Slashdot Mirror
The Economist on The Rise of Linux
nickco3 writes "The Economist is telling the business world that Linux is a worthy adversay to Windows and Unix. It is free, runs on almost any hardware, and generally more secure than Windows As result it is dividing the industry into winners that offer Linux (e.g. IBM and HP), and losers that don't, (e.g. Microsoft). Sun is probably doomed."
Sun is probably doomed
According to this article SUN is the one who's not doomed.
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
economist.. i dont think MS is really a loser. Nor do i believe that anything else will be the dominant desktop OS. As much as we like to bash MS, they do do somethings right. Enough so that they will keep their customers. Heck sometimes they even make technological improvemsnts in their OS that others are just discovering. Look at all the research that went into Async IO in the open source world only to realise MS had done something better for nearly 10 years.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Sun is a hardware company; as much as they like to trumpet their 'value add' components and services, their bread winning business is SPARC. Java, a great language, generates little revenue and is a tool that drives need to purchase their hardware. Remember iPlanet? Approaching 0 on the latest web surveys as Apache dominates that space.
IBM and HP are making smart moves adopting Linux business models. As Linux matures and benefits from a gazillion different implementations, AIX and HPUX will begin to look less and less desirable.
Getting back to Sun, Solaris is not a revenue piece for them either. There was alot of complaining in the Slashdot crowd and Sun's commitment to Solaris on Intel has waned, but really, would you like to be running Solaris instead of Linux or Debian? Thought not...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
I think this sums up the consensus of the article -- Linux is coming, but not to the desktop.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Sun will be around for quite a some time, because they offer specific product for one market on which they have quite a monopoly.
Linux will probably take some share from Microsoft but It won't be so huge that it will be used more than Windows. Microsoft is too smart to let Linux take hold of them. They will do everything to stop Linux from taking their share, whether it be through Advertizement, Deals with companies, or Palladium.
However Unix might fade away, BSD and Linux provide great alternatives for Unix... But they won't be completely gone.
I think that Linux will take away some Desktop Share from Microsoft, however it won't be so significant.
Linux is ready for the Desktop, but is the Desktop ready for Linux?
So the Desktop is the last advantage left? Damn, I'm glad that Linux has other qualitites than a desktop :)
This reminds me of this song on the adoption of Linux:
(to the tune of Yankee Doodle)
Infidal Linux Came To Down
Stuck apache in its cap
and called it a web server.
(Etc)
no, i'm not talking about the old cubes from cupertino, just that this class of article has basis in speculation and not in economic law, as the the title of the magazine would have you believe. thus, you can safely skip it (and the rest of this post...)
the nice thing about economic law is that, regardless of interpretation by economists, manipulation by local power regimes, and so forth, zero cost is still zero cost is still zero cost is still zero cost. so what if usgov and usloth prop each other up; the rest of the world can understand this economic law, live peacably within it, and mutually avoid irrelevance through this understanding.
it's easy to be irrelevant (take it from an expert) the trick is how to do it and still have a good time w/ the other ones and zeroes on this rabid rock.
In the "low-end" of the market (systems costing under $100,000) Sun increased their revenue market share last year (2002 over 2001). Ie they grew faster than the industry average. Almost no Intel, Windows or Linux based systems are sold for more than $100,000.
So if Sun was being hurt by Linux (or x86 based systems in general) why did their market share increase?
It wasn't anything to do with the LX50 (dual P3 Solaris x86 / Linux) systems they launched late last year - they only shipped a bit over $1m worth by the end of the year.
Sun's just being forced to go back to its roots, which were running a commodity Open Source OS (SunOS started as BSD) on commodity hardware (m68k at first, then SPARC except for a couple years when they also sold 80386 hardware, as they started Solaris). That should be a healthy thing, long term, though they have to get rid of a lot of closed-system attitudes. Like the ones that have crippled so much Free Java work.
If Sun had kept true to their roots, they'd have been running Linux on x86 from day one ...
instead, they wanted to keep
one founder (Andy Bechtolstein),
who wanted to design a RISC chip (became SPARC).
So Sun sold out SunOS in favor of
Solaris/SVr4, so they
could switch to non-commodity hardware. Well I've
got news for you: Andy's long gone, and SPARC
was never that hot. And the customer lock-in
is going away ... customers always wanted the
open systems approach, even when Scott McNealy
refused to play that game.
and I like it.
I think linux is just going to bring in some much needed competition to the PC market, as well as give companies incentive to fight microsoft and it's plans to control the computer market with it's desktop OS, both through lobbying and through outright compeition. I can definatly see small computer companies, such as the cyberexchange resale shop close to my home selling linux or windows on the machines.
A lot of firms, such as sun, are going to, most likely, be switching to support of linux or creating useful applications for linux. A company has incentive to creat a kickass application; money. Most software programmers that program a, say, an open source FTP server, don't go to program it becuase they want to beat the competition. What competition? They want to make something for them to use that doesn't suck monkey nuts, so it has the features they want it to have and their willing to put in the time to make it. They release it via a website and someone else says "hey, I can take this ftp server, and make it secure", so they take the source, make it secure, and then release it, then someone else adds features to it, etc.
