Slashdot Mirror
META Predicts Linux Software From Microsoft in 2004
trandles writes "According to this story at NYTimes (FRYYY), META Group is reporting that Microsoft will begin selling Linux software in 2004. It also goes on to report that a META Group study comes to the same conclusion as the earlier (MS-funded) IDC study that Linux has a higher TCO than MS solutions for some applications." Remember, this is speculation on the part of META, and has to do with back-end software, not Office. (But if Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of Linux software.)
Will we finally see MS solitaire for linux?
CAPS LOCK IS LIKE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
Or Linux Professional.
How about .Linux?
Visual Linux.
MSL?
Linux#?
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
Hey, even if they wanted to put out Office for Linux, I say GREAT! If they started puting out apps for linux, maybe other companies will follow suit, and then maybe we can stop being dependandt on Microsoft for their OS.
I always wanted a blue screen kernel module.
Does anyone really beleive that Microsoft would really award Linux with the massive unnecessary publicity of Linux?
But remember there is a difference between selling
1. Closed source, commercial Linux software
2. Open Sourced/GPLed Linux software.
Hah, they'll probably GPL notepad.
Now that it is proved that Linux TCO is higher than Windows, why settle for a second best? Obviously they'd move to the platform more expensive to the customer. After all, they have to make a living, right?
All they need to do is create a free (as in beer) X-semi-compatible, but faster GUI. Then release Word for it.
Embrace, extend, control. After a while, everyone will write software for Microsoft X# or X++ or X-Windows(tm) or whatever they call it, and MS will call the shots.
The story is atn cid= 1209&e=1&u=/nm/20021210/tc_nm/tech_microsoft_linux _dc&sid=95573713
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&
Sorry I'm not a HTML guru. You will have to copy and paste it yourself.
The truth shall set you free!
What a brilliant idea: destroy Linux's security and stability by loading it up with MS Crap. Heh there goes the free software menace.
...revive Xenix?
Hmm, interesting. I think they'd more likely release software for *BSD. And probably colsed source at that or open source under a much more restrictive license than a BSD or GPL one.
why run from Vincenzo?
Thinking about this for a second, I can see how this might actually work. They'll continue Windows as the home use OS, and begin selling Linux as the more professional, XP pro- style OS. Though, knowing Microsoft, they'll just cut some code out, such as that annoying "lack of bugs" feature that bothers so many Microsoft execs. If all else fails, they'll give Linux a bad name, and maybe drive some business back to Windows.
This story was written by Reueters, not the New York Times. You can view this story at other sites with no registration. Yahoo.
ZDNet UK
No registrations required.
On a totally unrelated note: what brand of coffee do you drink in the morning?
why run from Vincenzo?
Here's a better link.
Linux advocates argue that Linux offers better security, flexibility and innovation because its underlying code, or blueprint, for programs remains open to evaluation and scrutiny.
Is it just me or is anyone else getting sick of the source code as blueprint metaphor. The media seems to have standardized on it and I find it very cloying. I wonder if it would be possible for them to either vary the metaphor or just omit it assume that the reader will eventually figure it out. I mean, they now use words like "program" and "operating system" without explaining them every single time.
-a
2008 winter olympics to be held in hell
I'll believe this when I see it. Microsoft releasing any kind of product for linux would be like admitting defeat. Customers would ask why they develop product for an inferior[1] platform. What we might see is some microsoft funded third party developing linux software (as in frontpage extensions for apache)
[1]: Not my opinion, but that's what they'll ask microsoft
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
(But if Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of Linux software.)
what a good strategy, if they could be the major linux vendor, with a little bit tweak, they can finally convince people that Windows(r) is really better than Linux.
Microsoft is already planning to keep Office 11 on Windows 2000 and the XP platform only. It may make sense for them to actually market MS Office 2000 for Linux. After all, they make a helluva lota money from their Office suite. It's a product, it's an MS product and it's widely accepted. Ofcourse, that MAY encourage more users to jump to Linux, but atleast they will be generating revenues from the Office suite sales. The other questions is - will Linux geeks touch Office for Linux ? The point here is - if you are paying for Star Office, why not pay for MS Office, especially if it runs on Linux ?
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
They could also write a faster, more secure OS, that does not crash. Then sell it for production cost+1$/copy, and release
the source code. That would ruin linux!
I think it is rather obvious. As they must by 2004 have realized, that they cannot kill Linux as an OS - they will just have to start making money with it - by SELLING their products ported and tailored to run on it. It is just so easy to actively forget, that Microsoft is much more than just the operating system - they have multiple products that could actually benefit many - even (and especially) if people want to keep running Linux. I could easily name some Microsoft products, which I would like to see running on Linux - ones that would enable myself to stop running two operating systems at work, for example.
They assumed that Microsoft is a software company.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Microsoft already produces a version of Office for a BSD-like operating system - MacOS X - so the skills are clearly there. Explorer and a few other products are produced through their "Macintosh business unit" which has a supposedly healthy relationship with the rest of MSFT.
Actually, if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense for MSFT to have a "Linux business unit". Just like MSFT likes to keep Apple on a leash to provide them with cutting-edge ideas on user interface and applications, they could do the same with Linux in regards to security and server software.
Maybe they'll indeed port some of their software to Linux. But maybe they'll use some intermediary solution, like using Wine (or their own modified version) to run 'real' Windows software, or using some ported .NET stuff to compile for multi-platform...
The article doesn't mention how they plan to port. If (i don't know if it's the case or not) their software is developped in for instance C++ / MFC, or VB, it would prolly be easier to either port the core architecture to Linux, or use emulation... After all VB or C++ / MFC aren't really portable right now, except maybe on Mac
Tsuyoikoto ha taisetsu da ne, dakedo namida mo hitsuyousa (Strength is an important thing, but tears too are necessary)
... thanks but no thanks. I like my linux box just the way it is. It's about time that clippy took a hint and stayed out of other peoples buissnes.
Thomas S. Iversen
Admittedly, if Microsoft thought that OpenOffice or any other office suite on Linux or other OSes represented serious competition to Microsoft Office, all they would have to do is port Office to Linux and they would own the office suite market, but at the expense of their OS monopoly. The only reason Office for Macintosh exists is to keep the DOJ, the FTC, and the courts off their back.
My journal has hot
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wait, what next, a MS linux distro... old but relevant www.mslinux.org
;)
Kewl, backend stuff huh... so we have IIS for linux? No wonder it'll take a few years to port the code... I mean all those directory transversal vulnerabillity codes rely mainly on WinAPI.
Reckon MS will open source internet explorer while they're at it ?
Just as said above, it IS good that MS has not yet released Linux Office XP. However, the danger here for Linux is that all MS has to do, is base their next OS on Linux (hard to imagine :), like Apple and BSD, complete with slick GUI, and it could be curtains for Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros, Mandrake, Redhat and blah blah... and desktoplinux.com
Microsoft Certified Linux Engineer - kinda has a nice ring to it...
Surely they mean including all of their server software so that can favourably^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H be compare against 'free'
How would security fit into the mix? Word macros? File management via each application? And the total office integration into the OS. Anyone?
I don't think they could take control of it. Linus owns the copyright to it (if that can stop anything?) I know I'm going to get flamed for this but this might be really good for the Linux advancements. But only if Microsoft releases it open sourced? Hell thats if we are talking about them releasing a Distro. If they just released Word/Office, we could perhaps starting to kick some ass and soak up little by little of users who want something better. Overall I think this might be good for us. Microsoft will have their cheap shots inhand. I guess we will have to wait and see.
+++ David Watts 5495 0.0 0.5 1888 884
I was predicting this some time ago.. Microsoft getting a UNIX clone, maybe BeOS and merging it with windows, maybe buying out lindows and codeweavers,transgaming along the way. I thought this will happen closer to 2010, after losing billions.
They will do wonders for Linux but they'll make sure some proprietary software cannot be cloned from their OS. Their quality obviously doesnt compare to others in the market, they'll use their x86/win32 software compatibility platform to the max of their interests, to find a way and remonopolize the market. Their programmers are learning their lessons but not the chiefs (Gates still has the same hairdo).
Desktop aside, they've definitely already lost the server market and fast losing the embedded. The vast majority of x86/win95 users will stick to windows98se for a while, till M$ gets linux incorporated or till wine is mature enough to defeat M$ in a bloody coup.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Scientists not long ago reported that we might be on the edge of a new "micro ice age". In a couple of years (maybe in 2007), the Gulf Stream might crawl to a halt, thus no longer providing warm water to the Northern hemisphere. Seattle might freeze over and Microsoft would be releasing Server products running natively on Linux ...
Oh well, nerver mind.
And then, a bit of competition directly on our platform can't do harm.
A move like this will be the direct equivelant to proffesional suicide.
I love all of linux's advantages, but I do not use it as my main operating system. This isnt out of choice. My main problem is that people I work with use M$ proprietry software, and although there are linux equivelants, they are not 100% compatible. Getting closer, but still not there.
If microsoft were to release client side software for linux, that would no longer be a barrier. People could move to linux, and still use the same software until they stumble accross a better alternative.
Same applies to server side. It would enable users to switch to linux retaining the apps they need - until they realise that there are alternatives which will work better...
I find it funny how an independant company tries to predict what microsoft will do, and come out with a prediction as absurd as this.
"But if Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of Linux software."
If Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of fishing lures. Or coffee warmers. Or pencil lead. They have the money to be the largest producer of anything.
My condolences to the Gates family - what does Bill have? Cancer? Alzheimers? AIDS? ALS? CJD?
