Slashdot Mirror
Cringely's 2004 Predictions
somethinghollow writes "Cringely's 2004 Predictions are out, and he makes a very interesting claim concerning Linux: 'The SCO debacle has created a crisis within the Linux community. They pretend that it hasn't, but it has. This will come to a head in 2004 with either the development of a new organizational structure for Linux or the start of its demise. Linux has to grow or die, and the direction it takes will be determined in 2004.' With a claimed 70% successful prediction rate, you at least have to listen..."
I can say that I'm not worried about SCO. Think about it like this. If Linux becomes "illegal" it will be illegal just like all the warez and pr0n on kazaa. And God knows that nobody makes or downloads those.
In other words, nothing will change because nothing CAN change. As long as people want to work on Linux, they will. The Internet and the minds of its members are not property of SCO. So too bad for them.
My other car is first.
"Linux has to grow or die"
Erm, why? Linux isn't a company. If Linux stopped growing, there'd still be thousands of developers and testers working on it. Cringely evidently doesn't understand the whole ethos behind the free software world; his comment is ridiculous.
I predicted that Microsoft's Palladium security plan, now called Trustworthy Computing, would be distrusted and stall. That looks right to me.
Predicting that a microsoft security product isn't reliable? Predicting that a microsoft product is late?
Cringley is THE ORACLE!!
"They like to pretend that it hasn't, but it has."
Yeah, just like I pretend that Cringley doesn't matter, but he does.
Bowie J. Poag
The problem with a prediction like that is that it's largely content-free. Changing organizational structure of Linux, how, exactly? When he says "Linux", does he mean kernel development or the whole OSS community? What, exactly, is wrong, and how (and why) does it need to be changed?
As fluffy as that prediction is, we can have Andrew Morton take over maintainership of 2.6 from Linus Torvalds this year and Cringeley can claim another success at the end of 2004.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
This is a myth from people who think like a company. The only thing linux really needs to survive is users who like it or want to change linux into something they like.
If linux becomes oh so unpopular what is it to say that no one just takes the codebase and make something new and better? I think the cat is out of the bag now and thanks to OSS the applications barrier to entry is officially dead or atleast very small compared to how things looked a couple of years ago.
Without the applications barrier MS has no real advantage over anything else.
HTTP/1.1 400
I think he's wrong about Sun. If I'm not mistaken, these guys are going to earn some really big $$$ in China.
It used to fit on one cd, now it's 3 or more.
We are the people our parents warned us about.
I mean, isn't this like saying that the temperature tomorrow will either be lower of higher than today?
If all Cringely's predictions are this vague I'm embarrassed for him that he only gets 70% of them near enough to count as a success.
Besides which, linux has coped fine with SCO. Even if there were any infringing code (which, after all the contradictory, facile BS SCO has been spouting, I somehow doubt) it would be a very easy matter within the current kernel development framework to either rewrite the code or dike it out -- if SCO would say what, exactly, the code was. The problem isn't one of the linux development model, it's a problem with SCO and their blatant disregard for honesty, the truth or any kind of propriety. If there was some (unspecified) "other" development model used, we would still rely on SCO telling us what the infringing code was so that it could be fixed or removed.
Believe me, if there was a problem with the linux kernel development system that meant the whole thing could be brought down using lawyers, Microsoft would have torn us apart years ago. In terms of unpleasantness (and certainly in terms of competence) SCO has nothing on MS Legal.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Come back in 365 more days and see how I did.
As 2004 is a leap year with 366 days, I'm guessing Cringely will get this prediction wrong...
"I said that Sun would decline further, generally because of the success of Linux. There is no doubt that this was correct."
"The U.S. IT industry will see some real growth except for Hewlett- Packard and Sun, which will continue their declines."
This guy must be on crack. Sun shipped the most copies of UNIX last year, have lower prices than Dell on the x86 side, supports Linux, created OpenOffice and supported it commercially, and is doing some of the most innovating development of any company (including the open source community, though they aren't a company).
"2) We still won't see a big example of cyber-terrorism simply because nobody has figured out how to actually kill people that way."
What's the fun in killing people? Costing billions of dollars in damage multiple times a year, even a month, seems like a much better option if I was a terrorist. But I'm not a terrorist, I fear caves.
"12) Wal-Mart's entry into the music download business changes everything, and will undoubtedly take the leadership away from Apple."
I think that's a bold statement. Time will tell.
Prediction 1: So no-one knows how to write games with the Cell processor? He could have made the same claim for the PS2's VU units yet I see no lack of PS2 games. There wasn't even a noticeable delay while games programmers learnt to use it!
The rest of (1) is hardly a prediction, unless 'Microsoft will carry on as normal' is an earth shattering revelation.
3) Despite new anti-spam laws, we'll still be plagued with unsolicited commercial messages, especially using Internet Messaging protocols.
Sorry, anyone with an Inbox and a clue could tell you this. Vast amounts of spam come from outside the US boarders, where spam laws in the US mean squat. I think he's right on the money with this one though:
The more vague the predictions, the more likely they are to not be wrong, you know.
