Slashdot Mirror
Linux To Take Over The Low-End PC Market?
An anonymous reader writes "Desktop Linux has a recent commentary on the inevitable growth of Linux on the cheaper end of the desktop market. According to the article, the availability of under-$500 usable hardware, combined with a free operating system, free desktop office products, and free or cheap 'software as a service' online applications, opens a new market in which Microsoft cannot compete. 'Microsoft will fight this trend tooth and nail. It will cut prices to the point where it'll be bleeding ink on some of its product lines. And Windows XP is going to stick around much longer than Microsoft ever wanted it to. Still, it won't be enough.'"
*BSD is way better.
Everything Microsoft has on the market pre-Vista has long since been amortized, I think. And I'm not sure ink is what MSFT has in its veins...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/1331246&from=rss
Is it any coincidence that Microsoft has done this? Piracy does help them to a certain extent, it pushes their products into markets where people cannot afford them, or just flat out don't want to pay for it, which still ultimatley counts towards their market share.
but I'd been using OSX heavily for about one year and since then, my usage of linux has dramatically increased. It started with Kubuntu, but got a little tired of it, before finally settling on Fedora 8 just recently. I've completely flicked Windows now. The last legacy for me using Windows was for the casual gaming, but that was gone when I finally got a console (admittedly a 360). I gradually got used to using a terminal, picked a shell that I liked and stuck with it. Forced myself to do everything with the terminal. Eventually, have a little library of scripts that do most of my everyday stuff. I'll never look back. I think the big thing that made it happen was sites like macosxhints that post little snippets of one line shell scripts that users comment on, improve (if possible) and then are easily searchable. Some of the LinuxForums are useful, but I'm yet to find one that is good, and as simple, as the one I mentioned above.
Previously sales figures for Linux desktops were suspect because of the argument "Well, everybody buying them is just putting a pirated copy of Windows on them anyway." Scanning the article I didn't see anything about piracy...
..."
But recently with activation & continuous authentication, Microsoft has tried to prevent this.
Has Microsoft finally given up its an extra tier of pricing beyond retail and volume? "You'd never give us a cent for Windows? Well, at least pirate it
TFA is just a rather poorly informed opinion piece and a lot of wishful thinking.
Since when did this consititute 'news'?
People forget that generally speaking in the world the people who want Windows will pay for it and if they're your picturesque 3rd world Romanian villagers with a penchant for stealing that they'll have no moral qualms about finding a few lei on the back of a horse cart to buy a DVD to burn Vista on.
In my coutry we have had GNU/Linux in low end PC's at mainstream outlets for sometime now.Most of these are replaced by an ilegal copy of windows on the first days of use, but still some stick around.That is just part of the vicious circle desktop systems are inserted due to the monopoly exerced by Microsoft, and certainly the few GNUs remaining do contribute for a slow market share shift.
The main problem, IMHO, is not even Joe Newbie who re-formats his GNU PC. It is the mentality of PC vendors itself who do not even configure their GNU/Linuxes correctly on their hardware.
The other day I saw a notebook at a shop with a misconfigured video driver, logged in X11 with a purplish tint and horizontal garbage lines everywhere. Another example: a local LinuxMagazine review a couple of years ago found out that in a Hwlet Packard low end desktop system pre-configured with GNU/Linux (indeed!), OpenOficce would take a full 3 minutes to start!! Because they had configured a 128MB system with a 1GB Swap.
-><- no
The nicest device I can see at present is the Nokia N810 which runs the Maemo (linux) OS.
High resolution touch screen (800*480), hardware keyboard, gps and customisable - ~$450
This looks dreamy (and its on my xmas list)
liqbase
I realize I should expect no less from an article on desktoplinux.com, but I'm extremely annoyed by comments like "Still, it won't be enough." I can just imagine a typical Linux fanboy laughing diabolically while typing it. While the article has valid points, comments like that are wishful thinking and immature conjecture.
My biggest complaint wasn't the fact that Vista was a bug ridden piece of filth the likes of which made windows ME look good, but the fact they have Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate... oh and Enterprise too that no bugger seems to be using. An OS which will cost you $100 to $400.
I'm not going to say $100 isn't reasonable for the OS that runs your PC. It's a fair price. But the version game is unacceptable. So hopefully some of the linux based PCs will drive down prices of MS's OS down to reasonable and sane levels.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
While there is nothing to do to stop it. Having Linux run on Low End systems may not be good overall.
When most people buy a Low End System they are not happy with it...
Packard Bell, Compaq, eMachines... They buy them because they though they are a good deal, or just because they don't have the money for a good System. They are not happy with it. Then throw a OS that people can't buy new software in the stores or the latest or even older games on it. Hardware problems causing the OS to Crash... While saving Windows for the high end systems which have better working hardware and more secure drivers Windows will run rock solid on those.
No it is not Linux's fault but putting linux on the Low end to try to get into the Desktop Market is a poor way to go. Linux already has a knitch in the servers, and if people work half as hard in the imbedded market Linux can get a good foothold there too. Right now there are 2 strong competitors in the Desktop Market Windows and Macs. And for Desktop use Linux isn't close they are still about 6 years behind. (Which is an improvement 5 years ago they were 10 years behind)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"'Microsoft will fight this trend tooth and nail."
And those who purchase their products are helping them.
Mr. Linux user who enjoys the Halo he bought for his xbox can stop his anti-redmond rants, he may as well be kissing the flag logo as he hands over the cash and takes a virtual dump on the open source movement.
So you want people to switch to Linux? Convince companies to ditch DirectX and develop games without it for all platforms. Whether you're a console or PC gamer it doesn't matter, if you purchase Microsoft products you're not helping Linux, unless you truly believe Novell and Microsoft are a good thing, in which case you would do well to remember Corel and Microsoft and all the sappy happy working together smell-the-roses shit stories that ended up with Corel Linux going down the shitter only to return later under a different name and experience a beastly patent agreement nibble with guess who.
Go ahead, continue to buy their products and laugh about patent threats, you're probably one of those users who will jump ship to BSD until the patent nostrils come sniffing around for that next. After Compiz became popular I knew the big corp would come into the picture. "They said it couldn't be done!" Disgusting.
Linux's security for home users on low end pcs is basically they I cant figure out how to use it security.
No one cares about low end pcs running linux and selling them to people who shop walmart, enough said.
