Slashdot Mirror
Linus On The Future Of Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "There's a pretty good interview with Linus over at Good Morning Silicon Valley. The discussion seems focused predominantly on the future of proprietary software and what the tech landscape might look like if Microsoft's market share declines. 'Says Linus: I do not believe that anything can "replace" Microsoft in the market that MS is right now. Instead, what I think happens is that markets mature, and as they mature and become commoditized, the kind of dominant player like MS just doesn't happen any more. You don't have another dominant player coming in and taking its place -- to find a new dominant player you actually have to start looking at a totally different market altogether.'"
Easy - take a long hard look at IBM.
So it's no wonder that Microsoft is one of the very few players who really don't seem to like open source.
Define "like open source". Do you think IBM or Sun "likes" about open source? Sure, they open source their products, but they're not doing so because it's a good development model or will produce better code. They're doing it for marketing and I guess it is working -- Seems to have Linus fooled.
Also, lest we forget Microsoft has open source'd code too.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
He wants his story back.
Was born 15 years earlier...
I'm not so sure about that. Think about foreign automobile makers and GM in today's world. GM is arguably a behemoth, and that in itself can be what drives a monopoly out of power. Even though this market is arguably very mature, market share can change fairly rapidly with innovation. Once you conquer enough of the market share, you will have a hard time keeping up with innovation in all the corners that could propel your rival to be serious competition someday.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
Therefore, while I would like to believe that what Linus says is true, I sincerely doubt it will happen, at least not in the forseeable future.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
OMG .. Im gonna faint !!! Hail our Kernel-writing overlord !!
the kind of dominant player like MS just doesn't happen any more.
Tell that to Google.
Slashdot should put these stories in a dedicated section like they do with Linux, and Apple.
Oh, and they should get rid of the Gates borg icon. It was never funny, and it just looks so lame and childish. How come no other topic beside Microsoft gets that kind of immature treatment?
when you make a "first post", make sure it's actually the first post...
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
How does he remain a hero of fanboys and flamebaiters?
As long as Microsoft has the money to throw at new projects, it will be a VERY long time before it looses any significant market share. All the new and inovative technologies coming out to compete with Microsoft, are either later copied by them, or bought out by them. And when 95+% already uses MS and doesn't care about alternatives, they'll stick with them when it comes to new technologies.
"A war over religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend."
Linus is basing what he thinks will happen on his experience of past monopolies. How many of these have there been? Really? Maybe 10, 20? Nowhere near enough to start predicting the future on. We have had four and a half billion years of weather, and we still can't get that right, and god knows, big business is nearly as complex. The other problem, of course, is microsoft is learning every day how to protect itself from those other companies fates.
you must be one of the ms staff members assigned to monitor the /. ms-haters =0
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
A company that could replace Microsoft may not come directly from the computer industry. It could very well be Wal-Mart putting a squeeze on their inventory software that they decide own the entire the computer industry to get better effeciency out of their software.
Then again, it could always be a humble Chinese vegetable seller bent on world domination one cabbage at a time.
if Linus is a true visionary futurologist
something like
a software version of
WalMart
beating suppliers into submission until wecome full circle to one huge vendor and a cornucopia of small speciality suppliers?
Does Bill G and company have the bux to take over software distribution in the area of commodity functionality?
Has he had that vision?
Yet?
Here's the way I see it.
I understand completely why consumers, especially us, want there to be OS choice and
OS competition for everyone. Having three or four major OS's that end user every-day
Joes would use sounds like a Utopia. In fact, if I had it my way, there would be Windows,
Mac OS X, a revolutionary easy to use, yet powerful, Linux (shh.), and another free OS.
However, since most consumers don't know very much about computers, they're not going to
understand that their software doesn't work between OS's without hard-to-use (for them)
emulation software. With all of those choices, people are going to stick with the name
and software package they trust. Windows is going to win no matter what, unless Microsoft
goes the way of the dodo. The vast majority cannot handle the confusion and differences
between OS's, and they don't want to understand it. Even if somehow all the OS's could
use each other's software natively, then what would be the point in having more than one?
I hate to see one operating system dominate the market just as much as you guys do, but
there will always only be one primary operating system for (at least) the consumer market.
Whether it's always going to be Windows, I cannot say. I just know that people are happy
with standards, and they don't want to have to screw with migrating to something new, even
if they know it could be better for them.
nothing.can.stop.me.now
what other market is comparable to what linus is describing?
This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
a market based upon supporting "Abstraction Physics" and "automated - code generation to execution".