"Powers. I have them."
Check #3, for example, we _know_ MSR is working on this (there was a story here recently). Or #4, which is simply general trend. #7 is a BS: "Someone is going to come out of this a big winner. I just don't know who it is." Most of the rest are the same, including #15. Gee, tell me more, old toad ;-P
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
I think this could have been predicted for 2003.We've already seen examples of cyber-extortion here (the medical transcriptionist in Pakistan), and I've seen lots of other reports of cyber-extortion attempts here and there, especially in the last 6 or so months. And this is the stuff that is actually reported in the news! I wonder how much of it goes unreported...
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
1. The PS2's VU was pretty hard to write software for, but who is winning the market right now?
2. Nintendo have not announced what proecssor they are using, so how can it be the Cell processor? Who said that Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft were releasing now consoles this year? At this time, they are all gunning for 2005.
3. Apple are not going to release flash iPod's, instead they are going to release HD based iPod's with 2 or 4gb capacity. This is a solid rumor.
4. Apple have made no announcement of how many G5's they want to sell, so anything is not what they are hoping.
5. Chances are the G6 will be released next year as the Power5 is being released next year.
6. Linux die? How? It's not a company, its a conglomerate of programmers. It's marketshare is rising, not falling. Case in point, OSS such as Apache is only growing in popularity.
7. How is Microsoft continuing on their normal ways a prediction? It's a fact.
8. Walmart are going to have some serious issues with their online music store simply because its not easy to use. I agree that Apple at this rate will not be in the lead though.
9. The Burst case is interesting, but I can't see Apple and Real being punished if Microsoft loses/or buys Burst.
All up a rather silly set of predictions that is all too vague or missing facts. I can see why he gets 70-80% success.
Just as most 'analysts' the predictions he makes are just so damn global they can mean anything or they're extremely obvious...
;)
just giving the numbers here and my comment:
1) Ofcourse MS will. That's what they already wanted to do with the Xbox and failed (IMO) and they still are doing this... Geeez what a prediction...
2) Do I really need to say anything about this... It's pure bullshit...
3) Geez don't we already know this...
4) Geez, all these companies already told this to everybody who wanted to hear this... My my what a prediction...
5) Rubbish...
6) I predicted this at the start of the SCO case and everybody knew this from the start...
7) Nonsense...
8) Can't comment on this because I don't live in the USA.
9) I expect HP to grow, Sun will stabilize and Dell will indeed start to compete in new markets as they have done every year the last 2 or 3 years...
10) Can't comment on this one as I don't know the situation.
11) Geez, ofcourse WiFi will grow... and ofcourse progress and service will be spotty... and ofcourse a new business model won't work...
12) Can't comment on Wall-Mart as I can't buy there etc and I'm not living in the USA...
13) Can't comment on this as I don't know anything about Apple.
14) Geez... how surprising. But the strange thing is: all the candidates will be against outsourcing because it's bad for the number of jobs in the USA... So don't expect to be able to pick the winner on this point...
15) That's something they already do for the last 4 years... Nothing new here And ofcource Bill Gates won't get the Nobel Peace Prize... Which idiot would expect that...
Come back in 363 more days and see how I did
He's just like the gypsy at the local fair... obvious things and then claiming he thought it up...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I predict 2004 will be different than 2003. I also predict that my prediction will be right. Now why don't I get coverage when my predictions are more accurate?
What else does he predict? The stock market will either rise or fall? The Republican candidate or the Democrat candidate will win the Presidential election? We'll be damned if we do, and damned if we don't?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
No one's talked about it yet, but I find his most interesting comment to be the one about how Wal-Mart's new online music effort will displace the iTunes Music Store as the number one retailer of online music files.
I disagree with this, for a few reasons. One, they're under tremendous pressure from their conservative customer base (lower-income white America) to adhere to a "moral standard". Have you ever bought a CD from Wal-Mart? They only sell "clean" versions of much of the type of music that would be bought online by the younger Internet demographic. If I was going to buy an electronic version of "Straight Outta Comptom", I sure as hell wouldn't buy it from Wal-Mart's online music store.
Second, online music is not an area that plays to Wal-Mart's competitive strength. Not many people think of Wal-Mart as a successful "clicks and mortar" e-commerce company. Wal-Mart makes its money by selling cheap consumer goods at rock-bottom prices. So rock-bottom, that their smaller competitiors can't compete, and are forced out of the market. But digital music is a much more level playing field. Apple can work with its label partners to lower its prices to match Wal-Mart's. But honestly, I don't think they have to. The integration with iTunes, the iTunes product on both Windows and OS X, and the huge mindshare that Apple enjoys make for an ability to sell their music at an 11 cent premium over Wal-Mart if they want to.
Third (and last, I'm getting tired of typing) - can Wal-Mart sustain their price advantage? Or is it like buymusic.com, where the few tracks that were actually available for their advertised 79 cent price were obscure tracks that you wouldn't want, and as some artists complained, weren't legal anyway? Unfortunately for the consumer, I think 99 cents a track is where the industry wants the price for most songs to be.