Whatever he has, my condolences. I know what it is like to hear your loved one only has about a year left. The next few months will be hard, but know that you will get through it, and while it never gets better, it gets easier.
</humor>
Because the only way Microsoft will start selling software for Linux is over Bill Gates' cold, dead body. So the only way you can say that MS will be selling Linux software in 2004 is to say that Bill is not long for this world.
And somehow I doubt Bill is even sick.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Darn the monopoly, sorry nearly forgot.
This is refreshing - I've been saying this for a while now. I'll even bet MS has Office running on Linux in a lab somewhere in their unbelievably-secret-R&D department. Have you ever known MS to *not* hedge their bets? They'd have bougth Linux outright several years ago if that were possible.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
I went to pick up some RAM last night, and saw someone with a Microstar PC, running Windows XP Home, it had StarOffice plastered all over the box.
Microsoft are slowly loosing there Office Monopoly, once that starts to dwindle then there OS monopoly is up for grabs.
Async IO and N:P threading in the 2.6 kernel will help along the way.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The network neighborhood that is.
Is this likely? The question we need to ask ourselves is, could Microsoft profit from doing without hurting current cash cows?
We all know that MS Office and the "Microsoft tax" (the price we pay for buying Windows desktops and servers) are by far Microsofts main sources of revenue. Could Microsoft support Linux and maintain these cash cows? I believe they could.
Firstly, there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't sell their own version of Linux for the server, and charge the same as they charge for their current Windows server software. I am quite sure that it would sell well, and could reduce the numbers of people migrating to Red Hat, for example. Secondly, I see no reason why they couldn't come out with a version of MS Office for Linux and charge a similar price for it. This might also prevent people migrating to OpenOffice.org or Star Office.
If they did this, they could also try to use their considerable muscle to sway people away from technologies they don't want people to use. So for instance, the MS Linux would probably not include MySQL and PHP, and perhaps not even Apache.
I don't see any reason why they couldn't do this. Of course, they still have the long term problem of the erosion in value of what they offer as free competing solutions improve, but there's not much they can do about that other than try to fight off the inevitable.
A friend sent me a link to this a couple years back. We had this posted along with the story about MS patenting ones and zeros. Pretty funny stuff.
-- Some people say they can tell the time by looking at the Sun, but I have trouble seeing the numbers.
If /. had stated:
... I believe that BG would be calling now a major pow-wow in Redmond.
But if Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest owner of Linux software
Could have been Bill kissing penguin.
Hmmm... Ok.. Chivas on the rocks.
As more and more of Microsoft's software is built on top of .NET it will become increasingly easy to move that software to other operating systems.
It looks like most people didn't read the artical.
.......
.NET, so no room for M$ there either.
'SEATTLE (Reuters) - In a major strategy shift, Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news) will introduce software based on the Linux (news - web sites) open source operating system in 2004 for Web services and server software, market researcher META Group predicted on Monday. '
; this will gradually include the major Microsoft back-office products, such as SQL Server, IIS, and Exchange," META Group said.
So there going to sell insecure web services, over say Apache, web services is M$'s weekest market, and IIS i can see people buying IIS on Linux.
SQL server, hmm... why.... Oracle, DB2, anything else except SQL server is already on Linux, they havn't a hope.
There only viable Server port would be Exchange since there isn't a non-windows variant, but that would be dangerious for M$, since there are a few companies who only have windows boxes for Exchange.
MONO are already doing
I think there talking shit....
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Linux company sells Microsoft software.
Well, I might be showing my age here, but didn't our old pals MS produce a desktop version of UNIX way back when? (wasn't it XENIX or somthing?? 'pologies if I'm wrong...)
So really they're not *that* new to this, but, depending on your point of view, then either MS are trying to do a passable cover-the-bases routine, or they have some other plan in mind.
Let's be honest here - and I think we all know this - if Bill & The Boys did go down the linux route, then it would change linux completely; can you see MS open-sourcing all their code for this project?
No, me neither!
-- Seamus
But Microsoft already has it's own linux distribution ready slated for release in november 2003. Knowing MS and it's slipping OS release dates this will probably end up being released in 2004.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
In Soviet Russia, Linux could become the world's biggest producer of Microsoft!
There are several reasons I can see:
I'd say getting into Linux would be in character for Microsoft.
However, DON'T expect them to make it look like anything but a Oh-We-Care-For-Consumers routine. Expect something more along the lines of "Microsoft produces an advanced, user-friendly version of the popular operating system. Now you can take advantage of the best of both worlds" or something.
BTW, if this happens, there may be a massive shift in what skillsets employees are interested in. Something to watch.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I can't wait for Notepad to get ported, the true killer app.
I *need* ^Ms at the end of every line, don't you?
Microsoft's argument against Linux sounds strangely familiar. Didn't Apple use this same tactic against Microsoft back in the 90's?
"It's initially cheaper to purchase and install a [insert competitor here]'s hardware and software, but more expensive in the long run with regards to administration and people."
Could this be a sign of desperation?
Anyhow, the chances M$ will come out with a GPL'd version of Linux are like nil. Now, a proprietary version of Linux... that is more likely, especially if the level of desperation rises!
What's to stop MS from creating a free linux compatible distribution ("Bill Hat"), but not open source and then competing with the likes of Redhat? That would seem to me the only way they would do Linux software.
Now maybe Microsoft can do for Linux what it has done for Java!
All the TCO studies I have seen include elements of initial capital cost, software maintenance and support.
What they do not include are estimates of the cost of non-availabilty. Obviously this is difficult to quantify, since it varies according to the application and business. However since we are talking about Linux and Windows in the entreprise one ought to be able to put some kind of estimate or estimates together (this much per hour of down time in a small development shop, this much in a bank). I think one would then see what the real cost of ownership of each platform is.
Remember Xenix? - M$ have gone the *nix route before - why couldn't/wouldn't they do it again if they thought there was money to be made....
Office is still the real M$ cash-cow isn't it?
``and we're going to continue doing what we've been doing for customers.'' I guess I had Microsoft pegged wrong. They have been practising anti-competitive behaviour for me and the rest of its customers. So it's all ok now.
Does that mean that finnaly I will be able to play the majority of games on Linux? Woot! I think it would be a wise move my Microsoft considering there current reputation. With a move like this they could average out their evil with Linux's purity and come up with a corporation grey that seems to be quite tollerable to a majority of customers. But I also think this would give companyies like Red Hat and Lindows a leg up in the beginning.
The story on the IDC report cites employees, IT training and outsourced support as the main resource drainers for Linux systems. I'm just wondering why the report gave no mention of productivity losses due to unreliable software? For mission-critical companies, a system crash could make the 11 to 22 percent savings moot in a flash.
I drink, therefore, I am.
-- W. C. Fields
I don't see why it should be any different for any of the threatened open source software developers. It's important, at least from my standpoint, that the Linux environment does not become another place that is dominated and led by the likes of MS.
If I were involved with Open Office, Gnome, KDE, etc. then I would be ramping up the marketing tasks as a top priority and spreading the word of our labours down as many avenues as possible.
Code, even good code, doen't necessarily mean success.
Powered by onion juice.
while Microsoft still makes money from selling Operating Systems. Why enable a huge portion of their market to stop paying them licence fees while they can still sell Office *and* Windows?
Cynicism is the natural defence of the romantic.
I'd love to see BSOD ported to Linux ...
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.
Micros~1 will not release any of their core products on any platform but their own. (IE doesn't count, since you don't directly pay for it; instead its popularity as a client makes their server offerings more appealing.) They are almost down to one supported kernel (no more 9x/ME), and they certainly don't want to throw away the development effort spent on all those undocumented OS features :)
.NET might be more portable in theory, but I suspect their own products will always rely on things which are only implemented as black-box binaries on Windows.
Looking forward, Microsoft is very serious about Yukon (their SQL-server-for-a-filesystem project), and that will almost certainly not be available in a compatible form on non-MS platforms, nor would they encourage its use if it was. The last thing they want to do is let anyone think they endorse something other than an all-MS shop as a reasonable way to do business. (Although I suppose someone might have said the same thing about IBM a few years back, given their even greater vertical integration.)
I can't even imagine them releasing watered-down versions of Office et alia on other platforms. They just have too much coupling in their designs. And Windows as a system is all about proliferation of interfaces; new software built on
Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
Microsoft's strategy has always been to bind everything to the Windows environment: develop on Windows, run on Windows. That is one of the reasons they went after Java: Java would allow people to easily develop programs that don't run on Windows.
Occasionally, they have made software that ran on other platforms: Office for Mac (mainly to avoid anti-trust issues), .Net for *BSD.
From MS' point of view, it doesn't make sense to create Linux software. They'd lose their main advantage: expertise of the Windows platform. Not because of "hidden APIs", but just because their application developers are Windows developers (rather obvious). It would take a lot of time before they know Linux well enough to develop for it.
On the other hand, with Microsoft, nothing is impossible. It wouldn't be the first time they'd change their policy. Just don't bet on it.
On the gripping hand, even if they would produce Linux software, it won't be open source (as noted by other posters). Shared Source seems likely, BSD licence for a few parts. GPL is out of the question. (As noted above, nothing is impossible, but Microsoft releasing GPL'd code is extremely unlikely.)
WWTTD?
------
and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you lousy kids - Amusement park operator
When the BSD license is so much less restricting?
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
It's very doubtful that Microsoft will ever be able to defeat Linux, so the obvious choice would be to become part of it. The question would be, what part would Microsoft take?
