't sell as well as the one with all the bells and whistles.

Windows doesn't cost "Hundreds of Dollars!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

XP Home Edition = $76.00 (Use "XPHOME" as coupon code.)

XP Professional Edition = $89.00 (Use "XPPRO" as coupon code.)

You'd have to think that computer OEMs are getting much better deals than this. I don't think it's absurd to think that Dell is paying $20 or $25 dollars for Windows when they buy 10,000 copies. I doubt that saving $25 on a new computer (even if it is a $350 computer) is going to convince Joe Public to switch to Linux....
Really, this FUD makes Linux and open source look VERY unprofessional. This ESR guy needs to relax a bit (I have a feeling that he just likes to see his name in print.)

Re:Windows doesn't cost "Hundreds of Dollars!!"

[NutscrapeSucks]

I don't think it's absurd to think that Dell is paying $20 or $25 dollars for Windows when they buy 10,000 copies.

If anyone here recalls Obi-Wan Raymond and the Windows Refund Day hullabaloo, they might recall this story: Emachines give $26 refund for Windows Return

Here's to the end of mindlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one thing to say to you, Tom_Cooper@bigfoot.com (in case the spam harvesters missed the above):

If you don't want people to criticize your irrelevant prosyletizing, don't post it here.

Religion stops a thinking mind.

Re:Here's to the end of mindlessness

[anomaly]

Why are you so afraid of Christianity?
Why are you so angry about it?
Why aren't you man enough to sign your name?

Re:Here's to the end of mindlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Afraid? Ha ha. I am sick and tired of bigoted jerks using Christianity as a substitute for their brains, and shoving it where it is irrelevant.

If I was angry, I would flame you. Instead I am trying to get you to turn off your dogma and engage your brain. Ironically, it looks like this has made you angry, and defensive. It appears you are using religion as a way to hide your insecurity. Wearing your religion like a badge gives you a sense of group-identity, even if it has nothing to do with where you are or what you are talking about.

My name is as irrelevant to discussions of the price-death of Windows as your religion. I have kept my name out of this because I have a sense of what is relevant. You need to learn the same lesson.

Re:Here's to the end of mindlessness

[Creedo]

"Religion stops a thinking mind." Obviously yours has.

Re:Here's to the end of mindlessness

[anomaly]

I'm not angry with you at all.
Defensive? No, just asking why you're so upset.

Engage my brain? Give me something to think about instead of merely lobbing character critisms my way.

You don't even know me - so you really can't say that I'm a jerk, can you? If all Christians are by definition jerks, then which of us is intolerant and bigoted?

Besides, I'm not so keen on religion as I am on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

My relationship with God *is* relevent because it's a part of my world view to go into all the world making disciples of Jesus Christ.

If you had the cure for cancer, would you tell anyone, or fear that they might be offended or consider it off topic? What I have been given is far greater than the cure for cancer, and I can offer that for no charge to others. So I do.

Faulty assumption

[Syberghost]

Eric, I usually agree with you buddy, but you're making a crucial mistake here.

You're assuming this is inevitable because PCs will drop below $350.

If that's the magic point at which one can make money, then guess what; PCs won't drop below that point, unless and until there is a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE for the home user.

There isn't. I'm typing this on Linux, and it's perfect for me, but it's nowhere near ready for Joe Sixpack, and some of the things that have to happen for it to get there are totally contrary to the aims of the community.

It's going to be a long time until the day comes that Linux is ready to out-home Microsoft, and by that time, Microsoft may very well have sold people on the idea of paying $300 for a computer plus $19.95 a month for the OS with free Internet access or somesuch nonsense.

Sounds laughable to you and me, but we aren't normal.

As for the PC makers, they recognize that when Joe Sixpack sees a PC he can use for $350 and a PC he can't use for $200, he's either going to pay the extra bucks for one he thinks he can use, or buy the $200 PC, get it home, get frustrated, and take it back, thereby costing the manufacturer and/or reseller a lot of money for a non-sale.

If you think people won't put usability over cost, compare sales of the Jeep Cherokee and the Ford Focus.

Re:PC's below $350? Not bloody likely.

[saarbruck]

For Christmas, I built my mom the following PC from all brand new parts:

ATX mid tower case
850 MHz Celeron (overclocked to 1130)
ASUS CUSI-FX motherboard (onboard video, audio, lan)
256 MB PC 133 RAM
40 GB 5400 RPM hard drive
DVD-ROM drive

I got all this for $353 including tax and/or shipping.

It certainly wasn't top of the line, and it suxors for 3D games, but it surfs, emails, word processes and plays DVDs and 'The SIMS' just fine. I wouldn't call it bargain rack, and it does everything she needs with good performance.

(Incidentally, except for the video card, it's better than the machine I develop with at work. Sad, but true...)

problems with MS

[Anonymous Coward]

most people in companies are fed up (hehehe, pun not intended) with MS crap right now. They feel like they have no choice, and that they must stick to the crap MS produces, resulting in lost data (which means money) and lower productivity from having to baby sit MS products. This includes server and client apps, btw. The problem is that no one of these has the balls to stand up and solve the problem, much like /.'ers that only bitch about things like MPAA but then go whore themselves to the movies because they _WANT_ to watch a movie.

I really wish that the real solution would be more apparent to everyone. The real solution is to (surprise surprise), present better alternatives. Instead of a propietary, slow, feature crippling, piece of micromanaging crap that only works with a very small subset of products out there... how about a product that provides the features YOU want, and lets YOU choose how to interact with which people using which systems they want and when?

I have no sympothy for the idiots that make the decision to stay with a company that has proven it is more interested in advertising and trickery than in producing good quality products and giving the user the power (AND SUPPORT!!!!!!) they need and desire. Suck it up people.

Not much saving

[decathexis]

They are selling a 1GHz Celeron with 128MB for $399. I bought a new 900MHz Celeron with 128MB + CDRW for $399 from Fry's yesterday - basically the same configuration. But that included Win XP.

Example: Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there a /. article on Walmart where they are selling their PC's online without Windows?

I think that this will be some sort of trend. It doesn't mean M$ will go away, but instead, it means that customers will have more choice.

Re:But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be D

[DodgyGeezer]

Two words:

BAD USER: Kills default install of ANY operating system more than a couple of hours old.

Come on, get real. Stop being such a zealous anti-MSFT bigot. If I fully install a two year old version of Red Hat, it will be just as much of a liability as a default install of Win2K. A two year old version of Red Hat has just as many fatal diseases.

nope

[glrotate]

Those prices are for schhols that haven't signed deals with MS. The $5 XP is the result of a contract in which the school pays MS several million and then MS only charges a few dollars for each product. Most top tier universities are in this program.

Business model is the key

[iPaul]

You're absolutely right that the business model is the key. In fact, that's probably what's more dangerous to the open source community than anything else. It's a world where Micrsoft "gives away" the O/S and charges a subscription fee. It then locks out other O/S from the proprietary world of authentication, payment processing, and services. (Which by the way, they will get the lion's share of by leveraging their desktop monopoly). So yes, Linux is free, yes it is better, but it won't be able to do anything on line because Linux doesn't have access to MS's proprietary protocols.

Economist: there's no conflict

[hawk]

They have a monopoly in the OS, and can successfully keep others out. That does *not* mean that people will necessarily continue to find the good useful, or that there are not substitutes for that good--think of what a monopoly on buggy-whips would be worth today.

It is entirely possible that Microsoft holds onto its monopoly in operating systems as the market for them gets smaller and smaller, while something else replaces it--it's just that what replaces it will not face windows head-on, and will probably make minimal inroads on the type of system which uses windows.

hawk

Re:Economist: there's no conflict

[clearcache]

I think there is a conflict, though. We can't equate the usefulness of Windows 1 year, 2 years down the road with the current usefulness of buggy-whips. The assumption I'm making - and I think it's a safe one - is that (given current market saturation) MS Windows will continue to have the same (or greater) usefulness in the very near future - as the price of PC's approach ESR's magical $350 figure. Since ESR's argument in the article seems to be based entirely upon pricing (and therefore cost, although he doesn't directly suggest it), I *do* see a conflict there. He is suggesting that MS's OS operations could not continue if they were forced to lower their price. If that were true, then MS would not have a monopoly on their OS at this moment in time (or in the near future). The reality is that they can lower their price on their OS licensing and maintain their (monopoly) position in the market as the cost of PC's drops.

I agree with you completely, however, that Windows will always be threatened by replacement goods, and I agree with you that the most likely successors will make minimal inroads on the sides and not head-on. MS seems to realize this and has embraced it with their .NET strategy. My largest concern, however, is that they'll always be pulling the strings...regardless of their pricing scheme. It's their licensing scheme that is the real issue.

Re:Economist: there's no conflict

[hawk]

Buggy whips are much further removed than anything for windows in the ear term, yes. That, and there never was a monopoly in them :).

ESR is actually kind of late to the dance on this one. We've already seen machines doing this: the $400 machines with a browser, email, and text editor. These machines won't make much inroad into the windows dominated office (though somethign else might), and don't tend to be set up with an OS that could replace windows (although you could use a bsd or maybe linux to do that).