Open source isn't the end of the future, but I do see crappy software being gotten rid of altogether. Now that companies have competition no matter what their doing, there'll be incentive to make applications more secure, scalable, neater, easier to use and more interoperable. And besides, it's going to take time for colleges and schools to get linux onto their machines, and thats where the big thing is. If linux can manage to get itself into a class at a local highschool for teaching staroffice or support in addition to teaching windows, then we've got people who understand the differences and will go with the better solution.
Sun is probably doomed.
Umm... but... I thought Doom was going to be MS exclusive
*logs off and runs away*
getSexySig();
Well, after years of dual-booting with Windows, Linux is the now the only thing going on my desktop, and I've gotta tell ya, I'm doing just fine (better than ever, IMHO). Maybe I'm dreaming? Or maybe the Microsoft fuddites don't know what they're talking about.
Thankfully, Linux has prevented Microsoft from dominating the low end server market like they wanted. From the low end, Microsoft was then going to push into the high end. Can you imagine how much Microsoft would be making off this area if Linux had not stopped them?
On the desktop, we just bought 5 rather powerful developer PCs for $600 each. Of that price, $150 was for Windows 2000 (not XP thank you). 25% of the price is a rather large part of the cost. The decision between Linux and 2000 was pretty close on these boxes and getting closer all the time. Pretty soon, developer workstations could well be all Linux with OpenOffice and the like. I think the competitive threat to Microsoft will soon restrict their desktop and office pricing.
I don't know much about Solaris, so I'd like to ask you guys out there. What makes Linux less capable? What does Solaris do that Linux can't do (at least well enough)? Just wondering.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html
Now, who knew that!
and F12K
servers. It is pretty close to having the capabilities to run on the Sun midframe stuff, for example I'm sure it would run fine on a 3800,
maybe even the 4800, but you start to reach its current limit with a fully stuffed 6800 system.
Now, step back for a minute and think why Suns UltraSparc and Solaris solution is so strong. Simple, at the risk of repeating the marketing guys the lure is that you can give your development and deployment guys a bunch of cheap Sunblade 150s or some cheap UltraSparc blades and whatever they come up with can be moved straight onto anything up to and including an F15K without recompiling. Put yourself in the place of a big corporation. Your putting together a new system, you have no idea just how big a load it will eventually have to take (say in 5 years). Today, sure you could run it on high end Linux box, but what happens if 6 months in the system needs a bigger box? If you chose Sun in the first place you simply buy the bigger box and move over. No porting, no redevelopment, and you know there is always a bigger, faster system you could move to. It buys you severe scalability that Linux isn't placed today to provide.
Now, about not supporting Linux, what about the LX50, the Sun Open Desktop that is coming soon, the Lintel blades (Coming Soon(TM)) the fact that the entire Sun One stack (web, directory, identity, etc, etc, etc) is either available now for Linux or coming soon, not to mention Star/OpenOffice.
So what is the perceived issue? I think people don't see Sun offering Linux on the UltraSparc range and thing they don't get it. Sun does get it, but look at their selling point for the last 10 years, total scalability. Linux doesn't provide this yet so they can't buy into it. What they are doing is making Solaris as compatible with Linux as possible, whilst at the same time helping Linux by providing software (openoffice, SunOne and much more) and I believe some kernel code too.
Believe me, when Linux is ready for the F15K class systems Sun will be ready for Linux to be there.
Disclaimer - I work for Sun, but nothing I have said here is not already public information.
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
"I think this sums up the consensus of the article -- Linux is coming, but not to the desktop. "
What i read was that intel was coming.
If servers are no longer "big iron" with big price tags then desktop PCs are no longer cheap.
Sun really needs to rethink their strategies.
Solaris for Intel? None of the sparc binaries run on it, it's not any faster than linux. Linux 1, Solaris 0.
Solaris for web applications... absoultely not. Tried and true OS for sure. Though web sphere, atg, web logic and most other large scale app servers have linux ports. java's relability will never exceed the uptime of an OS i.e. the JVM or app server will crash before the OS does. That then precludes having a bullet proof OS. Web applications need redunancy, both from a geographic perspective and application. Doing so requires a duplicate hardware investment. Not such a good deal with sun. Linux 2, Solaris 0.
Maintainance... will be cheaper with linux rather than solaris. The reason being that Linux and it's friendly varients are all freely avaialable. To learn and use linux is not a big deal, solaris on the other hand need solaris hardware to run. As a result of easier access to hardware and software (linux) labor costs go down because the skill sets require to administer and maintain linux and linux apps are more freely available. The same is not true of solaris. Linux 3, Solaris 0.
Solaris, and it's hardware IS good for massive multi-proc applications. Data Warehouse with Multi-tera bytes of data? Linux and Intel are not suited to such tasks. Large transactional databases that require nearly 100% uptime and reliability, i.e. the database is nearly as reliable as the Operating system. Solaris is the OS for that application. Linux 3 Solaris 1
Sun is no longer suited to playing in the high(er) growth markets of dedicated servers, web applications, IT support devices (dns, dhcp, network management) and such. Their role is increasingly being boxed into ultra highend applications where a large number of processors, ultra high reliability and what sun has stood for still means something. Where the applications are almost as reliable as the OS, and that the OS and hardware is required to be up nearly 100% of the time and never unexpectedly. The difficulty they face is that that the role just described is not in particularly high demand. As IT budgets continue to shrink - decision makers are going to continue to look to linux to solve their problems.
