Slashdot Mirror
Windows Beat Unix, But it Won't Beat Linux
Onymous Hero writes "The amazing thing isn't that Windows beat the pants off Unix; it's that so many of the Unix companies survived until today. An article from eWeek looks at why Linux has been so successful where Unix failed." From the article: "While the Unix companies were busy ripping each other to shreds, Microsoft was smiling all the way to the bank. Because the Unix businesses couldn't settle on software development standards, ISVs (independent software vendors) had to write not a single application to get the whole Unix market, they had to write up to a half-dozen different versions. Which would you rather do? Write a single application that would run on all Windows systems, or six different ones, each with its own unique quality assurance and support problems? "
Back when Unix ruled the world you programmed in C at the OS level, you had to understand about pipes and processors and threads and lots of other elements of the OS. This meant it was a pain to re-learn across all the other platforms.
Now there are (for enterprises) only two real choices, Java and
Linux is winning in large enterprises because its the cheapest, and safest, way to run Oracle RAC and J2EE Application Servers. If you really don't care about the OS (and most of the time you don't) then you might as well pick Linux.
If programming was still at the OS level then IMO Linux would still struggle as you'd have to understand a lot more about it. J2EE in paticular has made hardware a commodity, and in the commodity world Linux is the best choice.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Linux is following the well-worn path to self destruction. LSB doesn't even have a C++ Gui api, let alone a media framework!
Windows will "win", because choice creates chaos.
Choice and chaos means though that by the time Linux is "beaten", we'll be on the next cycle of rebirth - and there will be a "Windows beat Linux, but wont beat Ubuntu (or whatever)" post... to whatever has replaced slashdot by then.
This is exactly what you get when you have the open source, we don't need no stinking standards operating system.
If you are running a small company you don't have the time or other resources to support a hundred versions-- you go where the users are.
I can see Linuxers reading this article and spitting their coffee into their monitors (wooooot).
Great falme-bait for a Friday!
Cogito Ergo Sum
Actually, you forget that Apple had an AppleUnix that ran on their Apple MacII machines. In fact, there were a number of high-end applications for it. (Not many, but some) It also had some of the better (for the time) user interface features for system admin.
Sure they were.
Besides, Apple of today is very much NeXT. Just look who's running it.
I worry thought that with MS supporting all the different forms of DRM that the various industries are pushing, and Linux fighting DRM (or at least not activly supporting it). How long until Linux runs into legal issues with these various organisations, and when they realise there is no one to sue, maybe they'll just try to get it banned outright. Unlikely I know, but maybe just insane enough for the RIAA to try. ;(
East Coast Brewers
but:
Write a single application that would run on all Windows systems, or six different ones, each with its own unique quality assurance and support problems?
Seems a little bit oversimplified. I'm not directly affected because I don't use Microsoft software, but I've heard where I work that it takes months to verify if every service pack for Windows will work with existing software. And when I was a Windows developer, we were doing some pretty low level stuff with the authentication subystem, and things were very different between Win 98, 2000, and NT 4 (was that really still around then?). Granted, for a simple GUI app, Windows is very portable across its products, but if you get a little lower into the OS, things get nasty quick.
Make that four.
SGI are still in the UNIX business.
C17H21NO4
Bullshit. Over 10 years ago, I was regularly writing code on a Sun and simply typing 'make' on over a dozen other platforms (included some very non-Unix platforms). Hard? I guess hard must mean 'taking the time to understand what you're targetting.' Or maybe hard means actually thinking.
Curiously enough, the last time I looked at gainful employment on the-pile-of-poo-OS, I saw a great deal of concern about working with this API thing on different version. Remind me again, what is an API for?
The other thing is biting the hand that feeds it: Geeks. Yes, I know, we geeks are unmarketable, economically unviable, socially inept, prone to expect other people to know how to do Really Complex Stuff like unzip an archive, but before you burn us all at the stake just to get us out of the way so you can sell Linux for $14.99 off the shelf at WalMart, you might want to preserve a couple of us. Nobody else is going to make more Linux for you to sell. Programs do not write themselves.
