Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Says IBM/Linux Their Biggest Threat

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the just-not-much-of-one dept.

krypt0n0mic0n writes "An article at The Register shows that Microsoft sees IBM and Linux as the biggest threats to their market domination. Microsoft's Eric Rudder is quoted as saying that Linux is a "formidable" challenge and that "IBM is our greatest competitor. In the way they sell products and compete in corporate accounts." It goes on to say that they believe the NET server will be a challenge to these competitors."

36 of 433 comments (clear)

  1. the enterprise will determine who wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To defeat Microsoft, dominance of non-M$ technologies in the enterprise area is key.
    If they gain a significant foothold there, their control will be near total, and they'll
    have a cash source with which to fund the ultimate destruction of all competetors.

    Conversely, if Linux/Unix/Java win the enterprise space, Microsoft will have no new source
    of revenue and the encroachment of deskop alternatives (OSX and Linux and BSD) will
    eventually destroy their financial base.

    It's important to ensure that the .NET CLR is either a non-starter (as it's been thus far), or
    that quality, truly open source, implementations exist on non-MS platforms. Whatever they
    say, Microsoft wants to control the uptake of .NET in such a way that business software will
    really only run on their platforms. They're not producing a public standard for the sake of being
    good corporate citizens. They're going to try to ensure that they're the . in .NET, and that solutions
    that would have gone Java will go their way on their software. There's no incentive to have
    real competition in server platforms for .NET applications. The point of .NET is to sell more
    copies of windows, SQLServer, and Visual Studio.

    1. Re:the enterprise will determine who wins by sheldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To defeat Microsoft, dominance of non-M$ technologies in the enterprise area is key.

      This is true.

      Conversely, if Linux/Unix/Java win the enterprise space, Microsoft will have no new source of revenue

      This is true as well.

      It's important to ensure that the .NET CLR is either a non-starter (as it's been thus far),

      This is bizarre. It's not true, and it's too late. .NET CLR is off to an incredibly good start.

      Whatever they say, Microsoft wants to control the uptake of .NET in such a way that business software will really only run on their platforms. [...]There's no incentive to have
      real competition in server platforms for .NET applications. The point of .NET is to sell more
      copies of windows, SQLServer, and Visual Studio.

      Well duh! That's also your goal as you stated in your first several paragraphs.

      Come on, at least learn to be honest with yourself. Then maybe others will trust you.

    2. Re:the enterprise will determine who wins by javacowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Conversely, if Linux/Unix/Java win the enterprise space, Microsoft will have no new source
      of revenue and the encroachment of deskop alternatives (OSX and Linux and BSD) will
      eventually destroy their financial base.

      Sun needs to open-source Java in order to get the OpenSource community 100% behind Java. The SCP is simply not a large enough community to provide the depth of input needed to ensure Java evolves as quickly as .NET. Microsoft, as well as their partners and large customers represents a community much larger than the SCP. Only the legions of OpenSource programmers can hope to compete with it. As Linus Torvalds said in a famous mailing list thread a while back, software mostly evolves according to customer requirements and outside influences, its creation has much less to do with design. With a far larger community around it, Java's evolution would accelerate.

      If Java became OpenSource, both Linux and Java would feed off each other. Suddenly, Java would benefit from the full support of the OpenSource community, and features would be added at a record clip. All the innovations that the Apache Foundation made to Java tools would be magnified substantially. A better compiler would replace javac, for instance.

      Java would be more tighlty integrated into Linux, especially Swing and AWT. Not only would client-side Java dramatically improve, but so would the Linux GUI, as visual components could be assembled far more easily. Linux on the desktop would actually stand a chance. More client-side GUI applications would be written in Java, and hence would run cross-platform, removing much of the incentive for people to stick with Windows.

      BTW, I realize that this will never happen. Sun is a commerical entity and has little reason to do this. Still, it's fun to dream :)

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
  2. Used to be by Bilbo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Humm... Before, we were a cancer. Now, we're a puppy. Well, that's a step up... I think.