Linux is cheap - costs less to maintiain - and the hardware can be repurposed. Sun just can't argue with that. Sun needs a change of direction.
Linux is cool for my desktop and for small servers. When Linux can run on 104 procesor boxes running 8 operating systems at once, when I can remove entire groups of processors on the fly, when PC mother boards have REAL I/O bandwidth then we will talk. Lets face it boys and girls, These little Linux boxes are cool but they are small beans when you look at a large SPARC system. Yes you can run it on a large IBM or HP but then you are spending the money for big hardware with a little OS. Whey not get something robust like Solaris. I do not need GIMP, evolution or GNOME on my big servers. I need scaleabilty, I/O bandwith and real data center features.
Too long have people labored under the delusion that one company MUST dominate the "computer market"... only because one company (Microsoft) seemingly *has* dominated. Just because one does today, doesn't mean that is the natural order of the market place. If anything it is unsustainable, as Microsoft is beginning to find out.
Sun makes some excellent high end gear, and in that market niche they are by far the largest player. They aren't even competeing with M$ in that space... and there is plenty of money to be made there. Sure CEO Jeff won't get to cross-check Bill in the teeth as often as he'd really like, but hey... that is NOT what Sun is in business to do.
Shake the current "one must dominate" worldview out of your heads /.'ers. It won't work. Microsoft's whole strategy, both internally and externally, is "For us to win, they have to lose." You WILL lose if you play that game with Microsoft because they play it better than anybody... but if you play a different game... Steve Jobs' game... where "we need to make something of quality that some percentage of the market wants and not worry about Microsoft" then you will do fine. There are billions of dollars to be had and significant percentages of market to be owned. Sure, you won't have dominance, but you don't really *need* it.
You are absolutely correct!
Intel, probably due to the fact they are off on their own world, seems to think SUN is doomed. We all know, however, that it is in fact planets which are doomed. Here's an example to help you out, termos.
And, don't forget:
1. Hold to knowledge that SUN is not doomed
2. ????????????
3. Profit!
Traditionally, the Economist has been one of the earliest media outlets to get technology. The first printed press reference to the Internet outside the tech press is from the Economist, ditto for Linux, but this time around they are way off the mark.
The reason Linux is so popular is not that is free. BeOS is also free. Linux is successful due to convergence of many different factors:
(1) Free
(2) Open source
(3) Unix compatible
(4) X-windows (X11) compatible
(5) designed for x86 (yes it runs on many other chips, still Linux is an x86 project from the get go)
(6) Multiple vendor supported
(7) Plenty of third party support
Moreover each of these things feed of each other. That is why Linux is so popular.
They said, in a fine example of shades of gray, that rather than make M$ a loser, Linux will make them less of a winner.
The fact that a slashdot poster can make such a bold (and stupid) statement is not surprising at all.
Infuriate left and right
The author states "Only in Mr Mundie's nightmare scenario would Linux and other open-source software wipe Microsoft from the face of the earth. Mr Ellison's prediction might then come true, but with a drawback: his own firm, Oracle, would be wiped out too." I'm not quite sure how this could be true, since Oracle still sells database software that runs on Linux. It was a really good article right there until the end...
libertarianswag.com
It' really great when the last of the anglo-imperialist papers (with the downed spanish armada, the last Bush posse are now going to support the commie - system internationale, etc, liberte equalite et fraternity) to support the anti-capitalist cancer we know of as Linux.
In the past aeroplane, car and railroad modellers and amateur astronomers lamented the fact they were overtaken by commercial and industrial firms.
Now they can do something at home like thought experiments with their PC's, of course, without ever so much getting boggled in MFC black or what-next? packgages they can't get into or even buy and play with anymore.
All they or we have to do is unite, ie, buy only open or open-source products and put the work back into our free imagination and hands.
Mod accorddingly.
Try Xwin, KDE 3.2 and OpenOffice 1.1 when they come out in a few months. You WILL see that linux is ready.
John Naughton, author of the excellent "Brief History of the Future" wrote an interesting article about the costs of Windows versus the cost of Linux on the desktop. He's definitely not an unbiased observer (no pun intended), but his article has real numbers in it.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
economist.. i dont think MS is really a loser.
Yet when one reads the story instead of just the story post, one notices that the story post is a load of crap. The Economist said nothing of the sort -- as a matter of fact, it said mostly that Sun was in for it, and that Microsoft isn't in for that much trouble (since its dominance is in the workstation market).
From the article:
The most likely outcome is that customers will face a choice between Linux, which is cheap and cheerful, and Windows, which offers more bells and whistles, is tightly integrated with other Microsoft products and is easier for unskilled staff to use, but costs more.
Okay, I'll certainly grant integration and easier to use for unskilled staff, but where does the Economist get more "bells and whistles" from? When I think "bells and whistles", I generally don't think of Windows...
May we never see th
Is anyone else angered by this statement "...Linux, the free, open-source operating system developed by Linus Torvalds, a Finnish programmer, and a team of enthusiasts."
