Slashdot Mirror
An Open Source Tipping Point?
jg21 writes "Over at LinuxWorld there's an article arguing that open source will be propelled to market predominance by the same disruptive mechanism that brought Sony, Microsoft, and others to be market leaders at the moment. 'The improbable is possible - leaders have been dethroned in the past,' writes the author, who is also apparently the producer of an upcoming documentary entitled, 'The Digital Tipping Point' to be released in September 2005. The story refers to a corroborating article from South Africa and to Clayton Christensen's Seeing What's Next which backs up this general idea."
From http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46891.htm?DE=1 There's an article in there somewhere. Here it is:
Introducing Sybase ASE Express Edition for Linux--the first enterprise-class commercial database that can take you from pilot to deployment for zero dollars and zero risk.
It is time to port your Unix or Linux application over to Windows? Don't reinvent the wheel - or your code. Get new ideas on how to successfully port Unix and Linux applications, scripts and build environments to Windows using MKS Toolkit for Enterprise Developers.
Find out how to test, purchase, install and use a Thawte ssl web server certificate on your Apache web server with our step-by step guide.
CommuniGate Pro with Groupware Integrated Messaging & Collaboration solution Outlook & Web-based support for e-mail, calendaring, group scheduling, shared folders, tasks, contacts, and more Advanced Anti-spam & Anti-virus protection Multiple Platform support Free Trial
Develop native Windows or cross-platform Windows, Web, UNIX, and Linux applications with the MKS Toolkit product family. Read our case studies, and download a 30 day trial now:
Rumors of Microsoft's Demise Are Premature...But Not Unthinkable
"The improbable is possible - leaders have been dethroned in the past"
October 29, 2004
Summary
Penguinistas have long loved to ruminate over a beer about the potential reversal of market share between Microsoft and companies offering open source solutions. But such ruminations were often left to discussions at the pub or the local LUG meeting because in a corporate business setting, even the most die-hard Penguinistas might be cautious about being thought of as wacko - at least in North American and European business settings.
read story Read Story read story Email Story read story Print Story read story Read/Add Feedback read story Magazine Issue read story About Christian Einfeldt
By Christian Einfeldt
Page 1 of 1
Sponsored Links
The right management software allows you to seamlessly integrate Linux into your infrastructure. And, CA's got the best solutions available!
Custom Build your Ultimate Linux Box Quick and Easy!
Are blade servers right for your company? Find out now with this free guide written by the inventor of the blade server, RLX Technologies.
OpenInsight, the leading applications development environment, enables development teams to work collaboratively to design, develop, deploy and scale high-performance business solutions.
Advertisement
Penguinistas have long loved to ruminate over a beer about the potential reversal of market share between Microsoft and companies offering open source solutions. But such ruminations were often left to discussions at the pub or the local LUG meeting because in a corporate business setting, even the most die-hard Penguinistas might be cautious about being thought of as wacko - at least in North American and European business settings.
Software market watchers are now taking more serious assessments of the penguin versus butterfly competition, as Microsoft matures and Linux continues to put large growth numbers on the board.
The more vocal observers' voices in this choir are typically located outside the United States. For example, Tectonic, an online open source magazine based in South Africa, recently quoted Novell SA systems engineer and business manager Allison Singh as going on record that Microsoft's Windows juggernaut will become an operating system for niche tasks while Linux takes over the mainstream desktop and server roles. According to Tectonic, Singh forecast that users who need specific applications written for Windows only will stick with the OS, but for most other users, the rapidly evolving Linux desktop will become the standard operating system. Here's the link for that story: www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=324.
But wait! Tectonic calls itself "Africa's Source for Open Source
If the sleeping giant that is America's small business community goes for Linux (possibly as a result of being introduced to the open source concept by Firefox), Bill has a really big problem on his hands.
Maybe MS has already recognized that the OS is a commodity product, and they don't care if linux succeeds. MAybe MS has already put the OS on a low priority, recognizing better ROI from office or integration of entertainment. In the long run, all technology becomes a commodity, and only monopolies (att ) or truly exceptional companies (ibm) who can reinvent themselves. can command high prices for more then a few years. So, in that sense,the demise of MS is inevitable. My dad always used to talk about the linotypers union: in the 40s and 50s, they were gods: nothing got printed without thier ok. today ?
I copied a few of the ads at the start as well. Sorry, folks.
I had whiterock networks and luminous networks reps in last week. They were demoing their new oc-48 gear. I made comments with both groups asking why an open source browser with a java plugin was not certified with their webgui. I asked the other vendor why they did not have a client server software for linux or freebsd.
I told them windows was unacceptable and solaris is not what we use. (Although the soft switch uses dual sol servers for the db.)
anyway. complain loudly to these vendors that they
need to support what we use in the data center.
I am won over by the sheer persuasive logic of your argument. I SUBMIT!
I've seen many articles like this in the past that suggested there was some "boiling point" at which Linux / OSS / Free Software would be unstoppable and would take off like wildfire. They are fun to read and dream about, but they don't reflect a realistic view of the software scene. Linus has often said that Linux on the desktop would be a long, tiring battle. I agree. We will never hit a point where Windows will suddenly be rejected and open solutions will become the de facto standard. I think we need to fight for every % of market share we get. It won't be easy but -- to be honest -- I find the challenge pretty damn fun. :)
In all seriousness, as a full time Gentoo user myself, I think I would prefer it if Linux remained a well kept secret (as far as the general public is concerned). Sure, a slightly larger market share would be nice, but it wouldn't be as l33t if everyone and their grandmother was using Linux. I'd love to see Linux thrive, but on the other hand what if Linux became the new monopoly and it's quality began to degrade the same way Windows(tm) has? Ramble ramble ramble. I forget what I'm karma whoring about.
Hi there
According to Slashdot circa 1999, the tipping was ... you know.. 1999.
This looks more like the tripping point to me.
It could happen that MS will become a niche player, but if I had to bet money, I'd bet on MS surviving with a large market share. There's jsut too many people who have budgets to justify, and the one thing that Libre software can't help you do is squander money.
See what I've been reading.
Only a handful of comments and already the site's down to a crawl, so here's the article text:
Penguinistas have long loved to ruminate over a beer about the potential reversal of market share between Microsoft and companies offering open source solutions. But such ruminations were often left to discussions at the pub or the local LUG meeting because in a corporate business setting, even the most die-hard Penguinistas might be cautious about being thought of as wacko - at least in North American and European business settings.
Software market watchers are now taking more serious assessments of the penguin versus butterfly competition, as Microsoft matures and Linux continues to put large growth numbers on the board.