Steps in this direction can be seen with MS's "Software Factories ideology" though its of course biased to feed MS more than being genuine about Abstraction Physics. And there is Apples "Automator" and plenty of other "code generation" and "automation" efforts all leading to the same "different then now" market.
This is relative to the "Software Patents battle ground"
Consider that the average user is willfully clueless with their machines and software. Consider just how much. Now imagine AOL throwing their resources at a tight, polished, bootable AOL-ified Linux which they push on all those CDs.
Linux will continue to move places in the techie arena like with workstations and servers. End users who can't grok Windows? No, not until it gets polished.
So from that perspective, Linus is right that Microsoft isn't just going away. Are they going to continue to have share eaten in serverspace? Yes. Not going away though.
Overall very good replies by Linus, one billionth the level of intensity of the zealots who squak the most in the Linux world which is reassuring. I do think he's wrong that there won't be future Microsofts. There's plenty of innovations in tech to be made that one really lucky company may corner the market through sheer chance and idiocy of their competitors. Microsoft won where Apple, IBM, SCO, Oracle, Netscape, and Sun failed to take them down in various areas despite throwing massive energy into it. It could happen again.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
You misspelled *Is*.
Now can we have a civilized discussion?
You must be a Los Angeles Times editor. This is Slashdot. Maybe you want the New York Times instead?
Take a look at the Roman Empire. When they became a "monopoly", their morals lowered and they became disorganised.
It was just a matter of time before the barbarians took over. Wait a minute... shouldn't the virus writers be considered barbarians? Deja vu...
Microsoft will die one day, or be relegated to an already-run, but it won't be to Linux or Unix. No, Linux and Unix are too ancient, backwards and messy to be a replacement for Windows and Microsoft. And the community is too disjoint to ever mount a successful attack against Microsoft like a corporation could. Heck, Linux already has many corporate backers and look how it still continues to flounder as Microsoft improves Windows by leaps and bounds.
Windows went from crappy 3.1/95 to very stable and potentially secure XP with a large amount of free and non-free software and hardware support. What has Linux done in the past 10 years? It is still behind Windows and always will be. It tries to be too many things to too many people and in the process fails at being good at anything. Sure, it's a good server OS, it's usable on the desktop, but Windows or Mac OS are better desktop OSes and there are other versions of Unix that are better than Linux in the server room (except the cost lots of money or don't have as much community and hardware support).
But more to the point, Linux is just old hat. It's based on a 30 year old operating system. Things have changed, and certainly Unix/Linux has as well, but wouldn't it be better to have an OS designed from the bottom up to be truly modern and not hold on to all sorts of anacronisms and baggage from those 30 years? An OS that will beat Microsoft will not be Unix or Linux (perhaps based on Unix, but it would have to be heavily modified -- see Mac OS X). Backwards isn't the answer.
Seriously, with all the stories slashdot devotes to Microsoft thru the years, it's amazing they never get their own section.
That's what the FRONT PAGE is for.
AOL has been sliding for a while now... AOL is not going to be a viable business if they remain an ISP for much longer. The writing's on the wall for AOL: they simply don't offer much (if anything) of value, even to the most basic customers.
Even so, what would the point of this be? What would AOL have to gain from spending massive R&D to build their own version of Linux? That doesn't make any sense.
I don't respond to AC's.
It seems everyone I've talked to in the last 6 months is using FireFox. Plus everyone I tell FireFox about thanks me later. Everyone loves the tab feature and the "natural" defense against spyware. Anyhow... sure it's just a browser.
--- Strange but true facts. I can't cook
...People look to Microsoft for brand name recognition and "trust." (I hear you laughing, but think like a consumer, not like a tech person.)
People still don't know "Linux" even if they have seen the IBM ads. So there's not a lot of established consumer trust. That will have to come from company trust really... and let's be honest, we're still quite a way from that at the moment. (I don't deny the progress but I can't ignore the distance to the destination either.)
When people realize that the OS and the Software as the means of operating on data instead of as "the thing" then we'll start to see an appreciation that software can be a commodity especially when they see that by divorcing Microsoft, their business data becomes free to be used by ANY software and not just Microsoft's. We've got a long way to go before that happens.
Still, I like the language Torvalds is speaking on this matter...
to find a new dominant player you actually have to start looking at a totally different market altogether
<chorus>to find a new dominant player you actually have to start looking at a totally different market</chorus>
Never underestimate the power of fiber.
Of course, this recasting will take some adapting, as the basis of competition in CECS will differ from MSFT's historic competitive environment.
Which means there is a great opportunity for a CECS startup to benefit from a lucrative acquisition by MSFT.