We're looking at a bifurcation of the product "PC". We will (or at least could) see the cheaper version toss windows, while the office class machines don't.

hawk

Re:Economist: there's no conflict

[jedidiah]

There's also another issue. The rise of the $350 is only ONE of Microsoft's problems. "Real PCs" are now getting to the point where they don't need to be upgraded as often. Hardware prices have managed to sufficiently outpace bloat growth for the time being. "Real PCs" continually get cheaper while continuing to add features that many "consumer" PC users don't fully utilize.

In general, consumers in general are bound to come to the realization that they really don't need a new PC, they really don't need a new OS, a new OS may not be any better than the old OS, or that they don't need a new version of MSoffice.

Once this occurs, and once consumers at large begin to revolt against the costs associated with the upgrade treadmill, Microsoft is going to be in deep doo-doo.

Mundane consumers may not give a damn about product quality, but they do tend to care about cost.

there's a limit to how much MS can cut its prices

[sethg]

• In order to keep satisfying its investors, and to keep using its stock options as currency, the price of MS stock has to keep increasing.
• In order for that price to go up, investors have to believe that MS profits will continue to grow.
• In order to keep growing its profits, MS must have lots of current profits that can be reinvested in developing future products (or future versions of current products).

If pressure from low hardware prices makes MS profits go down -- because MS cuts its prices or because more consumers buy cheap OS-free computers -- then this cause-and-effect chain runs in the other direction.

Computers for Joe Sixpack

[Ogerman]

Which would he buy?

Computer A..
- Includes Windows, MS Word, some cheezy games
- Has all sorts of obnoxious copy controls

Computer B..
- Includes Linux, StarOffice, Gaim/Licq, CD writer software, XMMS, Gnutella/Fastrack/OpenNap clients, and everything else he could possibly ever need--all pre-installed and with seperate /home so that the 'recovery CD' will not cause loss of his data should he screw up his machine somehow. Oh yeah.. probably has some cheezy games too.. except they might actually be fun.
- No copy controls whatsoever

Re:Computers for Joe Sixpack

[Dante'sPrayer]

Is Joe Sixpack brain damaged, media poisoned, buzzword-compliant crazy, flock follower, FUD eater, naive promises believer, or maybe an innocent victim tied to file formats and/or specific apps not yet ported?

If so, Joe will most surely buy "Computer A".

$350!!!

[cpuwizard]

The biggest failing of his argument is in his first statement. If you've followed PC prices for the last couple of years, you'll notice that none of the major PC manufacturers will sell ANYTHING below $750. You can go out and build a machine for half of that, but for the big PC companies there isn't enough of a profit margin for them to bother.
Besides, people always prefer to buy the latest and greatest systems which won't drop from the low $2000s to below $350 any time soon.

The cost of the OS is minimal

[bvu]

Microsoft software doesn't sell because PCs are expensive. The price of the OS has nothing to do with the price of the PC. The value of the OS is based on how well it allows people to do the work/play they want to do.

One of the main reasons why Windows is popular no matter how much the PC costs is that it's much easier for non-technical users to maintain. I would guess that if you plop down a Linux desktop and a Windows desktop in front of the average accountant, teacher or small business owner who has never seen a command line, it would take them at least a week to learn to use Linux effectively. Assuming that these people's time is worth $20-$200 an hour, the price of Windows becomes negligible pretty quickly. This has been said a million times before, but until Linux gets close to Windows in usability, Windows will sell no matter how much the PC costs.

There are other reasons why Windows sells (application availability, familiarity with the interface, etc.), which makes the cost of Windows even more negligible. People don't choose Linux because it's cheap. If you take the amount of time it takes to learn and maintain Linux, Linux is actually more expensive for most people. For a lot of people, the power and flexibility of Linux are worth the amount of time spent. But a lot of people don't need that power and aren't willing to spend the time to get it.

Re:The cost of the OS is minimal

[Rascalson]

Thank you for that un-abashed replication of MS FUD. Quick question if I may? Are most astroturfingmsapologists like yourself a) MS Stockholders b) Paid MS contractors c)justplainoldfuckingclueless./readers

Re:The cost of the OS is minimal

[Chris Johnson]

Heh. I've worked in computer repair and maintenance. Have you seen non-technical users try to maintain Windows? Believe me, it's not pretty- and there is no grounds for claiming that it's better than Linux. 0 = 0... the real question is, are there people out there who can be paid to fix up busted software? In both cases, the answer is yes- although SO FAR, the Linux repair contingent is both smaller and MORE likely to be useful. The Windows repair contingent is large but often useless..

Re:The cost of the OS is minimal

[bvu]

My comment was made based on my admittedly limited experience, but I am far from a Windows lover. In fact, in one failed attempt to get away from Windows, I literally reinstalled OS/2 7 times and worked 24/7 on it for about 2 weeks before I gave up on it (there were issues with a new Dell BIOS at the time). A couple years later I tried to install Linux several times over the course of a week before I figured out that it didn't support my video card and I would never be able to use X Windows (this was pre-KDE/Gnome). I've been meaning to try it again for a long time, but I know that it's going to require me to spend a minimum of a weekend to get it configured the way I want it. I've gotten my mom and dad savvy enough to use an iMac and Windows respectively, but unless Linux has come much further than I think, I can't imagine either of them using it without a lot of help. For the things they use it for (e-mail, web, word, icq), I think the time it would take to teach them Linux wouldn't be worth the benefit.

If I'm wrong, and other people have had good experiences getting non-technical co-workers/parents/grandparents up and running on Linux, maybe I'll give it a try.

Super Dumbasses

[l33t j03]

Ok, I came back to Slashdot. The place had gotten too bad even for me and I hoped that if I took a break it would improve a little. It didn't.

As for ESR claiming that Windows will die, OK, fine. Everyone knows ESR is a moron, his progressive views on gun control not withstanding. But his ignorance is nothing compared to the comments in this article. I must have waded through 200 of these fuckers and they all made the same four or five points. Not that geeks know even the slightest about the business world (Microsoft has to keep their stock price high to ensure their enormous cash flow, son of a bitch thats the most ignorant thing I have read in quite a while), but jesus christ, you people don't seem to be capable of generating any ideas beyond the immediately obvious. This isn't the fabled Slashdot groupthink. It's more like a group of dumbasses posting to a weblog.

Of the 200 some posts I read near the beginning of this article, not a single one pointed out that giving away the OS itself but charging a subscription fee to use it is the direction Microsoft is headed. Maybe that idea is in here somewhere but it is buried beneath layer after layer of pointless dreck. It 10 years Microsoft will be the AOL of operating systems. (Laugh all you want geeks, at least no MS execs will be eating cold Campbell's soup and living under a bridge) You'll be able to pick up a copy of Windows 2012 in a grocery store for nothing. OEMs will not be charged a dime for installing it. The end user will though, he'll have to renew his license on a regular basis or his system will stop running, maybe he'll even get 1000 hours free or some crap. Businesses will be treated the same way, although their network management software will renew their licenses for them. They'll get their operating system bill every month in the mail just like their phone bill.

Linux still won't have any market share anywhere. It will still be the worst tool for any given job. ESR will still predict MS's death and Slashdot geeks will still post the same lame ideas and the same worthless jokes. Once again, Microsoft is so far ahead of ESR that he can't even afford to make a long distance call to them. Stick to writing your toy operating systems for toasters and let the big boys worry about making money.

Re:Super Dumbasses

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two questions for you. Please answer them honestly, because I am actually interested.

1. What is your business experience? (Translated: what is your job title?)

2. Do you work for Microsoft?

Basically, I want to know what your business approach and experience is. And I want to know why you believe Microsoft write good (versus popular) software; I detect a bias, especially given your desktop orientation: you seem to know nothing of the server market.

Obviously, your Linux comments are dumb trolls (Linux has a lot of server market share). But you are right about the direction MS is heading regarding OS services. I guess I should add a third question:

3. Do you honestly think they will succeed?

I guess Oracle is gone too

[CodeMonkey555]

Since my $50k install of Oracle on my $20k server is such a preponderance of the price, Oracle will be forced to lower its prices or get out of the database market. /me waits...

Flawed comparison of 2 different business models

[megalomang]

You are comparing two completely different business models.

The first is the essence of capitalism, where consumers are purchasing their commodities from manufacturers. The consumers typically have the clear agenda to buy a high-performance platform for a cheap price, with a high degree of interoperability and a wide variety of software. The PC offers all this for a fantastic price because of the enormous amount of competition out there.

ESR and RMS are not trying to sell free software to you, obviously, because you can't sell free software. They are not participating in the capitalistic marketplace. They are not at the point where they give a damn about you, especially considering you are a gimme, gimme, gimme type of guy. They don't even have a suite of products to push. They many very well never have a product line to push, but that's ok.

What they do have is a platform, an OS, a compiler, and a huge slew of products that are in a state of constant development. Despite what some may think, these products are not appropriate for you or any other typical user.

What RMS (and to a significantly lesser extent, ESR) are trying to sell is the concept of free software. They are trying to sell their ideology to what I consider two significant bodies of people. One is the companies or governments that have the potential or revenue to fund free software. The other is the large body of software developers who will individually create ideas or write source code to contribute to the base that already exists.

This is an extremely tough sell, since companies want to see an immediate source of revenue as a result of their effort. The sell involves convincing the large entities that free software is better for them in the long run either financially or simply for the freedom from software patents and undue restrictions. Of course individuals may be an easier sell, but even if you convince someone that free software is good, that is good but you still need individual contributors to advance free software.