I guess that my main point is that I just don't believe Wal-Mart is going to steamroll over the music industry with a business plan of "We do what they do, just a bit cheaper." Too many other companies have already established beachheads, and they're actually innovating. My predicition is that Wal-Mart abandons digital music within 18 months.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
For example: 1. A year ago, I wrote that HP/Compaq would continue its long slide to oblivion, and if you look underneath the corporate numbers, you'll see I was correct.
:).
SO the corporate numbers are OK then, their stock is up over the year (reference) so I'd say so corporate numbers sure are decent, then what basis is there for saying they are performing badly? Perhaps if I refer to an unspecified quantity I can make up a story about it too. Like, er, Dell will start slide into oblivion, which if you look below the corporate numbers (that is below profits, penetration, users, sales, turnover, employment, etc) you will see I am correct. What was I correct about? Well, ask me in a year and I'll tell you.
2. I predicted that Dell would continue to grow at the expense of its competitors
The home/business PC market is getting mature, so if any company grows it is largely at the expense of its competitors. Dell were growing market share, one doesn't have to be a genius to see that a lagged deterministic trend will continue, it is more insightful to look at the rate of change that growth is having, but he didn't do that.
3. I wrote that Linux would continue to give Microsoft fits (that's true) and that Microsoft would be forced to compete on quality. Pick a low quality (costly) product. It comes under pressure from a free high quality product. The low quality (costly) product comes under pressure. A 3rd grade kid could draw that line of reasoning.
4. I said that Sun would decline further, generally because of the success of Linux.
(Fastidious comment, which of these Suns did you mean?) I can give a little credit to this since unlike the other 'predictions' it was not already written mud, though perhaps it was written in mud ready to be fossilised. Though looking back to financial numbers, Sun Microsystems doesn't seem to have done too bad.
5. Here is one I got wrong. I predicted that China would standardize on Linux running on MIPS hardware.
OK, so he stopped predicting the sun would rise tomorrow and got on with some original thinking. And failed, though it was a nice idea.
6. I was wrong, too, in my prediction that Microsoft would force Intel to adopt AMD's 64-bit Opteron instructions.
Hard to see this happening at the time, but again an interesting idea.
7. I correctly predicted the Mac G5 computer line
This had been announced by Apple already.
8. correctly predicted that V.92 modem development would stall, but that nobody would care Or perhaps saw nobody cared about V.92 (DSL+ is where the action has been for the past 3 years), so predicted it would stall. Nice insight.
9. I predicted that Microsoft's Palladium security plan, now called Trustworthy Computing, would be distrusted and stall.
It was already distructed. Well done on the stalling part, it was just wishful thinking for me
10. I wrote that Hollywood would come up with new digital rights management schemes that would be promptly broken
An encrypted system where many have the same key is a system that has a key for anyone. Always been like that, always will
OK, so I could go on, but his 'predictions' are a combination of the obvious (with a little critical thought) and the failures (when he gets beyond stating the obvious he usually gets it wrong). I do not trust this person's predictions.
karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
"As for old fashioned spam, it will continue to cram our inboxes, making a good business for third-party anti-spam products and services while making e-mail pretty much useless for reliable communication. Microsoft will see opportunity here and propose new protocols to replace SMTP and POP3."
Why replace POP3 (and IMAP)? These work fine and are completely separate of the SMTP delivery engine. The smart thing to do would be to replace SMTP MTAs with something that does server-to-server authentication, and leave POP3 and IMAP for the MUAs.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
All we have to fear is fear itself, AFAIK SCO has produced nothing worthwhile to back up it's claims.
I wish the SCO would just die as it deserves, a quiet death without rousing the entire roost with it's antics. It's like believing the boy who cried 'Wolf!' after the fiftieth time..........
Linux development may indeed change, regardless of SCO. Or, to put it more accurately, "free" software development must change from a pure technocracy if it is to wrest control of the consumer space from Microsoft. Now, I realize (and respect) Linus's lack of concern about market share and other trappings of competition; I use Linux precisely because I like the technology associated with it. I am also a technoscenti, which means that my needs are quite different from those of most people.
Technical excellence can be attained in conjunction with meeting the needs of mundane users. "Free" software has created its own hierarchy of haves and have nots, based on technical prowess; the lords of free software turn up their noses and snort when confronted with needs of the commoners. Able to exist on a purely philosophical level, the technogensia fail to see that free software has reached the edge of its current potential. Apple, Sun, and Red Hat will take "free" software to the next level, where it accomplishes solid, practical tasks for real people.
So in a sense, Cringley is correct: free software (which he erroneously lumps under "Linux") will change, or it will be replaced in the greater world by something more attuned to the needs of the commons.
All about me
I would rather suggest that SCO might be subject of criminal investitagtion. Financial fraud is criminal. Sco almot infringed every possible business rule. Spreading wrong news about "claims" is anti-competitive and sending FUD letters to customers is dirty policy.