Toward this end, you are all cordially invited to steal my Amazon.com-/Microsoft-approved business plan for a CECS provider, which can be found at Landof.OpportuniTV.com.
Good luck!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Linus: "I think the really interesting question is what happens to their profit margins. It's almost all profit for them right now. I don't think that's sustainable in any market, and yes, I believe that open source is one of the things that will "correct" the software market."
I think so too. If the profit margins are eroding even a bit due to spread of linux in the server market, or as concessional prices are given to governments and firms, the present discounted value of future profit stram can come down a lot.
But the present discounted value value of profit stram is pretty much what constitutes the value of the share price.
So would you invest to microsoft shares or not? Lets look how it's going..
from MSNMoney:
# MICROSOFT CORP price change in past 12 months: -12.1%.
Difference from the average for the Application Software group: -5.30 pct. pts.
Percentage of all stocks that MICROSOFT CORP outperformed: 26%
MS is actually performing clearly worse than the "Application Software" group. If the situation is the same one year from now, MS will start to panic.
That's why I'm working on making DirectX available under Linux via WINE, so that joe public can pop down their local store, buy a piece of software and have it run under Linux without having to know what's going on under the hood.
I use more or less identical setups for all the apps I run under WINE, and when you consider that the work I've done is still in beta at best the possibility of being able to run 'anything' on Linux doesn't seem so hard to swallow. I certainly hope that in a year from most games and media applications will be working flawlessly.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
its even in your quote: It's an indispensable general tool for communication and don't come back saying that you meant the bit about "needing them every day", because it was the word "indispensable" you were rubbishing.
Hilarious!
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Right, the company with a motto of "do no evil," and has earned it's patron's loyalty by excelence wants to act like Microsoft which has to use dirty tricks to keep customers. I'll believe that when I see:
Linus Torvalds is only half right. Nothing can replace Microsoft but nothing should. The sooner they lose their ability to coerce [aka "dominance"] the better off we all are.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If we take a page from the video game industry, american companies would often abandon ideas that were not immediately profitable, often passing over truly good ideas if they could not control them or exploit them as quickly as they needed turnaround. With this sort of hit-or-miss shortsightedness and not striving to build a good idea until it is profitable and to grow around needs/uses of consumers, it is extremely difficult to find a successful formula without lockin.
Nintendo took over the video game market because their vision was that of the long term, in fact they planned out the next 10 years, and rebuilt the video game industry in america when others believed that it was a fad that was dead and gone. They furthered the platform by sharing their experience and helped licensees as in the end it drove demand for more Nintendo hardware and software. But when Nintendo tried to place too many restrictions on third parties, they would eventually find another platform (such as the Genesis, which at its peak had a 51% market share over Nintendo).
Open source software does not have these restrictions, is built with the long term in mind, and users may have direct influence over the applications they work with. Microsoft's place in the market is determined by factors they must control, but to do so they must sometimes overlook the needs of the users, developers, or even their necessity to Microsoft as they must look to their profits to ultimately decide whether to continue development in a certain area. The platform is driven by the interests of Microsoft's profits and success in reality could well be arbitrary. This requires a streamlined and highly successful process and may in the end drive Microsoft closer to open source methods, as they have developed many initiatives recently designed to provide greater interaction and sharing of information with developers, provided more information on APIs, and even produced some of their own software which the user may modify and download without spending money. They have explored their "shared source" avenue.
It will be interesting to see what happens on both fronts.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Define "like open source". Do you think IBM or Sun "likes" about open source?
You ask to define "like open source" then you use it without giving your own definition!?
I call "troll".
and if it can get China to actually enforce - or permit enforcement, in practice - of patent law, then it still owns the marbles, even if others want to create solutions in that area.
It's like walking across a minefield where every 2-3 feet a new mine exists - or doesn't. You can let a bunch of gerbils fan out across the minefield and detonate the mines - which takes time and uses up a lot of gerbils, not to mention funeral costs for them - or you can buy a map.
Microsoft sells the map. Patents let them stop others from selling you the map.
Now, if those gerbils had maps, and could read them, well that's a different story.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Linus's comparison of MS with IBM is off. Without sounding like a PR person for MS, I'd like to point out the fact that in the history of IBM there has never been anyone at the top who is like Bill Gates. IBM is better known as a hardware producer, and even then it has recently lost quite a bit of luster by selling PC business to Lenovo and losing Apple as a client. IBM has always conjured up an image of a mammoth corporation with faceless techies, but the only image Microsoft projects is that geeky guy named Gates, and yet, like it or not, he is out-wrestling every husky guy in the arena, so far.