I wouldn't say that! I would say that the linux-solution would be superior functionality for the money, and probably in absolute functionality as well. An Exchange server farm has a limited featureset compared to a debian-server.
Microsoft lives or dies by your upgrades. It's not a casual accident that the term Wintel exists. More hardware more software, the crank turns you spend money and on and on it goes. But today's sub $500 PC is state of the art circa 2004-5. Back then I invested a lot of time in looking into the lowest hardware supportable for the then current latest desktop Linux installations. Starting from a Pentium 1 400Mhz with 112MB RAM I discovered that the stated prereqs of a Pentium 2 500Mhz and 256MB RAM was the absolute rockbottom. A 1.2Ghz machine with 512MBRAM was really where you wanted to be. In other words a Pentium 3. I have one of these running today and while no barn burner its perfectly servicable. I will probably replace it with a Celeron D, double the RAM and it will run fine for several more years. In other words a machine that I could have bought new from eMachines 2-3 years ago will then run fine for another 2-3 years. By comparison XPSP2 will run fine on that old P-3 machine albeit it's good to strip out most of the XP look and feel interface widgets. Running it to look like W2K makes it snappy enough. Of course running iTunes on anything makes it crawl. But how long will Redmond keep XPSP2 around? Another year? After 2008 what options will you have? What will you be able to do with that Via C7 Samuel? Not much. So perhaps there's a lot to believe in the statement that Linux will own the low end of the market soon. What about embedded systems in cars? I think so.
Op-ed from a pro Linux site isn't exactly an unbiased "news" source. Yes desktop Linux is going to become a bit more common, yes we'll see more entry level boxes shipping with it ... but MS' virtual monopoly on the OS market is not going to suddenly go away. If this becomes a serious threat to them they'll release something like XP starter edition for next to nothing, or even at a net income to the vendor after paid crapware pre-installs are added on. At that point Linux loses the main advantage that most people (initially at least) care about : that it's free-as-in-beer.
Take a look at the frantic hand waving and tossing of straw men left and right by the MS shills. Its hilarious.
They're comparing Granny Smiths apples to Golden Delicious apples:
Set of computers that can run all required email and office apps (the latest versions) along with a server to support the mail etc, all based on Linux
Vs
Set of computers that can run all required email and office apps (the latest versions) along with a server to support the mail etc, all based on Vista
The only difference is that the base specs required for one is much higher than the other, which is the whole point of the article.
Okay, so it might not be as viable in a huge company where everyone (especially admins) already have Windows training, but for a ~100 person or less SME (Small/Medium Enterprise) then the huge savings on costs would be a boon.
What does your post have to do with the GP?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
In the grand /. tradition, I haven't RTFA. However, I guess that the argument is that as the price of hardware comes down, the price of commercial software makes up a bigger part of the total expenditure.
Customers will balk when they realize that they use the computer for just internet and simple word processing and maybe some multimedia.
The problem is, in the real world Linux isn't even on the radar of most individuals. If they did hear about it, it's probably something from a few years ago and not about one of the modern distributions.
The solution: Whoever sells these cheap machines has to advertise. It should be simple enough. A short TV add showing wireless internet and desktop productivity apps for a $200 machine like the OLPC would sell them like hotcakes. Especially when you say that the price includes full versions of all the software. (You can even have two people discuss during the ad about how they hate trial versions that came with their last computer, and comparing it to amarok, k3b, openoffice.org, and digikam. Especially mention seamless integration with mp3 players and digital cameras.)
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Please get in touch for implementation details.
sballmer@microsoft.com
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
as I earned bad karma for just being too frank about linux last time :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As much as I love and use Linux on my machines, I cannot help but think that this is the wrong way to go. One thing that Microsoft has been good at (as well as Alienware and Apple) is showing that people believe that price is an indicator of quality in the personal computer business. That is, unless they're a business, they will perceive a lack of quality in computers that are cheaper or will only buy these items for somebody else and not themselves, say a child.
While I think the spread of Linux is a good thing, people are going to see a sub-$500 computer with the cheapest, third rate, break-in-an-instant parts and think "That thur Lin-ucks broke my com-pu-tar". I'd rather have Linux targeting the high-end systems, the gaming machines. That is where the big win is and where people are most likely to be influenced.
Hardcore gamers upgrade their machines every 18 months to keep up with the games. Get the next-generation game engines ported to Linux along with the multiplayer servers and keep the 3D drivers coming, and you'll find that you'll have gamers moving to the platform that doesn't slow them down for the benefit of copy protection, that allows their game to run at full framerate, that doesn't require that they have a "genuine" copy, and allows them to tweak their computer to their hearts desire. This may compromize RMS's wet dream where every computer gives him the Verilog source to the microprocessor along with a reacharound, but there are significant gains and hearts and minds to win. Think of this as getting the masses to a free platform. You can move them to free software and get them writing free software when they have the right platform to hack on.
Or keep trying to peddle crap. It's the same strategy we've been trying for the last 10 years. It's bound to work this time!
Not all free software is "free" per-say. Look at MySQL, making money while we all use their software. That's just one example, so here are a few more that produce free products while still earning significant income:
Sun Microsystems
Novell
Mozilla Foundation
Spiceworks(a personal favorite)
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
Many slashdotters fail to make any distinction between the honest hard working programmers/researchers who deserve their pay and the not so honest business execs, lawyers, and lobbiests on some of whom Microsoft's bad behavior can be blamed, lumping them all together as a single entity: "M$".
Nobody's hoping to see software engineers starve, it's just easy to get carried away hating Microsoft for all the monopolizing, anti-FOSS, and other damage it's responsible for. Can you really blame the GP for having no sympathy for Microsoft's bottom line?
Like in the server space? :p Times do change, so there may be a future with more major players on the desktop.
MS can create a cheap version of Vista or XP with very little effort. And because they are earning *something* on it, I suspect in the long run it will get better support than anything that can be had for free. Commercial version of Linux are of course another story.
I think Linux cannot succeed on price alone. It has to be enough better that people will invest the time needed to change their habits - which today drive them straight to Windows.
These devices aren't going to directly hit MS's products - what they could do is cost them mindshare and threaten the future of their monopoly.