The more vocal observers' voices in this choir are typically located outside the United States. For example, Tectonic, an online open source magazine based in South Africa, recently quoted Novell SA systems engineer and business manager Allison Singh as going on record that Microsoft's Windows juggernaut will become an operating system for niche tasks while Linux takes over the mainstream desktop and server roles. According to Tectonic, Singh forecast that users who need specific applications written for Windows only will stick with the OS, but for most other users, the rapidly evolving Linux desktop will become the standard operating system. Here's the link for that story: www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=324.
But wait! Tectonic calls itself "Africa's Source for Open Source News," and Singh, a Novell SA employee, could not be called an impartial observer. Penguinistas might put stock in Singh's vision over a beer, but the kind of market observers who carry weight with Wall Street would never consider discussing open source as a serious competition for the software market incumbent, would they?
Perhaps not in such blunt terms, but renowned business scholars such as Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen, the innovation guru, are taking a hard look at the prospects of open source taking serious market share from Microsoft.
In his recent book, Seeing What's Next, which he coauthored with Erik Roth and Scott Anthony, Christensen provides a sober, theoretical framework for circumstances under which companies offering modular open source solutions have a competitive advantage over companies offering the integrated architectural solutions such as Microsoft's Windows franchise.
In a nutshell, Christensen and his co-authors argue that when modular commodity products such as the Linux kernel are "good enough" for the jobs of price-sensitive market tiers, those commodity products are positioned to take market share from integrated solutions that "overshoot" the performance demands of customers in any given market tier, particularly the more price-sensitive lower market tiers.
The Christensen team writes that as companies race to meet the performance expectations of the more functionality-sensitive upper-tier customers, who are willing to pay a premium for the latest and greatest, those companies will inevitably innovate ahead of the performance demands of the more price-sensitive market tiers. For customers in the more price-sensitive market tiers, performance of the modular commodity is often "good enough" to win the job bid or close the sale.
Most industry observers are now coming to see that for the average desktop functions, the operating system and the office productivity suite are basically "done." In other words, the market leader has overshot the demands of customers such as schools, governments, and businesses who only need to provide their office workers with basic office productivity functions and Internet accessibility.
It's the Packaging, Stupid...
The secret is out. The value of open source business models is in the packaging - whether you are talking about the value-add of HP's SUSE Linux nx5000 desktop, or IBM's GNU Linux blade servers, or Google and Amazon.com o
apterous.org
This is almost as bad as posting Roland Piquepaille submissions.
i want to see history in the making, i want to see microsoft's windows fall off the desktop everywhere, and ms be redused to a small niche maket sort of like the shoe on the other foot, now the penguin will rule the desktop. WooHoo :^)
I for one happily welcome our soon-to-be Monopolizing and Evil Microsoft Clone (TM) overlords.
It happened not too long ago in the video card arena....Voodoo anyone?
I don't doubt open source will dominate in many areas, but I doubt it will overtake Microsoft anytime soon unless there's a major shift torward software compatibility and enhanced intuitiveness for Windows users.
For instance, I'd switch my Mother to Linux just to degrade her chances of a virus, but 3 or 4 little games she plays; Kyodai Mahjongg (this isn't normal mahjongg) Bubble Shooter (There's a similiar one, but it's got a ways to go to catch up to Bubble Shooter), Bookworm, etc. aren't available on Linux that I know of.
The other issue is that, people are comfortable with where to go & what to do when there's trouble brewing in Windows. In Linux, even veteran Windows users are often at a loss.
If you do something wrong installing video drivers in Windows, you get a smack on the hand by the OS forcing you to 640x480, where you have to deal with what you did. Make that same mistake in Linux, and without knowing what file to edit in a command line editor, most Linux newbies are looking at an OS reinstall. That's way too harsh and unfortunately, drives users right back into the open arms of Microsoft.
Heh a blunder
My Tech Posts on Twitter
Microsoft has made some amazing improvements on the performance of Windows from the average user's perspectives. Face it, Windows XP was a very big and impressive release to the average user. MacOS X, even more so.
Linux now has the big players' attention and they are busting their balls to compete on merit. How are Linux developers going to respond to the tight integration in Windows and MacOS between the different teams building the parts of each OS?
What Linux developers will need to do is make sure that there are no weak links.That means that X.Org, Linux, KDE/GNOME, etc will have to fit into each other's design very well and as tightly as Windows and MacOS X.
So far so good, but just remember that these companies have a big advantage int hat area that cannot be underestimated.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Call me ambivilant, but so what? I find it irrelevant to wonder whether Linux or open source software in general will perhaps have the greatest market share at some vague point in the future.
The fact is there's a lot open source software available that solves problems now and solves them well. I use it exclusively at home and at work because I like the general philosophy and more importantly because it gets the stuff I need to do done.
Whether or not Microsoft lives or dies or becomes a smaller company is (for me at least) not important. This may not be true if your business relies heavily on Microsoft products and/or apis.
Desktop Linux has just published this article: The Best Free Desktop Linux . . . and how to make it better
:)
This is a great article that shows what a Desktop Linux could do. It's a great piece for Linux advocates to forward to people who'd like to switch but think that "Linux is way too hard to install and use".
0$ price it's very hard to beat, I expect that the forces of the economy will swipe MS away as soon that people realize that they could do with Linux the same things they do with Windows (only more secure and cheaper) . Good times ahead
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
its going to be brought about by Brazil, India and Germany when they hire a couple guys to sit down and hack some software to deploy linux to their COUNTRY.
/w unified userdb for nfs, samba, ftp, web, shell and a powerful web admin system. good outward scalability. i mean, hell, dragonfly bsd might have a better chance than linux when you think of how far there is to go. ;)
linux remains a very difficult thing to deploy. there are going to have to be better tools for centralized system management before linux can roll out and roll over microsoft. corporations arent the place to foot the development of these rollout-configurators, countries could concievably be. in the end, everyone will benefit.
i'd say when a country doesnt have much difficulty doing installing linux, microsoft is going to have a hard time justifying themselves. thats a long way to go though; we're talking automagic kerberos+ldap
Myren
LinuxWorld really did run O'Gara's story with SCO's latest spew, and should have been a bit more careful.
1 33519345
Now then, it's not that parent doesn't have a point about O'Gara taking SCO's word for things a *wee* bit more than should have been reasonable, but I would suggest you all read what else PJ of Groklaw wrote about that whole issue here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041026
Not that most Slashdotters will likely heed her advice...
No they don't. What Linux developers will need to do is nothing in particular. In other words, they just need to continue to make sure the stuff they work on makes them happy. Everything else follows quickly and easily from that.
Look at the UI. Look at the applications. The basic look and feel hasn't changed significantly since 1995. Almost every new technology "innovation" has been either bought or copied (poorly) by Microsoft.
OSS' growth has been more viral, more grassroots, more innovative than the top-down "we know better than you" approach that Microsoft has successfully imposed on its users in the last 5 years. It is with this suppression of innovation that Microsoft has directly spawned and contributed to the open-source revolution!