I do agree with Linus when he said he doesn't believe in dynasties and that successful companies eventually get lazy and conceited. Open source, however, is a movement, not a commercial entity, and a movement is, here again Linux is right, unstoppable. This is not to say open source products will "replace" proprietary products, but they do "erode" their markets and force proprietary products to improve, which is a great thing.
Sun and Fun
Here's how it breaks down:
One can rent a dedicated Linux server for as little as $45 per month http://hostingator.com/.
Microsoft has a pay-as-you-go licensing scheme for Windows Server 2003 (web server edition) that costs $20 per month.
Hence, one can have a Linux server for $45 per month and a Windows server for $65 per month.
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
It seems everyone I've talked to in the last 6 months is using FireFox. Plus everyone I tell FireFox about thanks me later. Everyone loves the tab feature and the "natural" defense against spyware. Anyhow... sure it's just a browser.
Now, if I were Bill Gates, and there's no truth to that rumor, I'd be much more concerned with the open-source browser adoption and implementation.
Why? Because if people aren't using IE - tightly bound into my OS or so I would claim - then they might realize they don't need my OS. And that would be double plus ungood.
So, in a way, projects like FireFox could make it easier to switch from my OS (Windows Daddy Longlegs) to an open source OS (insert name here).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
> "the market that MS is right now." Oh my. Jumping to conclusions already, eh?
gcc didn't exist on the x86 platform until 1987 or so. The 386 didn't come out until about 1985. There really wouldn't have been anything that Linus could've done until gcc was out (and C compilers are not his strength).
And don't forget the GPL didn't come until 1983. Even if Linus had written on OS for the 8086,
no one would've cared.
If he had been born 15 years earlier, he would probably wouldv'e been too tied up with a real job
to write Linux
What you say? Mod me down as a troll, but even if people jump ship en masse to Firefox, that is not a problem for Microsoft. There are several reasons for this - times today are very different from the good ol' days of their browser war with Netscape.
.NET apps.
.NET web applications, from MSFT's perspective it is fine if people use Firefox 90% of the time and use IE for the 10% of .NET mission critical apps. As long as those apps exist, people are still tied into their platform.
During the browser war between Microsoft and Netscape, Microsoft's primary worry was not people using Netscape Navigator as much as the Windows platform losing importance. Remember Andressen's quote saying that when Netscape was done, Windows would be reduced to a set of poorly debugged device drivers? Its easy to say that was foolery in retrospect, but Microsoft was sincerely worried about that. As far as Microsoft knew at the time, Windows could have lost importance in the same way that minicomputers declined after the rise of the personal computer.
Fast forward to the twenty first century. Microsoft is having a crapload of problems with spyware and this product called Firefox is getting rave reviews. But the worries of the mid nineties are gone. The reason that Microsoft stopped IE development is because they do not want to see web apps get more powerful; they hope that when Longhorn comes around, people will write distributed
Firefox does nothing to stop this future. While Firefox is a nice app and IMHO better than IE, it is not pushing the frontiers of web application capabilities, the way that Netscape did in the nineties. As nice as it is to not worry about slimeware, Firefox is just enabling the same ol' web.
As nice as Firefox is, it is not enabling people to switch away from Microsoft technologies other than IE itself. People are not switching to Linux because of Firefox. When Longhorn comes out and Microsoft starts hyping
Perhaps at some level, Microsoft risks losing mindshare from Firefox. But even if this is the case, they risk to lose much more mindshare by acknowledging Firefox as an issue so their response is expected.
Windows users/fanatics (including MS employees) who come to Slashdot and scratch their heads at the anti-Microsoft sentiment here...but they still come back again and again. The Shi'ites do it for religious purposes. Why do MS users do it?
In Soviet Russia ... kernel overlords you!
I'd like to venture a guess. Actually, I think it's more of an educated observation of factors.
The "next market" is web based solutions. Sure, we'll still be using a word processor and spreadsheet on the PC/Mac, but what about things like project planning or company accounts?
Before anyone said "been there done that, and Ellison's thin client didn't sell", let's bear a few things in mind. This is not 1998. Firstly, the people on the web were still mostly geeks who wanted control on their machines. Secondly, viruses were not much of a problem then. Thirdly, being geeks, they could administer apps. Fourthly, there wasn't the same degree of global fragmentation. Fifthly, the bandwidth wasn't there - you can get a big server with a ton of bandwidth onto the web for peanuts now.
There is already a market for webapps, like Basecamp and Salesforce. Google are doing online maps. Michelin do a route planner. People are already ditching software in favour of a browser-based solution.