Products like the eeePC occupy a precarious niche just below cheap "regular" laptops - put a bigger screen and a CD drive on them and there'll be a cheaper Dell laptop - so while they may be successful for their manufacturers they're not going to make a big dent in PC sales. People will buy them as "extra" machines for kids or as spare "take anywhere" machines (don't buy a £2000 ultra-portable - buy a £1000 desktop or large screen laptop plus an eeePC for when you don't need the power or don't want to risk carrying your main machine). But if they find that, out-of-the-box, they can connect to web and EMAIL and open most of their documents with these things called "Firefox", "Thunderbird" and "Open Office" then they might have their eyes opened to other possibilities.
Remember, MS's real monopoly is Office, not Windows. How many lUsers have you met who, when asked what version of windows they are running, respond with their Office version? However, I was in a school (in England) recently and saw a big (homemade) poster on the wall saying "Haven't got MS Office at home? Have you tried the free alternative from www.OpenOffice.org?" - so there is hope for the world.
If I were MS right now I'd be busily developing something like "Vista Lite Edition" that could be sold on a memory stick alongside eeePCs and the like for about $25, probably including a stripped down office. ISTR they did do something similar in some countries but it was perceived as "Windows - crippled edition". It might be an easier sell if it was linked to built-to-a-price "appropriate technology" hardware.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
You have it almost exactly backwards. Speaking from bitter experience.
Their costs towards their IT infrastructure simply aren't large enough to worry about license costs. Microsoft already have this market. SMEs simply buy PCs with windows already installed, and use SBS on the back end. Their savings from Linux are in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands or millions. It isn't worth their while to switch. Especially given the fact they can't afford to hire competent admins and so are stuck with whomever is locally available.
Large companies on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. They can save millions by making use of Linux, and that's exactly what they do. The CTO or CIO's may or may not be aware of it but pretty much every large company out there has Linux just about everywhere from file servers to RDBMS servers to web application servers. They can afford to hire competent admins who can run Linux as well as their other Unix systems and who understand the mathematics of I.T. systems.
The market for Linux is not SMEs. I've been there and tried to sell it. The real market for Linux is on the big end. Multinationals, governments etc. They can save vast sums.
Deleted
I think there's a potential goldmine for Microsoft just looming off to the side.
If Microsoft made Windows 2000 Pro available for $20 per copy in 2008, then shuttered it; and Windows XP Pro/64 Pro for $40 in 2008, then 2009, then shuttered it, imagine how easy it would be for many 'cloned' copies to get right. Now imagine how easy it would be for Microsoft to compete against Linux in the low-end market. Microsoft would be able to say -- which Linux cannot -- "Our OS works with Microsoft Office natively, including Exchange". The real cash cow is untouched, i.e. Office, and Microsoft finally gets into the "sell the blades, not the razor" business once and for all.
-BA
Aye, that's the thing about the n8x0: it still needs a little work to do what you want it to. But it continually surprises me.
If I may ask, what sort of application do you use a "slew" of 8-balls for? I've only got two on my home network.
They can only compete through shady business practices, bribery and plain old crookery unless they change their ways. They (still) have enough money to stop business for a few years, work on a lightweight kernel (you know, those that run on any x86 with 16MB RAM) and some good software practices that makes it more open (maybe not open source, but at least more transparent) and more within the legal constraints of today's anti-trust requirements. As soon as anyone can build another shell around Windows we'd be far better off since there are a lot of smart people outside of Microsoft.
I hate Microsoft, not because of their products (although they could do better) but because of the way they treat their CUSTOMERS (we're not consumers) and partners and the way they treat the market ever since they gained major market share. They have to change though, they had it for the last 12 years, they can be happy. If Microsoft doesn't pull an Apple they will go the way of SCO or if they're lucky IBM.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
All Microsoft would have to do is to release a Windows Free Edition. Efter all, there are a lot of things that is included with XP (Pro at least) that home users do not need, but are essential to any serious business. Kerberos, message queuing and distributed transaktion handling; to name a few. Businesses get a lot of value for money with XP; things that are not available or simply complete crap on Linux. But I guess MS shareholders doesn't want a free striped down and very fast Windows version. (My stripped XP is way way faster than Xubuntu for example, and I got accelerated graphics in Linux.)
I installed Xubuntu for my father, as it does what he needs and I do not have to worry about security as much. However, I still use XP, OS X and the *BSD for everything. They are more powerful and has things that Linux simply cannot offer, and in the case of BSD, it's also free.
They are not equivalent but that's not entirely the question.
The question is do they provide satisfactory functionality?
Because actually, 100 sub-$200 PC systems running Win98SE would probably work faster and be cheaper in means of TCO, and quite likely provide all the functionality needed as well (with exception of stability and security).
If I need email, office, file sharing and some, get the work done in acceptable comfort, you ask yourself what you need. You may get Vista and $1000 PCs, you can get XP and $500 PCs, or Linux and $300 PCs and the user experience and efficiency of work will be the same. You can get $150 PCs and Win98 too, but the risk of data loss and intrusion is prohibitory, otherwise it would have the work done as well. This way Linux can compete just fine and seems to be the best choice.
OTOH if you need a development environment of 4GB RAM quad-core 4GHZ CPU computers for all the 100 desktops, the price difference between OSes and their efficiency overhead becomes much lower. Linux doesn't fare just as well here, especially if you need to run WINE to have some essential apps working. If you need a high-end hardware not because it's required to run the OS, but because your application requires it, choice of the OS should be guided by other factors than just price of purchase or TCO. Although not disqualified here (by far), Linux doesn't have the upper hand of "vastly cheaper setup to get the same things done" here.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Zoidberg: "And while you're under the knife, you could also get an ink pouch to help you escape your enemies."
Professor: "That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard, you imbecile."
Zoidberg: (squirt) "Woopwoopwoopwoop!"
even selling Vista at $40 apiece ??
No. I doubt you will find many of us who object to the idea of having money. It is the methods of getting it and the attitudes that MS have that people here may not be happy with. /. I am unable to speak for others, so I shall speak for myself.
In a place like
I don't like the fact that software is sent out before it is ready, just because some manager types want it to be released now.
If I buy clothes, I assume things are made and they didn't just ship me the cloth and expect me to sew it together myself.
When they release a new product, they will tell us all how fantastic it is.
A couple of years later, when it is about ready for use, they drop it and bring out the next item. They then tell us how this fixes the many shortcomings of its precescessor. I am told how bad it was. I know that in a couple of years, I will be told how rubbish this one is too.
Microsoft bears at least some, and perhaps much, of the blame for the mess we are all in with patents and copyrights.