The desktop side of Linux is, unfortunately, rather lacking. Sure, you can do a lot with Linux, if you only know how, but that's also one of its biggest weaknesses. The average desktop user Does Not have the necessary skills to hack textconfigs and xdefaults, not to mention changing window manager. A company such as Microsoft could easily build a desktop GUI that would outclass all current GUIs for Linux. Of course, it's been done before, and perhaps I'm just comparing pears to Apples. =)
On the server-side though, would Microsoft really give up their strategy and platform? Wouldn't a Linux-adoption indicate that they feel Linux is as good as, if not better than Windows? I doubt it. Admitting that Linux is good enough for home use, or possibly even small office is one thing. Admitting that it's capable and stable enough for enterprise class configurations is an entirely different matter.
Of course, I might be mistaken. A few years ago, I'd laugh at whoever claimed that Macintosh would be a serious contender for the Unix desktop market. And for that matter, anyone remember a Microsoft that didn't believe in the Internet? Just look at them now.
No, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft went with Linux in the end. Well, not much anyway. =)
META = Mostly Erroneous Temporal Analysis
gates wantes to release software for "servers and webservices." since linux has the biggest appeal in the server market, it is only natural that m$ wants to harness that power. why would they want to touch the desktop. on the desktop, most users know little (and more importantly care little) of security, and the current OS is "enough" by most users' standards.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Of course, Sluggites have known for almost two years. Worship the comic!
(The future is scary... scare it back!)
NYT? Darn. What's my "Member ID"? Let's see ... Is it asdfasdfasdfasdf? No. Maybe it's 12341234123421? No. Well, it could be qwerqwerwqer? Nope. Not that either. Ok. Let me try asdfasdfasdfdasfasd. No dice. I give up.
In all seriousness:
Linux is not Windows... Let's keep it that way.
Believe me when I tell you, these guys can't even solve their own technology issues, never mind commenting on other companies'.
Disclaimer: No I am not a disgruntled employee. No I am not a Microsoft Zealot. I run Linux on my desktops and FreeBSD on my servers.
This was taken from an article on linuxworld 2000. So the point is already know for a longer time
Linux hosting for $2.50/mo
Well that is the only way MS would sell Linux or BSD software...
Don't Tread on OpenSource
As William Henry Gates III (also known as billg@microsoft.com) proves in this letter, he's a tad paranoid regarding the use of his software.
I conclude from there (and from the evil empires behavior in general), that he would be even more paranoid to reveal any source code to the general public, because somebody might er! steal it.
It's likely, that this involves all of Microsofts software ("Shared" source initiative not whitstanding) up and including WinHelloWorld(tm)
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
there is a working .NET CLR on linux, and since they are going software as a service and most new software will use this. MSN etc will be the first to be ported as it makes sense to have them on as many desktops as possible.
What is all this hoopla about? Some soothsayer makes some outrageous prediction that is not backed by any data whatsoever, and all the world is acting as if it already happened!
;)
Hold your horses, gentlemen.
Their German subsidiary just sold a well researched and completely unbiased prediction that Linux won't stand a chance against Windows on servers and desktops to the Swiss a few months ago. The study claims that Unix scales better than Linux and yet Unix will become a back-end, legacy OS platform by 2003.
Oh, and they also pumped out a different study (which is, by the way, also completely unbiased and astoundingly well-researched) where they predicted Linux will grow from 25% to 35% in the next 2 years, only to be outpaced by... Windows 2000?!
ROTFL! Nobody in their right mind can take these people seriously! I don't even have to contradict them, they do it themselves!
BTW: The PDF is in German, but the pretty figures are all English, so you should have no problem understanding what they are saying.
PS: What good luck we have that their study is a PDF! In it you will find the assertion that Star Office has "uncertainties" opening MS Office files and thus you can't use Linux. Um, well...
If you are running a Windows shop and put people with only MCSE training to work on UNIX/Linux machines, they won't know what to do, they won't even know how to find out what to do, and they will hate it. Your systems will run miserably and your TCO will be high.
What does that mean? Your Linux TCO depends on how your run your shop. If you do things right, the achievable TCO is better for Linux than for Windows.
http://www.isb.admin.ch/dok/dokumente/opensource/m etagroup-linux-w2000_2002-10-17.pdf
In other words, TCO is higher when using open source to re-implement or ape standards often controlled by microsoft. This does not surprise me. Just look at the travails samba has gone through over the past 10 years. It's been a constant guessing game with Microsoft purposely changing standards to make it harder to use samba. Administrators are forced into maintenance beyond what is needed for windows systems, thereby bringing on higher TCO
What's interesting is that open source has the lower TCO for implementing open standards (e.g., web serving). In other words, by using open source to implement open standards both saves me money and gives me greater freedom.
Ultimately, there's a tipping point when enough hardware is running open source that it becomes worthwhile to move to non-microsoft standards. Then the game then becomes unfavorable to microsoft. The real TCO analysis should be done on companies that have implemented pure open source solutions without having to insert microsoft products in the mix. There are now examples out there in retail and the city of
Largo, Fl. We should see analyses of those.
They publicly condemned Linux, the Open Source+Free Software movements and the GPL license. Are they going to retreat or simply let some water flow under the bridges (time) waiting for people to forget what they did say?
It's very logical for Microsoft to make Linux software at some point in time.
They're still in the phase where they're fighting tooth and nail to swallow up the server market (as well as the console game, PDA, cell phone, and ISP markets:)
Only when Linux makes more serious inroads into the server market will they commit to a product for Linux. For now, the more profitable strategy is the one they're currently pursuing.
Microsoft's dilemna, though, will be that various free and open source software will fill in the holes of providing MS services on UNIX. SAMBA and Mono, for example. If they released it now, they could own .NET on UNIX, but it would unfavorably leverage against their other strategy of having Windows take over more of the server OS market. The latter strategy puts them more in the drivers seat as far as coming out with new products, calling the shots for upgrade cycles, etc. and is therefore preferable to them at this point in time.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
should read : " Ex -Windows"
thank you.
Come on, what is this?!!! Troll Tuesday and the editors lob up a softball like this? This story is way too easy to troll.
Should that slobbering 800lb behemoth (M$ for those who haven't had their coffee yet) ever start producing and distributing Linux software, that would be the best thing that could happen to Linux and the open source movement at large. Think of it: massive public exposure (and ultimately acceptance), compatibility with Microsoft .NET and M$-centric formats/programming languages, better multimedia support than ever and software developers (beit productivity or gaming) would feel more obliged to release Linux versions.
Also, I'm inclined to believe that alot of enterprising, proprietary-biased visionaries and companies out there would reconsider investing, developing and innovating for Linux and the open source movement, if only to make a buck.
I think it's unlikely though. Such a move wouldn't benefit Microsoft so much. It would detract from their own Windows os and staple products, invite hostility from elitist ubergeeks and open source purists and require massive investment and retraining.
Plunk,
There's a whole nickle.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Monkeys flew out of Bill Gate's butt today.
Pigs flew over Microsoft head quaters and force Bill Gates to make good on a bet.
Sientists have discovered the core tempature of hell is actually zero degrees Celcius.
I think it's worth noting that it's the META group that's saying this, not Microsoft. META's in the business of selling their prognostication services; it's therefore to their distinct advantage to make headline-grabbing bold predictions like this from time to time. Magazine columnists do this sort of thing sometimes, too: controversy and bold predictions really do help sell publications.
I'm not suggesting META's conclusions are right or that they're wrong--merely that there may be some "publicity stunt" component behind their analysis.
Phil
Well its nice of them to try...If this story is even
remotely accurate but the linux world is doing fine without Bill Gates...
Just think of how many companies out there tried selling closed source software. Now think of how many people actually buy that software...
One word of advise: Look before you jump Bill....
Now if you want to help us with open source... go right ahead...but keep all the legal stuff at home.
I think we look at Microsoft as evil because of the companies marketing stratagies and the quality of software they bring to the market. If they got there act together...and actually starting making DECENT platforms and applications... Would you still hate Microsoft?
Personally...I don't like what they stand for. The "Im going to take over the world" thing was cute when the company started...now its just retarded.
Microsoft's not yet ready for the "join 'em" part of the "If you can't beat 'em..." argument - especially as today's Wall Street Journal has a very long, detailed article on Microsoft's efforts to lure national governments away from open source software, using carrots and sticks familiar to many /.ers. It's worth reading, and good to see the mainstream press like the WSJ taking an active interest on how Redmond deports itself.
... so here (for review purposes only) are highlights of the article - well worth the time:
It's a good piece, but it's subscription only
Microsoft Wages Campaign Against Free Software
By WILLIAM M. BULKELEY and REBECCA BUCKMAN
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Sometimes it seems as if Microsoft Corp. doesn't want government to save money -- at least not if it comes by using free software. Microsoft is waging a major lobbying and public-policy campaign to stop government agencies in the U.S. and abroad from embracing free, "open-source" software, especially the Linux operating system, which poses a growing threat to Microsoft's Windows.
In the past year it has argued with the Defense Department over the content of a report extolling free software. It has organized a world-wide lobby to oppose laws that mandate using open-source software. It has persuaded some congressmen to ask the new Office of Homeland Security not to fund research that uses certain open software.
But even Microsoft is having a tough time persuading governments from Washington to South Africa that getting software free is a bad thing -- especially when rivals like International Business Machines Corp. are telling them that open-source software works just fine.