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
    1. Re:Used to be by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Picture clubbed baby penguins

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  3. Good old Way-Back Machine.. by lionchild · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's all get in our good old Way-Back Machines, and travel back in time... Does anyone remember that joint venture product IBM was putting out? OS/2, version 1.3...then later version 2...and Warp, etc..? For anyone whose been fortunate enough to really work with any of the old OS/2 products, you'll remember that when correctly installed and configured, they're still a very rock solid product. Not much the same can be said for most of the current M$ products, save perhaps Win 2k.

    The difference between these two corporate giants is that they really are opposites of one another. You see, IBM -can- make good, rock-solid products...however, they couldn't market themselves out of a wet paper bag. :- While our "friends" and M$ could sell sand to a man stranded in the desert, sometimes the products they rush out aren't as solid as we'd like them to be.

    I can see how M$ would be threatened. If IBM learned how to market things, they could be a formidable player.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. by turgid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...and you've forgotten, or maybe are too young to remember, when it was IBM that had the virtual monopoly...

      Maybe Microsoft is about to Microchannel Architectur e itself? "The era of open computing has ended"

      Maybe intel is doing the same with itanium...

      There comes a time when the market can no longer sustain the over-ambitious revenue plans of monopolies.

      --
      Stick Men
    2. Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. by Bobzibub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember!!!

      MS threatened to jack up their prices for W95 if they marketed their competition, and that would have been the death of their PC line. IBM was *forced* not to market OS/2.

      It didn't make any sense why OS/2 was left to die at the time but it all came out in court documents later.

      Happily, Linux being a kind of "public good" this is a real problem for MS this time around. No one set of thumbs to screw, nails to pull.

      Cheers,
      -b

    3. Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. by mz001b · · Score: 3, Informative
      OK... pretty much all MS hardware.

      Umm.. the Microsoft Sound System was a pretty big flop in its day. All Microsoft hardware does not belong on this list.

    4. Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think IBM can't do marketing you've never dealt with them. They are masters of marketing, at least to business. You might be right that they don't know how to sell to consumers.

      This is an oversimplification, but IBM started falling apart when they tried to enter the consumer market, and rebuilt itself by re-focusing on big business. They managed to keep a foot in the consumer market by selling parts to OEMs.

      The bottom line for Linux is that we don't need to worry about making it in the 'enterprise' anymore - IBM will take care of that. We're missing have a credible champion on the consumer side. Sony could do it, as could AOL, but neither has taken the plunge.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  4. But is it housetrained? by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Linux is free like a puppy." I've used Linux for years and it only occasionally craps on the carpet or chews my shoes. Now Windows on the otherhand...

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:But is it housetrained? by g()()ber · · Score: 4, Funny

      Windows allow thieves to crawl into my house and catch fire to my carpets and steal my shoes.

      --
      I am so one thousand three hundred and thirty seven!
    2. Re:But is it housetrained? by zCyl · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Linux is free like a puppy."

      And windows is expensive like a child who becomes an infant again every two years.

      It costs you a fortune, craps all over, you spend all two years struggling to train it to feed itself and properly dispose of its waste, then it reaches the terrible twos, and becomes an infant all over again. There's no way to win in that game.

  5. To die by the hand that feeds you. by suso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find this rather ironic since Microsoft's big break in the beginning was to be able to create MS-DOS for IBM.

  6. continued growth by f00zbll · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I told by a CEO once when asked about the future of the company. He drew the following comparison. "We have no revenue right now, so we can only go up. Whereas some one like MS has to always push to sustain the growth, because if they don't the stock market will think they've peaked and are on their way down."

    Microsoft has to become a major player in enterprises services. If they don't they won't be able to sustain their past growth rates. The OS is rapidly becoming a commodity, now that win 2K is stable enough that that most people don't need to upgrade ever again. Win 2K already does what most people want and more, so the only way to continue to grow is new markets.

    That everyone already knows. Microsoft is doing all these interviews to paint a picture that .NET really is ready for the enterprise world of 24/7 computing. Back in 98 MS commissioned some company to prove SQL Server was good enough to run the NY EX, but everyone in the RDBMS business knows Sybase ASE run the stock market. Is it possible that if MS can't get it's act together with .NET, that they have reached their peek?