On another note, after 10 years on Wintel, I switched to Macintosh recently. After 5 minutes inside of OSX, I experienced more innovation and creativity than I had on Windows for as long as I can recall.
Thank-you Microsoft for helping me switch to truly useable applications.
I'm still laughing HAHA :-P
one day linux will actually work on every computer.
Jeoin
I purchased this years ago, but they try to ream you for each version upgrade.
I've paid for it 3 times, that's enough. Where can I get the latest version for gratis?
I am a consultant with many small business customers. A few are pondering the use of Linux (I charge more for monthly maintenance of Windows systems because they take more of my time). But there are a few obstacles which completely prevent a few of them from using Linux (these are sufficiently small businesses not to have any dedicated servers).
The largest obstacle is that many of these businesses depend on vertically targetted web sites and programs which may not work on Linux. Yes, we could get many of these to work probable with Win4Lin or Crossover. However, the uncertainty and supportability is an issue.
But other clients of mine are already committing to Linux. In one case, we saved $20,000 for a customer in license fees alone, not to mention the support costs in network simplification by using Linux-based VPN appliances rather than an equivalent on Windows. In another case, we have a very successful Linux desktop deployment. In another case, we have a customer thinking about switching so he doesn't have to pay me to swing by every month to run a spyware/virus scan.
It will happen, but slowly.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
but now, I'm not buying the argument. Microsoft isn't going away anytime soon.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Not to bash Max OS X (I have a Powerbook and I love it). But if you move to a different operating system altogether than it would be very surprising if you didn't see features that wasn't availalble in Windows and appear new to you.
If you had used Mac OS X since 95 and just had moved to Windows you would have marvelled over all the innovations there.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
This phrase comes from a book by Malcolm Gladwell. The basic point is that a new idea with the help of a few influential people can suddenly become the latest trend.
Linux is still used by a very small percentage of people and this is also it's main disadvantage. Once the percentage of users creeps up to a more visible level (15%-20%?) then that disadvantage falls away and suddenly it's popularity will explode.
I've been thinking frequently that what would help spread linux like wildfire is network delivered applications that make the platform irrelevant.
Simple web based apps are nice, but there are many limitations such as not having a framework for interface, making developers write their own widgets or integrate other software after researching available solutions.
I've just started using XUL (pronounced 'zool') for an application that will load simply by visiting a url with mozilla/firefox. You can install local apps that have priveleged access to resources, but for my needs all data interaction will be handled by a central system.
If anyone could have a fully working computer that just worked reliably all the time with most software you could ever want available to you for the cost of internet access, I think *that* is the kind of appeal that would help cause accelerated growth in open souce adoption in the consumer market.
Check out XUL: http://xulplanet.com
MS is faced with a problem. Their major money makers are Windows and Office, both of which are facing rapidly maturing competition from open source alternatives. They can continue to try to grow their market, but it will not be easy (must combat piracy in the third world, and expand the markets for those two products elsewhere). Their other products and services are two small to deliver the revenue that Microsoft and their stockholders expect.
So what happens as Linux and OpenOffice expand? The cost of bringing Windows and Office to market is astronomical, and the cost to produce each unit is very small, so each sale lost hits Microsoft surprisingly hard.
This quest to expand the market shows up in Media Center and Automotive editions of Windows, and in the new services which come as a part of office.
There is a problem. I have learned that if you "innovate" for the sake of innovation, your ideas will be only useful to a few, and the good enough solution takes over. I don;t see a unifying strategy for Microsoft anymore. Disclaimer: I am a former Microsoftie.
I see Microsoft as going down surprisingly quickly. It won't take long once the tipping point is actually reached (maybe with Linux hitting 10 or 20 percent of the desktop).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Just look at Firefox - it's currently the subject of an enourmous grassroots movement. SFX just signed up over 10,000 people in 8 days for their New York Times ad. FF has been downloaded over 6.8 million times now. People are taking notice; there have been discussions here on /. estimating the "geek" usage at 90%. And I wouldn't doubt it.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
I'm sorry to say that Linux will not win over Windows as long as you can't play new games like The Sims 2 or do simple things without opening a console. Yes, I know that DirectX is closed-source and I know that Linux is a very smart OS. But Linux is way to hard to learn and configure. I've tried many times to convert to Linux and everytime I'm missing a game or simply don't want to read the telephone sized FAQ's. Doing simple tasks like changing screen resolution should not involve opening a console and typing in obscure commands. I know I'll get modded down, but seriously Linux guys. Face it, Linux is to hard for normal users to use. Mom users like their puzzle bubble and surfing the web with Mozilla, but as a Joe Smoe user I can only say that using Linux for everyday tasks is still way too hard and I don't want to invest years just to learn Linux when Windows simply work with a click of a mouse.
When laval pours out near the sea surface, tremendous volcanic explosions sometimes occur.
Yes, sure, next year is definitely The Year Of Linux On The Desktop(TM). No doubt.
Links to the readable versions of the articles that have them:
Rumors of Microsoft's Demise Are Premature...But Not Unthinkable
Linux to turn Windows into niche player
Not sure if you are trolling. But anyways....
:-)
Businesses tend to be risk adverse, which is generally a good thing. This means also that they are afraid of change. So this slows down Linux quite a bit.
Home users tend to stick with what they use at work. So until Linux takes over on the corporate workstation, it will be a slow tough fight.
All that being said, I think that Linux will kill windows. It will just be a slow process until a certain market share is reached. At this point application compatibility will be less of an issue. But progress is occuring much faster than some people realize: Linux is certainly killing proprietary UNIX (as is Windows), and the fate of OS X is uncertain, though I suspect that it will slowly be open sourced bit by bit, and they may slowly subsume eachother.....
Consider that 5% of the PC's which shipped last year ran Linux (mostly Linspire and Mandrake). Even after you count those where Windows was later installed, that was still up to three percent of *new* PC sales. Yes, Microsoft's monopoly has begun to collapse already. This year, maybe, it will be more.
Linux is already causing Microsoft real headaches in a few very key markets such as internet server and embedded system markets. The real beacheads are business web application development, desktop, and groupware now. But it is a slow process at the moment and will be for some time. I do predict though that it will be a fierce war for the desktop by the time Longhorn ships.
BTW, Linux has been good enough for the desktop for the last 5 years. It is just getting better
Also, Microsoft's last year of record profits was the year XP was launched. This is to be expected. But their market share is another question-- how do you measure market share? In dollars? If so then the slow demise of proprietary UNIX and Netware gives Microsoft greatly inflated numbers. If in deployments, then the simple answer is: we don't really know what real numbers are because we have no good way of measuring them.