Open-source software is software whose source code, or base layer of commands, usually can be copied freely and then modified, unlike most proprietary software, which is generally controlled by a profit-making company. It is championed by a far-flung community of programmers, researchers and companies who share their work over the Internet.
Open-source software has grown in recent years to become a full-fledged rival to Microsoft, used by companies, universities and others in their computer rooms. Many open-source programs are free, or nearly so.
The best known open-source software, Linux, increasingly is being embraced by computer companies including IBM, Dell Computer Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. as a way to sell more hardware and services. According to International Data Corp., a technology-research firm, sales of server computers that use Linux grew 6% in the most recent four quarters, while sales of Windows-based servers grew just 1% in revenue.
Microsoft says it isn't against the concept of open-source software. But it is working hard to prevent government researchers from adopting software covered by the general public license, or GPL, that governs reuse of much open-source software, including Linux. The GPL requires anyone who copies the software to freely share any improvements or additions they make to the code.
Because commercial companies often adapt programs written by government-funded university scientists, Microsoft argues that wider use of GPL-licensed software would stifle innovation. Commercial companies, it argues, would have no incentive to sell "free" software derived from the research. What's more, Microsoft worries that its own developers could inadvertently combine Linux or other GPL-licensed programs with Microsoft programs, which could potentially make the Microsoft programs subject to free-sharing as well.
"The GPL, in my view, is bad in all its dimensions," says Jim Allchin, the Microsoft group vice president who heads the powerful Windows group.
In some cases, Microsoft has leaned on government agencies directly. The U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency, an arm of the Defense Department, says that last spring it granted a Microsoft request for an exclusive advance look at a report by research firm Mitre Corp., Bedford, Mass., on Pentagon use of open-source software.
After Ira Rubinstein, a Microsoft lawyer, detailed Microsoft's objections, Dawn Meyerrick, chief technology officer at the agency, says she asked Mitre to make changes in the report. Among them, it dropped the conclusion that open-source software was more secure, and it added cautionary words about the GPL.
Open-software advocates also perceived Microsoft's influence in a letter from a group of congressmen to Richard Clarke, who heads cyberspace security for the newly created federal Office of Homeland Security. The initial letter urged the government to continue past practices by "explicitly rejecting licenses that would prevent or discourage commercial adoption" of software developed under federal contracts.
But as the letter was being circulated, Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat -- who receives the most donations of any representative from Microsoft's political action committee -- added a "Dear Colleague" letter to further explicate the original. That letter said that "licenses such as the General Public License (GPL) are problematic and threaten to undermine innovation and security," and suggested such open-source software shouldn't be developed by the government at all.
That echoed Microsoft's position. A Microsoft spokesman acknowledges that Rep. Smith met with its chief technology officer, Craig Mundie, before the letter was sent, but only for "informational" purposes. Mr. Smith's press secretary says that the "dear colleague" letter was meant to clarify the original because "we believe in innovation."
Open-source fans believe Microsoft is bringing its political power to bear because it sees a market threat to its desktop-software monopoly. But in some cases, Microsoft's appeals have fallen on deaf ears. Last year, according to people familiar with the situation, Microsoft objected "vigorously" when the super-secret National Security Agency developed a secure version of Linux and then posted it on the NSA Web site for anyone to download. But NSA didn't back down and the software is still available.
In the developing world, where free software like Linux may have its greatest appeal, Linux advocates say they have "noticed that Microsoft has made a substantial portion of their quote 'gifts' to developing nations that have indicated a strong preference for open-source software," says Mark Webbink, general counsel of Red Hat Inc., a Raleigh, N.C., company that sells versions of Linux.
In India, where at least one state government endorsed Linux recently, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates last month announced a $400 million gift of donated software and business-development aid.
In South Africa, a Microsoft offer to provide software for 32,000 schools came just days after that country's National Advisory Council on Innovation called for the government to adopt open-source software to build local programming skills and avoid sending hard currency to the U.S. to pay for Windows. Nhlanhla Mabaso, a government chief information officer, says that while the free software from Microsoft is tempting, "Personally, I believe this is not good for South Africa."
Bradford Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, says any donations "are made to meet a social need" and not to counter Linux.
Microsoft concedes that its opposition to open-source software has sometimes backfired, and it says it intends to move the battle to more straightforward commercial issues.
* * *
Doesn't this report work as FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the most classic meaning of the term?
Imagine some mid-sized fairly-clueless company who is considering GNU/Linux and they read this article. Wouldn't the natural thing to do be to say, "Hey, let's wait until that Microsoft version gets here..." Classic FUD response.
It's clear Microsoft isn't going to do anything to further GNU/Linux. Yes, they could make some money here, but at the expense of Windows? I don't think so.
The repeated publicity that the MS-sponsored study from IDC has recieved, followed by this study from Meta, is beginning to bother me. TCO isn't everything; as we have seen from the events of the past year, Microsoft has done a lot to change its licensing program and piss off a lot of its customers in the process. It's about control, baby. As in, Microsoft holds all the cards in this poker game. Don't be fooled; why would they give up on their biggest cash cow-- Windows? Why would they port their second biggest cash cow-- Office-- to Linux? Star Office and OpenOffice have already figured out how to open up MS Office formats for .doc, .xls, and .ppt.
In the same vein, .net is just a strategy to hold their developers in place, and to try to attract developers from the Java world. They have adopted a Java-like language runtime. .net runs only on Windows and FreeBSD, and the BSD port, as well as the Common Language Infrastructure, have a subset of the classes that are available under the Win32 CLR. Don't expect to see a port to Linux or other *nixes.
The Times story has got to be pure speculation.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
The worlds biggest software house supporting Open source? It would be just too good to be true.
But since Linux is GPL'd all they can copyright is the name. Someone else could make a competing MS Linux and include Apache, MySQL, PHP etc...
The Anti-Blog
http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/12/04/2346215.s
Warning: the link gets fscked by slashcode, omit the space
Oh, and be sure to read the "1.3% versus 3%" paragraph. One does need moderately experienced sysadmins though, and in MY opinion that says a lot. And that also is my answer to those TCO studies, it starts to look that the only reason for OSS being -sometimes/in certain situations/when not running ISS/in MS sponsored studies- more expensive is that you DO need experienced personel (yup, had to re-read that sentence myself, too:). Bah, experienced sysadmins, now who'd want THOSE???
As for Microsoft software under Linux? Hey, i'm all for it. I'd think more than once, though, before popping in 3-4 of those MS Office CDs.
Consider all the facts:
They tried to downplay Linux as a competitor in the beginning
saying its open source, no one is commercially responsible, blah blah.
Then over a period of time they accepted and acknowledged that
Linux is a threat to MS.
Since the open source movement picked up quite well and became
very successful, they tried to downplay it with their hastily
drawn "Software Choice" movement which stopped making sense
beyond the first sentence. Actually this particular thing shows
the tremendous pressure the various departments of MS
is under and their desparation to come up with such a ridiculous
idea.
Given all this, it is not surprising that MS should now start
embracing Linux. Look at it from MS point of view. They dont
care if they sell windows or Linux, as long as they sell
to make enough money. Okay, assuming that that argument is
true to a certain extent, consider their choices in that path.
They would definitely try to utilise the name of Linux as much
as possible. They would on the other hand also try to come
up with innovative ways of creating a monopoly, and creating
a layer of closed source on top of Linux.
Even though it looks contradictory, its not difficult to
come up with closed source both at application and system level.
Modules can be closed source with an open source shim, and
applications can be closed source if you jump around linking with
libraries. If they find a way to deploy closed-source software
on top of linux they would definitely try to create
propietery interfaces and propreitery file formats as much as
possible.
Even though this sounds ominous, its in a way easier for us
open source folks, since it would be much much easier to hack
applications running on Linux, than those running over windows.
So one aspect we should concentrate on is to make sure that
the licensing of Linux makes it impossible to stop anyone
from reverse engineering anything that runs on it.
I am not sure if this is currently true, but I would love to
hear comments about this. Basically, any propreitary software
box I open which runs on Linux should not be able to say
"reverse engineering this product is illegal". Atleast it should
be impossible to enforce it, if we reverse engineer using
only standard linux tools and kernel interfaces.
All that being said, there are definitely some (possibly short-term)
positive side to this. If MS wants to sell Linux software
(or even Linux itself) they are definitely going to make sure
that hardware drivers are extensively supported on Linux (even
if they are closed source drivers) which is a good thing.
They might also have to then do something about websites
that dont work well with Linux browsers (which is again a
good thing, unless they decide to port IE to Linux. Actually
that may be a good way for win-users to migrate to Linux).
Well lot of wishful thinking, but this may signal the end of
bitter commercial antogonism towards open source in general.
DO NOT PANIC
*****bzzzzzzzzzzzzz*****
wrong!
Go take another look at your terrot cards or crystal ball!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
Remember, this is speculation on the part of META, and has to do with back-end software, not Office.
And if META's conclusion was that the TCO of Linux was *lower* than Microsoft, would that be speculation too?
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish
Someone else could make a competing MS Linux and include Apache, MySQL, PHP etc...
Not really. Microsoft could include loads of different proprietry applications, all tied tightly together. They wouldn't have to GPL it and you wouldn't be able to copy it.