I've noticed that a lot of companies building in-house software are not building console apps, but webapps, even for in-house use. I imagine it's partly simplicity (zero-deployment) but my guess is that someone has in mind the possibility of switching as they need to, and as networks get cheaper and cheaper, they'll do it.
Microsoft could very well fall down when customer backlash peeks. i.e. suppose Apple does decide to ship OS X for any x86 at just the right time.
i.e. I just spent 6 hours cleaning CoolWebSearch and HomeSearch off a computer. I still don't think I've got all of it yet. There are now duplicates of every file in the C:\Windows directory with a random slight change to each one. I also have tons of TXT and LOG files with bizarre random names.
If I a professional has to struggle so hard to remove this Trojan/Spyware/Malware then the end user has no chance in hell of getting rid of it short of a format and re-install!
Enough of these consumers get infected with this stuff or worse (it always gets worse) and there will be a huge backlash against MS. Apple could just be waiting for that to peek and then WAMMO, sell the OS X for x86 clones and drop the price! Then flood the mainstream primetime hours with commercial after commercial advertising it.
They would certainly steal Microsoft's retail market rather quickly! Of course, business will take longer but if your developers get their hands on the OS X development kit and see what they can do with it and the end will come quicker.
Come on now you can come up with something better than that can't you?
Yes, Linus is an expert on running a successful and profitable business.
Transwhata?
Don't get me wrong, or call this "flamebait" as it's not. Linux is a great thing, but the reasons it's as successful as it is have nothing to do with marketing, sales, creating perceptions, or anything else. It's simply a cheaper, ergo the corporate darling status, and some damned talented people are amused enough by it to lend their talents to the effort. These reasons in no way make Torvalds an authority - he simply has an opinion and happens to be a famous geek.
I'd sooner hear Steve Jobs' more sophisticated thoughts on the subject - yet Apple's barely holding a candle to MS. Maybe Andy Grove could take a moment to ponder this?
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
MS isn't a company, it's a part of the economy.
I work for a small biz computer/network consulting business and there are dozens of companies like is in our area, and 90% of what we do is Microsoft. Add this in to the really big players that feed off of MS as well, and you have almost an economic segment unto itself.
It's hard to say "topple MS" when you have an economic entity almost as big (bigger?) than MS itself that makes money off of it.
Remember, Microsoft made its first millions selling mice.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The vast majority of home computer users wants their operating system to be nothing but a GUI that makes it as easy as possible to run as much software applications as possible in combination with as much hardware as possible. This is the simple reason why Linux is not an option for mainstream home PC users, and won't be any time soon.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
I for one am sick of the usual /. flaming against MS that smacks of jealousy and extreme idealism for "their pet OS". The point of Linus makes a lot of sense, and I think that yes the market will correct some of the rather hefty prices, as he says. Of course, the question is for the next 5-10 years, "What OS can my company bank on in the meantime?" I'd say MS is a pretty safe bet if (a)you have a lot of infrastructure that works well (Win2K/Win2K3/whatever) for the intranet where you have the knowledge and experience (and also support for the near future) and (b)you diversify with some *NIX (or even Windows Server) offering for the webserver where you have enough knowledge and experience to support it sufficiently yourself rather than rely on some company (RH) or other (pick your company).
Basically, those who bet against MS have the burden of proof on their specific OS over the MS offerings that have worked for a lot of people...and their view may be right for their situation.
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
Linus, why don't you stop by sometime. I wrote you a letter. You sometimes work only 3 miles from where I live. I know, I read source code.
We can get on the ham radio. I have all Ten-Tec. Orion and Titan 3, plus some amazing wire antennas, the product of hours spent on EZNEC.
Sincerely
Rob
Remember, Microsoft made its first millions selling mice.
Let's see... MS sold DOS to IBM--no mouse. MS sold apps for the Mac--already had a mouse.
It wasn't until Windows that there was a market for an MS mouse. I'm pretty sure MS will have already made more than a few million by then.
Although I'd like the symmetry--MS's dark reign bookended with it being merely a mouse company.
From TFA:
I think Linus is a lot smarter, or at least a lot more realistic about the long term future of MS, Linux, and IT in general than most of the early responses to this article give him credit for.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Torvalds sounds pretty smart, even when he's not talking about kernels. The same is true of Gates, even though he's rarely quoted anymore talking about kernels, or actual tech nuts & bolts. And Gates' speech is always informed by the best research, filtered through the best marketing, that money can buy. Yet Torvalds seems to be speaking from personal conviction and his own research.
How do we stage a nerd-off?