Once again the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, and the fact that it is a GNU Operating System running on a Linux kernel is totally overlooked.
I'm really not trying to say everyone should pronounce it "GNU/Linux." More importantly, we once again see another establishment expose' by 'The Man' which totally overlooks the free-associations of individuals which make GNU/Linux feasible. I think the economist can't admit that people can operate for something good outside of the corporate framework. To me, the open source community is a reflection of exactly what it means to be human. I guess the economist doesn't see it like I do.
Sure free software has its heros, but just like anything else, its the people that make it happen.
I've found the random, cobbled together nature of the Linux kernel to be irritating. I don't find it to be well-engineered as a whole, and development seems extremely haphazard. How many USB interfaces were there??
The BSD's are also free, run the same software, have rational development models, and while there isn't a profusion of distributions, the ones that exist are extremely easy to customize and very simple to maintain. Linux does have mindshare though...perhaps it's another example of the less-well-made product beating out the superior ones by virtue of marketing.
I think any writer who takes predictions from Larry Ellison seriously has zero credibility. What happened to the network computers we were all supposed to be using the last 7 years?
Sun is probably doomed.
Oh no! I was told we had a few billion years left! I... what's that? Oh, that Sun.
Sorry for the panic.
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
I am writing this from my desktop:
Mandrake 9.1.
Easy to install. Easy to install new packages(urpmi, although for complete newbies, they should have a list of mirrors to select from, like debian does).
Looks good (anti-aliased text). Nvidia drivers=
gaming fun(ut2k3 demo, frozenbubble). Free Office Software(openoffice). I can play my mp3s, and burn cds, right away, without configuring squat.
Linux is ready for the desktop.
How is Sun the main loser if Linux hasn't replaced many system in the the "highest echelon"? Are telecom billing systems and airline reservation systems running on Windows? I doubt it. E-mail, web servers, file and print sharing. Applications for which Solaris is overkill. Hmm, that sounds like Windows territory to me.
Ownership cost is mentioned, and again Micosoft gets the spin due to lack of full description.
Mundie's collapse predictions are left completely unchallenged. Why does Ellison need a grain of salt, but Mundie does not?
Button-pushers like "cancer" and "nightmare" in the closing paragraph definitely set a tone for the reader's afterthoughts.
Trying to discredit Ellison's prediction by assuming the demise of Oracle on the basis of Mundie's questionable prediction is just wrong on many levels. There is more than one business model - I'll leave it at that.
Overall, this is less obvious than something that comes out of Microsoft-funded "independent analyses", but more it's more insidious too. Did Microsoft influence this author? Are Economist executives invested in Microsoft? Why the divide-and-conquer routine against Sun? Why start with such an optimistic view of Linux only to end on such a sour note?
At the low end, Sun finds a hard place. The story is pretty much the same. Sun's SPARC has extremely poor performance, compared to the x86 or its clones. So, Sun has contracted with Chinese manufacturers to build servers and desktops that run Linux atop an x86 or its clones. The trouble is that the profit margins are thin, and Sun faces severe competition from IBM, HP, and Dell. Sun does not have a significant services organization that can reap profits by providing contract software and support for these cheap x86 boxes. IBM and HP do, however, have significant services organizations that can generate profits from servicing cheap x86 boxes sold at a loss.
Now, given Sun's unethical business practice of preferring H-1B employees over American citizens, do you think that any self-respecting American business would consider Sun?
The Sun is setting. Good riddance.
At the low end, Sun finds a hard place. The story is pretty much the same. Sun's SPARC has extremely poor performance, compared to the x86 or its clones. So, Sun has contracted with Chinese manufacturers to build servers and desktops that run Linux atop an x86 or its clones. The trouble is that the profit margins are thin, and Sun faces severe competition from IBM, HP, and Dell. Sun does not have a significant services organization that can reap profits by providing contract software and support for these cheap x86 boxes. IBM and HP do, however, have significant services organizations that can generate profits from servicing cheap x86 boxes sold at a loss.
Now, given Sun's unethical business practice of preferring H-1B employees over American citizens, do you think that any self-respecting American business would consider Sun?
The Sun is setting. Good riddance.
Yeah, but the fact that you know how to dual-boot means you're already more technically astute than 99% of the people out there. I see your point, and feel the exact same way, but people here seem to forget that Linux is a good choice - even, perhaps, the ideal choice - for the desktop for many people here because of its power and customizability, which the n00bs don't care about. I've been using Linux exclusively for several years and I now find Windows downright difficult and obnoxious to use.
My problem is with stupid people who say "Linux is not a desktop OS" and assume that I can't possibly be using it that way, and thus expect me to fix their Windows boxes, send me Word docs, and don't understand why I don't love Windows.
scripsit bc90021:
It actually does make sense, even if it's not laid out as clearly as it might be. Mundie says Linux will kill all ``commercial'' software. Ellison says Linux will kill MS. Economist says the only way Linux will kill MS is if, as Mundie argued, it kills all ``commercial'' software. In that case, Oracle is dead, too. Therefore, according to Economist, Ellison will be right only if Oracle dies too.
Clear? Like mud?