Yeah, this may sound like a troll, but it really bugs me in an irresistable itch kind of way that apparently even the top IT companies in the country feel this state of affairs (Having a platform that is so easily subverted) is fine. "Just don't open E-Mail from people you don't know" they tell you. That head-in-the-sand attitude makes me VERY ANGRY! SMAAAASH! BRUCE SMAAASH! *Ahem*
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If MS has done any research, and I'm sure they have, they know that this will very seriously impact Linux in a negative way. Not too many currect OSS developers are gonna continue to develop just to line the pockets of MS, who just repackages and sells their product as their own. Already IBM and Oracle are profiting from their work. I can't believe that many developers will continue once MS starts profiting from them too. I quite honestly think that the whole OSS idealology will fall apart.
I seriously doubt Microsoft would do this. Why? Because they've never been all that logical to begin with. If they decided to port their software to other platforms just because they were superior, we'd have MS software all over the place.
It's been a long time.
The only way I see this happening is to port the Windows Media player to Linux. Then, you get your DRM for free on Linux too.
Bam. EULAS on Linux for content management. MPAA and RIAA are sporting
chubbies just thinking about it.
Oh, and forget about open source anything.
For all its shortcomings in stability, openness, Clippy... Office's huge strength is its programmability in Visual Basic for Applications, soon to be Visual Studio .NET for Applications*. It's more than a suite, it's a platform.
It's provided probably thousands of programmers with jobs creating add-ons, templates, and most especially, vertical market apps in Access.
Sure, it was also the open hole that pretty much spawned the scripting age of viruses with MS Word Macro viruses, but I have yet to see anything equivalent from Star Office or OpenOffice in terms of access to the document model or program control.
On the other hand, the Chandler project at OSAF is looking at Python in signed XML modules for its extension mechanism -- they've got a chance to be a platform.
* VSAN unfortunately will kill one huge productivity gain that VBA (and VB) have: the ability to attach code snippets within form modules, which tie the visual appearance a little closer to the function. Model/View/Controller fans rejoice, but long-time VBA wonks are sad.
Design for Use, not Construction!
I think that before Microsoft begins marketing linux software they should first try and resolve their trust issues with many end users. That would be much more productive.
"The most sucessful operating system is not one who can eliminate its competitors, but live with them."
I'm not so sure about that. In the long term they are threatened by the emergence of new competition. It is in their best interest to prevent that emergence, so I think in any given decision control is viewed as a higher priority than profit.
Whether the ultimate goal is profit is, I think, immaterial when the result is that every decision is made to favor control above all else.
Nope, no sig
Watch, it turns out Notepad's source is three times the size of the Linux kernel source...
Help us build a better map!
It's the Linux Experience Project
<gag>
M$ refuses to even release the windows API's, for fear someone might steal their intellectual property. Do you really think that they'll accept the open source liscensing which would require them to release source code? This isn't BSD here.
No way.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Indeed, this is a very important qualification of the original statement.
Is it just me or is this the stupidest thing ever said, in the entire history of the world, EVER. I mean it must have taken a real outside the box mind to think of this. Unfortunately the box is reality. What retarded chimp flinging feces could possibly believe that Microsoft would abandon it's
I mean seriously, why did this make slashdot, it's not april fools day! This is raw liquid stupid and it makes me queasy that Reuters would run an article that is so blatanatly lacking merit or at least a shred of intelligent reasoning.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Letting IT managers run real AD services in the server room on their Linux/Samba boxen might allow them to keep selling 2000/XP desktop licenses for the drones in the cubicles.
Microsoft got the desktop right with 2000 (except for the stupid "see more" arrows in the menuing) but the server ball was dropped long ago with the advent of NT3.51. Trying to pick it up after that was just fumble after fumble. Windows on a server is a nightmare.
What MS needs to do is allow Linux binaries to run "natively" on their system. This would allow a much greater software base and increase the power of their system. This is the part of their system they should open up to developers. Imagine a Debian-based subsystem built into Windows??? Port the Linux ABI as the BSD's have done, swallow parts of Cygwin, and allow people to install RPMs or .deb's. Wow. Now THAT would sell.
Honeslty, I think .NET is very akin to Java (not just the language similarites, but the bytecode/CLR, VM, libraries, etc.). In fact, I think Microsoft will give up their OS monopoly that they've been beaten up about. Just before they giove it up, though, they'll finsih porting everything to .NET amd then sue any platform running .NEt without a license. Trading one monopoly for another.
META Group is reporting that Microsoft will begin selling Linux software in 2004.
What if they make their own distro that has some "secret" programs to exchange information between M$ LinuZ and Micro$soft (without user having any idea of) as in "normal Windows OS".
When they have a distro of their own, they can sell it with their own prize etc.
All corporations etc. that uses M$ OS and Unix are forced to change their Unix OS to M$ LinuZ (when they accept another critical Service Pack with a slightly modified EULA).
Think about that!
Another thing. When some people were calculating TCO between M$ and Linux, have they calculated how much M$ products have already cost to companies allready?
Microsoft would give to much credibility to linux by releasing applications for it. It would be a standing invitation into linux land. Maybe if they somehow loose half their market they would think about it. If that would happen im sure that something else than linux will popup pretty fast. the only thing holding new OS back is Microsfoft, the rest of us are waiting anxciously.
As of the TCO studyes, dont take that for truth. How can you make a five year study on something that has a life expectancy of three years? It's soon update time in Windows 2000 land so this TCO study "missed" that fact by mistake? With linux you dont have to update everything at once. What about training cost after the initial two years on linux? Surely they wont stay the same all the time? The study misses alot of factors that seems to have been left out intentionally.
I would say that this study is badly skewed and has no real value.
HTTP/1.1 400
Firstly, a window in X is just a window - it's a blank page on which the application can do what it likes. Unlike Win32 where each control is a window in its own right, a control in X is just a picture. When you click that control, you're actually clicking the window surrounding it, and the application is responsible for figuring out whether or not there's actually a control underneath your mouse and responding accordingly. Secondly, and more importantly, X messages are just notifications, not control messages. You can't tell an X window to do something just by sending it a message. You can't tell it to paste text. You can't tell it to change the input limits on a control. You certainly can't tell it to jump to a location in memory and start executing it. The best you can do is send it the mouse clicks or keyboard strokes that correspond to a paste command - you certainly can't tell a control to paste in the contents of the clipboard. As such, it's still theoretically possible for some of these attacks to work against X but in practice it's highly unlikely. You could flood an application with fake messages and see how it responds; you could send it corrupt messages and see how it responds. Chances are, it would cope just fine, since it'll choose what to do with the messages and process the flood one at a time.
GNU GPL is a virus.
-- too cruel for schuel
Microsoft will realise that it can reap rewards by "embracing" that thing that people are flocking to due to the crapware known as Windows. remember that just as it sucks to have to redo the entire backend suite of software just for one MS app (and that could very well mean one "enterprise" app that just does not play with other software on the network) it is definitely a problem if you already have MS crap in place and do not want to replace the entire backend to use some Linux based app. MS tries its best to make MS incompatible with anyone else so that you will say, "Oh, sure I will completely change my network just for one little app, no problem" Yet people are either getting sick of it and getting rid of MS crapware, or are finding ways around it. That means that the "all or nothing" tactic by MS will only harm them in the future. They would be stupid not to try.
CNN has an article on this too.
(1) Even if Office comes out for Linux, it will still be an overpriced pig. I wouldn't spend $400/$500 for it even if it ran on Linux. If Redmond decides to get REAL and sell it (not RENT it) for $79/$89 I might even give it a try.
(2) Even the rumor of MS backoffice products being ported to Linux *might* cause projects to be put off (if people think they have a possible alternative to MS server operating systems)- this article is a good thing if even in a small way. the article might slow the spread of Windows (backoffice) servers.
(3) The open source community has to keep coming up with better applications (we have quite a few already) before MS ports their apps to Linux (if this happens). MS bringing Exchange and such to Linux will bring attention to those apps as alternatives and might steer people away from the MS apps. Hell, if the MS apps are good on Linux and the licensing becomes more agreeable then I'm for running the MS apps where they make sense. It would take a major attitude change in Redmond before I drink the Kool Aid though.
If there is any hint of truth to this article's claims, it's a pretty exciting thing. It means that Microsoft is being forced to consider Linux as part of their strategy. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting him back in.
No matter what happens, we all still have to remember who we're dealing with here (a convicted monopolist that has a rather large investment in many politicians) and take the appropriate precautions.
MS will silently switch and only a clever person will figure out the switch. Then MS will claim that it was sabotaged by Gnu and drag them to court for 15 years, bankrupting them and finally being able to dominate the software market.
Unless the most unlikely of creatures, a Hobbit, has the courage to stop them...
MSNBC has the same article. However, as said in the summary, this is only about the back-end, not Office.
I just remember programming in Xenix. It was such a pain, because you couldn't predict what the computer programs would do. One time, they'd run. Another time, they'd crash -- it had more to do with the cycle the operating system was in, it seemed, than anything else.
Eventually, the company I was working for went out of business. I guess they owed me about $100-$300, unpaid. Their main business, at the time, was transporting medical database software to Xenix. Great idea, and it was back in 1985, too, and the program was already written for the IBM PC. (***sigh*** on _so_ many levels.) Their other project which they were considering at the time was developing hardware to allow satellite phones to work on cruise liners. But the problem was that doctors wanted something for a Xenix mainframe, something professional, not something on a whole bunch of silly PCs that were linked together. And Xenix couldn't handle anything at all, because its programs crashed everywhere.
*sigh* *sigh* *sigh*
And, of course, they decided that the shipboard satellite idea was 50 years away at least, although it did have vision.