So they think that GPL is socialism and thus theft? I think that Closed source is protectionist racketeering and thus theft.
When they were small and growing, they relied on the fact that lots of people "borrowed" their software. This enabled them to grow. It was profiting from theft.
Now they are in a position of market dominance, they object to what they once relied on. Stealing is wrong, so when people ask me for a dodgy copy of Office, I point them to a free alternative. I object to their hypocrisy, not the fact that they object to people stealing.
If I buy something, I expect to be able to use what I buy. I expect to be able to sell what I buy, when I no longer want it. I do this with books and cars, so why are MS different?
As I started, I don't object to making money. I just object to some methods of extortion and hypocrisy. I work for money and would love to have more. I will not hit people over the head to get it. My basic objection is that they are no longer a software company. They are a protection racket.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
More /. hypocrisy.
You guys always talk of Linux taking over, but at the same time demand that govt. tie Microsoft down in monopoly regulations. If Linux is going to take over, then Windows is not a monopoly, by definition. Which is it slashdot? Is Windows doomed and therefore not a monopoly or is it the other way around?
Vaio laptops are small, light and powerful. Sure they cost a premium for the looks and weight, but the Vaio SZ range is shit-hot.
I almost completely agree with you, other than that one weird throwaway comment.
If Linux becomes the O/S of choice for cheap hardware, then I hope GNU/Linux will not get the name of "poor man's operating system". While it may be free of charge, it is not is a label the software deserves. Oh well Lindows or whatever it's now could be "poor man's Windows", they deserve that I guess. Seems to be the market they're targeting anyways.
Uhm...
The day I'll have to as Micro$oft for permission on what OS solutions I recommend to my customers is the pigs fly and B.Gates actually grows a wiener.
I may assume you mean OpenOffice.org with that free alternative? Well many people here will agree that it is exactly what people are asking for: a dodgy copy of Office.
What is also good for linux in this market, is that Windows seems to not be able to easily adjust to different form factors. They try to put windows XP on the EEE, but everything will be unreadable on the small screen! You can make icons and fonts bigger, but does that help? Making an interface for mobile devices requires a 'paradigm shift' (to put it in managerspeak), the Xandros developers for the EEE got that right with their simple menu. Nokia got that right. But even Windows CE doesn't get it, still thinking to much in the good-ol' "Desktop" idea.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
now that it's being incrementally upgraded to Vista. Some older apps are showing more instability with each Patch Tuesday. Many customers are finding the XP Pro network functionality goes away when their broadband connection goes down - MS has imposed the killswitch on XP.
XP is becoming a support pain in the ass, and Vista won't run a lot of fundraising and volunteer management programs that nonprofits use.
The ASUS Eees are good. Yeah, MS is set to sell XP for them for another $40, but their default PDA=like screens are idiot-proof, and it's simple to switch them to a clean, ASUS-customized KDE. The screen is good. The keyboard's good. There's nothing cheap about them except maybe the button bar beneath the touchpad - and you can get the same function from the touchpad itself. And there are no rough edges in the Linux experience. It's not for games, but it boots and loads apps plenty fast. It even has mplayer working out of the box - no extra installation steps for a modern browsing experience (as with, say, Ubuntu).
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Your post, for example, was modded down.
This happens all the time with msft hot-button issues discussed on slashdot. Pro-msft posts are modded way up, anti-msft posts are modded way down. And yeah, the msft shills flood the place.
You are absolutely right, they should charge money for their software because of the way they build it. The open source model is different, so the fact that it's free is a consequence of the way it is written. There are some who like to wax poetic about liberty and all that, but when it comes down to it, Linux is free because the code is free. However, if I'm going to buy software, it has to be markedly better than a free alternative... and Windows is not even close. If I'm going to buy something, I'd buy a Mac, but since I can use my same hardware, I run Linux.
I disagree. I use open office even when the company supplies office on my machine. I just don't like Office and I think the popularity of OO on Windows means that there are a significant number of people who agree.
Just pitch Vista back into the hell hole that spawned it.
So, a web site dedicated to Linux says that Linux is going to take over a market segment. Big surprise. Expecting anything different would be like expecting Microsoft to say Linux is the best option for a market segment.
This is not news. It is not even opinion. It is propaganda.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Hi...
There is a misconcpet here. When I say GNU/Linux I am talking of teh GNU system using teh Linux kernel - which is usually called just "Linux" by the media (both mainstream and not). As a matter of fact all the called Linux Distros - including Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, Mandriva, Slackware and others are distributions of the GNU system. Linux is the kernel it uses - just like a car has an engine, and is of little use without an engine. On the other hand, an engine without a car would not be as confortable or usable.
In the above HP desktop case I do not know which distribution they tried to configure.
-><- no
I love how an AC has posted this obviously inflamatory drivel, and continue to marvel that the mods mod crap like this up.
1) The US and European union have both declared MS to be a monopoly.
2) A monopoly in legal terms is not someone who owns 100% of the market, but owns an overwhelming portion of the market. Windows is at what, 90%? 95%?
3) Worse still, MS has been shown, time and time again, that they use that monopoly influence to bully PC vendors. MS hasn't been able to use that influence as much because people in government are watching them, and because the PC vendors are finally getting some balls.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
The GP was not modded down, it stayed at the default value for Anonymous Coward posts. Zero. Much like this one. Don't get all paranoid about the Man keepin' you down.
I'm not so sure. Or if it will, it won't be as easy as one might imagine.
The great strength of Linux and OSS projects is that the developers are the users. But the coders rarely use low-end hardware, which causes software to have errors or performance problems even though it works for the coders. There's an example of this, as it relates to file systems, here, and I think the "there's no memory leak/fragmentation!" stuff in Firefox can be partly blamed on this effect too -- if you have gigs of memory, you won't see it.
it costs less and it can play Ogg Vorbis too...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Microsoft can cut the price of Windows a long long way without "bleeding red ink", especially if they strip it down vertically by removing things like the Citrix code from the hypothetical "XP lite". Whether they're smart enough to do that instead of crippling it with restrictions, that's another question.
That's like saying you found 5 thousand people who abbhor alcohol so it must be bad. That's a lot of people and if you put them all together it would be an impressive crowd.
