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.)
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.
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.
Xenix is a 16-bit unix. It was written for the 286. :-) They already did release Office for BSD i.e. Mac OS X.
Stick Men
"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.
MS is currently trying to become the world's biggest producer of game consoles (or at least a serious competitor), and it doesn't seem to be working very well from what I've heard.
There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.
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.
only if Linus lets them use the Linux name ;)
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
Because the only way Microsoft will start selling software for Linux is over Bill Gates' cold, dead body.
And he told you this personally, did he?
MS write and have written software for a number of platforms. Office for Mac, MSIE for Solaris, CLR for FreeBSD to name but a few. Bill and Microsoft do what they do because they believe it will generate the most value for their shareholders - if the competitive landscape changes, so will they. Look how fast they changed their Internet strategy, for example.
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. =)
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.
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.
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."
Um so, it only works on aqua UI, which is completly different than X.
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)
Actually, Microsoft would give a lot of power in the hands of Linus: a few touches here and there and it would be update nightmare for Microsoft to make sure that their interface runs on every new release of the kernel.....
I don't recall Linus being particularly anti-microsoft (or anti anyone really). He gives the impression he would just be happy that somebody is using his work
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
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
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?
(I'm not trying to troll here, but the architecture and security plumbing of the NT series of OS' is tremendously good)
0 h0 h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0 h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0 h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0
h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h
91degrees wrote:
.Net will let it run where ever .Net is ported to. A Microsoft port exists for OS X. And Microsoft has duped a bunch of open source developers into porting it to Linux, saving Microsoft the development costs.
> We're safe for now.
For a very short now. Make good use of it by grabbing every bit of Microsoft's marketshare that you can.
> MS makes all their profit on Word and Windows.
> This would mean that they can only make a profit
> on the Word processor since they're giving away
> the GUI and OS, thus halving their profits.
No, they will be basically giving both Office and OS away, as free as AOL disks. Use of the software will be charged for, again and again, and the software will stop working when you stop paying.
At that point, it won't matter what the software is running on.
The name of the game is "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish".
And if you think Microsoft has played that game like hardball, you haven't seen anything yet.
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
Homage to Fairy Mothra, who first appeared on this date in 1994.
Having worked with .NET a bit over the past year, and having had experience doing C++ and VB over the past 6 years or so...
.NET is to Windows developers as it gives them the flexibility and functionality of C++ with the ease of rapid development of VB. It's all about efficiency.
.NET gives Microsoft is nothing but gravy on top of that. Such as ease of moving from 32-bit to 64-bit Intel platform.
The main advantage of
Efficiency of development is the primary goal, anything else that
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.
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....
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.)
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???