    1. Re:continued growth by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful
      now that win 2K is stable enough that most people don't need to upgrade ever again

      Yes, that is what I said about Windows NT4. I liked it (once I understood it), and thought this is all I need. However hardware evolved and in came Plug And Play devices and later on USB (and AGP, but that was supported by the graphics card manufacturers). Both were never added to Windows NT4. Why is completely beyond me, but it all makes sense. To have those feature you need Windows 2000. Don't underestimate the evolution in hardware: if your OS doesn't support it you will need to upgrade. That is exactly what will happen in the next iteration of Microsoft operating systems. It's just a matter of time.

    2. Re:continued growth by jmu1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh yes, another major flaw in Western Economics... You must keep growing at an accelerated rate.... not work at the point of equalization and expand in the next year... one of the many reasons the Economy is in the poor state it's in... that and hype.

  7. Remember the trial... by Kefaa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have still not finalized the penalty phase. So now that MS has "true competition" the DOJs
    proposal makes perfect sense. MS has been pushed aside in the onslaught of the IBM/Linux OS machine.

    While the sarcasm light was on, let's face it, MS announces nothing that does not benefit them directly. If they are claiming IBM/Linux is a threat it is because they need to be seen as having a competitor.

    Now the question remains "Why?"

    1. Re:Remember the trial... by Khalid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The antitrust trial is about the *Desktop* not the server, Linux/IBM is indeed a competitor to M$ in the server arena, not desktop one. M$ does not have a monoply in the server.

  8. Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? by kafka93 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It seems that Microsoft has been using the "Linux is only free if your time isn't worth anything" argument far too often without any real response from the OSS/Free software community. Certainly, we all understand the fallacy of the argument, but I think that this is an underappreciated attempt on marketing spin by Microsoft which isn't being properly addressed.

    Yes, implementation always costs money. GNU/Linux is no different from any other operating system in this respect. But why is nobody in the media pointing out that *implementing and maintaining Microsoft software is similarly time consuming* and that, over any reasonable period of time, it's *at least as costly* as Linux? By allowing these constant references to "Linux being free like a puppy", and by not responding with incredulity, we're aiding Microsoft. It might seem obvious to you and me that the spin is silly, but journalists appear to be buying into it -- and so will potential users who are already frightened by the concept of arcane shells and incompatible office documents.

    The true benefits of Linux need to be restated - as well as being 'free', it's also robust, powerful, usable. I'm concerned that these concessions by Microsoft are really just new forms of attack upon Linux - attacks that are potentially more damaging than the previous tactic of ignoring the operating system completely, since they play to the concerns of non-technical users (and management).

    Thousands of happy Linux users can -- and must -- attest to the fact that Linux just works better for a large number of tasks. The ideas that it's more difficult to use well and involves more effort and money to deploy successfully are simply untrue, at least on the server market.

    1. Re:Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? by pavera · · Score: 3, Informative

      I will have to agree with you on all points there.
      especially the ease of use issues. I tried to run Win 2k server, its at least as difficult to understand as Linux, and in my opinion more so, because they hide everything behind wizards, so you never *really* know whats going on. Furthermore, I manage and maintain over 50 linux servers spread out from Phoenix, AZ to Salt Lake City, UT. I could never do this type of remote management with windows. Not ever. Well, I could but it would cost my clients a whole lot more, as I'd be flying to Phoenix ever other day... I used to work in an office with 8 win 2k servers, and 100 clients... we had an IT staff of 5 full time plus 5-10 techno-savvy employees from other departments would help us out with supporting their department's IT needs part time... for 108 machines.. now I'm managing 50+ servers, from my house, by myself... I'm quite sure the latter is cheaper. (Not to mention the $50,000 in licensing fees my clients would have had to pay to MS)

    2. Re:Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? by NotesSauceBoss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      TCO studies are generally commissioned by the compared companies. Witness, for example, the TCO messaging studies comparing Lotus Domino and Microsoft Exchange.

      If there's going to be a real TCO study to compare, say, W2K and Linux, someone's going to have to pony up the cash to IDC or Giga or some other similar market research firm to do the leg work. It's gotta be a big firm with plenty of credibility in the market for the TCO numbers to mean anything to the enterprise.