Now, is there a tipping point? You bet. At a certain point, people won't write their business web tools for IE only (as Safeco does). Vertically targetted tools will be available for Linux, etc. and all basic productivity tools will be open source. At this point, I expect Linux useage to take off much faster.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That said, I think the real tipping point w/r/t OSS software getting mindshare and being a Big Thing is going to be via either simple devices running linux (mythTV setups sold cheaper than linux, for e.g.,) or when linux/freebsd gets a UI that is more MacOSX-like (by this I mean that you can do everything via GUI; current linux GUIs are getting closer to the simplicity and adaptability of MacOSX, but aren't going to be there for a while yet.)
Consider that most desktop systems are trying very hard to simplify things, and also consider how people raised with MS environments have trouble with a professional environment like MacOSX, just because it's not what they're used to. Not to say that it's impossible, just difficult.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
spigot: I'D LIKE TO OPEN THIS MEETING WITH THIS RAP SONG ABOUT LINUX!!!!!! I MADE IT ON THE BUS!!!!
spigot: A PTTH
spigot: A FRPFPR
spigot: DEAD BATTERIES
spigot: DOES ANYONE HAVE A CORD THAT CAN GO FROM A WALKMAN TO THE WALL OUTLET!?!!!?
spigot: A PPTHTHTH
spigot: I SPRAINED MY NECK
spigot: FOLKS, "PUFFIES" REFER TO PUFFY NIPPLES
Well maybe not great software at first, but with hard work and dedication, it can become great software.
Most of this article just extrapolated corporate WishThink. The "inevitability" of the end of MS blissfully ignores the dependence of hardware manufacturers at one end, and the GUI-dependence of users at the other. Nor is the OS a done deal, and most of the "commoditization" of office apps is still Microsoft OS-based, whatever the attractions of OpenOffice/StarOffice.
I can't hammer this point enough: MS has a gatekeeper mentality because it IS the gatekeeper. That is what needs to change. If MS could shoot down the GPL, it would not hesitate to sell an MS shell over a linux core, if it can justify dumping the NT asset. Okay, that's two if's but they're realistic if's. Otherwise, MS will stay put and strong-arm everyone.
What linux needs is shrink-wrapped POS systems. Shrink-wrapped accounting/stock-management. Take out those dependencies and you'll get a huge slice of market share.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Open source has two main strengths:
1. quality
2. easy fixes/improvements
The minor successes so far I think are clearly due to quality: Even mainstream technology enthusiasts can recognize that Apache, Firefox, and a few other tools are super-solid and finely-tuned applications.
But appreciation for a specific application does not translate into success for open-source as a whole, because it does not engage the user in the paradigm of open source.
But someday, the second strength of open source will become more evident: The ease with which it can be fixed and improved, and by this I mean improvements that are personal and specific to the user, something that is still very rare and unappreciated.
Consider, for instance, an average user of a mail program muttering to him/herself "I wish my email program could set off my alarm clock if I get an early email from work in the morning..." Suppose that person could post $100 improvement fee to a website, where it might be merged with similar requests from other users and leads to a new extension to be developed by an independent developer...
This idea is often discussed, but it is still only in its infancy. However, I believe it is critical for the success of open source, because it both engages the user in the OS philosophy and also allows a viable financial model to exist for mainstream software companies to participate in the OS revolution.
How can we make this happen?
The tipping point(s) already happened. They're called kernel 2.6 and firefox. If up is bad and down is good, then the release of firefox 1 will be the point just before the sharp decrease on a bell curve if you are travelling left to right.
It's a rollercoaster weeeee!!
I migrated my mom from Windows 95 to Red Hat 6.1. True she didn't play any games but she was calling my for tech support every two weeks because something would break or she couldn't figure something out. So I gave her a new computer with Red Hat on it and set up a network connection between the two computers. Shortly she stopped using Windows 95 and switched entirely to Linux.
:-)
7.2 was a great help
8.0 was even better.
Now she would never dream of going back. I even set up SQL-Ledger for her to run her home-based business with.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
...that 640Kb of RAM is all we will ever need?
While watching american casino on discovery last week I seen a tech converting a slot machine to take coins instead of dollars. He started up the machine and the camera panned to the screen. The first thing that appeard on the screen was?
....
lilo loading
The slide has already begun!
Got Code?
I run our entire manufacturing floor on kde desktops and I spend a total of about 5 minutes a week or less maintaining those systems. Thin client is where it is at when it comes to maintenance in a corporate environment. The problem is all of the wanna be linux admins going and loading linux on the client machines, hell that is just plain stupid, it is the windows sell tons of licenses model of deployment. Install a server and fire up remote x, sit back and enjoy.
Got Code?
Einfeldt does not address the question of whether there is anything that Microsoft can do to avoid demise.
Prof. Christensen himself recently suggested as a possible strategy that Microsoft should set up a new business using the low-cost alternative Linux on handheld devices. http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5411843.html
>user's perspectives. Face it, Windows XP was a
>very big and impressive release to the average
>user.
Please define "average user". This to me is a rather vague and ambiguous term, and could cause me to make certain assumptions about the type of user you're talking about, which you may not have intended.
>that there are no weak links.That means that >X.Org, Linux, KDE/GNOME, etc will have to fit
>into each other's design very well and as tightly
>as Windows and MacOS X.
No...The different elements of Linux were initially designed as components...seperate pieces...and this decision was made for a number of reasons that developed over quite a long period of time...X Windows in particular predates Linux. This document may be of relevance if you are interested in learning about the rationale behind modular design, and why monolithic design (the philosophy Microsoft have traditionally used) is normally not as effective.
Microsoft's direction is set, broadly speaking, by people whose skillset is oriented a lot more along the lines of economics and marketing than programming as such. The company exists for two reasons that I have been able to discern:-
(a) To make money via appealing to the largest possible demographic of the computer using population. Technical excellence, despite claims to the contrary, has been repeatedly shown as not being one of Microsoft's priorities. I can also cite numerous pieces of evidence in support of that assertion if you are interested.
(b) To maintain control primarily of the software industry, but also potentially of others...for reasons largely unknown, but presumably a continued desire for generation of massive revenue is a factor. This is a more difficult assertion to support, but Bill Gates has on a few occasions outlined visions of a particular future scenario in which Microsoft has a high degree of control of the areas of both computer software and entertainment/journalistic media.
It also would not be accurate to say that Microsoft have any real advantage over Linux, technical or otherwise...and they are well aware of this, and have mentioned it in profit statements. This document, as well as a collection of documents here outline in high detail the specific challenges Microsoft face in dealing with Linux, and the corporation's long term prognosis cannot be honestly described as positive. I believe that the company's best case scenario within the next decade or so is gradual marginalisation and a decreasing degree of market relevance. Worst case scenario (for them) is bankruptcy, probably ten years or so out at the earliest. This is an unlikely scenario, but given the amount of litigation the company has faced in the last few years, its tremendous losses in the court of public opinion, and the degree to which Windows sales have slowed, (not to mention the most devastating element, which is the lack of a genuinely concrete roadmap after Windows NT 4) it is becoming increasingly possible. The other thing that causes this to be more possible now is the fact that while Microsoft are not developing any substantially new products, (despite the claim at the beginning of your comment, most of the changes to Windows XP were cosmetic at best) the insecurity of Windows XP and the associated necessity to release massive and constant amounts of patches for it means that Microsoft can no longer afford to support older versions of its operating system, despite the fact that many people still use them.