*sigh*. There's so much irony here, it hurts to think.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Of course the equivalent Linux strategy is offering a replacement for X, including a Windows-like desktop and support for the Windows API. I'll bet they are already experimenting with this.
http://cyberknights.com.au/articles/true-value-of- linux.html
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
But it's possible, and it has been theorized before. I think it would actually be bad for GNU/Linux, even though it would increase its market share. You never know how Microsoft would damage/hijack the development process if, for example, they were to buy SUSE or RedHat, or just realease their own distro. They're a very clever company when you get them in a corner, so friendly acceptance of GNU/Linux might be the end of the OS we know today.
Remember: if you just shook hands with Microsoft, count your fingers...
They will call it Windex(TM).
and other systesm... Just ask CodeWeavers.
Of course, they still have the long term problem of the erosion in value of what they offer as free competing solutions improve, but there's not much they can do about that other than try to fight off the inevitable.
Well they could try to improve their software (fix bugs, remove security holes, lower price). But I guess that's not an option.
What about the FrontPage extensions module for Apache? MS are not ideologues, they will do whatever suits their bottom line. And, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, they really don't care about performing u-turns.
I can't believe some of the arguments being posted here, especially the 'no-one would buy MS products for Linux' one. That's been the argument for just about everything they have ever produced, and, in almost every case, they have ended up with the lion's share of the market. A couple of years ago, the story was that no-one would use Media Player instead of RealPlayer.
And OSS wps are just so bad! Do any of the people singing the praises of Open Office actually use it in a corporate setting? I'm about to install W2K alongside my Linux network just so the clients can produce CVs that anyone else in the world can read more than one time in three.
Virtually serving coffee
Microsoft to offer Linux software?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
META has made this sweeping vague announcement, promptly denied by Microsoft. This makes sense, because making software for Linux would be the equivalent of throwing in the towel.
The only noteworthy element is that the TCO study was dragged out and put up on a stick for viewing again, with the caveat that Microsoft had funded the study.
This piece wasn't news. It was the reporting of pure speculation on META's part. NOTHING HAPPENED.
(may have already been posted)
One thing I sort of see happening is Microsoft developing Direct X for Linux, to ensure that all their software like Word would work on Linux. And after all the fun I had getting the modem to work in my Viao (but sadly I'm still having random problems with the soundcard), increased hardware compatibility for Linux can only be a Good Thing(TM)
I have often heard from my friends at MS that they like their engineers to have a strong UNIX/LINUX background. As laughable as that may seem given the immaturity of MS products, this seems to make sense if MS is looking to get into the Linux market.
For instance, if MS were to release Office for Linux I wouldn't be booting into Windows as often as I do (I have a dual-boot setup). I also think that by releasing Office they would succeed in luring in a whole new demographic into trusting MS that had previously only bashed them. The result would be Linux people using MS and Linux gaining respect in the eyes of non-techies. How is this good for MS? All MS would have to do is release MSLinux and everyone would migrate to it in a flash. If anything I think MS's OS business would grow along with their apps.
I hate to admit it but when it comes to usability (GUI, ease of software installation, system navigation) MS is tops. A lot of you are probably grimacing at that last statement but after having seen my grandmother (age: 70+) competently surf the net, write emails, and install software only after a day or two of help from my 10 year old cousin I'm a believer. If MS comes out with Linux tomorrow I know I wouldn't have a dual boot anymore....
--going on memory here, but seems to me they got a get out of jail free card in the latest punishment ruling. Microsoft doesn't have to release any code if-in THEIR opinion- it would open up security vulnerabilities. All they'd have to do to release a closed source linux is state thusly. "We can't release the source code due to security issues". Their lawyers could claim they were following the court's mandates, which they could easily interpret as superceding any GPL "license".
Anyone please feel free to correct this if I am understanding the ruling incorrectly.
This is no longer speculation. I was listening to CNET Radio on my way into work this morning and the Chief Research Officer of Microsoft was the guest.
He confirmed that Microsoft was going to start developing Linux software and said Office was not on the list of things they had planned right away. IIS, SQL Server, and other such products would be placed on the burner first.
He also admitted some other interesting things. Namely that by 2006 they expected Linux to be shipping on 40% of Intel servers and that over time, the TCO of Linux would come to be the same as Windows in the server market.
I can't find any references to an announcement by Microsoft yet.. but you should be able to hear the interview in archive format at cnetradio.com.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
I've seen it and no I didn't see any encrypted blobs in the XML.
Microsoft ported Visual Basic.
I am getting nauseous already! =(
Pixels keep you awake!
Let's look at this scenario in detail.
Let's say that Microsoft ports Exchange to Linux and sells a Linux distro with this Exchange server bundled. History repeats itself, as doing so violates the Sherman act the exact same way that bundling IE in with Windows did. How? Exchange is an instrument of monopolistic leverage. Using LinExchange to sell MSLinux is the same as using Windows to "sell" IE. Red Hat gets to play the part of Netscape. Microsoft could negate the damage by decoupling LinExchange from MSLinux, but given their success in the past at brushing aside pesky anti-trust actions, can anyone really think they would?
Would anyone really use Office on Linux, people who use Linux are smart enough that they know Microsoft is up to no good, and I'm sure with the start of Microsoft on Linux, spyware and virus will start developing on Linux. Then usergroups will be overrun with newbie Linux users, because the only reason their stuck on Windows is because of Office, or some other application, and doesn't realize that there are alternatives that do most of the same thing. Microsoft will do very poorly on Linux, since Linux already comes with more then enough Word Processors and more are easily downloaded. When Microsoft starts spying you'll hopefully have a firewall and you can just close to port it uses and hope that it isn't a majorly used port(which I'm sure it would be knowing Microsoft).
If Microsoft made a distrobuiton the Linux world could get a whole lot more user-friendly since I'm sure if they opted to just edit a current desktop like KDE or Gnome, anyone can just take the modifications and put it into the Offical KDE or Offical Gnome.
Actually, I'm waiting with baited breath for Microsoft Emacs. I'm hoping it will sport the following features...
Feel free to mod down the mis-posted original; I have the karma to spare.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
It's called "MS FUD for Linux".
Think about it.....they may not control the kernel but they can do whatever they want with all apps once they are all ported to .NET on top of Linux.
.NET with Linux and they will have the best implementation. They still win....
MS will sell
Seriously now, has anyone out there ever had a positive experience with this company and/or its opinions?!?!?! Please reply if so... I am very curious.
Firstly, there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't sell their own version of Linux for the server
.NET is part of it, they are trying to seduce companies into using whatever developement framework they want, as long as it's theirs.
.NET and the will hedge te best by forcing everyone (as in sufficient critical mass x 3) to have to interface to .NET (F) code whether they like it not.
Their own version of what? They couldn't even touch GPLd code with a 10 feet pole. They can't buy all copyright holders.
They can only plant the seeds that will mutate Linux into one of their allies, and yes, this will be a very unhappy day for many folks.
Java is the only thing standing in the way, but as we all know, it's easier to develop for
unfinished: (adj.)
That is the selling point and a very good one it is too. If my company was about to start a project in VB6 or MSVC++, or even in Borland Delphi I would have no hesitation in recommending C#.NET to them instead for that reason.
But is .NET the only way in which that goal could have been achieved? I mean, Java or Python would have worked well too. Heck, Delphi's not that bad if you are looking for "the flexibility and functionality of C++ with the ease of rapid development of VB."
As I said, there are many reasons why .Net is the just the way it is, and many of them are not engineering ones, but are to do with Microsoft's strategies and their threat assesments, as I outlined.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
It doesn't really matter if MS embrace, extend and control GNU/Linux, or think they are. They have to sell something. Which means they have to own it and people want/need to buy it.
GNU/Linux just provides an alternative thats open and free.
However its bundled, (distros etc. or whatever commercial apps run on it) it doesnt matter too much.
The fact is GNU/Linux provides most requirements of most organisations already.
Databases, Office, Servers etc.
Sure its a little ragged round some of its edges but it just keeps getting better. The main obstacle for GNU/Linux is skills and skills infrastructure which is improving all the time.
I just think it becomes very difficult to add enough value to the products to make it worthwhile sticking with MS - in part thats why the change in licensing.
April fool coming in december this year.
Horror! We`d be crossing over without moving
to winblows.
I read the article. You can mod me down if you want, but based on what I have observed, I still think it will be a cold day in hell before Microsoft does such thing. Remember, the GPL is a cancer, right? Furthermore, if they were to release their programs on *NIX, it would be a huge investment of resources to port existing and new products. I just don't think it will happen anytime soon.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I'm not trying to troll here, but I haven't noticed anyone mentioning Sun ONE.
.NET into an open platform solution -- i.e. Office (or equivalent) on Unix (pick a flavor).
I choose to believe that if ONE finds mass success, it would only be a matter of time before MS turns
However, if they wait as long as they did to enter the browser wars, it might well be to late. Here, me out...
Explorer reached the level of "defacto" standard due to the large percentage of Windows based systems requiring a browser. By incorporating a browser into the native OS environment, they usurped Netscape's potential for market control. [ The Mac market was, and is, an afterthought. -- but one they ultimately dominated, as well.] However, MS has never chosen to pursue the BSD/Linux market by providing a browser (Point of fact, have bullheadedly refused to entertain the idea -- thus, I (happily) use Mozilla or Links).