:-)
so it depends on the strength of US law and jurisdiction what SCO and its CEO fill face.
Everybody knows that they are nuts, except the capital market and mainstream journalists. I don't see any reason to worry.
-- Now Saddam could tell where his WMD are hidden
I'm not impressed. Predicting the next 12 months on the basis of "more of the same" is not a skill. The skill lies in understanding the underlying trends and extrapolating these.
SCO impacting Linux? Has Cringely even looked at the market? SCO's attacks on Linux have simply turned up the volume on the debate, they have not actually changed the fundamentals.
As far as I can see, the fundamentals of IT are:
1. Ever cheaper technology, including and especially software technology. Software drops in price just like hardware does, but it's starting to be a significant driver.
2. Ever worse infestation by parasitical software - trojans, spyware, worms, viruses - and the use of this by spammers. This is no longer a sideshow, it is one of the main drivers.
3. Global competition to lower costs, especially IT costs. Few firms can avoid competition, one way or another, by companies halfway around the globe.
It all adds up to a big problem for Microsoft and a significant advantage for free/open software, especially Linux.
Microsoft has tried to sabotage Linux through a variety of strategies, and each time they have failed. 2004 will see the start of serious competition, or serious defeat.
I predict that Microsoft will produce a "Windows Classic" package in 2004 that combines a cheap Windows OS and Office, for $49.95, or less. This is about the only way it can compete with offerings like Xandros Desktop, which provide a very smooth and complete package for around this price.
Price, security, simplicity. C'mon, it's so obvious that it hurts to have to say this.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
... from someone who says "Come back in 365 more days and see how I did" meaning come back in one year and be wrong? 2004 is a leap year.
...
Seriously, there are a few predictions there that are simply ludicrous, and others are nothing more than simple set up for saying nothing. The linux prediction that everyone here is most interested in is a hollow, say nothing prediction.
It is best summed up by the last sentence "Linux has to grow or die, and the direction it takes will be determined in 2004." Talk about hollow predications. Linux is an active project, so it must do something. At any moment in time, and with every decision, Linux will take a positive or negative direction simply because it is active. Since Cringely's prediction contains both outcomes, he can come back next year and claim success. That is, of course, unless Linux stagnates, which isn't about to happen.
Shoddy journalism. No more or less. Ignore the article and save time, unless you believe in that sort of thing. If you do, send me all your money and I'll sell you this great bridge connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan
Even if SCO is found to be correct in this train wreck, it doesn't really matter. IBM would likely buy the company and properly release Linux from all commercial licenses. IBM has way to much invested into open source development and deployment to let anything else happen. End of story. They don't want another company with another monopoly over an OS.
From what I read, it seems that any vague set of facts can be sufficient for him to validate a past prediction. I suppose if Linus left Transmeta for OSDL this year rather than last, he would be able to have claimed his 'prediction' on Linux kernel development reorganization in 2004 had been met!
My only prediction is that at the start of next year he will again claim to be at least 70% correct. But there are some useful trends suggested that are worth considering. I now see why the start of the new year is always such a low moment in readership.
In the Linux 2.6.0 kernel, under the "drivers" directory, there are currently 2218 ".c" files :
/usr/src/sys/kernel/linux-2.6.0/drivers
.c source files. Using that assumption, that calculates out to 1109 open source drivers in the current Linux kernel. That is a lot !
.c file, and in a number of cases, multiple devices from different vendors may be supported by a single .c file, as the they have used underlying chipsets from the same third party. So the current Linux kernel would support say 3/4 of that 2218 figure, or 1663 devices, which all have fully open source drivers. The figure is probably significantly higher, possibly even greater than the 2218, but we'll stick to 1663 for this example.
--
> pwd
> find . -name "*.c" | wc -l
2218
>
--
Being very conservative, let's say each hardware device supported by Linux requires two
Of course, most drivers are only contained within one
Let's divide that 1663 devices by 10 to get the number of manufacturing vendors. Of course, the figure is likely to be much lower than 10 devices per vendor, probably 5 or less, maybe with an average of 2. However, let's assume 10. That indicates that 166 vendors have 'got' the open source idea, and published their programming specs, or even contributed GPL licensed drivers.
Linux driver support may appear to be broken because the two major graphics card vendors don't publish programming specifications. However, 2 vendors holding out, compared at least 150 or more who get open source, doesn't make Linux driver support broken.