I believe I observed the beginning of Microsoft's downfall in around September/October 1997. Although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer, the company is now losing blood...a combination of Linux, its own mistakes/misdeeds, and a recent comparitive lack of direction have left it mortally wounded. I also do not believe, no
Was that OS and productivity software, or just the OS? I've had customers save considerably more just on the productivity software.
But I think we'll get the whole package when it comes upgrade time. When staff are already using OSS productivity and browser software replacing the OS isn't all that hard.
This may sound strange but one customer was all hot over Linux when he found out his employees couldn't install Weather Bug. I suppose a good consultant would have told him he could lock the Windows users down the same way, but it was such an insightful moment I didn't have the heart.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Everything else follows quickly and easily from that.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that, but since telling free software developers what to work on (aside from being wrong) is like herding cats, I guess we're stuck waiting to find out if you're right.
I just don't see the whole interface inconsistency being solved. The more I learn about interface design, the more I realize how different my mindset was before I decided usability is the most important feature of any software program. In free software, I've mostly seen a lone coder or three working on some technically interesting project only to neglect the interface, or use some oddball toolkit, or whatever*. And no one wants to be told how they should code their project. Though, there are steps being made to improve this situation (Gnome usability guidlines and freedesktop.org come to mind) which are, of course, due to developers doing what makes them happy. So perhaps you are right after all.
* Why is it that in shell, there is only one interface (stdin, stdout, commandline args), but in "GUI" there are a multitude of interfaces. Would it not be a fascinating and purely technical challenge to create a gui system that didn't insist upon or enforce a single interface (in the way gnome insists on gtk) but merely was this way by design? From a purely technical standpoint, this would reduce code redundancy (how many GUI toolkits do we have? how many applications have coded a "file->save" function? in which text widgets can I use bold? why does app A have "undo" while app B does not?), and it would be a huge win for usability.
I work for my local school district as a PC tech. We have 12 primary, 2 secondary, 1 high school, and a central office. All network traffic from the primary and secondary schools plus the central office is routed to the high school over ISDN lines to the high school. There we have 4 T1s.
All of our schools except for the high school have always had slow internet connections due to the ISDN line. We don't have the budget to install T1s for all of our buildings. In the past I had suggested using a Squid proxy at each remote building to save on traffic going to the High School. He said he had never hear of this "Squid" thing and asked me about it. I told him it was a free proxy web cache server that runs on Linux. He sounded interested until I mentioned the words free and Linux. Instead my boss, after I warned him many times, decided to buy an underpowered 3com webcache appliance and put it at the high school. The appliance was rated for a medium sized business (100-500 computers) Our district has over 3000 computers, 1000 of which are at the high school. Even at the high school this device is not adequate. As a result, network performance has not improved anywhere and has decreased at the high school due to the bottleneck. Did I mention the cost of this device was $11,500.
After one of the computer labs of the high school was upgraded we had a surplus of 30 350 Mhz computers. During the summer we are usually installing new labs and installing new servers because all of the childeren are gone. Since all of the labs and servers and been installed there wasn't much more for me to do. My boss asked me to strip down the 30 computers and save any usable parts. I was to then recycle the parts that were not needed. I asked my boss if I could use 14 computers to test software on. Without questioning me he said yes.
For the next week I installed Trustix Linux on the 14 computers along with Squid, configured as transparent, and Sarg. Originally each computer had 128 MB RAM and a 6 GB hard drive. I decided to up the memory to 256 and install a second hard drive in each computer. One drive has the OS installed on it and the other drive is for the cached content.
After testing each machine I installed them at the schools. School started and the proxies worked great. My boss got a call from a Principal at one of the secondary schools. He asked how our department came up with the money to upgrade our network. My boss told him we hadn't upgraded anything as far as the network goes. He told me about this call during lunch that day and I told him it was because of the Squid proxy servers I had installed over the summer. He said to me with a confused look on his face, "Oh, ok. Well next time you want to install something let me know first." After lunch I showed him Sarg. He was impressed with all of the information available. I think in the future he may be more open to open source software. (Firefox will be my next project!)
If you have read to this point I thank you. The lesson I learned from this situation was that free open source software is looked down upon by some IT managers or those who make the final decisions. The common wisdom by some is since it's free it must not be good. This concept is hard for a Linux user like myself to grasp. I knew all along that a free and scalable alternative was available but my boss still decided to buy the 3com because it was expensive. It must be good if you have to pay for it right?
I think it can be displayed so even the pointest headed boss can understand it.
Stop thinking for a moment it's software, and imagine it's a product for sale, just like anything else.
Here's an example
Amalgamated Bicycles -- 100$, comes with flats fixed and chain oiled
Acme Bicycles -- 0$ and do your own maintenance or flats fixed and chain oiled -- 10$
What is going to win the bicycle market in the long run, given that both are bicycles of at least rough equal "value" to the pedaling consumer, they both work, go from point A to B? What would the "market" pundits say if it was another product with similar criteria?
The story is weak, too. No hard news there.
Weather UNIX (in any form) is at a tiiping point is arguable.
,dave
What is not is that Gartner and other "offical" "expensive" pundits are a dying breed. Their "probabilities" are no more accurate than others about what will happen.
These are the pundits who, in 1985, said that only two operating systems would survive in 2000: MVS and VMS. Well, they got the MVS part right. Where is VMS today? Ask Carly and her minions at HP. All it proves is that Gartner is full of highly paid people who know no more about the future than you.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
The huge stock buyback/dividend they just paid off will have reduced their cash reserves to very little in the end.
now... what will happen to Microsoft? Will they survive?
Yes. But it will look very different from Microsoft today. Reminds me of a paper and rubber company called Nokia and a company like Montana Power (which now makes computers). Personally, I think Microsoft will become a media company, but that is just wild speculation.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Certainly not me
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Please don't write here if you can not contribute positively to the SUBJECT.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
The only example I know, is my friend's mom, she's someone that is medical program cdrom install happy. That women aquired so many different apps, looking at here windows program menu was going to make my head spin. It all looks like generic software packs offered at a clearance discount from places like SAMs or the TV.
I guess where I'm going is that, MOL doesn't work here, because all this crap she bought is for Windows, and I don't need to continue this paragraph...
OTOH, a lot of these resources and crap applications are being turned into internet accessible apps where the browser is the platform. I tried Turbotax Web with either Mozilla or Konquerer (I can't remember), and it worked great. As others have said, the more of this that goes on, the more irrelevant the underlying OS is.