The browser wars didn't end there, however. By providing the standard in web browsers, it was a simple move to control the email/news client market as well... thus, reinforcing their control of the end-user OS market. (Ever see a die-hard Windows-only user cringe, balk, and insult anyone who utilizes a non-MS product? Sure, we all have.) Now, by adding the Office Suite -- they succesfully sealed the deal -- on x86 boxes that run Windows (as well as the aformentioned Mac market).
This does, however, leave a large range of users "out in the cold" (as I'm sure MS chooses to view the situation). Almost a marketing form of punishment -- don't use our OS, or an OS that we choose to "support" and you get no cookies. It does not, however, change the fact that there are still plenty of non-Windows users (and interested by standers installing Linux everyday) who have needs that must be (and is being) filled by other developers.
If someone provides a clear, stable and robust alternative that makes a dynamic mark on the Unix/Linux community FIRST, I find it difficult to believe that the community would then turn their (collective) backs on said developer... in as long as their needs continued to be met.
In short -- if MS continues to choose not to embrace non-Windows using clients; I, personally, believe it will be a development/marketing era that could potentially swing their doors shut. Fortunately, their are developers/companies out there, who are already assessing multi-platform client needs.
In closing, I haven't loaded Explorer up once since I closed my web development business -- I prefer to work in the environment that makes me all warm and gushy inside; and there's no Explorer there. I do continue to use Office under OS X (possibly the only thing that X gets used for... other than playing the odd game... or some Darwin poking). And as my other systems (Powerbook G3 included) all run one *nix or another... I'll support whichever developer decides not to treat me like an errant child.
Sorry to be so long winded.
-----
#SickNotWeak
From what I understand the general public liscence for linux restricts any type of modification and redistribution for profit so what good will it do for microsoft to produce linux software if they cant make money on it...unless they have some outrageous shiping charges. Hmmm a free os with a $200 shipping charge. can someone explain to me how this is feesable for microsoft?
...and nothing more, so all those apps written in MS new .NET technology would run cross platform. Right now Java SDK can be installed on multiple platforms and what MS wants to do is to be able to do the same exact thing with their .NET Framework. Already having an advantage over Java that programmers can use any language that can compile into CLR to develop on .NET without major limitations, having it crossplatform will take it a step further in Java v.s. .NET war.
Looks like an attempt to get free publicity, rather than do any serious analysis. No wonder they're tanking. Any guesses on how long before we see them on FC?
What about Klerck? Why isn't he legit?
It is like shuving a pineapple thru Bill Gates asshole.
It is turning out to be more of a ritual these days.
Bill is insisting that Steve Balmer do the same thing.
MS sells Office for Linux, everybody dumps Windows for Linux. MS Office fights for market share with OpenOffice.
MS gives away Office for Windows, everybody keeps buying Windows. OpenOffice fails to gain market share.
Personally, I believe it just a ploy. Hell will freeze over first.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
If they bought QT, they would have a great toolkit with a strong foundation of open source software along with a toll-both for all derived closed-source development.
I imagine they would just have to leverage their patent library against Troll Tech to encourage them to accept any offers they may have refused on moral grounds.
I know... conspiracy theory....
Palladium for Linux!! Oh, wait a minute ...
WinLin. It's only fair.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
The Linux Scenario .Net components) to the Linux environment; this will gradually include the major Microsoft back-office products, such as SQL Server, IIS, and Exchange. We also believe Microsoft will reprice and/or separate the Windows server OS (e.g., into kernel and "add-on" components), so it can be favorably compared against "free" Linux. As a result of Linux's growing market share, and the support of IBM, Oracle, HP, Dell, et al., we believe systems management, networking, application development, and applications in general will increasingly be available on Linux platforms during the next 12-18 months. In 2003, leading-edge users and even some "fast followers" will move to Linux. By late 2003, managing and administering Linux will be mainstream. Scalability to that of proprietary Unix OSs (e.g., AIX, HP/UX, Solaris) will take a couple more years. Bottom Line: Widespread Linux adoption during the next five years will catalyze major changes in the IT industry landscape.
... and the Winner Is Intel
.Net/Wintel. Leading Java integrated development environment manufacturers (Borland, IBM, and Oracle) currently support development on Linux, but they must (and will) prove that J2EE development can be as cost-effective as .Net. Linux appears to be a low-priced option for development and testing, but best practices demand that the test platform match the deployment platform. As both the J2EE and .Net platforms mature, they will become de facto "operating environments" by 2006. Bottom Line: Linux adoption in application development should be driven by its acceptance as a deployment platform. To best position themselves to exploit the cost savings Linux will eventually provide, organizations should focus on solutions that enable easy code portability. Thomas Murphy - Application Delivery Strategies (ADS)
Our research indicates that Linux currently commands 15%-20% of new server operating system (OS) shipments. By 2006/07, Linux on Intel ("Lintel") will be on 45% of new servers (Intel will be on 95%+ of new servers). We believe that, beginning in late 2004, Microsoft (and its partners) will begin moving some of its (to-date) proprietary application enablers (e.g.,
Linux: No Silver Bullet for Total Server Ownership Cost
Linux acceptance gained significant momentum in 1H02, having moved from "bleeding edge" to "early adopter" status (for specific functions, though >2 CPU deployments are still rare). The Linux OS itself is nominally free, but data center-ready Linux distributions (e.g., RedHat, SuSE) are not. Our research indicates that the most significant cost differences are between RISC and Intel server hardware, and between DBMSs (Oracle on Linux vs. SQL Server on Windows). Other "Lintel" versus "Wintel" costs are about the same (e.g., storage, servers, middleware, applications, support), but Linux "shadow" IT costs will likely be higher. Until 2004, we believe Linux will be a larger threat to Unix (particularly Solaris) than to Windows. Bottom Line: Although anticipated cost savings typically are the key driver behind Linux data center deployment, true comparisons (vs. political or perceived) are rare. IT organizations must evaluate platform costs from a total-cost-of-ownership perspective. Brian Richardson - Server Infrastructure Strategies (SIS) - Related research for SIS clients
Linux vs. Unix vs. Windows
Although Linux is now only a small enterprise data center player (3% penetration), strong growth through 2007 will propel it to 11% presence (i.e., proprietary Unix: 40%; Windows: 38%; and zOS: 11%). Our analysis indicates that, by 2012, driven by Intel platform economics, Linux will grow to a 26% presence (Windows will move to 51%; Unix and zOS will contract to 20% and 3%, respectively). Reflecting the market's continued drive for cost-effective hardware, 2007-12 platform demographics will reflect Intel's expanded dominance (from 54% to 82%) at the expense of both RISC (falling from 35% to 15%) and CISC (IBM's complex instruction set computers - falling from 11% to 3%). Bottom Line: Where possible, users should exploit Intel-based solutions - which will continue to be the low-cost dominant solution - over more expensive RISC and CISC alternatives. Rich Evans - Enterprise Data Center Strategies (EDCS) - Related research for EDCS clients
Linux Development: Waiting for Demand
Broad support exists in application development for Linux. As Linux gains market share, Java will be the predominant development environment, pitting J2EE/Lintel against
Network and Security Impacts of Linux
META Group is seeing Linux impact on the network in increased appliance adoption rates and in network operations support systems. Most network appliance vendors have adopted Linux due to reduced license costs and the ability to customize it for specific functionality. Network service providers are broadly deploying Linux for customized management applications. We see no impact on the network in terms of different traffic patterns between Linux and other operating systems. Although Linux has the same basic security exposures as other operating systems, its current lack of broad deployment, fine-grained customization, and openness will encourage (near term) bug patches to appear more quickly, but security exposures will increase as Linux continues to gain popularity. Bottom Line: Companies should exploit the low cost and customizability of Linux, but be prepared for increased security exposure in the future. Jerald Murphy - Global Networking Strategies (GNS) - Related research for GNS clients
I think this is more plausible than it appears.
Assuming it happens, what would it mean from Microsoft's standpoint?
Well, I claim that what would happen would be:
a) OS revenues to offices go down (Linux)
b) OS revenues to home users stay the same (they are not talking about making DRM capable MediaPlayer for Linux here)
c) Office revenue's increase (new market)
I claim that if (c) > (a) then this would be a good move for Microsoft. For (c) to be greater than (a) Linux would have to be a viable choice on the business desktop and {K|Star|Open|GNOME}Office would have to be sub-optimal alternatives to Windows, because of both of those things are true, then there would be many consumers who won't upgrade Windows but would potentially buy Office on Linux.
Are those two claims true than? I think the first is, I do not know enough to comment on the second. But it seems to me that after years of squeezing blood out of the Office rock Microsoft is switching their focus to the home and mobile users with the MediaPC, TabletPC, and XBox
Perhaps MS hired META to release a fake prediction, so that MS can determine what the world's reaction would be to releasing MSLinux, without of course taking any of the risk....
Shameless Plug: Owner of linuxscreenshots.com
"But is .NET the only way in which that goal could have been achieved? I mean, Java or Python would have worked well too."
.NET.
Does Java or Python give you easy access to the DTC? MSMQ? Win32 APIs like WMI?
Java, Python, Delphi and such are nice solutions to some of the problems offered from VB, but not to the extent Microsoft has provided with
Actually I'm not even sure why you mentioned Python.
Nothing would fuel a shift towards OpenOffice faster than Microsoft charging for their software "per use." The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is already squeezing their customers as much as they can afford to. Any scheme that would raise revenues by raising prices will simply drive Microsoft's customers away.