No kidding: Programs really do NOT write themselves!!!!! So if you throw out the compilers based on the notion that including them with the distro will just confuse Joe Sixpack? That's disabling the programming process. If you get rid of the command line? Programs are written there. Throw out programs like vi, Emacs, gcc, gdb, yacc, sed, awk, and man just because they have funny names that won't look tasty on the flashy label? Wait, those are programming tools, we need those! If you make Linux into a Windows clone, thinking you'll attract all the Windows users and be just as rich as Bill Gates (because that's exactly what people are thinking!)? But Linux programmers would really hate that, and you'll scare them all away to BSD or BeOS. Hang lots of whistles and bells on it, decorate it with frosting, throw out every particle of substance and dumb it down? Yes, you will win points with the very lowest common denominator market segment - the ones who spend the money, after all - but you'll ostricize all the other users, who will get tired of being locked in another playpen and wander off looking for better stimulation. Believe it or not, Linux did NOT get to where it is by being Just Like Everybody Else.
Yes, yes, yes, I know this post is getting flamed to a crisp the moment I hit the "submit" button. That's OK, you don't have to listen to me. Look around in three years, five, ten, and see what happened.
Interesting? Mods, please check the site mentioned at the bottom of the post.
Which would you rather do? Write a single application that would run on all Windows systems, or six different ones, each with its own unique quality assurance and support problems?
As a programmer, I'd rather write six versions. This is because writing six versions takes longer without really being that much harder. It's not as if you'd have to write six completely different programs, just six similar ones. That would take longer than just writing one program, and then you'd have more to do and thus higher job security. Plus, it sounds a lot better claiming overtime when you're writing six programs versus just one. Of course, if I'm a manager or supervisor or something, I only want one program written. Depends on who you are and what you are looking for, I suppose.
http://xkcd.com/386/
The question was, for a decade: Cheap commodity hardware running a cheap and somewhat crappy OS you'd have to constantly maintain, or expensive proprietary hardware running a good OS that you could stick in the corner and forget.
Linux blew that completely out of the water by having the best of both. As a bonus, it runs on even cheaper hardware than Windows would, and if you have any expensive proprietary hardware, you can run Linux on that too.
Combine that with the best SMB file server, the best web server, and some damn good mail servers, and it's really inevitable. Oh yeah, and it's free.
People act like the competition is in the desktop market, which confuses the hell out of me. People, in general, do not choose what OS is on their desktop. They either live with what the store put on it, or must use what the IT guys did, so loses and gains there do not really reflect anything except what those external people thought.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
For related 'extra' information... Chapter 2 in the Art of Unix Programming (Eric S. Raymond) contains a very interesting discourse about the history of the UNIX operating system, and offers insight into operating system wars in general.
One of his points is that many early UNIXes suffered because of licensing issues. I definitely feel that Linux's edge over older UNIXes is its open source license.
Back in the 80's (about 10 years before the compatibility issue resulted in POSIX), there was a complete, well defined standard for UNIX. This was ATT's version, which was BINARY compatible across all x86 versions (not just source code compatible).
UNIX should have won out over Windows then. It had networking back in 1986. It had graphics. It had far superior technology to the main competition, which was DOS.
But, AT&T did everything in their power to kill UNIX. Not deliberately, but out of greed and incompetance. And one of the key factors was that the people who sold cheap UNIX on the PC (Microport, ISC, etc.) all had to pay an exhorbitant royalty to ATT - while Microsoft didn't have any royalties to pay.
The royalty was about $100 IIRC. That's absolutely rediculous in the PC biz. This meant you simply couldn't beat Microsoft when it came to OEM deals. Nor could you beat them when selling to the average consumer, where price almost always won out. So this was the main reason why UNIX could never beat DOS, or later Windows. Not even binary compatibility could surmount that cost difference. Fragmentation of the standards was an issue later on, and was only a secondary issue.