Then when you compare them to the billion or three that either enjoy or are indifferent about alcohol suddenly they disappear into insignifigance.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Many people look forward to the day when computer users are not victimized by msft's illegal and oppressive business practises. That doesn't mean that anybody is predicting Linux "taking over." I have not read one post that claims that Linux has already taken over. Not one single post.
Yet, your post is modded up to a 4 - how peculiar. Softies whine about a linux bias on slashdot. But the truth is the bashers are far more numerous, and the pro-msft posts are modded much higher. Just look at this thread.
Sorry, those honest programmers are working for a dishonest corp, which makes them a bit less than honest. With their intelligence, they could do better. Next excuse, please.
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
That is good. We have 40,000 desktops\laptops and other functional workstation in our organization and we are almost completed upgrading to XP from 2K. (I shit you not) Looks like our systems folks saw that we only had 26000 users so they only purchased that many XP licenses and Microsoft is giving us some heat on that. I can only imagine if they cut XP support and force our org to upgrade to Vista what a world of hurt that would cause. The sad part is that we are so locked in I don't see how we could even switch. We are starting to hear rumbling in the org about considering Linux but I think it's just some chest thumping to get a better Microsoft deal.
I've been thinking about what a "vista" is.
A Vista is what you get to look at after you spend a lot of time and effort climbing a steep mountain. It doesn't let you go out into the pretty landscape that you see before you— to do that you need to come down off the mountain and mingle with the crowds on the roads. But it sure is pretty, and if you can afford the time and the effort, the memories will be worth the side trip.
And if you are a company rolling in billions of dollars of profit, you might think that you can afford to take all your employees along for the ride.
But if you are a regular company that has to worry about things like making the right business decisions today so you can meet next year's payroll expenses, then taking your employees on a sightseeing trip into the mountains probably isn't such a good idea. If you don't have $billions to burn on pursuing the vision thing, then maybe you just shouldn't go there.
VMWare
Not really, no.
A Swiss Army Knife has different blades, tools and utensils for different purposes.
Each platform is a different purpose; a recompiled kernel (and userland) is a different blade/tool/utensil.
It is not users that need to recompile the kernel, which would be putting an edge on each and every blade -- it's the distro maintainers' job. Users just select the blade they need.
Ignore this signature. By order.
The issue with M$ is not that they make money or that they are the dominate OS ---- When you combine incompetence + arrogance + Ruthless Biz practices --- not just once - but over and over .... people tend to catch on and come to resent this.
A "new technology" coming up from the bottom (low cost) is the traditional way to upset a market. And M$ knows this.
Programmers don't need to work for free -- low cost PC devices will still require lots of programming (integration of SW and improved applications + continual OS tweaks) from cradle to grave. They will be employed by the OEM and 3rd party support companies. Just because you (a tech head) can get Linux for free has no correlation to selling a product that has a tailor made + polished SW load. It just means the total SW + OS package needs to be awesome and under say $35 per machine. And many people would pay some sort of a very modest ($8) subscription fee for the latest tweaks + upgrades + support.
Last week I got to play with an EEPC --- very neat device for $300
Its not the years, its the mileage
Think about it (I already did :) ):
If they create a cheap OS (call it "Cheapows") that can do all the things Linux does in order to compete with Linux, then they are... competing with XP and Vista.
What business is going to buy pricey XP or Vista when 'Cheapows' can do the same stuff at a *much* lower price point (it'll have to be, to compete with "free").
They dug this bed, they have to lie in it.
6 feet under, if Vista is any indication...
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
There's the default Optima distro from Dell. Packard Bell have a different one for one of three (or more, only looked at home) systems. And that's not including the option of going basic, premium or ultimate adding in to the mix. The distributions have their own branding, their own set of antivirus and firewall. Lots of crapola. These make up their own distribution. Even more so because of the prevalence of giving BIOS-locked DVD images instead of install disks.
Nobody seems to mind that one will have McAffee and another will have Norton, even though you get to them in different ways and they show different behaviours. And different libraries.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One of the myriad of benefits of owning a monopoly is the ability to set price. (price maker) Economic history is full of examples where the monopoly owner temporarily lowers prices to eliminate low-end competitors.
This low-end desktop market is owned by Microsoft. They allow it to exist to give the illusion of competition. If they want that segment, they'll take it simply by throwing some money at it and eliminate the competitor. Meanwhile, the low-end provider scrapes by. Novell certainly isn't going to beat Microsoft. Mark Shuttleworth doesn't have the resources to do it either.
Where it counts, Linux distros are simply a negotiating tool for enterprises/agencies to get a lower price/bigger bribe out of Microsoft. That lower price is STILL HIGHER than the price in a vaguely competitive market.
Vista? Oh yeah, you'll be able to pirate it just like XP because every software company knows that's the best way to introduce future customers.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Will you shove this stupid troll line up your ass already? Very little of open source development is done for free. Some of us have been making a living for most of our lives exclusively from FOSS; in fact, my living has been *BETTER* in the open source field when you count that I have $0 overhead cost, since the tools are free, the platform is free, and I can't be sued for including a damn library.
The only people who should be out of a job are trolls like you.
I love the prospect, but I really doubt the likelihood of it. The only places that actually sold machines for sub $500 with Linux preinstalled as the only option was that Walmart PC and the OLPC. Most people are not going to go out of their way to use an operating system that neither they nor any of their friends have heard of, muchless used.
I taught my friend how to use Ubutnu on this old thinkpad that I helped him get. It took me 2 hours to answer his questions, but that's because I was right there and could just show him flat out and he had never owned a computer in his life, so he never got used to a Mac or Windows. I know for a fact that he's to afraid to actually post on forums because he's never used them before in his life.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Yes, sarcasm is hard to show in a web comment. Personally I also use OOo, works great for me (simple docs, simple spreadsheet work), I don't need more and probably never will need much more. I love the pdf export, use that a lot. MS Office would probably also do the job for me just as well, but that doesn't run under Linux and costs more.
Take a look at the Sunday paper ads right now. Circuit City, Best Buy, Office Depot, Staples, and dozens of other stores selling desktops AND laptops for well under $500 pre-loaded with Windows. Windows is already in the $250 and up market. Meaning the ENTIRE market.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because when your *best* "competition" is
UT2003
Doom3
Quake4
then you don't have to be "better" than
Crysis
Oblivion
Far Cry2
MoH:Airbourne
FEAR
Prey
(and many, many more)
you can get a bigger slice of a small pie for very little output. If you think this difficult, have a look at a ONE MAN TEAM porting things like X2, X3 and so on. OK, it takes a long time but he's only one person and has to do the support and porting himself. If it took too long to support, he'd have stopped.