Motive? You know there won't be enough Linux users willing to pay for MS software in 3 years to make this a lucrative endeavor, and businesses that use Linux are doing so to lower their TCO (regardless of MS propaganda) and as such are not likely to adopt software that isn't free or cheap, something alien to MS. Why would MS bother? The only reason I can think of is to get a foot in the door with the businesses that don't buy their TCO/Linux Sucks party line, but aren't their lies upon lies about Windows good enough for that?
(But if Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of Linux software.)
Only if they didn't try to sell it -- and that will never happen because it's their whole backwards and antiquated business model.
Nope.. we don't need MS at all. Not for Office, not for anything. Half the point of using Linux is to get away from their proprietary crapware.
At least I would know when I'm going to crash...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
What better way to undermine faith in a platform than to release Microsoft products for it?
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
We have made a bet on Windows, and we believe that customers are getting value from the bet we made,'' said Houston, ``and we're going to continue doing what we've been doing for customers.
Is that so, Mr. Houston?
I'm beeting MS will put some weight behind a FreeBSD OS.
You get all the benefits of Linux, with a open source license that M$ likes.
M$ knows that the future is going to be more about service contracts, then selling the OS, linux has made sure of that. IBM sees this, HP sees this, SUN sees this.
If M$ wants to ensure its in on the whole computer serivce industry, then they need to release a little to no cost OS, and tie it all back to a service contract (kinda like red hat).
THen when people start looking at alternative OS's for anything. They will look at MS-BSD. THey will say, its open source (kinda), and it comes from a knowen and trusted partner.
I think this is where they will head
It think it would be a good thing for Microsoft released software for Linux for the following reasons:
1. It would be like seem realising they can't crush Linux and if you can't beat them join them
2. More 'ordernary users' would swich to Linux because its cheaper and can still run all their sofware
3. Other companys would do the same, if Macromedia ported all their software to Linux I don't think I would need Windows anymore
Besides, you wouldn't have yo use any MS software, it wouldnt be bundled with the OS unless they released their own Linux disto and did that somehow (as if that would happen).
This would be a very good thing for Microsoft considering that it might be the only way that they can survive >:)
Tue Dec 10 9:43:25
You must be root to run this program
Tue Dec 10 9:43:31
Enter Password:
Tue Dec 10 9:43:45 %
Starting MS Word...
Seg Fault
Tue Dec 10 9:44:16 %
Starting MS Word...
Seg Fault
Tue Dec 10 9:46:52 %
Starting MS Word...
Seg Fault
Tue Dec 10 9:47:15 %
Starting MS Word...
System is going down for reboot NOW...^C^C^C
^C^C^C^Z^C
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
...we're gonna have a world full of MCSE sysadmins that don't know what a file is.....
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Whoever called the parent troll, has insulted all true trolls' honor! Funny? Maybe. Troll? Never! I demand satisfaction! I challenge you to a duel! Will you accept, or are you a coward?!
for (int a = 0; a 50; a++){
reboot(blueScreenNow());
}
No one here has ever heard of "Services for UNIX" for Windows 2000 Servers?
If they start distributing shit for linux, I'm switching to the Amiga!!!
Do you think there is any chance Microsoft could release GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd version of Microsoft Bob in a form of X11 window manager? It has very low system requirements (80486, 8MB RAM, 32MB HD) which makes it perfect for teaching kids the basics of computer usage (together with such projects like Debian Junior, GNU and Education, LinuxForKids, SEUL/edu, etc.) on low-end PC hardware. Some time ago, I was looking for a good window manager/desktop environment and, while there are many good applications, I couldn't find any graphical user interface itself, which would be similar to Microsoft Bob. What I need is not only something easy to learn, but also actually fun to play with, so the kids will want to learn the basics of computer science. Do you know any projects, which I could use here? (Free software would be the best.) Thanks.
~Christopher Doopov
Here it is.
"We are far too easily pleased." --C.S. Lewis
..."java" Linux?
That is, MS distributed java, but played all kinds of games while doing it, and i am not talking about Solitaire even though that is what they wanted as a result. Might the same happen to Linux? Would they release software that works great with Linux for a little while, and all of sudden not. Well...come to think of it, they can't get their software to work with their own OS properly.
In any event, if they do develop linux software, they are essentially just another software company at that point.
No, Vern. They just let him in.
./configure; make; make install; .. its about time
I've discovered a meal between breakfast and brunch! - Homer J. Simpson
...and not for the first reason you might think, either.
I suspect MS Office for linux will certainly not arrive soon - the reason being: linux library versions. To release a binary executable, you have to target it at a precise distro or set of distros, and specify this is a virgin, unpatched distro at that. But who in the real linux world keeps to the exact default-install unpatchced version of their distro? Nobody. Everybody tweaks to keep up wth the prereqs of their fave programs, or at the very least installs security patched updates.
Hence, the only software I've experienced as persistently stable and workable on all linuxen is compile-it-yourself source. Which does me no hassle at all, compiling is trivial. Still, it would panic MS, they shure-as-shit don't want to give out the MS Office source to Joe Hacker.
No this is not flamebait.
Your point is taken. The control of X# would be easy, and would not need to be GPL to conform to partial compatibility. Or at least temporary compatibility.
Its simple. Take the desktop over by offering the XP look and feel to Linux users. Review XFree86, but code it yourself. Offer compatibilty to existing Win products. Close the source (of course everyone will hack on it), and give it away (IE style). Gain the desktop market share. Move slowly away from compatibility. Stop publishing the API. Voila, Windows and Linux Kernel. Cripple it later, or even in all irony, keep using the kernel and move the windows dynasty to linux-under-the-hood instead. Why not? Costs less, less filling.
In all seriousness, its not a bad strategy to extend and embrace Linux. It would work!
we should all sit up and take notice.
...you're not thinking it through.
No this is not flamebait.
Your point is frightening. The control of X# would be easy, and would not need to be GPL to conform to partial compatibility. Or at least temporary compatibility.
Its simple. Take the desktop over by offering the XP look and feel to Linux users (newbies would be happy to comply). Review XFree86, but code X# yourself, they've got the resources. Offer existing Win products, remember that MS would not be compelled to publish the API. They could do it selectively. Close the source (of course everyone will hack on it), and give it away (IE style). Gain the desktop market share. Move slowly away from compatibility. Stop publishing the API. Voila, Windows and Linux Kernel. Cripple it later, or even in all irony, keep using the kernel and move the windows dynasty to linux-under-the-hood instead. Why not? Costs less, less filling.
In all seriousness, its not a bad strategy to extend and embrace Linux. It would work!
we should all sit up and take notice.
X-Windows P!
If this is true, than that /. icon of Bill Gates with the Borg sighting mechanism should be replaced by just regular good ol' Bill Gates, or maybe a M$ sign ;).
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
I know it's a bit leftfield, but I mentioned it in order to make you realise that .net is not quite so unique - Python is a modern, VM-based OO, garbage collected language designed for ease of use. Sound a bit familiar?
Does Java or Python give you easy access to the DTC? MSMQ? Win32 APIs like WMI?
Point taken that it's the APIs and middleware as much as anything else that make .NET a good proposition for MS shops, but that can be built onto just about any platform. MSMQ in .net is probably not intrinsic to .net, but is in the class library, and could have been in another. All languages have ways to bring in foreign APIs.
Java, Python, Delphi and such are nice solutions to some of the problems offered from VB, but not to the extent Microsoft has provided with .NET
I would agree that Delphi is only a few steps ahead of VB, and that .NET has raised the bar again, but IMHO it has raised it to the Java level. Really, what fundamental advantage does .NET have over java? From my reading on .NET, thier design principles and front end (c#) look very similar, much on the same level. Bigger better class library? Maybe, but that's a quantitative consequence of throwing more money at it, not a new level. Multiple syntax variants on the programming language front end? ditto.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
I think perhaps the issue is a confusion of a platform versus a language.
.NET powerful is the platform as well as the languages like C#. .NET is not a clone of Java, because it offers so much more than just Java. C# is a clone of the Java grammar, perhaps.
.NET.
.NET for what it provides to me as a developer. Back in '97 or so I took a look at Java and while I did like the language grammar, I was rather appalled with the platform and it's implementations. We do have some people using Java here at work and many of those implementation problems with the platform still exist. I think Sun made some horrid design decisions, and doesn't have the fortitude to stand behind those and fix them. I don't have that same concern with Microsoft.
What makes
Then to make it even more confusing, nothing precludes you from running Python on top of
I happen to like C# as well as
From a religious perspective maybe that's an issue to you, but I am more concerned with my ability to provide technical solutions. I try to avoid religion when possible.
Sorry, the post was not very clear.
what I meant was that in such an environment (no undocumented APIs,etc.) an openoffice version for windows would be very visible in terms of market share, probably enough to start some movement towards wrenching control of document formats away from MS towards an open format.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
CNET has this story about the IDC research report plus comments from Microsoft about some plans for Linux (most already mentioned in previous posts). http://news.com.com/2100-1001-976755.html
I thought that after the sale of Xenix to SCO, MS made a non-competition agreement stating that they could not develop or sell UNIX type systems....
I know I read that *somewhere*...anybody have information about that?
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
It is that. and thats because I don't see any evidence yet that C#.net will have any substantial differences to VB.net. As far as I can tell, it will be the same environment, different skin. Similarly Delphi.NET, Fortran.NET, Python.NET
Maybe when some functional languages come out of
Right now, it isn't.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Nuclear powered vacuuum cleaners will probably be a reality within 10 years.
-- Alex Lewyt (President of the Lewyt Corporation,
manufacturers of vacuum cleaners), quoted in The New York
Times, June 10, 1955.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...