--
make install -not war
He uses commoditized , I think he is thinking balkanized ...
Get your Unix fortune now!
Please RTFA. Linus doesn't believe the MS empire will be crushed any year soon either. The closest he comes to saying that is
That part comes at the end. Probably because the interviewer wanted to finish on a strong note. Earlier in the interview however, Linus said and, continuing backwardsIn general, I'm rather annoyed with the way people have been responding to the article because it seems like they're not reading it, or if they are, they're only looking at it from out of the corners of their eyes. Linus has always seemed to me to be a very level headed, easy going, and above all realistic individual when it comes to discussing the future of MS, Linux, and IT in general. It should come as no surprise then that he's not really predicting the sudden and apocalyptic death of MS, but rather a very slow, very gradual, possible(!) marginalization of the company.
You can leave the "imminent death of X"-style predicting to lesser people.
Oh wait! This is slashdot! Oops, I'm sorry my bad... I forgot where I was posting for a while. Please. Forget everything I said. Thanks.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
+1, Original
Who do you buy mainframes from today? That's right, it's IBM, still the mainframe monopoly after all these years. But we're well past the period of "all computing is done on mainframes." How many of you have a 3270 on your desk?
.NET/XML runtime embedded in your browser to do rich, functional web apps. And that means we get to continue on our merry way, towards a network-dominated future where if any operating system has an advantage, it's the one that serves well as an infrastructure component. You guessed it: Linux.
Similarly, even if Microsoft's desktop monopoly is never dislodged, the market will move on anyway. We're all starting to see it; applications are leaving the desktop and being absorbed back into the network. A network whose components are most certainly not monopolized by Microsoft. You can be sure that the Dark Lord of Redmond knows this quite well; that's why he wants to push XAML as the future of web based apps -- to keep a nice monopo-lock on things. Fortunately, the geniuses at Google have been showing us that you don't need a
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
OSX? ... "upgrades" are too frequent and expensive.
So then don't upgrade. You haven't from W2K. Is W2K even supported by MS anymore? (I'm ignoring the expensive myth, as it has been beaten to death. If you want cheap go ahead and buy cheap.)
Linux? - Too expensive to implement.
W2K - Cheap to buy. Cheap to implement. Works well.
Curious, Linux is cheaper to buy (can't get much better than free). And Linux certainly works well (although in fairness we don't know what you business is). And Linux is as cheap to implement as W2K, unless of course you were already a Windows shop when you started the analysis. Then this was a momentum thing.
OS/2! Why didn't you mention VMX or System 360?
So I call bullshit.
SteveM
Because no other company has negatively impacted as many Slashdot readers.
Don't like Sun? Avoid 'em! Sun doesn't have a monopoly to use that can let it get away with nasty tricks like playing off file format and network compatibility issues and producing a shoddy product.
And some of it is just plain fun hyperbole, like the Gates-as-a-Borg icon.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
So humble and modest, this dude should run for office.
The DMCA, The War in Iraq, George W. Bush, Java being slow, *BSD, the BSD software license, censorship in China, censorship in the USA, the Patriot Act, DDOS attacks, BitKeeper, people forgetting to say GNU/Linux, trolls, Slashdot moderators, bad HTML on Slashdot, Intel, Wal*Mart, the MPAA, the RIAA, DRM, TCPA, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, software patents, lawyers, ICANN, WIPO, courts, domain disputes, which language is better, USA vs Europe, USA vs Canada, USA vs everyone else, outsourcing, geeks vs suits and much much more.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I was looking at MMC chips the other day. They have a 1GB flash memory chip the size of a postage stamp. Does anyone else find that amazing?
A large part of the break-neck progress of electronics we see is due to the competition in the industry.
Imagine the amazing features of the OS and desktop we would have if only MS didn't have a monopoly. With real competition MS would never get away with releasing a new OS every 5 years.
+1 if I had mod points today, truly insightful
And I am getting quite sick of astroturfing rental software users and developers on slashdot. Use whatever you want but I prefer to own my software.
Got Code?
"I don't think that's[profit] sustainable in any market, and yes, I believe that open source is one of the things that will "correct" the software market"
So going from one company that makes money to many that don't?
Are we giving up coding to customer service?
Are we good at customer service?
> People still don't know "Linux" even if they have seen the IBM ads.
When's the last time IBM ran a Linux ad? A year ago? You fanbois speak of IBM ads as having a current life. The current IBM TV ads say nothing about Linux.
If Linus had actually posted on Slashdot "I do not believe that anything can replace Microsoft in the market that MS is right now.", then he would have probably been modded as a troll by the proLinux crowd on Slashdot.