The Linux development model has succeeded, as has the Linux philosophy on driver development. It is only the few, high-profile "bad apples" that make it appear to have not been successful.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
What planet do you live on? On my plannet there's a guy named Knopper who made a CD that runs and self configures on just about any computer without taking any hard drive space. Knoppix has two sets of replacements for the world's most popular software. It sets up with a KDE 3 desktop that has proved itself just as easy to learn and use as Windoze XP, but it also has Window Maker and other choices. Networking is autoconfigured and it comes with two browsers that block popups and have tabbed browsing. It also has a choice of superior email clients that are not liable to root your machine and come with spell checkers. If that's not enough for the average user then comercial software vendors, such as Microsoft have failed misserably. Because there's so much space on a CD, Mr. Knopper decided to put two office productivity suits in. The Open Office suite not only reads Microsoft's file formats, it comes with a database replacement for access. Microsoft charges lots of money for it's little productivity suite and charges even more for the "pro" version that has the database. Because users like choice, Knoppix also has KOffice, yet another productivity suite that's easy to use. Oh sure, Knoppix comes with power toys, like a compiler, GUI IDEs, disk and network management tools and other geeky things. All of this on one no cost CD that configures itself. Is that meeting the needs of "mundane users"?
I dare you to compare that with commercial offerings. Show me a "mundane user" who can wade through the multiple CD, floppy and reboot process that is a Windoze install. How much did that cost, $150? Oh sure, "the computer comes configured." That works great until Bill turns the upgrade crank two years later. Then the crap breaks and the user is stuck. Tell me a happy story about restore disks and I'll tell you a sad one about broken hard disks that screw it up. I don't even want to mention user data that gets lost in the process, unless said "mundane user" goes down to the computer store and spends about as much money as a working used computer costs. Hey, did that restore CD have an office suite? Nope, all your fave software is gone, sorry.
Let's sum up the differences for the works:
Free
Non-Free
Who's meeting the needs of users again? Is it those nice people at Gator?
Free software will always be a meritocracy because everyone is free and invited to participate. The best of breed will always rise and users will always be served. When someone makes a cool toy or tool, everyone wins. The non-free world will always have powerful haves, who hoard their tricks, and helpless have-nots who beg for software. Always, that is, until it's apparent to everyone that free software fills every need beter than any marketroid wet dream of sales. You and Cringerly will get it soon enough. Until then, I wish you would shut up.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
....corporate numbers sure are decent, then what basis is there for saying they are performing badly?
Did you RTFA? He claims that HP/Compaq did not make as much money as it would have if they had they remained separate.
Pick a low quality (costly) product. It comes under pressure from a free high quality product. The low quality (costly) product comes under pressure. A 3rd grade kid could draw that line of reasoning.
Only a 3rd grade kid WOULD draw that line of reasoning! It's a frighteningly all to common situation where inferior products dominate the market despite availability of superior alternatives.
With all due respect I think some people have a tendency to assume that since Sco's claim is likely to be false that is the end of the issue - its not.
As a thought experiment assume that suddenly Sco do come up with some code. So we can just rip it out and replace it and everythings back to normal right? Of course not. Imagine I break into your house and steal your stereo. Six months down the line you come round my house and find it, so I give you it back and go and buy a new one. Would that make everything alright - of course not.
The one argument of Sco's that I do not see being fully addressed concerns the lack of oversight. Sco argue that open source development is fundamentally flawed because of a lack of it, or a least a formal structure to deal with it - and this may well be the point Cringely is pushing at. It would only take I line of code for there to be a argument to answer to, and even if there isn't that argument might still have validity.
So to continue the experiment, what if they do come up with goods? what if they don't but companies start to feel the chill? The stage is set for somebody to come along and say Linux is a great thing, but its a little too anarchic, what it needs is a formal structure. (Guess what? someone might just have said it). At this point the stage is set for large vested interests to come in and say we've got the money, we've got the people, the most efficient thing to do is set up a top down structure(that just happens to have us in control).
At this point the free and open nature of the process is under threat - it isn't *just* about the code - it never is - in this field or any other. In the worse case scenario Linux could effectively become just another coporate product - but one backed up by unpaid labour - and how long would it last. The GPL does provide a good gurantee - you can always fork (as long as the GPL holds) - but this could just translate to death by a thousand cuts.
Don't think that popular open movements can't be taken over by self-interest masquerading as efficiency - outside computing it has happened time, and time again.People need to start thinking seriously about these issues. We need to consider how we can create structures that can answer these issues without compromising the open nature of the free software process. Don't think of this as a dumb prediction, think of it as a wake up call
Paul M
"There are no innocent bystanders. What where they doing there in the first place"
William S Burroughs
Cringely wrote:
"I was wrong in my mysterious prediction of a new electronic way to foment social change. I just never got around to doing it myself (that was the plan), so I'll have to accept that I was wrong."
I don't see his email, or I'd email him directly...but he *did* get that one right: consider Howard Dean and Meetup.
mark "did I mention ?"
1. Terrorism is NOT just about body counts, it is about the ability to get a group to accede to your wishes by force or threat of force. Killing people is an effective way to do this but it is not the only way. In a highly wired country like the USA, a single cyberterrorist act that cripples the nation's infrastructure and/or economy is just as effective in producing terror as threatening to crash a plane into a building.
2. Cyberterrorism need not be separate from other acts of terrorism. A cyber attack could well be a component of a large, complex attack. So even if a large cyberterror attack were improbable, it doesn't rule out small ones that are done as one piece of a much larger attack. (For example, using electronic means to extort or steal money, as Cringley admits is likely, could finance another 9/11 attack.)