      Who's gonna pay? RedHat? IBM? The UnitedLinux group?

      It's also worth pointing out that Linux might not come out ahead in a TCO study. It almost certainly isn't on the desktop, where training and support issues will be highlighted by interoperability problems across the enterprise. Even if the study is focused on server solutions, you still have to compare apples-to-apples. Are you comparing, say, web services? If so, are you running the gambit of Linux/Apache/MySQL as compared to W2K/IIS/SQL Server? If it's network services, then you're talking Linux/Samba compared to W2K, right? Nobody in TCO research cares *only* about the OS -- because the OS has no relevant *total* cost. TCO is focused on cost to solve some generalized need.

      Bear in mind that Linux knowledge is more expensive to hire than MS knowledge. Everybody's brother-in-law is an MCSE. But finding readily available OSS implementation experts can be very difficult for a corporate HR group. Sure, you can go out and learn from the source code & discussion groups easily enough, but then you're talking 6 months of *training* someone to be an expert.

      Any IT solution is an ongoing support expense, and it's certainly true that license cost is a trivial aspect of enterprise TCO. Microsoft isn't making a typically falacious claim there. It's just that the comparison is very, very difficult. And it might just turn out that the support, training, and integration efforts involved in the real world of corporate computing add up in favor of MS. Until the OSS generation of CS students hit the marketplace, at least.

  9. IBM Linux Presentation by essiescreet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was at a tech show a few months ago, and saw an IBM Linux demo by an IBM guy.

    He made a big deal about how much money IBM spent on linux development, and how they made it back within a year.

    He also said that they were going to port *ALL* of their products to *ALL* of their hardware lines at a point in the futire.

    Think of the implications of this. You can buy an eleventy thousand dollar site lisc. for Microsoft Whatever 2004 and a support contract with Microsoft, or you can buy a $40 copy of RedHat linux and a support contract with RedHat.

    That is quite a competitive standpoint for linux in general...

  10. Can you say 'embrace and extend'? by alyosha1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Rudder said in 2003 Microsoft must ensure .NET becomes the preferred architecture for application development. To achieve this, Microsoft must convert millions of developers using existing versions of C/C++ and Visual Basic onto .NET versions of the company's languages." So, I should stop writing C/C++ code that will compile on practically any architecture in existence, and switch to Microsoft's proprietary version that will limit my users to a single vendor's platform? The advantage to me as a developer is what exactly?

    1. Re:Can you say 'embrace and extend'? by catfood · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not new. You needed to buy all new tools for Component Object Model (COM), which is Microsoft's current mainstream programming model. Granted they were available for "upgrade" pricing and such, but the point is that Microsoft left the concept of portable code behind years ago. We've been writing Microsoft-specific C++ code for ten years now!

  11. Re:D-U-H! by unicron · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just love the Slashdot news filtration system:

    Routers story: Microsoft announced today they are changing one of the business plans of one of their departments for a limited amount of time in order to better compete with linux.

    ----SLASHDOT FILTER ACTIVATED----

    MICROSOFT, THE SCURVY DOGS OF REDMON, HAVE ADMITTED UTTER DEFEAT!! EARLY THIS MORNING, BILL GATES HIMSELF, THE HIVE MIND OVERLORD, WAS DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO THE STREET WHERE HE WAS JUSTLY AND FAIRLY BEAT TO DEATH BY 20 SCRAWNY, PALE TEENAGERS. THIS IS A GREAT DAY INDEED FOR LINUX FANS, AND LET IT BE KNOWN SUCH IS THE FATE TO ANYONE WHO MAY CHALLENGE OUR O.S.

    WORD IS BOND!

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  12. In Related News: by dubiousmike · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ford announced IT'S biggest competitors were other car manufacturers.

    Duh...
    Who else makes OSs for PC architecture.

  13. IBM name change by Roached · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and in other news, Stallman is demanding that IBM henceforth refer to itself as GNU/IBM...

  14. They still don't get the "Free" part, do they? by gosand · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article:
    However, Flessner articulated Microsoft's response to Linux. "Linux is free like a puppy. It looks free but when you get all the pieces around it, it doesn't work out so free. There's a lot more than I/O and memory management to make up an operating system."