The real issue is twofold, and neither show up as nice to their paying customers:
safedisk (or other DRM)
It's a better ROI to ignore them (though they still PROFIT from it).
Making money is fine - I am happy to pay for stuff, including software and music.
But there is something riding against commercial vs. free software, and it's a double edged sword: feature creep.
In the commercial world, software has to keep adding features in order to sell the next version and keep the profits rolling in. This might help an otherwise under-featured bit of software gain widely sought-after functionality. However, we all know there comes a time when a software package is "just right," yet continues to add features and functionality that are unwanted and only complicate usability (e.g., winamp, nero, etc.)
With free software, there is no incentive to add unnecessary features. This is why I believe that in the long run, free software will dominate the marketplace, because it can afford to not give users features they don't need. But it can be difficult for a sophisticated package to take on critical functionality without a carrot.
Look at the state of video editing on Linux. Yes I have used Kino and Cinelerra, but anyone who has used them knows how tricky and unstable these tools are compared to, say, iMovie.
Free will win in the end, unless commercial software finds a way to bust the bloat.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
I have always thought that was more or less inevitable. If we make a couple of bold and sweeping generalisations, we can say that:
1. The market is finite.
2. MS has expanded to the max extent.
3. Linux is growing.
The inevitable conclusion is that if anything else than MS grows, MS must shrink. If this continues long enough, there will come a tipping point. The thing is, the bigger Linux is in the marketplace, the easier will it be to persuade new users to join (up to a point, of course; if Linux ends up being 99% or so, there won't be many new users to recruit).
It doesn't really matter that many or most OSS project are sponsored by companies; even if they all suddenly lost their sponsors, there would still be a number of people who would continue, simply because they can and they like to do it. Think of Stallman or Linus - nobody paid them in the beginning, but GNU Linux is now the de facto standard for UNIX. Linux will keep growing as long as it is free and fun to program. Windows, on the other hand, is not free and is long ago ceased to be any fun programming for it.
'Microsoft will fight this trend tooth and nail.'
Or they tie struggling Linux businesses (e.g. Xandros) into murky software patent protection deals.
When products like Asus' Eee (default OS is Xandros) starts flying of the shelves Microsoft get their cut.
If you can't beat them join them, but on your own terms. It's inspired and surprisingly nimble for such a big company.
Yep yep - if all those coders starved then we'd all be a lot better off! :P
which is totally what she said
I'm very happy with my asus eee pc. I use in conjunction with my desktop machines (Win XP and Linux), as a portable web surfing, rss reading, and email answering machine. In that role I have no complaint with Linux, even in "easy mode" (OK, Xandros "easy mode" could use a "mid level" mode for UI configuration).
... but Moore's law is at work. Next year or the year after a full Vista install will fit in a "small" flash-based device. At that point it becomes only a price issue.
... but it would be kind of sad if it was only in $49 junk notebooks.
At the same time, I see this as a transitional time. Right now Linux will fit in $199 desktops, and $399 notebooks
I'm not sure who will win. Maybe if device prices keep falling Linux will hold a place
I have no experience with Macs, but I probably never will, since their prices are WAY too expensive. If Apple decided to lower their prices, Mac would kill Windows overnight. Apple has all the fame right now (iPod, etc). I'm a computer tech, and some of my clients have asked me about Mac, and what it is. Honestly, I don't think that "Linux for the 'average Joe'" will go anywhere.
You know, your example isn't helped by the fact that alcohol isn't really all that good for you.
It is doubtful that Linux will take over the low-end PC market. Most people buy their PCs at large retailers (like Staples, Circuit City, Best Buy, and the soon-to-be-defunct COMPUSA), order them online from a company like DELL, or from a small local computer store. Few of these venues provide and/or promote machines with Linux pre-installed. The average consumer has a very vague idea of what an Operating system is. While many lay-people realize that Macintoshes and PCs are "different", very, very few understand the distinctions between OS X, OS 9, Windows XP, Vista, etc... and are even less literate about the myriad Linux distributions. Very, very few lay-people have even heard of Linux, so they don't even think about asking for it when shopping for a PC. The retailers pose even a bigger problem -- while shopping for a PC recently (helping a senior-citizen friend of mine) Best Buy and Circuit City wanted $400.00 to "downgrade" the PCs they were selling to Windows XP. Linux wasn't even an option. Another factor is that people are used to doing things a certain way, so there's a lot of resistance to radical change. Many are finding Vista difficult to deal with (actually, Ubuntu may be easier for an XP user to transition to than Vista -- but that's a different issue).
Also, there's just not any killer apps that mandate Linux. Sure, Wine can run a lot of Windows apps, but then that begs the question "Why run windows on a Linux machine, when you can just get a Windows machine?". The fact that PCs are cheap and that Linux is "free" doesn't really give Linux as big an advantage as many think. Price isn't as important as exposure. Go to any mall and ask any 50 random people about Linux and I guarantee that you will get 40 - 50 blank stares. Then, in that same mall, try and find someplace selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. This is not an indication that Linux is about to take over any market.
We're talking segmentation not early adopters. Sure everyone knows a guy who ran out and bought a $5000 digital camera to take snapshots. Everyone knows a guy who runs a highest end dual core gaming machine to read his email. But that's not what the low end of the market looks like.
It is extremely important for Microsoft to be able to maintain absolute dominance in the PC market, and Microsoft will drop the price of Windows to pennies if it keeps them relevant in the PC market. That's the real purpose of Vista Home Basic. You'll see the price of Vista Home Basic drop to $1 in the near future if it keeps PC companies from going over to Linux.
Microsoft needs Windows on all PCs because it keeps licensing issues simple for them. Very few people steal a Windows license because it is already on their PC. Besides, what happens in the consumer market will affect the corporate market. If Linux can establish a hold on the consumer end, it'll start creeping into the corporate market. Microsoft will use every penny in its coffers to prevent that from happening.
I'm not anti or pro Microsoft. I just know that Microsoft will do everything to protect its Windows market. It's not just the operating system. It's also the Windows office market. Linux PCs don't run Microsoft Office, therefore home users might not be comfortable with Microsoft Office at work, and they'll insist on OpenOffice or whatever application most of these Linux PCs will come with.