Therefore, while I would like to believe that what Linus says is true, I sincerely doubt it will happen, at least not in the forseeable future.
Absolutely right. Of course the forseable future in the technology industry is about.... 6 months.... Therefore I too sincerely doubt that this will happen within the next 6 months.
Part of the issue is that things can and often do change drastically in our industry in a very short time. I too don't see Microsoft imploding rapidly (nor does Linus seem to think that would happen either) but they are *very* vulnerable right now even without Linux.
Also regarding these built-in defence mechanisms, I am not alone in noticing that Microsoft has apparently contracted some form of corporate auto-immune disease in that many of its defences are now seemingly intent on destroying other aspects of its business. Take for example the
Having worked at Microsoft as recently as 2003, I can tell you that the corporation is *not* small and well organized, but large, overarching, slow, and desperate. Yes, Microsoft is dangerous, but Microsoft is also *in danger* from so many market factors that Linux is only now factoring into their decision-making in terms of strategic planning. Even today, I doubt that Linux is a decisive factor in *anything.*
If Microsoft was as worried about Linux as they say, would they have come up with Software Assurance or Product Activation? No. These are responses to a completely different problem (market saturation and a need to keep sales up).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Linus forgets that most of today's applications rely and run on Windows only. Any it will stay that way because Microsoft keeps developing new APIs. The situation is different than what we've seen in other areas of industry on the last 200 years. Yeah I know and actually have used projects like Wine to run some Windows applications on GNU/Linux. But Wine actually makes Windows APIs even more a must. Note I don't mean Windows itself but Windows APIs.
As long as people's computers are predomentantly their desktops - MS will dominate for a long time coming. Yes linux in the desktop widespread will come, but by that time - noone will won't care and maybe there won't even be a "linux community" like there is today.
RIght now the consumer behaviour more/less is to interact with a single computer at home period. But as we do more interesting things with computers, it makes more and more sense for people to actually have their own *server* for sharing files with friends and families, automated data backups**, media streaming, storage. These functions require a very different level of interaction that linux is very well positioned to provide.
As an example - the idea of having two cars in the family is not uncommon. One sedan and one truck/minivan/heap/whatever. Obviously it's not entirely analogous, but you the idea (hopefully?).
**its freightening to see how people don't really backup their data, but as we get more reliant on computers - it will be as natural as the air we breathe
If MicroSoft isa Oligopoly
iDream of desoligopolization the disappearance of an oligopoly.
Oligopoly theory makes heavy use of game theory to model the behaviour of oligopolies:
It just a game.
I just read today that they are expecting a wave of OpenOffice use in local governance here. source in Norwegian How many people are that? About 430.000 of a workforce of 2.4mio. Linux OTOH is used on servers, but no real plans of Linux desktops yet (except in schools where we have the "School Linux" software).
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
or lack of same in 1977. The internet has been a massive factor in the growth of FOSS.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Do you realy think, that Microsoft with that kind of money would just sit and wait, that (GNU)Linux would overthrow them!?
No, they will pay coroup politicians to pass law whitch will have a death sentince for everyone who will try to contribute to open source.
Microsoft is just like cancelor Palpatine, who is just waiting to eleashe tha awesome powa of money!! Microsoft will turn every open source contributor into criminal ahem.. terrorist!! And they will be sending open source contributors to Guantanamo! That would be scary! But thats not far from truth. Linus might be recognised as terrorist. Microsoft can do that and Linus should be careful about it!
OSX - don't forget the huge changeover that will happen over the next two years. You want to see a company drop support of a platform? Check out Apple in two years, and see how well OSX 10.4 is supported.
W2K - you, have completely bought into the FUD. W2K security support will be implemented for years to come. It's pretty stable in its current form, and supports more hardware than any other OS.
Linux - Just because something has a free version doesn't mean that it's free to maintain and administer. Linux almost never works fully straight out of the box. Some tweaking and driver searching is almost always necessary.
See Gibbon for more on this line of argument.
about this interview is this idea of mutating markets, and how dominating a market does not give you a head start in dominating the next mutant. A great example is the embedded OS market - which has a dozen or so instances (tiny uC based embedded systems, embedded network sensors, phones, real-time devices etc.) There's no way MS, with its enormous inertia is going to go zigzagging through each one of them. And that's where (hopefully) open source will win - with its capacity to adapt.
I've heard good things about Kivio. I've never actually used it, because I've never felt the need to make diagrams. The screenshots seem sensible, though! ;)
In the last 10 years I have bought exactly 3 pieces of software that weren't games. Around 1996 I bought a Slackware CD. A few years ago I bought a used PC and it came with Win2K. (I woudn't have paid the MS tax on a new PC, but I got a good deal on this one used.) And recently I bought an iBook, which came with OSX.