As an amusing side note, for a while NONE of those small UNIX companies selling x86 UNIX were paying the royalties to AT&T, not even SCO. When AT&T found out about it, it caused a serious collapse in the x86 UNIX biz. Microport went out of business, Bell Tech got "aquired" by Intel (who was responsible for the licenses - via the ATT "Micro Port" program). That is, Intel paid AT&T in exchange for aquiring Bell Technologies.
Even SCO wasn't immune. They licensed their Xenix code from Microsoft. It was Microsoft who ended up paying AT&T, and in turn got 20% of SCO stock there for a while.
Now, with Linux, there are no royalties to pay. Everyone is on a level playing field with Microsoft.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If anyone is screwing themselves up, its Microsoft. They are trying to make their earnings targets by raising prices and cutting services. MSDN used to be excellent, but now, how often do you just get a book about the topic instead and use Google to look for answers to Windows issues. The search in MSDN is useless and getting worse.
Programs -don't- write themselves, and that is the ultimate point.
Right now, the entry level system for Windows, Visual Studio Express, is completely crippled, for $50. Even the $500 offering lacks source control. The only suite that really wins is Team System, and that's $2500, a year. That's almost enough to make a car payment with. I've been working with Beta 2 and for C++ its actually worse than KDevelop and for the rest, well, I don't see the justification of a $2500 premium.
If you are a small indy developer, the economics of writing for Windows is almost absurd. On the other hand, you can do a lot with Linux for the money. I have to believe that this trend will fuel the wider spread of adoption of Linux. That's not to say that it will be easy, but, the more developers switch, the more MS has to raise prices in its tools division to show growth, causing more developers to switch. Microsoft is in a feedback loop and even now licensing costs are starting to get even large IT concerns to take notice.
It used to be that Linux advocates were a minority, and they still are, but now they are less of a minority than before.
This is my sig.
Apple fanbois modding anything even remotely pro-apple up?
Yes. yes it is.
and they mod down ANYTHING that dares to remotely talk down the Mac or the iPod. the do not actually read the posts they see the negative word and then go foaming at the mouth in convulsions. and they also cream themselves HARD to mod up anything that remotely shows that apple is better.
Look at the ipod discussion from yeaterday. anyone saying that a different player is better get's modded way down, anyone praising and hand jerking the fanbois beloved ipod get modded up.
BSD and Linux are pretty much equal in adoption and use. and the real problem is that thay BOTH are going to fai lthe same road that the UNIXES did because of the same reasons. linux app? you need to ship 12 different versions because the morons that make the distros move everything around for their special flavor.
It's the same crap overand over. and the linux, apple and BSD fanboys are too danmed starrey-eyed to see it.
Apple will fail because they are too damned greedy and REFUSE to give back to BSD. Linux will fail because their Egos are bigger than they think their wangs are. and BSD will sit there doing what it always has.
Welcome to humanity, lesson 1 everyone else is an asshole and only interested in themselves.
Ok, once again for the benefit folks in the cheap seats, let's review:
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 95B
Windows 95B
Windows 98
Windows Me
Windows NT Workstation
Windows NT Server
Windows NT Terminal Server
Windows 2000 Pro
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows 2000 Server Datacenter Edition
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Pro
Windows XP Pro SP2
Windows XP Pro 64-bit
Windows XP Media Center Edition
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2003 Server Small Business Server
blah... blah... blah...
OK, now, let's combine that with the various versions of IE
4
4.01
5
5.5
6
As one Windows C++ developer friend of mine described the process of working with these many versions: "Lions and Tigers and Bears, OH MY!"
Making most any reasonably complex app work on multiple versions of Windows is difficult at best and impossible at worst. That Windows is a panacea is jut plain wrong.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."