By being completely stupid? How does free software "grow"? How does it "die"? These are comercial software concepts that have no meaning in the free software world.
Today, as it was before there was commercial software, free software grows when someone scratches an itch. Someone takes code and makes it do what they want. The result is more free code. Comercial code, on the other hand, grows when a marketing department convinces a user that thier particular program meets the user's needs better than anything else available. It's a cancer that chokes and kills healthy growth. The ultimate expression of comercial software growth is Bill Gates insane "one computer one OS", dreams of world domination and advertising that claims Microsoft Office will make you superman. Comercial software grows at the expense of real user needs. Free software grows by meeting needs.
Free software never really dies. I've never heard of a program that met one person's needs that was not useful to another person, if for nothing other than a starting point to meet their own needs. As long as a single copy of any free software exists, it will be used. Chances are, that anyone using any free software will make it available and it will grow if something better does not exist. It's easy to share source code. Comercial software, on the other hand, dies all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with merit or need. Any comercial software company that does not have enough money to pay it's bills is finished. The source code is then hoarded as a valuable asset and generally bought for pennies on the dollar of it's development cost by a competitor who locks it up or destroys it.
Indeed, it can be said that the ultimate fate of comercial software is to conquer or die. This is Cringerly's mind set and it has nothing to do with free software.
The easy prediction for free software is that it will grow.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I usually enjoy Cringley's columns, but this one annoyed me to the point of posting a response to each of his "predictions". For the most part, they're so incredibly vague as to be worthless.
1) It will happen late in the year, but Microsoft will make a bold run for video game leadership...
Didn't Microsoft already do this, with the XBox? And let's just say MS decides to -announce- the next console - can we have some predicted specs? No? Then all this prediction says is "Microsoft will announce their next console." Fine, this one actually has a bit of substance, actually puts Cringley in the position of being distinctly right or wrong. Of course, the XBox is now almost 2 years old (launched in Nov of 2001), so it's not unreasonable to assume the announcement of a new console, particularly given how early the XBox itself was announced.
2) We still won't see a big example of cyber-terrorism simply because nobody has figured out how to actually kill people that way...
This seems like fluff to me. Did anyone ever predict "cyber-terrorism"? I know it's not something I'm worried about. If al qaeda (or whoever) stop my email for a week, hey, that's less work for me. It doesn't inspire terror. In fact, little that could be done online has the potential to cause terror, save for the goatse.cx man, and possibly this.
To paraphrase, "I was right last year, so let me try again this year." Watch, I can do it too, with a high probability of success - "We again won't see the launch of nuclear weapons". And hey, if I'm wrong, you probably won't be able to hold me to it anyway.
3) Despite new anti-spam laws, we'll still be plagued with unsolicited commercial messages, especially using Internet Messaging protocols.
Oh my god, what a bold prediction! Surely this Cringley is possessed of a preternatural ability for soothsaying. Spam will still be a problem! Perhaps I can pay this man for tomorrow's lottery numbers, or for a Super Bowl pick. Then it's off to the bookie...
Sorry, my sarcasm got the best of me. To be fair, he does predict possible new email protocols, but he doesn't address whether they will be accepted, or even considered.
4) Continuing the security theme, look for lots of software companies to abandon support for old products and platforms.
Microsoft JUST announced they were dropping Windows 98 support. And companies do this all the time. Is he predicting a rise in this type of decision?
"Companies will abandon old products to get you to upgrade." Once again I am shocked!
5) The SCO debacle has created a crisis within the Linux community. They pretend that it hasn't, but it has.
This one has everyone here talking, but what does it really say? Linux will either continue to grow or start to die in 2004. Well, I mean, yeah. Obviously. Linux has BEEN growing for years now, so if it continues to grow, well look, he was right. Oh, and if in 5, 10 years, it's dead? Well, look, he was probably right, it probably started in 2004, or at least it may have. This is a non-prediction. Something will happen, or it won't. All this rules out is Linux stagnating, and who can judge that? What are the odds that every flavor of Linux will stop making major updates, but continue to make minor updates (and thus, not grow, but not die?).
6) As for SCO, they'll continue to make noise until the middle of the year, at which point the legal case will implode and the company will give up...
SCO will finally crumble under the weight of their legal lies, you say? I'm sure I speak for much of the Slashdot community, and Cringely's largely geek audience in general, when I say "Yes, we know".
7) 2004 will be a crucial year for streaming media... At first, this doesn't sound like much of a prediction. Then, he says MS will settle, which
I know I'm just stating the obvious here, but it seems worth mentioning, in case people really believe Cringely's "the sky is falling" claim regarding SCO and Linux.
First, there is Linux the kernel, and there is Linux the full featured operating system. The only thing in any danger is Linux the kernel, which is just a part of Linux the operating system. So, right off the bat, the potential danger is localized.
Second, once SCO is compelled by the courts to reveal the allegedly infringing code - if there is any - the Linux community will quickly replace it, and Linux will be back on track.