This is an ongoing effort for both of RMS and ESR. They don't care about you (yet). You are a consumer, and they are not after consumers yet. They need stakeholders and contributors who are ready to make a commitment to their cause.

Don't be so quick to shoot down their cause. The cause has not advanced to the point that you, the consumer, are in their target. If everyone were to dismiss their cause, they might never be able to deliver to you the tools/software/OS/platform you need to see.

Windows lite - a low cost alternative

[pcmills]

I can see MS being 'forced' to create a Windows Lite version through a settlement and turning around and making it a low cost alternative. Then charge for upgrades to IE etc.(Charge would only apply to Windows Lite users).

Re:Learn to read, shithead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, That's what I was thinking.

a New World Order in software approaches (long)

[tstockma]

Coming soon to a planet near you: plug-n-play software, with vast implications for software pricing. But not within ESR's predicted six months.

People will use Windows for a long time, even if they pay for it separately from hardware, and realize the true cost of use. My old man believes that Gates gifted us all with a universal platform, enabling the non-tech user to use computers--and he's right. If the normal consumer shells out $200 for a computer, then has to buy Windows for $99, they'll still do it, at least for a while.

Picture the following: buy a computer, hook it to the net, select what OS you want & give it your universal consumer ID, select what you're going to use the beast for, and go get a cuppa while it loads. After a while you'll select add'nal software to load; pick freeware or openware & it just loads, pick payware & you'll also pay. The current consumer will accept MS products for a while, but will soon look for cheaper or free alternatives.

Eventually the OS will lose relevance & wither on the vine; instead you will choose the "flavor" of interface. Windows will live on in several flavors, so will KDE & Gnome, so will the CLI--and a host of new approaches, including voice-only for users with uncomplicated or unsophisticated needs.

We are approaching a new world order, where the importance of our physical location & even what digital devices we use will fade.

ESR is right that Windows as it is now known will die out, but it won't happen at a specific price level of a PC; it'll evolve into a different animal & the entire model of software pricing will change considerably. The price will drop as customers begin to pay for the right to run certain software wherever they are, instead of buying installation rights tied to specific machines. Commercial users will pay a premium for payware apps, but openware & freeware will impact here too.

This is a several-decade-long scenario. I'll take one more shot at ESR's contention--no, Windows won't die soon, no matter how far the price of a PC drops. The common man & woman doesn't know how to use anything else yet.

Re:Price of Linux

[Cro Magnon]

"Maybe I was hallucinating, but last time I was computer part shopping Windows OEM is only between
$90-$150 while a Linux (Red Hat, SuSE, etc) were between $40-$150. When I factor in a price of a new PC and the bill comes out to $1000, $50 more dollars is not that much. Sure Linux can be downloaded for free but some of us do not have broadband yet and support still costs money."

The Linux CD's I've seen were $29.99 - $79.99. The high end is less than 1/2 the $189 price of XP. Also, you need to add the cost of M$ Office ($499.99), and Visual C++ ($200+ ?). Gcc is free, and I'm sure StarOffice is MUCH cheaper than M$.

andonandon

[Anonymous Coward]

Err.. seems to me that people will just use the OS which most suits them..
*just like they allways have*
The only change as far as I see it, is that as Linux matures (and it is doing this - I can give my mother a win box & she can use it.. the same could not be said for linux until recently) consumer-level purchasers will have extended choice. Hurrah.

And we care because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we care about what ESR says? In his life, he's written exactly one program: FetchMail, which represents less than 17,000 lines of code. I've written that much in a summer. He tried to write CML2, and all the kernel hackers won't let it in, because it's ineptly written, and because he won't play nice with the kernel development structure (he thinks it should follow his theories, rather than practice which has worked for a decade now). The dude is egocentric, and doesn't get how free software development really works. He's very eloquent, but stupid. Why is it every time he speaks, thousands of slashdotters run over to read?

Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a student at a junior college a few years back, and we are talking a school who's total budget was only a few million total, and I got the same deal. YOu are thinking back to the heyday mid 90's, but now MS does indeed market it to schools dirt cheap.

In fact, if you are part of a not-for profit organization, you can get cheap licences for the business and the code free for your employee's home computers (under 500 employees).

Re: PCs as a luxury

[King_TJ]

IMO, it's already untrue. Sure, you can build a "luxury" PC for several thousand dollars, with a GeForce 4 video card and latest P4 processor.

Those types of things are obviously unnecessary for the average user - and serve more as a status-symbol than anything practical. (Show me *one* home user who really has problems because an application they use every day just won't run on anything less than a 2Ghz P4.)

On the other hand though, most people have a real need to type letters and documents, on occasion. Today's budget-priced PC replaces the typewriter for that job, making it much more of a commodity item than a luxury item.

Furthermore, as an educational tool - a PC of some sort is becoming just as important as having the textbook used in a course.

/. where's your copywriting chop?

[Anonymous Coward]

The natural headline is:
Reymond on Redmond.

Recent CompUSA circular says it all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP Upgrade: $99.
Windows XP Home Edition Full: $130.
RedHat: $189.

Note that these numbers *are* from memory, and may be slightly off. However, the near-$100 gap between XP and RedHat was the shocker. Yes, the skilled users can download it for free, but the peon buying in shrinkwrap cannot. The distro vendors like to treat bundled software (StarOffice, XFree86, KDE, 2gb of various GPLware) as added value, but it seems the "we give you what would be $2,000 of stuff for Solaris for free with our $200 OS" pricing model doesn't quite work.

Excellent Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

A real fog-cutter.

Our perception of people is extremely sensitive,
( almost completely dependent ) on the context of
their status.

If a celebrity tells you they eat all their food
no matter what it is in a large Beer Mug, it is interesting.
If you or I say it we are nuts.

Ballmer especially is a real raver.
Remember the Monkey Boy video.

Re:Excellent Post.

[Alsee]

Ballmer especially is a real raver.
Remember the Monkey Boy video.

Heay! Don't go saying nasty shit about ravers! I love Techno and Rave music!

On the other hand you have my blessing to insult country music all you want...
Ballmer especially is a real redneck.
Remember the Monkey Boy video.

:)

-

It's not about innovation.

[cduffy]

It's about profit.

Let's forget about the desktop and talk about embedded Linux. Let's say it does about 90% of what vxWorks (the standing competitor) does, and that the extra 10% needs to be made up by coding around it, but that (even with a outsourced support and OS development, and the extra code) it costs only about 30% what vxWorks does for a production run of 10,000 units. (These numbers, btw, are all pulled out of my ass -- but they're all in the right directions, at least). Now, if you're OEMming some embedded system, are you really going to choose vxWorks because Linux hasn't innovated enough for you?

Simply put, hell no. It's competitive without any innovation at all -- it's competitive for doing almost all the same stuff, but doing it far cheaper. Linux on the desktop is like that right now. It does 90% of the stuff average folks want (email, web, managing your checking account, word processing, spreadsheets, enough games to keep a non-serious gamer happy); is Joe Average going to pay $500 instead of $425 for his computer because he wants a bunch of extra functionality he'll never use? Some people will -- but some people won't. It's still competition, innovation be damned.

(Not that no innovation occurs on Linux -- lots of nifty innovated stuff happens, but it's mostly stuff that's of no interest to Joe Average, but which is only cared about by coders, sysadmins and kernel hackers, and hence is irrelevant to this discussion).

Re:It's not about innovation.

[HCase]

I like linux, linux is great. The innovation I was meaning was in windows. Right now, linux isn't true competition on the desktop. Does it work? Yes. Do i like? Yes. Do i use it? Yes. How about Joey Q. over there? ehhh... nope. When the price difference on new systems using windows and linux becomes noticeable, hopefully Joey will start taking more notice. With Linux as a real competitor windows will have to evolve to explain the high price tag. Linux is changing and growing all the time, windows has stagnated though because it doesn't need to improve itself to keep its user base.

Re:It's not about innovation.

[Inthewire]

It does 90% of the stuff average folks want

Give me a fucking clipboard and I will abandon Windows NOW

Re:It's not about innovation.

[cduffy]

X has a cliboard. Copy something by dragging over it with the left mouse button... okay, good. Paste it by pressing the middle mouse button where you want it to go.

You want a clipboard on the console? Fine, install gpm; works just the same way.

How hard's that?

Re:It's not about innovation.

[jedidiah]

Joey Q can't grasp the notion that a CDR needs to be mastered. Even the XP CDR tools confound them.

Linux is not more confusing to this kind of user. Once you've gone over Joey Q's head, it doesn't matter if it's by a meter or a light year.

OTOH, Linux can be adapted by individual VARs in ways that Windows can't. WinDOS is going to continue to be jack of all trades and master of none while becoming a burden on profit.

Re:It's not about innovation.

[cduffy]

Joey doesn't need to know about it or even think about it. If the $350 computer he buys comes with it, that's what he's got. That is, if some add says that he can get a computer for $350 and it looks remotely similar to what he's used to, he's not too likely to be picky about what OS is under the hood.

Btw, I'm not so sure Windows has stagnated -- playing with WinXP, I have a fair sight more respect for it than I did previous versions. (It's still an inflexible black-box OS compared to those I prefer... but as inflexible black-box OSen go, it's a significant improvement).

