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.
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?
How does he remain a hero of fanboys and flamebaiters?
i dunno, in 1977 there weren't as many programmers as there were in 1992.
if linus was born 17 years earlier, i dont think we would have linux as good as it is now.
Define "like open source". Do you think IBM or Sun "likes" about open source?
"Like", when applied to a corporation, is a metaphor. Define it with that in mind.
They embrace open source because it helps them.
They're doing it for marketing
Not really. Yes, they take advantage of the marketing opportunities Open Source provides, but it's more than that. IBM has only so much capital to invest in future business. By embracing Open Source, they add to their offerings with minimal cost, so they can offer their customers just as much as before, plus what Open Source has to offer.
Seems to have Linus fooled.
Yeah, right.
Also, lest we forget Microsoft has open source'd code too.
One thing, an installer. Maybe they're up to two now, I'm not sure. IBM's support of Open Source compared to MS's is like comparing a Saturn V with an amateur model rocket.
Actually, it's much worse than that for MS. Bill Gates calling Open Source advocates "Communists" more than negates the miniscule props they get for their one Open Source project. Add to that MS's demands that government not be able to use Open Source software (WTF?!)...
In other words, MS is in absolutely no way a friend of Open Source software, and in *no way* is a friend of anyone who believes in Open Source/Free Software.
I'm having a bit of trouble with this analysis myself. Linus is talking as if it's all a foregone conclusion and we're just waiting for it to come to pass. He sites IBM as a big example of what will happen with Microsoft but it seems to me he's comparing apples and oranges.
IBM produce hardware that ran software. Other companies produced a clone of that hardware to be able to run the same software. Software being the key to what people wanted. They could care less who made the machine as long as they could buy the software they want.
Microsoft is a software company and specifically an OS company. There's no such thing as an OS clone. Sure there's emulators, but that's not the same thing. In the end people just want to run what software they want to and Microsoft is positioned to allow that to happen and I don't see an easy way for someone else to come in and take that away from them. Sure you can develop this office suite that does mostly the same things or that browser but unless you get the OS, it's only chinks in the armor.
The other problem is his view of the role of open source. He seems to think that OSS is going to take over much of the development and companies are going to handle support (at least that's the impression I got). Now, I'm not saying this won't happen, but never before have we had this kind of situation where masses of people are putting out a free commodity to replace a proprietary commodity. Linus has no history to back him up. It's truly extraordinary to think about it. What would happen if proprietary software went away in favor of OSS? What would all of these developers do to pay their bills while they're developing their pet OSS projects? I'm just wondering out loud whether OSS is capable of scaling to the size of the proprietary software industry without the that industry supporting its developers.
To make a short comment way too long, just take his "analysis" with a grain of salt.
www.joshferguson.org
Here's the way I see it:
Despite most consumers not knowing very much about cars either, there's plenty of competition within the market there. A car is an extremely complicated beast, but you don't have to learn how to drive just a Ford, or just a Toyota. The interface becomes standard, things might be in a slightly different place, but there's not much difficulty necessary to adjust from one to another. Under the hood, the car is vastly different within the same brand, much less between different competitors. And yet this highly complicated machine somehow has plenty of competition and it can be hardly said that one maker 'dominates' the market.
And yes, this analogy is flawed, but the premise that I am pointing out is the key. That you can hide all the gritty nitty surface details and present the consumer with exactly enough to do what they want. Typical competition will lead people from one OS to another, whether it be brand names, the placement of your start button, or the power underneath the hood.
Just as I don't see the streets dominated by mass-produced Fords, there doesn't always have to be one primary operating system. Things will mature.
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! --
IBM are in the software and hardware business, but more importantly, they are in the service business. They make nothing when they stick Windows on 1000 desktops. In fact, it costs them money. They also don't have the sort of control that they had on their mainframe operations.
By using OSS, they save money and can do much more with the software to meet their clients needs.
That's a well thought-out decision, however you're kidding yourself if you think that "momentum has nothing to do with it". Momentum has everything to do with it: that is precisely why win2k beats Linux for your roll-out. Linux being too expensive is just another way of saying "we don't have the skill set in-house to implement this", which is a perfectly understandable and valid business decision.
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
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.
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
Multiple reasons:
code reuse If they opened the source to previous operating systems and unsupported software, it would expose code used in current products. You don't think they write each iteration from scratch do you?
forced upgrade cycle If the source for NT 4.0 had been opened why in hell would I have ever upgraded to XP pro? I'd just patch it for Direct X and USB support and that's all she wrote. opening source would get us all off the forced upgrade cycle and that won't happen.
ideological I don't think the corporate mindset really embraces the cooperative concept of OSS (see the previous "Commie" comments attributed to WM. Gates in this topic)
http://request-header.info
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.