If, for some reason, replacing the allegedly infringing code is not possible, there are other kernels to turn to, including but not limited to the excellent BSD kernel (Free, Net, Open).
This SCO nonsense is just good entertainment for us, and a foolish money sink for companies like IBM that have to put up with SCO's obnoxiousness.
There's nothing to see here. Move on.
-Teckla
Hitchkiker's Guide to /. Linux Users: Don't Panic!
There's no reason to panic(9), should the current Linux implementation be declared illegal in a US court:
But this is only theoretical. It is most likely that a judge will require that some code be purged from the Linux kernel; code that can be really easily hacked up in a few hours or days.
DONT'T PANIC! (The Hitchhiker's Guide to /. Linux-Users)
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
..some time in the next year you're going to have conflict with someone you care about very much. The future of Linux is no longer in doubt, it's past the tipping point and rolling downhill. At this point it would be like trying to stop the wind. Even if my some miracle of purchased justice or legislation it was stalled here, US actions are not going to stop it from spreading in the rest of the world. But I don't think that's going to happen, either. The GPL is actually pretty good and based on US copyright law. Telling people they can't donate their time and code to a community project would raise 1rst amendment issues, not that Bush and his thugs care about that but legally it would be a tough sell. And almost every company is benefiting from OSS in some way by this time, so every day the political landscape is changing, too. I think the proprietary software industry is doing all it can. Attacking any OSS project politically, spinning an aura of fear, discounting to hang on to customers. If there were other legal avenues, they'd be using them already, SCO notwithstanding. But Cringley may be right in one aspect, it is getting near the point when Linux needs to be more unified and this year may be it. Either way it's still the best show in town. All the really fun stuff in IT is happening around Linux and OSS.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
How could linux be declared illegal, even in the US, the land of strange patent laws? There is no lawsuit that is going to declare linux illegal.
Also, copyright infringements and legality are two very separate issues, in fact the current case (SCO vs IBM) is not even a copyright lawsuit, it is about SCO alleging that IBM has broken their contract with SCO. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with legality of Linux.
My quality social news site.com.
Cringley makes one of the classic tech-punditry blunders, which is to confuse Linux with an operating system while simultaneously confusing it with a religious movment and/or trade association.
It's none of the above, of course. It's a free software kernal, rolled into many operating systems like Red Hat and Debian, but still just a kernel. Pretty much useless by itself, unlike Free, Net and OpenBSD, which are top-to-bottom OS projects, with a central organizational structure that takes care of everything a user could want or need in their Unix system.
Free Software/Open Source has not one, but two religious movment/trade associations, complete with Famous and Glamorous grand high pooh-bah charismatic heads. Richard Stallman on the one side, and Bruce Perens on the other. Both men and their organizations are pretty much ignored by everyone involved with Linux, save to incorporate their software into the Linux-based OS projects or to toss obscene amounts of cash at them to help them kick Microsoft out of the datacenter. Overall, they're mostly just good for really entertaining flame wars.
Linux will continue to grow unchecked because there is no organizational structure. People are free to take and use the kernel however they see fit, so long as they share the source code to any modifications, so it will wind up in spacecraft microcontrollers and kilo-processor supercomputers, wrapped in the software needed to get the job done.
Linux-based desktop operating systems will put in more effort to be interoperable with each other, though it's unlikely they'll all get together and decide to have someone be their collective boss. That's not neccesarily a bad thing, and coprorate customers will be more comfortable knowing that the organizational structure in charge of their Linux-based OS is "IBM" or "Red Hat" rather than a nebulous organization of hippies and geeks... gives 'em someone to sue if it all goes wrong.
SoupIsGood Food
As a member of the Linux community...
Ever noticed that those who have to say it, aren't?
Pros: "I know a little about computers."
Also-rans: "I'm a computer expert."
Pros: "We'll do our best."
Also-rans: "We deliver quality."
Pros: "I'm OS neutral." (though would probably recommend specific OS for specific job)
Also-rans: "Linux is like a god."
Pros: "Life always picks up and goes on..."
Also-rans: "Linux could be threatened! Everybody should worry about it!"
I'll bet that:
90% or more of what we worry about, in life, doesn't happen.
90% or more of what we hope or dream about, and really work at, happens.
Here's another factor you did not mention - who uses Wal-Mart's web site?
Sure, lots and lots of people of all bands visit the stores. But that's not going to help online music sales much. I think there are very few people actually shopping around online for music stores, and almost no-one going to the Wal-Mart web site the same way people go to the stores. So Wal-Mart's service in reality has a pretty low visibility.
Now add in the 900 pound gorilla - the Pepsi promotion. All sorts of Wal-Mart customers are going to go to ITMS for a free song or two, in the process downloading iTunes and after that other services are a non-starter since iTunes makes it so much easier to shop for music than web-based sites.
Wal-Mart seems like a huge competitor. But the on-line presence is weak, and I doubt Wal-Mart has a desire to loose a bundle in support of this service.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You've never seen Wal-mart's IT capabilities. They are quite extensive and is surely part of the reason of their success. The perfected cross-docking and inventory management -- and THAT is the reason for their success.