Re:It's not about innovation.

[Inthewire]

Thanks, no. Sure, I'm lazy, but that doesn't concern me. Windows works for me. Linux doesn't. Windows is coherent. Linux is nitpicky. I understand that it can be done. I don't give a shit about possibilities.
I want actualities.

Re:It's not about innovation.

[cduffy]

Dragging over what you want to copy with the left mouse button and clicking with the middle mouse button where you want to paste it isn't an actuality? Hmm... let me try it here. here. here. here. here. here. Seems to work for me.

You said "Give me a fucking clipboard and I will abandon Windows NOW". Linux has a fucking clipboard, out of the box, and it works just fine. Make good your words.

Re:It's not about innovation.

[Inthewire]

Ok.
But I'm so fragile and fickle that I just may switch back...

cripple windows xp or expanded wince

[O_Sleep]

Microsoft could just release another version of windows that is lower functionality and cheaper.

People (and companies, because companies consist of people although some people seem to forget) are actually adaptable to change.

Open source and the Third World

[Anonymous Coward]

Being here in South America (as an American mind you), I can say that Linux has a viable chance at really making headway. There just isn't the money in some of these places to pay MicroRiech for their garbage. Linux isn't well know down here, and for that matter, Star Office, but people down here love a low cost alternative. That includes goverment agencies and schools.

If people can get hardware down here for cheap and the software for free, it's very possible that Linux could eventually compete for a place on the desktop down here.

Late,
Anonymous Bozo

I totally disagree

[matusa]

I'm sorry, but this isn't correct.

First off, if people are spending X amount of money now on computers, and in 2 years it's .9X due to decreasing hardware costs, then they are happy. if the hardware is actually 80% of it's cost and windows has actually gone up in price, they still leave the transaction happy.

I mean, come on, how many people even know what an OS/windows is? it's not like they will know they are having 'the tax' put on their purchase.

it's a nice wish, but sorry.

wishful thinking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft earned their monopoly. All you Open Source Nazis should try to work through the supply-side rather than deriding the MS "monopoly".

Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[JohnDenver]

Firstly, I don't want to turn this into a political debate, and I'm neither adovocating capitalism, communism, corporate anarchy, or socialism.

What I am suggesting is that all of these things, including the Free Software Movement, and Open Source movement's, and even Microsoft's goal is to create tools, wealth, and knowledge for the purpose of increasing our quality of life.

What RMS and ESR are greating wealth when they are writing software, because software is usually a tool and as we all know, tools have value.

Unlike physically tangible tools, these tools can be replicated and distributed it zero cost. It's a shame that food can't be replicated and distributed like this. This is what captivated me and I'm sure many other programmers about software. The fact that we have the ability to craft a tool for connecting people, storing and organizing our ideas to be shared is amazing. If one of us creates a truely novel and amazing tool, it can be distributed to millions at no cost. If that software saves people a significant amount of time or money, you just created an incalculable amount of wealth.

Of course, wealth is nothing if it doesn't increase they quality of life.

While I'm on a rant: We need to stop nit picking whether capitalism or socialism is better and worry about corporate anarchy instead.

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[kiwipeso]

There is a difference, namely the acknowledgement of cost of production. No software is truely free to make, only to copy.
This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer.
As a operating system programmer with a student loan that cost more than most people's car, I find it a ridiculous idea that I should give up a large amount of income for you to freeload off me.
What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life? I see no reason to give up my income so someone else gets a free ride off my debt.

Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century. Therefore, MS windows and GNU linux need viable competition to ensure that innovation has a place on our computers.
The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies.
The key to the future of software development is with distributed computing, the thing you have to ask yourself is
"do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?"

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[JohnDenver]

This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer.

Thanks for your plug on capitalism... Didn't you read my post? Did you read the part where I said I'm not advocating any particular system. (Actually I like it when different systems co-exists) I'm a programmer, and I believe I should have the privledge to copyright my work for a limited of time to recoup my costs and even make a profit. After that limited time, I believe my work belongs to the public domain.

What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life?

For some people, charity is a way of life. Some people honestly dedicate ALL of thier time for the benefit of others while asking for little or nothing in return, while others ask for help with basic living expenses. (Most of the time, basic living arrangments are taking care of without asking...)

Other people try to contribute by building businesses. They want to solve problems and help people with an enterprise. By creating wealth, they employ and support families, education, and charities. This is how they make thier contribution.

Then there are some people who don't care and just want to help themselves (often they end up hurting themselves and others).

IMO, Free Software and Open Source software are charitable contributions, who's purpose is for the benefit of society. Personally, I view charities as sort of a voluntary socialism. I know the comparison doesn't entirely match up, but I'm more suggesting that the spirit of charity and socialism are the same.

While there may be SOME people who think all software should be Free or Open Source software, I disagree. I think each type compliments to other well and keeps the other in check. (Like checks and balances)

Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century.

How can you be sure? The fact the USSR and China had become super powers doesn't suggested communism failed. To suggest that communism actually built both of these superpowers and destroyed one of them it seems pretty counter-intuitive to your conclusion, especially if you consider the fact they were in a cold war with us. Don't you think the fact that communist societies were at war with capitalists societies played any role? There were many factors involved, so why are you singling out just one factor?

If you're so hard up on making me wrong, I might as well tell you that I think capitalism has proven itself to be effective. I'll also tell you that capitalism-socialist hydrids like Isreal and Sweden have proven themselves too, because I believe a good economy is built on freedom of ownership and equal opportunity (No special government favors for specific companies)

The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies.

It's worse than that... There are many killer technologies and ideas which could dramatically change the landscape of society. Wonder why they aren't? Look to the patent system and the large industries who would be hurt by these killer technologies.

If you were a large company who's primary source of revenue was from selling an expensive technology, and you found a very inexpensive alternative that would ruin that revenue stream, wouldn't you patent to prevent some little guy from getting his hands on it to undercut your business?

The truth is: Large industries benefit from a flawed patent system more than small companies because they have the capital and cash to research, patent the research, and sue the crap out of you if you fsck with them. The problem isn't the corporations, it's the unlevel playing field.

"do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?

What do you think?

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[megalomang]

What I think is that you don't really have a point and you like to argue. You started off beefing that the open-source movement is not consumer-oriented and finished up by rambling micromanaging the irrelevant portion of the discussion.

The whole issue of RMS and ESR pushing this open-source movement almost at the level of a religion is where it started. You want this movement to be consumer-oriented, but we are still in the evangelism stage and not ready for consumers. We will be in the evangelism stage for a long time, hence the "religious" nature of their communications. They continue such an extreme doctrine because their philosophy is still spreading, and it is spreading at a very rapid rate. Since this is a critical time, they don't want their views to be diluted while they spread.

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[kiwipeso]

I have a point which you disagree with, I saying that it's no use to have a lot of fanatical devotees if the cause doesn't have the acceptance of the people.
Why should anyone want to use a system which doesn't work effectively for them ? All the believers do is just make it a cult experience of mass delusion.
As an atheist and an evolutionist, I find all aspects of religion to just be mumbo jumbo and the power of control over people's lives.
This applies to linux because nothing reeks more of power than a computer guru who knows more about the computer system than the owner.
These geeks have no shame in convincing people to buy CDs of a "free" operating system, then install it without telling them the real cost is in difficulty.
I see nothing but the cost of tech support for a seriously flawed system, linux costs more to run than windows for ordinary users.

The real point of this discussion is, when tech support gets cheaper due to ease of use increasing windows or linux will die.
You may have noticed that tech support is the real driver of windows acceptance, it's also the driver of linux installation by linux gurus.
The point is, linux will die off as soon as the linux guru is no longer needed to assist ordinary users of linux.
What would be the point of evangelism if the evangelist can't make money off it anymore? Guy Kawasaki ran into this problem a few years ago with the Mac OS, he gave up evangelism because he didn't need to anymore.

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[megalomang]

That point may be true for ESR. I think ESR is often an arraogant jackass who will likely leave the cause when it no longer suits his pocketbook anymore. He is definitely quite pleased with how his goals line up with the fanatical open source movement, and he never seems to truly go out on a limb to advance open source. His motives clearly are to promote himself, and when he starts fading from peoples' memories, he never fails to embarrass himself yet again. Granted, he has apparently developed some very key pieces of software and has generously given them back to the community. However, he leaves no question that he is in it for the money and recognition.

RMS, on the other hand knows that his movement will help people (ultimately) by providing them freedoms he is willing to fight for at the expense of his reputation and pocketbook. He is a true libertarian (check out his home page at stallman.org if you have any doubts whatsoever). GNU is one of his many strong passions and is possibly the only one with with which I completely relate and sympathize -- I will add that he is exceptionally wise to maintain a strong distance between his GNU agenda and his other personal agendas so as to not dissociate himself from his GNU supporters. His goals are to free software ("free" as in the verb to free from restraints and regulations). Contrary to what many people believe, the goal is NOT to provide free software ("free" as in the adjective for cost).

The fact that you and many others misunderstand his agenda is precisely why he continues to push it with all his energy. I have an enormous amount of respect for RMS and what he has selflessly created. He is often criticized for being a relentless control-freak. Although this seems a bit exaggerated, I don't doubt that his agenda would fail were he not of this nature.