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
We use MS Visual Studio at work......it's a very nice development environment - really nice debugging and help features. There are Java tools that are comparable but I think they are actually more expensive (when you get the necessary top-end version) - MS ASP.NET as a development platform is attractive for medium-sized projects. I don't think there are any Free alternatives that are as nice.
To say it perhaps a bit more clearly -- like mud -- it seems the Economist is just saying that the rise of Linux and FOSS in general could lead customers to replace Oracle DBs with MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.
It isn't entirely inconceivable, even if there is still a pretty big gap between Pg, Mysql and Oracle.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
Sorry Mr. Mundie, but Apache is NOT a clone of comercial software as you tried to claim. Apache is a fork (clone) of the Origional NCSA web server, which was NOT commercial. (open source, but I'm not sure exactly what license was used so it might not meet the exact legal definition of Open Source). IIS, and the other comercial servers are clones of an open source webserver.
Of course this is all an accidemic exercise, but don't try to claim some high ground where Apachee has it.
Sun has basically been stumbling around blindly in recent years. Yes, they brought us Java, which is nice in some ways. Really, though, Java is more of a curse. It has such a huge following which is sadly increasing. This is bad because it is now becoming the standard language being taught in schools everywhere. Yes, a lot of good things are written in Java, but you don't write an OS in Java. You don't write games that will actually sell in Java. And you really don't write something you to run fast in Java. Frankly, I wish Java never came around. It took all that was right about C++ and broke it, though at the same time it did make C++ syntax into an easier language. All I really have to say is that we should be really leary of Java right now. Sun will collapse. There is little to prevent that. And when it does, don't count on Java being released to the general public. Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if Microsoft buys Sun just to kill Java. OK, enough of my aimless ranting. Have a wonderful Sunday, or Monday if it is for you already.
I am feeling fat and sassy
"But it contains a germ of truth, because the rise of Linux is changing the dynamics of the computer business."
... a cancer? ;)
Do they mean that Linux is like a germ?
Or maybe
Sun is not dead, but they are burning in their cublicles.
Linux will fall too. The only OS to survive will be Windows (tm) due to it total world domination, Iraqi-style.
-yours truely Mohamm3d Al-Sahaf
From what we've seen working with them, that's not the case. For reasons beyond my meager intellect, my company has sold it's soul to the IBM hardware cult. However, Sun has some good software and services offerings we'd like to use. Sun keeps coming back trying to open the hardware door again.
While I'd personally like to let them do it (particularly with their blade product) the option simply isn't there. Their lack of focus on what we want them for (services and some software) is going to cost them legitimate services (primarily) and software (secondarily) business at some point in the future.
IMHO, Sun's real failing is their inability to address software and services as legitimate revenue sources on their own. Instead they are solely used to move hardware.
So basically you're right. You just said it in one sentence...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
The Economist is qualified to make statements about the perceived financial benefits of different operating systems, they are not qualified to make predictions on software development. The only insight I gleened from your post is that the majority of Slashdot moderators run Windows.
The idea is to make Linux acceptable and usable. As in a Keep Clicking Next install (not just OS - all software) you ubergeeks find revolting. If you never get over your unix elitism, you are doomed to be a hobbyist OS and nothing more.
WTF is it so hard to install, for instance, FreeBSD. You go to the FTP server and are confronted by dozens of folders in twelve different OS versions and have no idea of what to download first and how it runs. This is the Great Wall that keeps everybody out and Unix usage from reaching critical mass.
Put ONE version of ONE file called SETUP.EXE and the usage numbers will jump (assuming it works). Unfortunately by now people who think they understand "computers" only understand windows and if you are going to change them over you are going to have to speak their language.
Unfortunately I believe there are too many unix users who would just as soon keep it arcane. At least a part of this is competition between unixes - Gates' advantage. I think if this attitude keeps, the greatest inroad will be made by Lindows.
Linux is nowhere near Redmond! They are not even within 100 miles. My feelings are the same -- we will embrace and extend all infidels!
Naughton's article in "The Observer"
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Sun Microsystems is, first, a computer hardware manufacturing company. They have absolute world-class engineering, manufacturing, software development, and support capabilities. Their focus on SPARC and Solaris was a huge factor in their growth but at the expense of billions of dollars per year in R&D. They only problem they have now is that Intel caught up in the processor arena and Linux is catching up in the OS arena. What can Sun do about this problem? Gee, what are HP and IBM doing about the same problem?
./ think of them then?
Sun is selling Intel-based hardware and Linux. What they still have is world-class manufacturing, etc. And they get to save a billion dollars a year or so on R&D. Maybe they use the savings to merge with or buy AMD and a couple of Linux distro companies. What would
I give up. What is Apache a clone of? I wish they had included an actual quote on this. Maybe the journalist was "interpreting".
Most of the article is on target though. The easy way to evaluate the strengths of the companies mentioned is to look at how diversified they are (or aren't).
IBM is no longer primarily a hardware company. They have a strong consulting division, they do fundamental research and grab pattents on REAL things (rather than new parsing algorithms like some companies I can think of), they have a very strong software development component, they farm out hardware manufacturing that is no longer profitable (disk drives) while hanging on to things that they do best and can make money on (chip fabrication).