I don't see the threat to MS as so much the linux threat, rather than the OSS threat, as it is many OSS apps like apache and firefox that run fine under windows but happen to be crossplatform and standards compliant among other things.
We all know linux has many advantages given certain circumstances, and overall it keeps getting better. There are plenty of problems that still need to be addressed, but at this point, a tipping-point is at least plausible.
Personally I'm too much of a wimp to push MOL, but I think things will only get better, in part because so many companies and individuals are working to escape the MS monopoly and provide a viable alternaive. Strangely enough, it seems to be working.
http://www.bicoastalhosting.com/
weather_control_ network_operations_oversight.gif
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
I disagree. They could ALREADY sell a MS shell over a *BSD core, just as Apple has. Linux is not their only option, the BSDs are incredibly robust and advanced operating systems and MS wouldn't have to fight the GPL. I would argue that it would be even be an easier transition than using Linux since it's developed by a smaller and more centralized authority rather than total bazaar style development.
I would suspect the reason is applications; Microsoft is making money hand over fist on the current 9x/NT based systems, so why try to fix a system that's already pulling in more dough than the corporation knows what to do with?
Secondly an adoption of a core that was once open source means that without serious overhauling that current *NIX-compatable sources will be (relatively) easy to modify applications to run on "Windows POSIX Edition" That means more applications will be available to your competitors.
Apple had something to gain from this: they have small market share and were switching to a new kernel in OS X, losing their old applications, but started out with a significant boost because *NIX sources were not terribly difficult (relative to *NIXwindows ports) to coax to run on OS X. Microsoft would be doing the opposite, it would be opening a bunch of vital applications to "alternative" operating systems, making them far better competitors and far more lethal to their dominance.
Individual people are starting to get really annoyed about Windows. You hear them kvetching all the time, "My computer screwed up again", "My email's all messed up", "I think I've got a virus or something, my PC's acting funny"... You hear it at work, you hear it on the web. It's a much bigger deal than all these "business pundit" types imagine. People will change the way they do things to avoid aggravation, no matter WHAT they're told to do by Microsoft or the tech pundit of the week.
Prediction Number One:
The people who will adopt Linux first are actually the home users everyone thinks will go last. The reasons are easy enough:
1. It's free.
2. It's easy enough to install and the UI is familiar enough for them to use it comfortably, especially with KDE. Plus, it does everything a home user typically does (word processing, web browsing, email) much better than Windows would.
3. It's free.
4. There is a LOT of info online about how to do Linux-related things, and people are getting used to Googling for information. This is true despite the constant assertion by techno-snobs that Joe Sixpack is too stupid or lazy to do this. Maybe they forgot to tell Joe.
5. It's free.
6. Unlike a business, there's no boss to tell you that you can't switch to Linux.
7. It's free.
8. Home users will feel cool and hackerish using Linux -- they'll feel they're clued in to something, hip and different. People DO care about this. It turns 'em on, and makes them look cool to their friends. Social capital -- don't underestimate it.
9. It's free.
People are going to say this is bullshit. But look how many people are picking up Firefox. It's clear they have the initiative to try new things when they're annoyed enough. And they're definitely annoyed.
Prediction Number Two:
People with enough money to buy a Mac are going to switch to Mac OS/X in larger numbers, faster, than the x86 crowd, because of the "cool" factor. Most artists, writers, etc, already use Macs. They're very trendy computers. And the more rich/popular people use Macs, the more regular people will see changing to something different as an attractive thing. So Mac use will foster eventual Linux use among people who can't afford Macs.
Prediction Number Three:
The holdouts will be organizations which are averse to change, which move glacially. Governments, for example. Individual departments might switch over, but as a whole, it'll be slow going. I know MY shop will be among the last to change over. There's a whole cultural pro-Windows bias there. I see any transition happening on the server-side first, because we're already running some unix boxen and that transition would be the easiest. We're talking far backend, not middleware or frontend, here.
Some private companies might be slow to switch over, too, because of their investment in custom software, and their lack of Linux-related expertise. THIS transition is going to be very painful.
So, here it is in a nutshell:
Rich/affluent people: Mac OS/X on fast machines.
Regular people: Mostly switching to some form of Linux, whichever gets buzz for being easiest to install and manage.
Techies: Linux or OS/X depending on relative wealth. Maybe both in lots of cases.
Small, fast companies: Linux or *BSD.
Large, cautious companies: Windows for many years.
Government: Mixed bag.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Linux works on more "computers" than Windows. Think of all the architectures Linux can run on. You can count the number of architectures Windows runs on on one hand.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
I think Linux is heading towards tipping point in the server space, (look at the companies like Cisco and what they are producing new software on at them moment) but I don't think Linux will ever reach desktop tipping point without a major change in the way some things are done. There is a very good example of a Desktop Libre software project currently well on its way to tipping point, Firefox , the most important thing to note about Firefox is that it is Firefox doing it not Mozilla. Mozilla has been stable and available for a good few years now but it wasn't till Firefox grew out of it that it became a threat to IE. As most of us know it is because of the speed and ease of use that was introduced through the Firefox project. Linux also needs a change for it to break through in the Desktop space and I believe it is something to re-engineer/replace X-Windows. I have been using Linux for 6 years now and have used it for desktops most of that time , however 1.5 years ago I bought a 12" Powerbook and I haven't really used Linux for anything but servers since. The GUI's of KDE and Gnome are both good and are getting better but there is something severely lacking about the graphical under pinings of Linux that make the, seem cheap and nasty in comparison to the commercial GUI's. Linux on the desktop needs to learn from OSX not Windows Just imagine , (and no this is never gonna happen) if OS X was open sourced , Aqua would take 6 months to become the GUI of choice for alot of unix users and would propel linux into the desktop market like a bat out of hell. The linux community (especially Gnome and KDE) needs to get together and sort out a new or fixed graphical engine to help it go forward into the future.
Whoever controls the present controls the past, whoever controls the past controls the future
... is that one day they'll be right, and everyone that said it in the past will suddenly be thought of as prophets. If you back enough new trends, eventually you'll pick one that hits the big time.
If by tipping point you mean Killer App, you're completely correct, except Linux IS the Killer app, look where that got Apple.
Run a small business, just got a couple of P3 Compaqs quite cheap.
:-)
Decided thats its time to push Linux to the great unwashed masses, so installed Mepis on the P3s - took about 20 minutes (maybe 10 clicks of the mouse , did the user name thing, didn't really have to think about it).
Handed over to the sales guys. Told them - this is your userid, password; this is for web, this is for text documents (you know, Word). Leave.
An hour later the guys show up on MSN, doing their stuff. No complaints. No questions. No support.
Maybe Linus is wrong about the Desktop market - can't expect him to be in the know about EVERYTHING.
Musta been one of them really old one arm bandits. We use grub nowadays!