You are completely wrong and a very poor judge of the Gnu and Linux communities if you think Linux will die when Microsoft becomes easier to use or when Linux becomes unnecessary to support. GNU is all about freedom -- the freedom to program, modify programs to suit you, modify programs for others, and redistribute modified programs. The philosophy has nothing to do with ease of use, and quite frankly cares little whether common man ever uses the software except that common man has power over the government which has the power to advance the cause or seriously impede or abolish the struggle for free software.

BUT -- to earn popular support from the masses, Gnu/Linux products must be free in cost and must be easy to use. The end product, not the philosophy, has to appeal to the masses. Note this has nothing to do with the philosophy of programming freedom. This is merely a means to an end. I agree there is indeed a shame in prematurely trying to sell a product to people not ready for it. Unfortunately, some GNU followers misinterpret the goals of gaining acceptance with trying to obtain marketshare. It is still too early to obtain marketshare, but it is not too early to obtain popular support for the ideals. Note that RMS does not encourage forcing the product on those not yet ready -- I challenge you to provide a counterexample. ESR on the other hand seems to be an unfortunate troll, unknowingly bent on destroying the open source movement.

Your marxist comments are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just because one can equate RMS' fervor with that of a priest doesn't mean the GNU philosophy is meant to delude or control as does many religions of the spirit. GNU is a governmental policy, grounded in the physical world. There are few, if any, parallels between GNU and spirituality.

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[kiwipeso]

This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer.
I mean that I have debt to pay off, not freeloaders to support. I find I have to state this everytime I work on a software project.
> Thanks for your plug on capitalism... Didn't you read my post? Did you read the part where I said I'm not advocating any particular system.
Yes, but nobody ever considers why I would bother if I owed enough money to buy a car or make a deposit on a house. Which I do.
> (Actually I like it when different systems co-exists) I'm a programmer, and I believe I should have the privledge to copyright my work for a limited of time to recoup my costs and even make a profit. After that limited time, I believe my work belongs to the public domain.
I believe that I am entitled to make money off my work for the duration of my life + 25 years for any family I have. I don't believe my work is public property, I don't work for the state.
What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life? Why would I give away my income?
The dot com buble economy has burst, I'd rather stick to old-fashioned economics and make a profit for as long as I can.
> For some people, charity is a way of life. Some people honestly dedicate ALL of thier time for the benefit of others while asking for little or nothing in return, while others ask for help with basic living expenses. (Most of the time, basic living arrangments are taking care of without asking...)

The cost of a student loan is a basic living cost, it's the same as a mortgage for most people. Some people I know can't get mortgages until they pay off their student loan.
> Other people try to contribute by building businesses. They want to solve problems and help people with an enterprise. By creating wealth, they employ and support families, education, and charities. This is how they make thier contribution.

I prefer becoming a business to becoming a charity. It's far better to create wealth than it is to distribute wealth without personal gain.
> Then there are some people who don't care and just want to help themselves (often they end up hurting themselves and others).
> IMO, Free Software and Open Source software are charitable contributions, who's purpose is for the benefit of society. Personally, I view charities as sort of a voluntary socialism. I know the comparison doesn't entirely match up, but I'm more suggesting that the spirit of charity and socialism are the same.

Which is why socialism doesn't work, everything can't be run as a charity. The best way is to allow a mix of the best systems existing.
> While there may be SOME people who think all software should be Free or Open Source software, I disagree. I think each type compliments to other well and keeps the other in check. (Like checks and balances)

Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century. No socialist nation has ever been an improvement on the past.
> How can you be sure? The fact the USSR and China had become super powers doesn't suggested communism failed. To suggest that communism actually built both of these superpowers and destroyed one of them it seems pretty counter-intuitive to your conclusion, especially if you consider the fact they were in a cold war with us. Don't you think the fact that communist societies were at war with capitalists societies played any role?

I think the real downfall of communism will be when the proles rise up and overthrow the communist dictators. It happened in East Germany, Hungary, Poland and to limited extent in Russia.
> There were many factors involved, so why are you singling out just one factor? If you're so hard up on making me wrong, I might as well tell you that I think capitalism has proven itself to be effective.
I think you'll find that capitalism is an evolutionary drive. All life has to profit in order to survive, this means resource profit, not money profit.
> I'll also tell you that capitalism-socialist hydrids like Isreal and Sweden have proven themselves too, because I believe a good economy is built on freedom of ownership and equal opportunity (No special government favors for specific companies)
Sure, Isreal considers the palestinians to be equals. The isrealis let the palestinians have ownership of their land and equal opportunity?
No way, even my friend who was an ex isreali command squad leader would argue that Isreal is an openly racist state.
He'd rather eat non kosher food than go back to raid lebanon every weekend or shoot innocent arabs again.

The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies.
> It's worse than that... There are many killer technologies and ideas which could dramatically change the landscape of society. Wonder why they aren't? Look to the patent system and the large industries who would be hurt by these killer technologies.

Which is why I advocate more capitalism, less corporatism. It's better to constantly create than to constantly conserve.
> If you were a large company who's primary source of revenue was from selling an expensive technology, and you found a very inexpensive alternative that would ruin that revenue stream, wouldn't you patent to prevent some little guy from getting his hands on it to undercut your business?

Say for example, microsoft vs. my company. The model they use for Farsite (due 2012) is the same as the model for a project I did in 1998. (the model of the Farsite server)
Would they get a patent if I had prior work under copyright? No, they'd get it rejected.
> The truth is: Large industries benefit from a flawed patent system more than small companies because they have the capital and cash to research, patent the research, and sue the crap out of you if you fsck with them. The problem isn't the corporations, it's the unlevel playing field.

The corporations have the capital to maintain mediocre innovations, small companies and start-ups don't have this need for lawyers.
"do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?
What do you think?

That's the part where I mention my operating system project, Kaos. BSD, not GNU.
I'd rather do my operating system here in new zealand with strong encryption than cripple my technologies for USA or UK internet laws.

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[kiwipeso]

> His motives clearly are to promote himself, and when he starts fading from peoples' memories, he never fails to embarrass himself yet again.
Another example of this type of person is Jef Raskin, he is a constant irritant to UI designers and OS developers.
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/1 6564.html , http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/16566.html & http://www.macslash.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/01/06 29241&mode=thread
> Granted, he has apparently developed some very key pieces of software and has generously given them back to the community. However, he leaves no question that he is in it for the money and recognition.

I see no problem with that, I'm doing much the same thing with Kaos (BSD). I'm only giving people the samizdat protocol and the apps that use it's filesharing and IM encryption.
This is far more valuable than my proprietory software in the OS, yet I can do good this way.
> RMS, on the other hand knows that his movement will help people (ultimately) by providing them freedoms he is willing to fight for at the expense of his reputation and pocketbook.
I'm willing to give people freedoms, just not all of them for nothing in return. I'm not lucky enough to be rich and liberal with my code.
> He is a true libertarian (check out his home page at stallman.org if you have any doubts whatsoever). GNU is one of his many strong passions and is possibly the only one with with which I completely relate and sympathize
I think some of his personal life is too liberal, but that is his problem. I'd rather not take on anyone else's problem because of their ideology.
>-- I will add that he is exceptionally wise to maintain a strong distance between his GNU agenda and his other personal agendas so as to not dissociate himself from his GNU supporters.
I think it's wise to seperate GNU free software from polyamour free love, even if they are both hippie nonsense.
> His goals are to free software ("free" as in the verb to free from restraints and regulations). Contrary to what many people believe, the goal is NOT to provide free software ("free" as in the adjective for cost).
GNU is free as in speech, not free as in liberty or cost. This would be better defined in french words as the distinction is not obvious in english or american words.
> The fact that you and many others misunderstand his agenda is precisely why he continues to push it with all his energy. I have an enormous amount of respect for RMS and what he has selflessly created.
The energy I have no problem with, it's the personality (or lack of) which is the problem with most computer gurus.
> He is often criticized for being a relentless control-freak. Although this seems a bit exaggerated, I don't doubt that his agenda would fail were he not of this nature.
I and many others see him as the Steve Ballmer of the linux community. Ordinary people don't want hairy freaks or bald freaks raving on about some rubbish which is irrelevant to them.
> You are completely wrong and a very poor judge of the Gnu and Linux communities if you think Linux will die when Microsoft becomes easier to use or when Linux becomes unnecessary to support.
It's a fair comment, most companies base their decisions on how easy it is to use something. I personally know dozens of geeks who organise their systems based on support. They work for banks, universities, programming firms, government departments & some for themselves.
> GNU is all about freedom -- the freedom to program, modify programs to suit you, modify programs for others, and redistribute modified programs.
I don't have a problem with freedom to program or modify programs to suit you or others. I do have a problem with the redistribution of my programs without my permission, this is my right to my property.
> The philosophy has nothing to do with ease of use, and quite frankly cares little whether common man ever uses the software except that common man has power over the government which has the power to advance the cause or seriously impede or abolish the struggle for free software.
Without ease of use, you'll never get common man to use it. Your elitist arguement is a typical one from linux geeks. The government is usually only interested in software if it impedes or abolishes their data interception.
> BUT -- to earn popular support from the masses, Gnu/Linux products must be free in cost and must be easy to use. The end product, not the philosophy, has to appeal to the masses.
Sure, I guess those CDs are just handed out at the bookstores. And Linux techs just do their work for free beer. Whatever.
> Note this has nothing to do with the philosophy of programming freedom. This is merely a means to an end. I agree there is indeed a shame in prematurely trying to sell a product to people not ready for it.
Most companies call this beta testing, microsoft calls it first release & linux calls it version Unfortunately, some GNU followers misinterpret the goals of gaining acceptance with trying to obtain marketshare. It is still too early to obtain marketshare, but it is not too early to obtain popular support for the ideals. > Note that RMS does not encourage forcing the product on those not yet ready -- I challenge you to provide a counterexample. ESR on the other hand seems to be an unfortunate troll, unknowingly bent on destroying the open source movement.
I didn't say RMS is forcing people to use linux, the problem is with the followers like the network geeks at my old uni & the pale fat jackass who spends half the day going to the fast food outlets. (there's at least a dozen in my town)
> Your marxist comments are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just because one can equate RMS' fervor with that of a priest doesn't mean the GNU philosophy is meant to delude or control as does many religions of the spirit.
As an anarcho capitalist & evolutionist I am just as opposed to the belief in state as I am to the belief in church.
I see many aspects of cults in the GNU cause. Lack of sleep, strange rituals of command recitation, 3 wise men (RMS, ESR & Torvalds) & a claim to a miraculous event (linux)
> GNU is a governmental policy, grounded in the physical world. There are few, if any, parallels between GNU and spirituality.