Sun is primarily a hardware company. Their operating systems are (almost) exclusively sold to customers who use their hardware. Java and Star Office are far from being cash cows. Their weakness is that as Intel, AMD, etc, chips get cheaper there is less incentive to use Sun's higher priced hardware components. Supporting Linux helps them a bit, but it is the price of their hardware that puts them at a disadvantage.
Microsoft is a software company. They are trying real hard to become something else too, but like Sun they are having a heck of a time making anything else work. They don't really do fundamental research, but instead try and grab patents on programming concepts so that they can bully other companies in court when it suits them. They don't really make any hardware, but instead stamp their logo on a few things to make it seem that they do. They do select good subcontractors for mice and keyboards, I'll grant them that. Everything they do except Windows and Office lose money. Prospects for either of those (because they are already so successful) can only go down. They currently have a scatter shot approach to the "next big thing" which consists of trying everything at once and seeing if any of it takes off. Few companies have the money to do this. But they will bleed themselves dry rather quickly if they are not carefull. Something tells me they are not going to be carefull.
Apple is trying to diversify too. Since they are starting small the only way they have to go is up. It would be nice to see them further popularize the power-pc server. My personal experience with OS X is that they are rushing versions of it out the door too fast. I've decided to wait for XI (or whatever they call it) and switched to running Linux on my iBook. Those gel buttons are cute though.
I think the real reason that this is not happening is the one hinted at the article in terms of TCO (or at least the perception of TCO). There are a lot of low garde, low paid Windows sysadmins out there and they are a powerful conservative force in the offices of the world.
However, if I was running a new company I'd have nothing to do with Windows, it's too expensive, too inflexible. I'd just hire a better sysop.
Where I work the admin is very resistant to Linux (it frightens him to be honest, because he knows how to plug in a network patch board, but he doesn't really know how to configure TCP/IP) but I was bale to do things for 'free' (ie just my time) in Linux/apache that he said would cost multo.
Many people who would once have bought expensive Sun boxes running Solaris are now running Linux on cheap, PC-like machines instead.
What they missed is that free software has brought many more people into the world of Unix. Those people don't mind making the jump to Solaris when they feel the need for better hardware. Sun will continue to reap the benfits of their excellent hardware even when people buy that hardware and then load it with free software. Sun is far from doomed because Sun has many clues.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has not got a chance thanks to free software. They have been unable to penetrate the server market with their inferior wares because Linux is easier to use than all the point and drool tools. Microsoft can expect hardware makers to revolt soon and they will lose the desktop. Most Linux distros are already "good enough" for the desktop. With enough a little more hardware support, there will be few people who want Microsoft's wimpy, DRM crippled stuff. There's no way this user could ever go back and there's nothing special about me. The only thing Microsoft has to offer is a bullying monopoly. "You have to learn it because its there," people have told me. Without that, poof, nothing left to offer but stuff that's losing money and depends on monoply rents.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Translation:
We said for years that Linux will never, never, never come to servers (and were wrong), so we now say that Linux will never, never, never come to desktops.
Why is it that journalists (and some posters around here) completely lack the ability to acknowledge developments in the future? Why is it they are about 5 years behind things? (by that time it would have been correct to say that "Linux is coming", today, in 2003, it's already a major, if not dominating player in many computing fields.)
Linux will be gone (thank God) in less than 5 years. Microsoft and the TCPA will make sure of that. 1. Microsoft is an extremely competitive company, bent on domination. The Linux community is still fighting over which is better; Gnome or KDE. 2. A correctly configured Microsoft OS is inherently more secure than any distro of Unix or Linux. 3. Microsoft OSs will work with every piece of x86 hardware out of box. Linux still requires endless hoop-jumping. 4. Microsoft is in bed with all hardware vendors. Linux is not. 5. Microsoft adheres to industry standards. Linux does not. 6. Microsoft provides tools to administer Linux and Unix clients. The only too I've seen Linux offer to administer Microsoft clients is rdesktop. 7. Microsoft dominates 96% of desktop OSs. Linux certainly does not. 8. TCPA will eliminate Linux from the desktop, making it impossible for coders to write server applications for Linux servers. 9. Microsoft is politically savvy. The Linux community is not. 10. Microsoft Operating Systems are simply better in every aspect that Linux Operating Systems. They've had 2 decades to perfect the desktop environments. Linux has not, and will not, thanks to the TCPA. I've seen the future. Make Mine Microsoft.
"Your CPU came with a keyboard? What kind of ghetto deal is that?" -McSuede
NEWS FLASH:
LINUX IS COOLER THAN WINDOWS
I really wish someone would keep a tally of these articles. Jesus, 3 years ago this was starting to get old, now it's just stupid.
Did someone pay for that story or something? I'm sure Rob & Crew have heard this enough times, too.
What kind of conclusion is that? You made absolutely no support to that claim. Sun is a HARDWARE and software company. The could very change their business model to fully supporting Linux on their custom hardware. Businesses would jump at the chance to run Linux on proven server hardware and recieve support for hardware and software from one vendor (no more it's the hardware/no it's the software support bounce arounds). I think the rest of this makes sense but the Sun is probably doomed statement is just plain dumb and tacked on at the end.