I think the most important aspect of Linux growth is that it does not seem to have ever gone down. Linux has gradually grown year after year. Now that it is much more mature, it should continue to do the same. Even if it maintains it's present rate, it seems likely that Linux will achieve at least significant market share, if not dominance, in many of our lifetimes.
Also, the article does not mention that growth rates are almost always exponential. If Linux continues to grow market share like it is, it will begin to grow at a much more rapid rate. The reason for this is word of mouth. Linux share is now in the 3-4% range. That means 3 or 4 people out of 100 use it (on the desktop). That means chances are that the average person doesn't know anyone who actually USES Linux. But once you hit the 10% range, that's 1 in 10 people that use Linux. Suddenly many more people know someone that uses Linux, and many will probably be willing to give a try. Suddenly you're shooting up to 25% share and you're in the trend/fad range. At this point momentum will usually swing completely in your favour. Not are you the trend, you're comeptition is looking poor for losing so much share. Chances are that at this point, market share will flip-flop and the underdog will be the leader. The Desktop OS market isn't like most other markets where there is a lot room for competition. It's very much a single product dominated market. It will likely always be that way. If GNU/Linux succeeds, however, it iss likely to also share a fair amount of success w/ other open source OSes like BSD.
Why can't they just say "encapsulation works"?
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
I've always viewed Microsoft as an anomaly in the computing world. In the beginning of computers the source code for the software was always included with the sale of the hardware. This was because in the early days of computing standards weren't yet established, being as new as it was computers were quite buggy and tweaking to the code on site was a necessity. Also, since computers were to perform a single task or narrow range of tasks and were quite new they were put in the hands of computer professionals, those professionals often worked for the computer builder and were contracted out to work on site.
As computer technology improved then on site support faded, as did the inclusion of source code. But one thing remained, software was developed in tandem with hardware. This has remained true for most computer manufacturers, Apple, Sun, and SGI for example. Closed source software started to become the norm as the software became more complex and the hardware was more easily replicated by a third party. This was done largely to protect trade secrets and assure a continued market for both hardware and software. After all if one cannot assure the ability to be compensated for their work they will find little motivation to continue the work. (This is where I could diverge into software patents but won't.)
About this time is where Microsoft appears. They are offering an operating system for computers they do not manufacture, creating this divide between hardware and software as a unit. As far as I know this is unique to have a closed source operating system run solely on third party hardware. This has always been a difficult position to hold for Microsoft which forced them to be very aggressive in the sale and marketing of their software. Microsoft does not have the luxury of dictating hardware designs down to the last transistor, so they must design for a wide variety of hardware which leads to difficulties in support and therefore costs rise. They do not have the luxury of hiding the development and support costs of the software in the costs of developing and supporting the hardware either. This leads to the high off the shelf price that we see.
With open source software the hardware manufacturers involved in making a computer can easily collaborate on the software as both can see the code. When the hardware is made by the same people as the software closed source works well and is often required for numerous economic and developmental reasons. Open source also works well in commodity software. As software matures and comes into wide use it becomes difficult for the hardware/software developer to justify selling the software separately as it becomes expected by the consumer that the computer will be able to perform that task. As the task to be performed becomes common and the software matures it also leaves the developer with the difficult task of making any money on the software as it is for the most part "done". As sales for improvements and bug fixes become more difficult to make it would be almost natural to release the source code so that the last remaining bugs can be tracked down by a willing community, as opposed to keeping a large support staff for the software for closed source maintenance.
This is now how Microsoft is in trouble of staying in business. The software to perform the most common tasks on a computer is now mature. People expect any new computer they buy to be able to perform tasks like boot from the hard drive, copy files from one directory to another, etc., etc. etc. and do so reliably. These and other tasks traditionally performed by the operating system are so mundane that no one thinks of buying software to perform that task. The ability to present a GUI, communicate with other computers, create various types of documents, etc. are now considered mundane that again one would not expect to actually have to pay extra for those features. Open source simply makes sense for such software.
Closed source software will continue to exist but
It isn't that Linux will overtake MS Windows, but that MS will have to change BECAUSE of Linux and that change will neuter most of their abusive power.
MS will have to give up 85% margins and cannot afford to continue to put $1Bn a year into non-competitive ventures.
They will be unalbe to change Office formats on upgrade, since there will be the OOo upgrade path that will allow seamless opening of Office docs.
They will be unable to sell WMV formats to media giants with "you get 90%+ of the deskop market if you go with us". A 60% penetration means they may as well go with Real or Apple than risk handing the keys over to a company that could turn into a rival.
They won't be able to force MS only shops, since that could remove a large section of the buying public. They could not keep activation, since the pain of changing would be less than he pain of activation.
I can see MS getting to a 60% level and then changing their work practices and holding there or thereabouts.
If MS ever get to less than 30%, they will probably close shop and sell assets and cash in.
The games are written *exclusively* for windows.
....
You can't play Crash Bandicoot on Windows XP, so it will not be a good platform.
There are games that will work on Linux. UT, Doom, Rune, RtCW,
Linux won't become the king. Most PC are bought and used in a large part to play games. Most games are not going to be for Linux because of the driver issues. DirectX games rule the world.
Haha David Finch is very funny, at least to anyone who likes evidence over assertion...how can this article, which on the linuxworld.com main page is headlined "Rumors of Microsoft's Demise Are Premature...But Not Unthinkable conceivably be evidence of a bias in favor of Microsoft FUD???? Nice going David. Now to say that LinuxWorld is also responsible for terrorism and world poverty...
- GIMP that I've installed,
- Gimp 2 that I installed,
- PhotoShop esentials, that came with the digital camera,
- Ulead Photo Explorer 6.0 that came with a web-cam,
- Dell image expert, Paint shop pro,
- Presto Mr. Photo,
- OpenOffice photo editing capabilities,
- MS Office 2003photo editing capabilities,
- Paint bundled with WinXP itself by MS.
And each one of these except the two GIMPs, probably came with their own DLL's potentialy overwriting DLL's in system updatess. So I don't get your point.Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Dave Barnes, you are sick little man. You seem almost to be a parody of human life, as your own words and actions mock it so. You sit in a tiny little cubicle wasting your life away, completing whatever asinine tasks your managers have set before you. You run out of your meetings so you can furiously masturbate to the attractive female co workers you know that you will never have. You are the absolute bottom of the barrel. You are below the drug addicts, rapists, murderers and child abusers. The Nazis were wrong in thinking the Jews were the lesser race; you are the lesser race, Dave Barnes. If there is a God, he will surely punish you for making us endure your existence.
Heil Weisheit, his power is great.
oh yeah.
define works.
Jeoin
I am afraid that is simply not the case Most PC's are bought by companies fitting out their offices with servers and general purpose desktops.