GNU closely resembles one of those games of magic or d&d which most people grow out of by secondary school.
There are always a bunch of wankers who study at or work for the university that play childrens games and waste an adult's pay on crap.
This works in the same way as pyramid selling or religion (they are the same thing) in that a hierarchy of level based involvement is used.

Re:Capitalism, Open Source, What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I think is that you don't really have a point and you like to argue.

Have you noticed the trend of you putting opinions and rationalizations in my mouth? I keep writing back to elaborate my conclusions.

You started off beefing that the open-source movement is not consumer-oriented and finished up by rambling micromanaging the irrelevant portion of the discussion.

I never made a point about the open-source movement not being consumer oriented. All I'm adovocating is that open-source and free software be results oriented. Sometimes consumer oriented comes along with results oriented (Word Processing software), sometimes what's good for results is not good for consumers (3-D modeling, software development, scripting environments, etc.).

My whole freaking point was (See the original post) that ESR and RMS spend too much freaking time preaching the religion rather than the results.

The whole issue of RMS and ESR pushing this open-source movement almost at the level of a religion is where it started.

I know, but what you don't understand is that this *religion* is rooted with a purpose. Ask yourself why the religion was designed in the first place? Answer: To make good tools available to anyone who wanted them, and to give them the freedom to improve these tools and give it back to the public. Or, the simple answer: To make good tools... GOOD TOOLS!!! Results!!!

You want this movement to be consumer-oriented, but we are still in the evangelism stage and not ready for consumers.

See??? Putting words in my mouth... What I'm suggesting is that ESR and RMS should spend thier time explaining specifically how to leverage Open Source or Free software for building platforms.

Open Source and Free Software have to provide an economic or charitable opportunity for it to take off... It doesn't matter how right you are, it matters if you can meet the goals.

We will be in the evangelism stage for a long time, hence the "religious" nature of their communications. They continue such an extreme doctrine because their philosophy is still spreading, and it is spreading at a very rapid rate. Since this is a critical time, they don't want their views to be diluted while they spread.

I give them credit for sharing thier ideas, and being evanelists. What I was suggesting is that they act less like Calvinists and more like Missionaries...

Read my original post, notice how it all fits together?

Fry's had $200 Linux computers (no monitor)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi -

I keep seeing comments in this thread about how PC prices can't go below around $350 or so. This past weekend Fry's in California was selling a Linux system (which I bought!) for $200 with these partial specs:

Cyrix 733Mhz CPU
128 MB RAM
20 GB HD with Linux and applications installed
10/100 Ethernet built in
generic sound card

It was made in China, and imported via Oakland, CA.

There is no doubt in my mind this system cost so little in part because there is no Windows tax. (Previously Fry's sold this system for $300)

TWR, Torrance, CA

Re:Fry's had $200 Linux computers (no monitor)

[Anonymous Coward]

This past weekend Fry's in California was selling a Linux system (which I bought!) for $200 with these partial specs:

It would be nice if we knew when the box was actually manufactured. It's possible that Fry's was just trying to dump inventory they'd already paid for, and that they knew they'd never get a decent price for, anyways.

We have one IBM!

[Perl-Pusher]

Peace, Love, Linux

I'm sorry I forget to grammer check...

[JohnDenver]

My point is: All of our goals are for the same end:

* creating wealth
* increasing quality of life

We will probably disagree how to go about it. My outlook is that a number of different systems should be employed for different circumstances. The goal is to make great tools and to get them into the hands of people.

Hence, My original point: If the tools are great and the system works well, then people will take to it. Otherwise, you either need to makes some tweaks or complete overhauls.

AKA: The shut up or put up argument

Re:But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be D

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish ESR would stop making so many "predictions."

He also tied the "victory conditions" for Linux to a crash in MSFT stock. (Google Cache) On top of that you have him threating Bruce Perens and writing embarassing things like that "Suprised By Wealth" essay about him profiting off the VA Linux stock scam.

Slashdot give him less press than they used to, but at this point in the game it's pretty clear that the guy is a crank boob who should just be ignored when he isn't talking about fetchmail or kernel configuration.

Sometimes i just wish he'd shut up....

[Anonymous Coward]

ESR says a lot of stupid things but sometimes he really outdoes himself...

I can see the scenario...PCs selling for less than $350, MS execs running around all yelling "we cant sell windows for less than $100, what do we, what do we do, ESR was right, we are doomed!"

Re:MS-DOS replaced Apple Macintosh

[Surak]

MS DOS replaced Apple Macintosh, remember?

Um, no. Please put down the crack pipe.

First of all, Apple Macintoshes are still produced, sold, and bought and used by millions of people. They never got replaced by anything, really. Secondly, MS-DOS came first. It was introduced three years prior to--and was in common use by--the time the Apple Macintosh was introduced. It couldn't have 'replaced' the Macintosh.

Nothing has replaced the Macintosh. The only thing you can say about the Macintosh is that it's popularity has waned since the introduction Windows 9x...even then, popularity of the Macintosh has grown back to some degree since then.

No spokespersons for linux?

[Ironfist_ironmined]

Tux and The GNU head are deeply offended.

Then again he is a shameless kernel-promoting..

not entirely correct: +volume = -price

[Anonymous Coward]

if they stick to their current pricing model, yes it will be a problem. but microsoft holds the stick of the "WHQL" (windows hardware qualification labs) over computer makers/sellers. without that you can't get a "made for microsoft windows" sticker or advertise anything microsoft on the product. they keep upping the standard for WHQL so that hardware of a certian type/expense is required. cheap hardware won't sell as well due to this & the inconvenience of having to buy an OS (remember; XP can't just be installed on 500+ PCs from one disc like previous versions of windows could)

also, for handhelds and such; as soon as those start dropping below $350, tons more of them will be sold ($300 is the magic general consumer price point) meaning they can cut the price of their silly "OS" by a factor of 3 without losing anything.

For anybody who thinks prices are stabilized . . .

[ahfoo]

I got news for ya, that only sounds reasonable to an US mindset. That would be the end of the story if most PCs were made in the US and consumed there too, but as we all know, most PC components are made in either Taiwan, Mainland China, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea or Japan and roughly in that order.
Assuming that companies in these countries are foremost concerned with stabilizing the US market is folly at best. These asian PC parts suppliers want growth much more than they want stability and growth will come from the countries where PCs are still relatively rare and penetration of those monster growth markets --Brazil, Mainland China, India-- can only happen at low unit prices that will seem absurdly unprofittable to the American /. readership, but which are inevitable for a global growth strategy in a market where mass production essentially is the product. What is a chip after all? It's an etching, an image --lithography on a silicon plate. There is no inherent value in this process that will magically stabilize the market.
The sub $100 PC with all the bells and whistles is not just possible it's more or less inevitable given time and then MS may still exist in name, but the rules of the game will have been substantially changed and it will not be by the will of those Redmond fucks.
I even think people will still pay lots of bucks for software at that point, but not for a file manager or a set of drivers for the hardware. These guys suck, XP sucks. If you haven't lost a few Fat32 partitions to that beast, you obviously haven't tried it. It sucks. MS sucks. What else is new.

Re:MS-DOS replaced Apple Macintosh

[rseuhs]

Um, no. Please put down the crack pipe. [..] Nothing has replaced the Macintosh.

No comment.

Wanker

[alex_ant]

"There is a fair amount of price variance among equivalent video cards, so shop aggressively here. If you're on a budget, one easy thing to trade away is bit depth. Manufacturers like to include 16- and 24-bit 'photographic' color as sizzle in their advertisements, but unless you're doing something like specialty photocomposition work or medical graphics you'll never use more than 256. So you can settle for 8-bit color."

-- Eric S. Raymond, "Building the Perfect Box: How to Design Your Linux Workstation," Dec. 1996

Think about that zinger time you take a fucking idiot like ESR seriously.