    Whereas Windows is like a puppy that you can only take to one vet when he gets sick, and it is the same vet everyone else is taking their puppy to. And the vet has a very busy schedule, he is deaf and blind, and tells you that the puppy got sick because of something you did. Even though the vet sold you the puppy knowing he was sick. And the medicine he finally gives you for your sick puppy to cure his barfing gives him the shits.

    What a dumbass analogy. They still don't get the concept of Free vs free, do they?

    Libere, Gratis, Linux

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  15. Gartner did the work for me by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That single report did what 2 years of lobbying by me wouldn't. 2 days after they recommended seeking alternatives I was directed to begin loading Apache :) Today we use apache and IBM websphere, and IIS require a SVP approval and a rigorous security exam :)

    Following that incredible success story, a linux development team has been started and they are working on SAN connectivity issues now. The age of M$ computing as a server solution is coming to a close. They 0wn the desktop still but I don't support those :)

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  16. Too bad VA is no longer a "Linux" Company by Real+World+Stuff · · Score: 3, Insightful


    With the support of BIG BLUE, they might have a chance. When I read this article, the demise of LWN, and from Forbes.com (ala slashdot feed) ' "Other firms such as TurboLinux that had filed for IPOs eventually canceled their plans. The Nasdaq Composite has shed three quarters of its value since March 2000, and for the Linux stocks, the fall has been even harder. Cobalt and Andover.net are gone, swallowed up by Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) and VA, respectively. VA itself now sells for under a buck per share, and founder Larry Augustin last week gave up the CEO job (he's still the chairman). His firm has changed its name to VA Software, and its media contact person declined an interview request for this story "because we're no longer a Linux company." ' I wonder wher the focus is.I ask why are the root and fundamental Linux proponets hitting the pavement and knocking on doors?

    IBM is choosing Linux, and doing what other companies have failed to do: Compete directly with MS on their terms...with MONEY. This competition is at the server level, but in time perhaps with adequate funding and a focus on applied resources, perhaps inroads will be made in the next few years to challenge Microsoft on the desktop. Microsoft now sees this threat, and recognizes that IBM has a new tool in their arsenal to take on MS. Bundling pieces of Linux in their corporate high dollar solutions is a fiscally prudent move. Additionally, with the fundamental state and nature of OSS the IBM team has a wider variety of Eyes & Hands on developers that are providing pro bono service. Definitely a great bullet for promoting this type of integration with the bean counter!

    So what does this boil down to? IBM has a recognized threat to MS server market. The ball is in the hands of IBM to push this, or the path to the Linux desktop will meet the fate of OS/2.

    Just my .01999999

    --
    If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
  17. You have to be kidding right? by Neck_of_the_Woods · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You really want some reasons that companies use IIS and not Apache when they upgrade.

    #1. InterDev - They can hire 3 point and click monkeys to one coder that knows java well.

    #2. Older code - They don't want to change what they use now. They would require whole coding projects to start over scraping what they have.

    #3. The Lead Developers would cry, because they are not near as productive in (c, c++, java, php) as they are in vb, vbscript, and InterDev.

    #4. Problems, they already have 99% of them worked out on nt40/2000 in their environment. They know it, they love it, they don't want to change it. They don't want the headache of changing code, OS, and all the problems and man hours that go with it. Just to have a "free os". They don't have the programers, they don't have the talent, and they don't have the downtime to do it.

    #5. No one likes change.

    #6. The CIO is a SQL/IIS old school user. You can't change 3000 hours of programing in ASP/SQL/XML into PHP/MySql/PERL/XML/CGI and not have a huge huge cost. More than anything you will ever see in savings from a system os. Plus you get all the problems...again.

    Then again, what do I know I am just a gimp.

    --
    Neck_of_the_Woods
    #/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
  18. I/O and memory management. by jelle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "There's a lot more than I/O and memory management to make up an operating system."

    Translation, they accept defeat on I/O and memory management efficiency and go on to claim that an OS needs a good flying madonna to be complete?

    Talk about changing the topic of discussion.