Okay, here I quote the most deliberate piece of misinformation and propaganda:
In short, competition from quality products stifles innovation -- according to Microsoft. Commercial firms have no incentive to actually come up with products having more features, more stability, better documentation and ease of use than open source products because no one is willing to pay for such benefits?
Well, as they must be fond of saying over at Microsoft, "If you believe that, I've got an operating system to sell you."
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
...and because you lost touch with Mother Earth and the Standard PC User long ago...
The thing that is keeping Linux off the desk top is not windows. The juggernaut is Office. The sooner the Open Source community realizes this and puts together a group as strong as the kernel club, gnome-folks, or mozilla-zealots with the sole focus of building something better than MS Office then we'll see desktop penetration. Until my secretary can do everything she needs to (including handle attachments from M$ using luddites) then the desktop is impenetrable. Open Office is nice in some respects, but it's insufficient w.r.t. importing M$ Office documents.
There in lies the real M$ office monopoly buster: make them release the full specs on the office document formats. M$ windows is to office like cigarettes are to nicotine.... just a convenient delivery vector.
Now to the question. You say "...that's because Linux isn't ready for the high end (yet). By high end I'm talking about F15 and F12K servers." Which gives me a jolt of curiosity. What are some parts of the mechanics in Linux that prevent its move to high end systems? Are there any fundamental issues that will prevent Linux from 'growing up' and eventually running on those systems? Must some parts of the Linux mechanics be scrapped/overhauled? Or is it more a matter of time and will to add/extend pieces that will make the move possible?
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
The most obvious reasons why Microsoft dominates are because it locks down consumers, it's UI (although simple, and in my opinion, primitive) is appealing to the average Joe, and because it uses a very simple point-and-click interface.
The average user only needs his/her PC to write documents, play a few games, check e-mail and surf the internet. He/she does not care about the OS wars, and doesn't want anything at all to do with the command line. He/she wants an interface that's familiar to him/her. If the interface is too powerful or configurable, (or too different from the standard Windows UI) he/she gets worried. He/she does not want to write config files, and does not want to reinstall the OS that came with his PC. He/she also wants to use what he/she uses in his workplace. He/she does not want to lose any formatting, or have to install new products, or run an emulator. These are some of the reasons why Microsoft dominates.
Lastly, Microsoft has a huge edge, i.e. money. It uses this money to aggressively advertise and get the message out to the common man. Most users have not HEARD of UNIX/Linux. If Linux wishes to dominate the market, it needs some serious advertising. Also, more hardware manufacturers must incorporate Linux into their PCs, and distro companies must obviously convince the main manufacturers. (This is already happening, and I am glad).
Although Linux certainly satisfies my needs, I don't think it's SIMPLE and EASY enough for the average Joe.
Read my journal here.
First of all, great new term, fuddites. Really, love the way folks here invent new words; I know for a fact that my lexicon is changing.
Second, about Linux-only desktops. I've been dual-booting myself for the last two years, and quite honestly, prefer Linux to Windows. But the fact remains that virtually all workshops/conferences these days demand presentations be done in ppt format only. (You can get away with pdf for documents). Yes, I have been looking at non-MS alternatives; I have OpenOffice on both Windows and Linux, I have tried OperaShow, Flash, Director and others as alternatives, but no, I still can't get away from ppt's hegemony. Fact of life, I guess, no use being religious about it.
More than mere navel gazing.
Just for reference, a made-up word like 'fuddites' is called a 'neologism'. HTH.
I don't think MS will go out of business in the near times, but as any other empire, one day it will vanish in the air.
However, the first step before MS starts loosing marketshae is loosing mindshare and it's articles
like this that make people start thinking that MS isn't a safe bet.
Right now MS is the market leader and most people just follow the leader: many people making purchase decisions just buy MS products because it's the market leader and it has an invencible reputation, even if their products are inferior to the competition.
As a mather of fact, many people just buy MS products and don't even look for alternative solutions.
However, this kind of articles are the first wave of change. Change the way as people perceive MS and IT market. It changes the invencible perception about MS as more and more people start beleiving that the day when MS will desapear is geting each time more closer...
Microsoft and Sun will both be big losers in my opinion, for reasons of simple economics. Commoditization of software has been going on for a long time. This is why you see Microsoft constantly screaming from the rooftops about their new features, which 90% of people dont care about. Its the only thing that makes them different from your Linux's and OpenOffice's.
There will come a point when it really just wont functionally matter which os or productivity suite you use. At that point in time, the cheapest alternative always wins. So unless Microsoft plans on paying us to use their software - time and open source software will inevitably have their way with them.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
I switched from Windows to Linux a while back and there really isn't much I did with Windows I can't do with Linux. I can still browse the web, play media files, do word processing, and even play a few games(those that have Linux ports like Terminus). I'm not exactly technically inept, but I'm no sysadmin and I've been able to get it working. The install was just as simple as Windows was. For those that think Linux isn't ready for the desktop my question is: what are you using it for? Although the lack of third party software is a little annoying, that's hardly a problem with Linux itself. Most people that I know who run Windows never paid for it and the two who bought XP that I know can't use it now because they made too many hardware upgrades. If I had paid for Windows+Office+Photoshop etc. I would have been looking at easily the cost of another computer. This way I get the same stuff with some added benefits(like NEVER getting a virus) and I get to be honest about it. I used to reinstall Windows every few months, but I haven't reinstalled Linux yet. Even when it comes to the interface I think KDE beats the hell out of Windows. I don't know how I ever lived without multiple desktops. Yeah, there are things you can't do with Linux(things you won't be able to do until Linux hits mainstream desktop use), but I can see cases where Linux on desktops would definately be a more cost effective approach. Where I worked in telephone sales we had hundreds of computers all running the same application. In this situation why pay hundreds for NT? Why have Windows for library computers? The search application is probably web based anyway. People need to be pragmatic about this stuff, not just do what everyone else is doing.