Alex

Re:Wanker

[fizban]

Sweet dude. That was awesome. You are my idol. Seriously. This is not joke. That was some kick-ass quote-drudging.

The fucker is stupid and he deserves the title of wanker. Thanks for pointing this out.

John Cameron Swazey

[ReidMaynard]

Look what he did for Timex!

I happen to know there are more of them; JCS Jr, JCS III...

I bet one of them would wear a Penguin suit too !

We'll shut Barney down !

MOD HIM UP - MOD THIS DOWN

[JohnDenver]

The truth is: I'm trying to reform myself as a zealot by attacking zealotry with immense zeal.

...and I didn't see the irony...

Usually I try to subdue the zealotry by posting somewhat rhetorical questions rather than assertions, but not today... Oh no... I have to be a big guy today and say things like, "You shoulda listened to me in the first place boy!"

Fuck it! I can't run... I can't get out of the proverbial bear trap... You can club me like a baby seal now...

I wish someone would mod you up as Funny, only then would I be truely attacking zealtry.

SUBLIMINAL REPORT

[masterkool]

Perhaps, Windows is doomed to die because it sucks, and every computer user who knows anything at all realized that it sucks. (Everyone else just plays solitare) This artical could be an excuse for Windows to fail without looking bad.

Its a good troll

[ras]

Like all good troll's there is an element of truth in what Eric says. Microsoft can not sell Windows at its current price as the price of the hardware drops. But as others here point out, the solution for Microsoft is easy: they can just drop the price of Windows accordingly. And they are likely to do just that.

But they can't keep doing it. It takes a massive investment on Microsoft's part to keep churning out each generation of Windows. So there will be a point when they can't sustain that. My guess is that point will be reached only when "Mores Law" is laid to rest - probably in 10 years or so. The price of a PC will drop dramatically then, for a number of reasons. Intel and friends won't have to put in the massive investment for each new generation of chip. We can move things onto the motherboard because next years model won't be so different. There will be less variety and hence more competition from different manufacturers producing the same thing.

When that happens the price of a PC will be a fraction of what it is now. So the price of Windows will also have to be a fraction of what it is now. Perhaps developing the operating system won't look so attractive to Microsoft then.

backwards logic

[markj02]

If 50% of the US population buy PCs at their current price level and the hardware costs fall, it follows that Microsoft can charge more for the OS, not less.

In any case, it doesn't matter. Microsoft can adjust their cost structure so that they can give away consumer-Windows and still be hugely profitable.

PCs are getting cheaper?

[tve]

Are they really? The pc my father bought last month was just as expensive as the one he bought three years ago. Granted, it's a lot faster/shinier/quieter, but his demands have increased accordingly.

Now I'm living in the Netherlands (Europe, for the geographically impaired) and this PCs getting cheaper trend may not have hit us yet, but until it does I won't be easily convinced that it even exists.

Cheap PC's -- not all that likely

[rben]

It's unlikely that desktop PC's will ever get so cheap as $350. There are fixed costs in distribution and marketing that mean that PC's can't be sold too cheaply or no one will make any money.

Microsoft is aware that for the largest customers, corporations, the total cost of ownership, or TCO, of a PC is far more important than the purchase price. As long as they can portray Linux as a more expensive OS to maintain, they will continue to have customers.

Some Speaking points.

[Real World Stuff]

Every family has an embarassing relative. They are still loved, because they are family. The windows family,and the Linux family are no different.

It should be noted that ESR indicates that his primary source of funds are speaking engagements. People will not ask you to speak unless you have something fresh to speak about.

Walk down the street, ask 10 people if they have a computer. Then ask them what the computer is used for. Ask them about the OS. How many of these people actuall _NEED_ a server. How many actually care for an inhome network. These are the consumers that are driving the market. For them words like scalable, source, compile, and server mean little or nothing. All they want to know is that after saving for a few weeks, an buying a computer, the will "plug-an-play".

Bottom line, MS has the economic and SOCIAL side of the OS world. When some one says computer what is the % of people that think MS. Same happened for Kleenex, Qtip, etc.

Stream of consciousness post devoid of grammwer and spelling check.

Free OS?

[SkewlD00d]

Maybe OSes will be given away the same way as web-browsers, complete w/ banner ads, user tracking and spyware.

Also a student...

[Atanamis]

I am also a student, and I also use Star Office. There is indeed a less expensive Student Edition of MS Office, but $99 is still somewhat costly. The main funtionality I need out of a word processor is the ability to read and save documents in the Microsoft Word format. Other perks are nice, but with the huge number of documents written in Word, I need the ability to open the latest version.

Average computer prices are fairly static

[antic]

I remember my parents buying a 386 in the early 90's for AUD$2500. I remember buying a P166-based machine some time later for around AUD$2500. I can remember later buying a PII300-based machine for around AUD$2500. I recently bought a couple of Athlon 1Ghz-based boxes for around AUD$2500 each...

I think you get my point.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like the cost of a basic computer stays about the same from year to year, but what is considered a basic computer keeps getting more powerful. While you probably *could* sell a decent computer for the cost of a Chinese DVD player, nobody will do that because of the price of Windows. Rather than dump Windows, it is easier to set a minimum price point at which you can sell a computer that includes Windows and make a computer to sell at that price point.

Demise of Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric is perfectly correct.

I've been doing the sums, the first desktop iteration of Windows cost about a quarter of the latest (Windows XP). Each version of Windows is more expensive than its precedessor. Thus Windows at least quadruples in price every 12 years or so (I'm basing the estimate on the time between acceptance of newer versions of Windows). At the rate of cost increase, I predict that Windows 2020 will cost the equivalent of $2000 and accordingly no one will buy it !

I'm using the same methodology as Hugo Gernsback when he predicted that aeroplanes would attain a take off weight of 2,000 tonnes by 1980, by drawing a time line between the gross weight of the Wright Flyer (1903) and the Dornier DoX (1930). This methodology has also been used succesfully to show that the entire US defence budget will buy only one fighter plane, by 2021 ,and that the world's population will be 400 trillion by 2230.

So unless the above scientific methodology is wrong, Mr Raymond is perfectly correct !

(Sarcasm alert)

Wrong!

[Erris]

My post, AC did not mention the cost of Winzoze to the big looser PC companies.

A $350 computer more than likely cost the retailer about half that. $26 is a large percentage of $175. Viewed from that perspective, ESR's argument looks right. Dell and Gateway can not survive selling $500 computers as it is. Their costs are too great. One of their costs is the $26 bucks or so they have to pay for EACH computer they build and sell, regardless of OS installed. Costs like that will break them and Microsoft as smaller outlets start offering cheaper PCs that do what people want. Remember that Dell got started in a dorm room. Someone else will eat their lunch soon.

Re:Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea of the retail markup of computers is probably off by a factor of 10.

This is happening already

[Trogre]

In the place where I work there is an increasing number of people installing Linux on their desktop machines, as well as servers, and doing away with Closed-source operating systems altogether.

Sure, there's still a few legacy systems we have to support, such as Digital Unix and Windows 2000/XP, but they are only really kept around now for compatibility with applications that haven't been ported yet.

.
.

Not quite

[bankman]

Thay can't lower prices. To ensure their massive cash flow they need stock prices to keep rising and the only way it will do that is if they post revenue increases.

The Desktop market is already dead for them. Too many buisnesses don't see the point of upgrading beond W2K. Office has the same problem. THis all has nothing to do with Linux.

I think you are both right and wrong. Microsoft does not have to generate increasing revenue through its traditional channels. Their war chest is so loaded that they can buy revenue, at least for a while. So don't bet on them getting into serious trouble over their stock price anytime soon.

But, I think this has all to do with Linux (I know that you mean a different context though): This whole discussion only shows that the average user's computer needs (hardware, OS, applications) are more or less met. There is no real need for anyone with a decent machine (say AMD/PIII 700 or so) to upgrade their hardware (I am not talking about game freaks and video editors here) and/or software (OfficeXP does more or less the same things as Office97/2000).

This gives the Open Source projects some time to catch up in this segment (usability, features, integration, installation, configuration). If they have caught up and can demonstrate/market accordingly, Microsoft might face problems, in case they haven't shifted their revenue base completely (web services etc.) that is.

Re:Not quite

[mpe]

I think you are both right and wrong. Microsoft does not have to generate increasing revenue through its traditional channels. Their war chest is so loaded that they can buy revenue, at least for a while.

But only for a limited time, otherwise they will "Enron".

Nah, but maybe you can finally replace

[Anonymous Coward]

your secretary.

Maybe you can write a program that's intelligent enough to write your documents for you.

But if it's that intelligent, why does it need you? Maybe it'll make you write its documents for it.

Not news

[guacamole]

He predicted the same thing a year ago, except back then the main reason for that was a slowing economy and a downward pressure on PC prices. That still hasn't happened. In fact, we saw major vendors like Dell and IBM drop Linux support from their desktops and laptops.

Windows is dying! Windows is dying!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!