    --
    --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  19. Re:This *is* a surprise, I must say. by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...and a nice spin that seemingly everyone has fallen for.

    Two words: desktop OSX.

    Want more words? iMovie, iTunes, iPod, Final Cut Pro, Apple's recent acquisition of Emagic (Logic Audio) to produce yet another i-something and possibly also a DAW version of FCP, Cocoa, shipping developer tools with the OS, Appleworks, falling demand for Microsoft Office on OSX showing that people are actively considering alternatives even to that...

    I guess it depends which 'market domination' you mean. IBM/Linux may well be a threat on the server space, where they do not already have market domination. Apple is hitting them right in the desktop, where they already HAVE market domination which Linux is basically unwilling to directly attack.

    Apple itself would be just as much of a problem IF they had 97% of the desktop market, but in this situation, they are absolutely deadly to Microsoft, and due to decreasing interest in Office for OSX, increasingly immune from Microsoft's private pressures and threats.

    Want to see a serious threat to MS's desktop market? Wait to see if the antitrust case truly slams Microsoft. If, and only if, Microsoft takes serious damage and blood is in the water, then you may see Apple suddenly spring a complete OSX environment (with a complete set of apps to go with it, and you'll pay for it, too) on x86.

    They are positioned to execute a total blitzkrieg attack on the Windows desktop monopoly, but only if Microsoft is gravely injured by antitrust action. If Microsoft isn't harmed, you won't see any of this: too risky unless the situation is ripe for a really startling change, like to 50/50% virtually overnight. Apple cannot do this if it'll only cannibalize its own hardware sales. Also note it'd be the most wildly copied piece of software around...

    This is speculative- but the bottom line is, this (planted?) article is notable in what it does NOT say. Isn't it interesting that as OSX takes off and shows signs of being a tough market for Microsoft to even sell into, an article is published that pointedly relegates the threat of Apple to beneath mention? Sure, the Desktop is dominated by Microsoft, and that can never change. Unless it does- and it is...

  20. Re:Why? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that, so far anyway, the Free Software community hasn't given a fig for Java. They are perfectly happy with tools like Python and Zope, and Perl, and plain old C.

    Free Software hackers have a lot of experience chasing someone else's specification, and for the most part it has turned out to be much harder than simply creating your own software from scratch. The canonical example is Motif. Lesstif was in development for years before it was even halfway useful. GTK, on the other hand, sprang into existence relatively quickly. Likewise Kaffe has been somewhat useful for years, without being something you would be able to use in production. Recently it would appear that they have completely given up chasing the new Sun specifications.

    It's Sun's ball game to win or lose in this particular case, but Sun needs the Free Software community if they plan on beating .NET. Rest assured Sun isn't going to win over the Free Software hackers unless they release the code to their JVM. At the very least they need to release some specifications like Microsoft has done. Heck, there are quite a few hackers that are looking seriously at Mono, for crying out loud. Java hasn't done well in the Free Software world to this point, and it is likely to do much worse if a Free Software variant of .NET emerges.

    If Microsoft developers and Free Software developers both end up developing .NET applications Java will go the way of the dodo.

  21. Re:Biggest, maybe... by rseuhs · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The problem is just that:
    • XBox is hardware, not software. Which makes failing A LOT more expensive. No software-project will ever lose 1 billion per year like the XBox does.
    • XBox is a closed product. It has to make revenues within its lifetime, after the lifetime, people move on and you are just left with losses.
    • PS2 is already wiping the floor with XBox and PS3 will come out in a couple of years. That less than 10% marketshare that XBox has is not very promising.
    • XBox is crippled and will always be. Unlike PS2 which will indeed move into non-gaming areas, Microsoft will not be able to put standard-connectors (like USB, firewire etc.) in XBox because they would piss off computer OEMs. (And that would be a bad idea)

    Yeah, that's a long ways out, but you're crazy if you think Microsoft isn't taking the long view on this.

    Calling me crazy won't make any of your wild claims true.

    Fact remains that XBox is a typical SHORT-TERM design. An Off-the-shelf design. (Low development costs, high production costs) If you want to know how a long-term design looks, look at PS2.