Microsoft isn't going down without a fight.
While I don't disagree with most of the conclusions in the article, the financial reasoning is wrong. The purchase cost of a computer is the smallest part of the lifetime costs. If you take his theoretical 100 PC environment, you can expect to need a full-time support position (industry averages are between 100 and 200 systems per support tech). If you pay him/her peanuts ($15/hour) then your cost just went up by $30k/year for the (let's say) four year life expectancy of the equipment. That makes the numbers $177k vs $234k; the percentage savings just dropped through the floor.
It gets worse if you look at the real cost of support people. Windows support techincians are easy to find. Linux support technicians are not (I say this as someone who has tried to hire dozens of support staff at levels from Mac-Hand-Holder-3rd-Class to Unix-Minor-Deity). If you factor in the cost differences of the two skill sets, the savings gets even slimmer.
Finally, the analysis ignores the reality that people like to use the software with which they are familiar. I've run experiments with family and while I (mostly) like OpenOffice, it makes some people crazy because it is different. Non-geek users don't want to learn new software, they want to get their target task completed then go do something else. If you add the additional training/hand-holding to the mix you can pretty much kiss the rest of the theoretical cost savings goodbye.
This is why Windows still dominates the desktop. When you look at the total cost model, there isn't a lot of savings to be had while there are plenty of potential headaches.
To my mind the biggest risk MSFT has taken in the last decade is the set of changes to the UI in Office 2007. Since 1994, there has been essentially no learning curve to an Office upgrade and now there is one. Suddenly, the non-MSFT office suite is the one with better legacy skill support.
Precisely BECAUSE no one knows about it. Like you said, very few people understand the distinctions between OSes -- so they won't know they bought a PC that runs Linux, they'll know they bought a PC for under $200. So what if it can't run Bioshock? Who buys a $200 PC to play modern games? Once they figure out Add/Remove Programs, they'll never go back to the store to buy more software anyway.
At least, that's the optimistic view of the situation. And I do like to hope. If this doesn't work, we'll just try something else! But the gPCs flying off the shelves at Wal-Mart do give one pause, and make one wonder if this might not be the wave of the future. Think about it -- this whole "mainstream acceptance" thing would have been RIDICULOUS five or ten years ago. Now we're seriously debating it. Who's to say where Linux won't be in another few years?
I know several developers who work for Microsoft, and they are invariably intelligent - the way a cop is intelligent. They have a certain type of intelligence, but not a general intelligence that informs them at a greater level about the scheme of things. Just like cops, they also think that they are doing a great thing for the world and are helping out the misguided unwashed masses by unleashing their work upon the world. They are deluded pompous bastards, make no mistake. I can't imagine what their lawyers and marketing people must be like. good grief
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
They really did and it started back around the time of the browsers wars although some instances predate even that. But the browser wars are a pretty good example of MS winning the battles but losing the wars.
...
... available for free.
"They can't compete with free!"
Turned out that "yes, they can" and that came about because it was the only way TO compete.
"We give Internet Explorer away for FREE and Netscape goes AWAY!"
For the most part Netscape did go away but the baby
And now we have a range of competing products, all free.
And Office suites, free.
And entire Operating Systems
All Microshaft has left is enertia in spades but even that is starting to wind down.
Then the company shoots themselves in the other foot.
"Must, Stop, Piracy!"
Hell, unfettered casual copying and midnight installs of MS OS is what cemented the monopoly.
It also helped bring the value of MS product inline with the market.
Now Microshaft has their dick in the wringer.
Pirating has about ceased (won the battle) which essentially eliminates that subsidy, leaving the effective price of their software way over budget in relation to hardware costs which have plummeted. This in turn drives the market towards alternatives which increasingly reduces their monopoly status. (losing the war)
Not only that, but the value proposition MS leveraged against competitors (of their own volition) is coming back to haunt them; How to monetize your product lines when competitors are giving their away for free?!
Even worse is Microshafts new compelling "must have" product (Vista) is such a stinker that people are running away in droves!
It has come to a point where nothing MS can do will support the dizzy height of their perch previously enjoyed.
And no wonder really, that the company is looking to branch into every possible segment of potential profitability other than the ones that made them famous. It is a sign of desperation for the writing is on the wall.
But the company is still dangerous. With a war chest the size of theirs, they certainly can poison the well with the rotting carcase that is their dying elephant.
However, war chest or not, when the tides of markets turn against Microshaft the bloodletting of profit taking will be quick and thorough. What remains in reduction will be fragmented and isolated with resulting market penetration of OS product ultimately adjusted to approximately a third of previous levels. If not then MS will have cut their pricing to a third of current levels. The end result is the same as Wall Street Investors lose confidence in the companies ability to consistently deliver profits.
Linux is the rumblings of a seam splitting earthquake under the deeply undercut ice shelf that is Microshaft. So is OSX. It is not a matter of IF this over extended glacier snaps at the coastline and plunges into the sea . It is only a matter of WHEN.
The thread links to an article whose tone I took as negative towards Microsoft. And what was the heinous crime Microsoft was accused of? Selling their software! *gasp*
I simply don't understand why everyone takes the point of view that "software should be free" when it requires highly trained specialists to design and code it. I understand that software breaks the mold of traditional manufacturing such as car production, where costly raw materials and a lengthy manufacturing process contributes to the cost of producing a car. With software the cost is all front loaded on the design and implementation, while subsequent reproduction is as cheap as copying a DVD. This comparison misses the point, however: producing software is an enormously expensive proposition. While it may only cost Microsoft $.05 to burn a copy of XP, it cost them millions in development. Those development costs have to be recouped somehow, not to mention paying some interest to the investors who risked their money for the development in the first place. Placing a price tag on the software is how they do it.
So while contributing to an open source project may seem like a good idea in college, upon graduation 99.9% of programmers are going to go looking for a traditional company that will provide an actual paying position. When that happens, programmers quickly learn they weren't "sticking it to the man", they were really only sticking it to themselves and their future careers.
Think about Linux for a moment. Hundreds of programmers have contributed to it, allowing a handful of companies to profit from their hard work. The companies were so appreciative of the free labor that they awarded Linus Torvalds in the neighborhood of $20 million in stock options, yet the vast majority of programmers went unpaid.