Does this mean we can stop claiming *BSD is dying? Ahh...the irony is thick today!

selling Linux

[CjKing2k]

It's not like everybody who becomes first interested in Linux is a hacker anyway. Today, distrobutions are creating cleaner install programs, interfaces, software, and hardware support. Just recently I upgraded my RH 7.0 system to 7.2 and found there were many improvements that would appeal to Windows users. If improvements continue, an OEM could follow by building Linux systems for a lot cheaper, which would catch the eye of the consumer. Even those consumers that don't know what it is to "compile" something or what OS stands for, something like "Free Software Upgrades Available" or would definately get their attention along with the lower price. The average user boots-up to check e-mail, browse websites, use office software, print, etc. and don't need the advanced features of hardware components that Linux doesn't support (even though the list is growing rapidly smaller). It is only companies that continue to build proprietary systems that would continue to hurt themselves if an OEM put together a Linux PC. And those that need the advanced hardware (gamers, for example) would have the know-how of what to get (a Linux HCL provided) and how to upgrade on their own.

Blah....

[me0]

Everybody just wine about it makes them look bad when somebody stands up for something and how they just care about getting "the job done" with "the right tool for...". What the fuck are all these people loosing their time on slashdot for?

The best tool I found so far is GNU Emacs and I don't give a shit if that makes me look like a nut. It wins on merit and I'm happy that it's written by people who care about something else/more than getting the job done.

Principles is just so hush hush within this community...bah.

And don't get me started on the people complaining about loosing the desktop war. There are no winners in war. And if there were I'd say it were those who choose whatever they're comfortable with. I know what I prefer...

Oh...and I like your point...

end rant.

nice to hear

[Ironfist_ironmined]

its nice to hear such insights... but a system becomes more complicated, many discreet flaws are also created. or some shit like that. (maybe someone wuth a degree in thermo could answer that?) I really doubt that windows will just die without a fight, you see, ESR [ or whatever his initials are... the fetchmail guy (you know who i am talking about - btw nice that is!) ] uou have missed out one fundamental factor, as a company, in microsoft, there are people capable of thinking, so usually when there is a problem, the company doesnt die quite as fast as dual boot Windows does on a 500MHz K6-2 with 128 meg'o'RAM.

basically i think microsoft will just reprice it or MAKE IT SUITABLE for cheaper computers, if that includes underhanded tactics, like bribery, black mail, the use of hundreds of XP zombies (read the EULA) attacking linux | BSD related websites. whatever.

You see, even Microsoft run UNIX. servers of course (desktops too probably).

Obsolete principle, doesn't cost $5000 anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was Machrone. No wait, Machrone said it was $4000. If Dvorak said $5000, he must be an elitist who uses a $1100 sound card or something. I bet he complains that oggenc -q 9 doesn't sound as good as WAV.

Interestingly, the principle has finally become false in recent years, when processors finally became faster than they need to be. Now, assuming you don't run MS products, a $5000 machine is infinitely fast, but a $2000 machine is also infinitely fast, and you can't tell the difference when you sit down at them and use them. The only say to see that extra $3000 is to run benchmarks and look at numbers and graphs. In normal use, the $2000 machine is just as good.

Intel and AMD's competition killed the $4000 -- oops, I mean $5000, you fucking elitist -- principle.

Bullshit.

[BoneFlower]

As PCs get cheaper, if Microsofts high price becomes an obstacle to market domination then they will lower it. They only charge that much because they can. Bill Gates will do what he must to stay on top, if that means lowering the Windows price, he will. Then, he gets legions of sheep buying computers for the first time because the most important man in the world was nice enough to lower prices for them.

ESR is a smart man, I'm sure. But Bill Gates- I honestly do not believe he is after money. He just wants his software running everything in the world. I don't think he actually wants domination, but he wants a piece of every pie just to have it. If it got to the point where to keep the windows dominance he had to subsidize Windows out of pocket for a while, I am convinced he would do so.

IF this were true, it would have already happened

[Reziac]

I have news for ESR. The start point for complete midrange P2 and low- to midrange P3 systems is already down around $200, and has been under $350 for somewhat over a year. Yeah, name-brand machines still cost more, but clones don't. (Your locale may vary, but this is Los Angeles, a HUGE market for PCs of every species. Or check out compgeeks.com, where just-add-hard-disk systems start at $169.)

Second, the consumer appliance marketplace is already accustomed to getting the hardware for cheap or free, and paying for a service (operating systems are roughly parallel). Frex, buy X-months of service, get your cell phone free.

Personally I think the effect will be the opposite, and will *help* M$ consolidate a chokehold on the PC-as-consumer-appliance market, where the PC hardware is very cheap or even free, and the user pays a monthly or annual fee for "service" (which includes the OS).

Cheap OS, pay for apps�

[kiwipeso]

I see no reason why that doesn't contradict itself, the apps are where the real value is anyway.

Actually, I'm planning on selling my Kaos operating system @ $40 and then making the money off professional apps. You only get basic apps with the CD version.
Professional apps could be bundled in the DVD version, as there would be enough space for large apps on several platforms.

keep them seperated�

[kiwipeso]

I'm making a new OS and apps for it. Kaos has a Java 2 (JDK 1.4) thin binary structure that can do just that. The main point is to compile Java apps for your specific hardware.
I see no reason why I can't distribute new versions of apps from a new P2P protocol I making with very strong encryption.
However, I'm in between the extremes of Microsoft and Linux. I say I can do open source but only distribute code to those who buy the software on the CD or DVD.
Why should I support freeloading or competition from my code if I have a large student loan to pay off?

Hopefully, this is the best of both worlds. I get paid fairly for use of my code and I allow people to improve the code if they buy the software.
Perhaps this is a better method of working than the extremes presented by MS and GPL.

Re:Microsoft has recognized the problem since long

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me, /HOW/ is this off-topic?

Re:But wait, I thought NT 5.0 was supposed to be D

[Anonymous Coward]

It DID come out in 1999.

Re:Flawed comparison of 2 different business model

[Niomosy]

I question whether or not they'll really ever care about me, the consumer. It seems as though they would be lost in a world where the consumer is their primary concern. The consumer really isn't concerned with source code. They just want something that works. If open source can do it and provide them with someone to yell at when their software doesn't work because their computer's turned off and they keep pushing the power button on the monitor to turn everthing on, great. If not, they'll find something that does. Would these two people be able to handle people like that? I just don't think so...

As one of the earlier posters said, it's the pushing of open source as almost a religion that's a turnoff to many.

Who's the GNUttiest - was Re:Oh lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot poll:

Pick the maddest...
() ESR
() RMS
() Mad Jack McMad The winner of last year's Mr Madman competition
() Cowboy neal

Send your answers in on the back of a GNU Manifesto

Movements

[kiwipeso]

There is a clear difference between those movements and linux, the movements were about fair treatment of people who didn't have the vote.
This is not an extreme position by anyone's standards, everyone can be in some kind of minority if you think about it.
Most linux users who are old enough have the vote already, the linux movement is about using software whjich you don't have to pay for.
The poin of acceptance of linux as a mainstream movement will come when the linux "spokesmen" have reached a level of maturity that matches their age, not their shoe size.
If you have some doubts about that, just take the time to read about RMS on his site stallman.org and ask yourself if that is evidence of an ordinary person with a social life.

Here's to the end of boorishness

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had the cure for cancer, I would make certain that anyone who was looking for it could find it. I would not try to cram my news in front of people looking for book reviews, personal journals or ESR's projections about the imminent failure of the Microsoft business model. That would just be rude and obnoxious.

You, sir, are rude and obnoxious. You are no better than the Jehova's Witnesses that everyone dreads to see at their door.

The irony is that you aren't even a real Christian, according to Matthew 6:5. You are one of those who publicly trumpet their piousness and how great it is, like a drug pusher on the street corner. Matthew had other words for you, too. If you are really a Christian, start practicing what your book says.

As was written in a text of vastly greater wisdom and wit than you appear to be able to appreciate,

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

Re:Here's to the end of boorishness

[anomaly]

With all due respect, I invested a good bit of time in the process of commenting thoughtfully on the problem that MS is currently facing - a topic that directly reated to the issue at hand.

At the end of my posting, I attached one line inviting people to find out more about my faith. The S/N ratio of my posting was very high.

As far as making sure that everyone could find it is concerned, The Bible calls for me to live out my faith. To make it an integral part of my life - to have it affect everything that I do. I'm called to tell others about what God has done for me, and to be prepared to discuss with them the reason for the hope that I have. I strongly believe that inviting people to contact me to learn more about Christianity is a part of my responsibility to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I tell people about Jesus Christ in every part of my life. Since Slashdot posting is a part of my life, I invite people there to contact me to find out more.

WRT being seen by men - I never asserted that I am holy or righteous. In fact, my heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) just like every one else's. My only hope of being found acceptable by a perfect and Holy God is based on my faith in Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice.

I hope that you find the peace that you are seeking.

Respectfully,
Tom Cooper

ESR is full of it

[erc]

Not only is ESR full of BS, but he's wrong, too. Windows revenue is not driven by consumer sales, but by corporate sales, and companies aren't going to ditch Windows - Eric's whole premise is completely flawed. The cost of Windows is never going to be a substantial percentage of the cost of a commercial PC. Eric is, again, completely wrong.

Re:ESR is full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

You're full of BS and wrong as well, but somehow that doesn't keep you from spewing your verbal diahrrea on slashdot anymore than it keeps ESR from raping pre-teen boys.