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.
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...
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."
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.
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.
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'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
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.)
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
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
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.