Yea, they drove some people out of business for sure. But at the same time, they are a VERY capable company. They very well could succeed at this.
I suppose that I should ignore you, given your obvious need for non sequitors. But then I'm in a cranky mood, so... ;)
The lack of reliability in Microsoft's products is no excuse for the lack of quality in many free softwares. Like Linus, I don't really give a hoot what Microsoft does -- I want the best possible free-as-in-liberty software, period.
How many examples would you like me to cite? Should I have mentioned the silly bug (which frustrated me this morning) in Abiword 2.0.1 that consistently screws up pasting at the end of a document, or the random crashes that Abiword seems prone to? Or the lack of consistency in something so simple as exiting an application (is it File|Close, File|Quit or File|Exit?) I can go on and on, using examples from myself and more mainstream users.
If free software wants to present itself as an alternative to Microsoft, it needs to act like an adult and provide quality software with service and attention to user needs. To say, as you do, "It's free, so live with it" is a cop-out.
All about me
No elaboration, explanation, discussion of what 'grow or die' means. How trivial.
As for SCO, they'll continue to make noise until the middle of the year, at which point the legal case will implode and the company will give up...This was never more than a stock scam,
This much at least seems true.
We'll see more of this ploy in the future.
This seems unlikely. Once SCO self-destructs and all non-insiders are left hoding shares at 100% loss, this pattern will become evident even to financial analysts (who, with few exceptions, have been amazingly dense sofar). Even Didio and Enderle will be able to see it then, though they'll never have the decency to say so.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Linux is BETTER organized than closed source shops.
The whole notion that Linux is somehow disorganized is a subtle knock that says: "oh, it has to be centralized to be organized", in other words, only big companies are capable of organization. Yet, big companies are often just as disorganized as the internet blob that is Linux.
We often note how corporate will can accomplish great things, but, we also live in a world where we disregard all of the dishonesty and infighting that plagues many IT departments and companies. Even MS is not immune to this - with the rumored infighting between the Office team and the
By contrast, Linux projects are out in the open. You can check the status of any via the web, you can see the differing philosophies of the different camps of different systems easily, you can choose to decide which technology to invest in by a transparent and open decision making process. Of course, you could always look at the source yourself, and you may, but for the most part, the process of fundraising in the open source environment is a lot more transparent and accountable than the same process in a closed source company.
This is my sig.
. . . that a programmer was accused of "stealing" software. As /. readers know, in 1976, Gates attacked those who "stole" BASIC from him and the whole idea of sharing source code. Gates made the following claim in his 2/3/76 open letter to hobbyists:
"[By stealing software you] prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"
I'm laughing at clouds.
So you're Cringely with a year end predictions column to write.
You have two or three provocative theories that you would llke to push. You know they're unlikely to prove true. Plus they wouldn't fill a column all by themselves.
So you combine them with seven weak predictions that are sure to be found correct.
So if anyone questions your provocative predictions you smugly say that you're right 70% of the time year after year.
So you're respected by the media (who rarely do their homework) as this all knowing and seeing prognasticator even if your actual "real" predictions are rarely correct.
But your "record of predictions" ensures they're taken seriously and sponsor much debate.
Cringely, I'm on to your tricks pal.
Man Holmes
I've never liked Robert Cringley's style or manner, which basic can be summed up as observing the obvious, then claiming all the credit or screaming "SCANDAL" where there really is none. But what made me really dislike him forever is his total lack of journalistic ethics a.k.a. MAKING SHIT UP.
He has a history of INVENTING stories that simply do not exist. IMHO he should meet the same fate as Jayson Blair. I do not know why PBS hasn't caught on.
A prime example is his incredible story of bouncing a Wi-Fi signal over a mountain, which can be found at http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020207. html.
Most of his Wi-Fi tall tales are at least physically possible, but this one crosses the line.
See Rob Flickenger's Response.
I see lots of arguments to the contrary, and they've all been modded up to 5. But let's look at this issue in a calmer fashion, okay?
Linux is technically solid. This is no surprise, as it essentially borrowed its technical solidity from UNIX, which had been around for 20 years when Linux first appeared. This is good.
But beyond the kernel and server-type applications and developer utilities, Linux has less focus. Some people like using bare window managers. Some people want X Windows replaced with something saner. Then there are the KDE/Gnome desktop environment battles. Lets not even get into the various GUI creation libraries.
One side will say "Choice is good!", and I agree. But all the arguing and general muddling has made Linux much less appealing as an alternative to more focused operating systems. Apple forces a GUI down your throat, but at the same time they've succeeded in making desktop UNIX appealing and a target for well-known applications. So Linux needs to grow in the sense that there should be more focus to what the desktop Linux experience *is* exactly, and with that is going to come wider curiosity and adoption. UserLinux may pull this off...or not.
But please just don't blow off the comment, okay? Personally, I see OS X as a much brighter alternative to Linux, simply because decisions have been made and there's strong leadership.