In fact, it is widely beleived that the PC as a gaming platform is declining due to rising problems with piracy and the market dominance of consoles such as the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox by an large offer a much better return on investment than PC games.
DirectX games do not rule the world. DirectX is a facilitator for games. It doesnt matter whether a game uses Direct3D or OpenGL its the game, and its gameplay that matters most. Also you might have noticed that many of the next gen card manufacturers (NVidia & ATI) are offering OpenGL support in addition to DirectX. You might also notice that many of your favorite 3D games have a video setting for OpenGL. This is something you will find more and more often as it is much easier for software developers to write a Crossplatform/console game using an Open/Crossplatform 3D graphics library than it is with a closed one such as D3D.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
The games I am playing now REQUIRE Directx 9.0.
the OS is more expensive -all that beta testing, all those drivers, all those support calls saying ten year old apps dont work property. They have put much more effort into backwards compatibility of binary code than linux has done (where we rely on recompile-your-code as the compatibility process).
But what does that os bring them. It gives them
- fantastic cash flow
- $60-100 per PC
- ability to dictate the default web browser
- ability to dictate the default music format and store
- ability to dictate which VM runtime ships with the system -and its
.NET instead of Java.
The OS is justifiable for the control it gives the company, plus it 'encourages' people to develop for windows rather than for other platforms. What hurts them is not so much the linux apps, or a migration to java apps, but web-based apps that dont care what browser you use. Because ActiveX never succeeded, you can go to almost any web site with linux+firefox. And that is what has set us free. It still niggles me that PCs ship with windows; it is interesting to note that the biggest piracy of windows is not end users, but white box system builders who sell PCs prestocked with lots of apps including cracked copies of Word and photoshop. This irritates me, as if people get all the windows junk for nothing, the fact that they can get the linux app suite for the same price -legitimately- is less compelling.So as with every "Linux marketshare" article on Slashdot, I'm seeing several replies along the lines of "who cares? I use Linux, I don't care what the rest of the world uses". The whole "market share" question is not about who has "the best tools for the job". It is about who controls the software chokepoints.
The "who" in this case is the majority software provider, aka Microsoft. Want to play the latest whiz-bang games? Better get Windows. Want to use proprietary small business apps? Better get Windows. Want to run large corporate integrated apps? Better get Windows. Want to install a computer for your Mom, but "it has to have Quicken"? Better get Windows. (Because I'm lazy, let's leave Mac OS out of this for now)
See the common theme here? For the past 5-10 years, Windows has controlled these "chokepoints". Not because it is the "best tool for the job", but because its unique combination of features, price, etc were what the market favored at that time.
So, why should this matter to you, who already uses Linux and already have your "best tools for the job"? The answer: maybe sometimes you want to play some of those new whiz-bang games that are coming out, or you want to interact with another small business who uses Windows-only apps, or you work for a megacorp whose executives insist they need MS-BigProject 5.2. See? You are forced to use Windows; it doesn't matter what you would like to use.
This is why market share questions are important. This is really about computer users who want the freedom not to choose Microsoft products. It is also why the place for "I use the best tool for the job" responses are in other, more technical discussions.
Of course you might argue that there are plenty of apps, but most businesses want to stay with the apps they've built their business on (unless it's really crap). Changing apps is the real stumbling block. Giving up your hardware store or law office program is a lot harder than swapping Office for OO.o.
Well, I've stuck to XP, mostly cause most of my games and hardware is windows/mac only. But cowdung, or as Microsoft calls it Longhorn, is the first MS OS that I wont use on my personal computer. Personally, I'll probably look at a Mac for my next computer, but will still continue to 'try' linux to see if it would just be better to stick with a PC. Though, the only real distro I've tried is Fedora, haven't had too much luck with it. Especially, with using their GUI automatic update program for downloading/installing new kernels. Hopefully, by the time I go looking for my next computer, Linux will be made for people not good enough to master a command prompt driven OS.
I believe that Microsoft is aware that Linux more or less dooms them on the desktop. They can't admit that though. If they admit it, it will mean a defection from their platform. Every businessman knows that you never admit your product is being beaten by another product, you always focus on why people should buy your product, even if you have to make up reasons for it.
They are quite aware that their long term viability in the desktop market is doomed and they're getting pounded in the server market. They're losing ground in the third world nations and that isn't good for them. Those third world nations can ultimately improve open source software to the point it can hammer products in the first world.
So they're busy looking for escape routes and shifting to a new business model, and they're going to squeeze as much as they can out of existing markets until they get their escape route set up. Heck, even after they get it set up they will squeeze every last penny they can out if it, just because that makes good business sense. And they will never admit that Windows is an inferior product until they finally pull the plug on it and Office.
The article states that Microsoft has matured and forget the growth in the PC market that it used to have. The only sensible thing for Microsoft to do is to find a new market to grow in, and that's what they're doing right now. MSN, X-Box, X-Box Online and the Microsoft Media Center are all areas that they're looking to find new sources of revenue and growth in.
Microsoft has paid attention to what happened to IBM, and I think they are aware that sooner or later the time will come when they have to switch from profits from monopoly leverage to finding some other way to make money. They can't and won't admit it because it would damage their position in the market badly to actually come out and admit it. They don't have a good escape route now, a path to new growth, and until they find it, they have to claim that their current position is strong.
I got distracted by my my own boredom and forgot which website would bring me joy tonight...I guess the option which would slow down my internal death the most was /.
Thanks to your comment, I remembered I haven't read Dilbert for weeks. Now my night of nothingness will at least have the comedy of emptiness singing its song to me for a half an hour perhaps.
Yay!
You can't play Crash Bandicoot on Windows XP, so it will not be a good platform.
Oh really? This PlayStation emulator runs on both Windows and Linux. Sure, it's not compatible with 100 percent of PS1 titles, but Windows XP SP2 isn't compatible with 100 percent of Windows 98 games either.
Judging an OS by its ability to play the latest games is an excellent way to test it.
Can Windows XP SP2 play Pikmin 2? What about Fable or the latest GTA? Even with relatively older (3yo) games, what multiplayer title for Windows that doesn't require multiple PCs is as fun for the kids as Super Smash Bros. Melee?
Windows, YOU FAIL IT.
Consider, for instance, an average user of a mail program muttering to him/herself [a request for enhancement]. Suppose that person could post $100 improvement fee to a website, where it might be merged with similar requests from other users and leads to a new extension to be developed by an independent developer...
You can make this happen by submitting a patch for bug 124096 at bugzilla.mozilla.org.
The games I am playing now REQUIRE Directx 9.0.
The games I am playing now REQUIRE a Game Boy Advance.
Why four PC's?
Most popular multiplayer PC games seem to require a PC, or at least an X terminal, for each player. Console games such as Super Smash Bros. Melee, on the other hand, put four players on four input devices, one STB, and one screen.
Linux is better at certain tasks like fileserver and webserver
And gameserver?