My Blog
The cheap Sun workstations are just PCs with Sparcs instead of Pentium, running Solaris. IDE disks, PCI bus, USB, you name it.
No difference, not even so much in price. You can run Linux on these boxes too if you want.
I don't remember anybody saying Linux would never, never, never come to servers.
It's been used extensively in that role for over half a decade now in many organizations.
I think there's substance to the people who say there are Linux problems with the desktop, and it's hand-waving to say 'they said the same thing about servers...' It just isn't so.
Are you the "BSD is dying" guy?
What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?
Is it some kind of shell you run on top of the kernel? I mean, I recognize Linux and Unix, but I can't find anything called Windows - unless you mean X-Windows? Is it any good? Where can I get a download of it - any ideas?
> --- All Of The Above --- >
Here we go again with more confusion of OS and Hardware capability and other factual errors.
Linux handles more than 4 Gigs just fine, on 64-bit architectures. The x86 architecture on the other hand needs terrible cludges (PAE) to handle more than 4 Gigs. Solaris does even worse than Linux at this on the x86 architecture. That said, Solaris's VM in general is probably more roboust than the current mainline Linux VM.
As for Linux's SMP scaling, it scales fine up to 8 CPU's on Intel hardware. SGI claims that on their Altix architecture, it scales well up to 64 CPU's. Given that they are probably the only ones who have even tested Linux on a SSI computer of that scale, they are the only ones who have actual facts to say anything about its scaling. Would be nice to see some figures, though, for sure.
Solaris's "high performance, high reliability filesystems"? Oh you mean Veritas VXFS? That's an add-on product, not part of Solaris. A fairly expensive add-on product, at that. Veritas sells VXFS for Linux too, in case you wonder, but you rarely see it on Linux systems because the need is simply not as great.
Solaris's native filesystem UFS is a _joke_ for performance, and the journalling that is now available for it is a bolted-on kludge. Hence, any serious Solaris system is likely to have VXFS installed. The exception is when the machines are running applications that use raw partitions for their data, which is very common to see (Oracle, Tivoli Storage Manager, etc).
The XFS port for Linux is not a beta, and has not been for a long time. It is not yet part of the main kernel tree, but that doesn't make it in any way a "beta" or "untested". You would be surprised if you knew how many commercially sold NAS solutions run Linux with XFS under the hood. XFS is still an add-on product, but one that is in some ways more capable than VXFS, and on top of that, free.
Oh yea. And XFS supports ACLs on Linux and works well together with samba, which is part of the reason why its common in those NAS boxes.
Exactly. The market for desktop machines is fairly stagnant, from what I've been hearing. People are switching from Windows to Linux and from Windows to Mac OS X; no-one I know of is switching from Linux to Windows, although some are switching from Linux to Mac OS X. Slowly but surely, Windows marketshare is decreasing. It's going to take awhile, but a combination of ever-improving Unix desktops and ever-worsening Microsoft policies will drive users to the Unix world.
The real fight will be between OS X and Linux, in a dozen years or so. OS X will either lose or become free software. Apple will become a full-time hardware manufacturer, creating some of the best and prettiest `lifestyle appliances.' And free software will keep on truckin'.
... that does not suck.
CDE (don't laugh, it is predictable and stable).
No need for kernel rebuilds.
Support. First rate support (I have not experienced Red Hat nor IBM, from the first I have reservations, from the second I believe they will be as good as ever).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Like if not having control of the desktop has eliminated Sun, IBM, Apple and HP.
And surely they will follow blindly whatever MS's TCPA stuff mandates for Windows users.
And like if there will not be computer manufacturers willing to do business with people that will not like to be controlled in their computer requierements by third parties.
And surely all the old hardware running today is going to disappear from the face of the earth as soon as MS and its friends make TCPA.
And most importantly, Linux is just code, free code. As long as there are people willing to experiment with hardware (no matter how protected) it will be possible to do Linux stuff.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Three words: Codeweaver's Crossover Office. Rejoice.
Reminder: find a new sig
scripsit Corporate Troll:
Um, so a nerd without karma is like a pretty guy? Well, that's about half right ;)
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Installed Redhat 7 on a partition. Can't connect to my ISP. PPP daemon dies. Tried two different ppp programs, two different ISPs, Redhat tech support, two postings to Usenet. No I haven't tried a different modem. But the point is I'm not my parents but I still can't get onto the Internet with Linux. I think it has to get a little easier for the desktop to succeed there.
The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice
and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the
master calls a butterfly.
-- Messiah's Handbook : Reminders for the Advanced Soul
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...