People don't buy software. Want a new web browser? Download firefox. Want a word processor? Download one. Want a different email client? Download it. There is NO market for this kind of software.
During the same time period I've bought a few dozen console games. I don't think I'm all that unusual either. People do buy games. MS knows this. Xbox is either going to make or break the company going forward.
IBM did believe in the desktop PC market (they built one). What they didn't believe in was the power of a standard operating system to create a commodity hardware market.
Microsoft controls 90% of people's browsing experiences through Internet Explorer today. They believed in it pretty quickly.
As for Google, they use free software, but I wouldn't say it's the basis of their business model. They mostly rely on home grown proprietary software, and use free software operating systems and languages to create their own proprietary code. They re-release some of their changes back to the community but usually keep the core bits to themselves.
So sure, there's free software in there, but they rely heavily on highly-paid, high-optioned engineering talent to make it work.
This doesn't necessarily work for all business applications or business models, but it worked for theirs.
-Stu
But there's more. IBM is a full on "bootstrap" business. Microsoft wouldn't be anything like the Microsoft we know today, if IBM hadn't made such a terrible mistake in "licensing" software from Microsoft in the first place. All Microsoft needed at the time, was one really big sucker. IBM fit that bill (har har) In short, Microsoft as we know it today, (for better or worse) is the result of one really bad move on IBMs part. Cut it anyway you like. Despite the reality of that situation. It's rather difficult to see how that scales into being the model of business that many folks think. It would be closer to reality to compare MS to someone who hit the lottery, and then managed their money well.
Seriously... what does the image of a company's CEO have to do with its revenue and profitability? Do you think Microsoft got to be where it is because of the mystique of Bill Gates? Perhaps it was a factor, but I don't think it was the primary one.
Certainly in the TV era there is a need to be able to be telegenic, a good presenter and speaker. Some CEO's are none of these things. Other than the odd CNBC and Bloomberg interview, many CEO's of multi-billion dollar companies are rarely heard from in public.
IBM had Thomas Watson Sr., and then Thomas Watson Jr., who became reasonably famous people. The arrival of Lou Gerstner started their switch to services and rebound.
Actually, amusing anecdote, I remember the Comdex 1994 keynotes. Gerstner spoke about the "network-centric future", about how OS/2 was all internet enabled and everything would be connected, the whole economy would be effected in 10 years time. Gates spoke about the "paperless office". Gates' vision is still a pipe dream.... Gerstner on the other hand nailed it (too bad IBM didn't execute on it well enough).
-Stu
If there was no Microsoft,
* There may be a huge bump in the technology stock market and trade would decline... not to mention that the US economy would suffer.
* Billions of dollars that are currently given by Microsoft and its employees would no longer go to saving the third world - but probably to starving open source coders.
* There would be a pretty massive decline in standards contribution and especially innovation of new technology - open source doesn't innovate, they simply thief (oh sorry, "borrow") ideas from others.
* There would be very few people who'd want to use a "desktop" computer. Microsoft pretty much invented that term - remember Bill's vision of "a PC on every desk in every home"?
* Thousands of technology industries and organisations would no longer get funding from Microsoft - thus die. Like Cambridge University and many many others around the world, including those in India.
etc.
etc.
The technology of this world would basically suck.
Can't you tell a corporate shill when you see one?
You cannot kill the project in the long term as it is not dependant on money, the project has a much larger and more long-term goal than just profit gain. Its goal is that of becoming forged software, where users have direct input on its growth. I do not think Microsoft has these advantages.
This just in: You are not representative of the average software consumer.
a) Most large businesses would rather buy software than use Free software. It is a confindence and comfort issue. That attitude may change over time, but it will be a *long* time.
b) Most PC users are not even aware Free word processors exist, and they certainly wouldn't know where to find one. Even with NYT ads and crazy media coverage, most of my family and friends have never heard of Firefox until I tell them.
You can stand on your soapbox all you want - but it makes no difference. Unless the average software consumer changes their mindset toward software in general, there will always be a significant market for software vendors.
OK, I'm coming. We can meet next Tuesday, at the entrance of the site you mentioned. Bring some strawberry cake, so that I can recognize you. Oh, and some coffee. Yummy.
The MS mouse was sold as a feature that extended Microsoft WORD for dos... that's when the hardware came in, the next hardware iirc was in win95 with the windows keyboards.. then the ergonomic kb's...
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
;o)