How long will such a business model be sustainable? I suspect not long. Programmers are smarter than that, and when they figure out what is going on (you work for free while I capitalize on your hard work and profit from it) I suspect the pool of talent supporting free software will dry up. So I'm left wondering if the entire idea of free software will really be sustainable into the next generation. If it is not, as I suspect, then this entire thread is a moot point. Free software won't steal market share from Microsoft because there will not be any free software.
So what, exactly, is the argument again? Everyone on this planet has a right to be payed for their hard work EXCEPT someone who spends 4 years at a university learning how to develop software? They should work for free, so that their hard work can then be given away for free? Sigh. Do we have to go over this again?
It's "free" as in "freedom". Not "free" as in "free beer".
Locking up and hiding code in the "proprietary" model is actually the one that fails. Every proprietary software program out there sprouts endless "features" to drive upgrades until you reach a point of utter unusability. The point of the proprietary model is money, not usability. And it never can be. Once a product is done, then what? You can't sell any more copies can you? So you beat on it senselessly until you have word processors doing spreadsheets and spreadsheets doing browsing and browsers doing email and email doing viruses.
In an open model, there may be many people who do not get "paid" per se. They may write code that does something useful for them then contribute it back. They do get benefit in that they end up with software that satisfies their needs. Others who have the same needs also benefit. How is that a loss?
There's no incentive for throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the software. If nobody needs "feature X", nobody bothers to write the code. Open software will, inexorably, move toward an optimal state. Only those "features" somebody finds useful enough to do something about (for her or his own benefit first) will enter the code base.
(Yes, that's the abstract ideal and reality sometimes goes wonky but I stand by the concept)
Further, one of the latest driving forces in the open/free software world are companies. They are paying their programmers. And they are obtaining benefit from the work of those programmers. But by opening up the code, they also obtain benefit from the work of others who contribute something which that person needs or sees usefulness in. Said programmer--regardless of who he or she works for and is or is not paid by--gains benefit in having useful software.
What's happening is the "shrink wrap" model--which is a recent phenomena in the field--is dying. And it's not even the bigger part of the field. Most programmers (I've seen figures as high as 95%) are doing "in house" software. They're not going to lose their jobs if, say, Quicken tanks and is replaced by some FOSS software. If all "shrink wrap" software tanks, if the whole sector disappears, the impact to the field would likely be less than the implosion of the "tech bubble".
It's a transient model that's dying out. Big whoopee.
Software is about getting things done. Not about driving upgrade money. That's why MS (and others) will ultimately fail. The need to drive upgrades corrupts software. Ultimately, it will fail to be useful. Software is a tool, not an end in itself. You make money by enabling people to get something useful done. MySQL does it. And they give their software away.
(For that matter, have you noticed the cell phone business? They're giving away handsets. Are they crazy? No, they're making huge profits. Think about it.)
Finally, and I think importantly, the FOSS world imitates the way we do science. Information is open and shared. That process has catapulted our civilization from horse draw carriages to me sitting here sending messages via satellite Internet and in only about two centuries. The system works.
Or hadn't you noticed the Internet? Open protocols. The people who created them were paid but the information is belched out freely all over the place for anybody and his dog to use. And it works.
Funny that...
When someone gets a cheap PC from Walmart or wherever and gets it home is they get a friend with a pirated copy of XP to install it. Just because a cheap ass PC sells with Linux doesn't mean that's what the person is choosing for an OS.
Per se, Latin, "by itself".
Yes, Microsoft makes money on its software. I still fail to see why this is a bad thing.
For typical software companies like Microsoft, only a small percentage of their expenses goes to software development.
With Microsoft, the problem is even worse because most of their money doesn't derive from the value the software engineers create and any fair competition in the market, it comes from their business practices.
They should work for free, so that their hard work can then be given away for free?
That's a bogus argument, since most free software developers get paid quite well.
Cutting out all the other people that get paid at companies like Microsoft--the PR and marketing guys, the lawyers, the administrators, the strategists, and the FUDsters--saves a lot of money, allowing programmers on open source projects to be paid well even though the revenue stream is much smaller.
To summarize, you earn a tidy living as a programmer because another programmer was willing to work for free.
To which I would have to say: At least Microsoft pays their programmers well before capitalizing on their work to generate revenue.
Vista's install base exceeded teh Lunix install base after the first week of commerical release. I hardly think MS can view Teh Lunix as even a competitor, to say nothing of a thread.
Teh Lunix is not, and never will be, ready for the desktop. Even the people who spent years championing Teh Lunix on Teh Desktop have quit in frustration (and, of course, blamed Microsoft for their failures, since, you know, MS was somehow magically preventing them from coding what they wanted into Teh Lunix). Just because a person is buying a low-end machine doesn't mean they don't want Windows.
In fact, I would say the low-end market would have an even HIGHER demand for Windows. When your typical non-tech person buys a low-end computer, they are going to want to buy software off the shelf. And, of course, you can only buy Windows software off the shelf: Apple has almost completely succeeded in locking all things Apple into their Apple Stores, and Teh Lunix has been openly hostile to commerical software for so long that mainstream commerical software on Teh Lunix is almost completely gone.
It seems between this and OLPC, Teh Lunix's primary strategy is targetting the "they won't know any better" crowd. But not surprisingly, that strategy is a flop. Anyone who knows anything about computers is going to be pushing for Windows, since it doesn't lock you in to irrelevance (and having no job-applicable computer skills). Friends don't let friends become irrelevant.
Thanks for the laugh. Went well with my morning coffee.
Get your dogma outta my yard!
Because actually, 100 sub-$200 PC systems running Win98SE would probably work faster and be cheaper in means of TCO, and quite likely provide all the functionality needed as well (with exception of stability and security).
Stability and security are very significant factors when determining TCO. It's probably best not to make exceptions in terms of either one.
The thread links to an article whose tone I took as negative towards Microsoft. And what was the heinous crime Microsoft was accused of? Selling their software! *gasp*
I won't speak to the article (refusing to RTFA myself), but one of MS's most heinous crimes in the eyes of many was not charging money for software, but giving it away for free to crush the competition that may have posed a future threat (IE vs NS). It is not the charging of money that people are rabidly against (there was anti-MS well before open alternatives, just look at the popularity of OS/2). It is the fact that they use the money they have for underhanded tactics. Open source just happens to be one of the most effective ways to combat the tactics (law suits forcing them to carry you out of your troubled times worked for Apple too).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I'm saying that it's a nice fast, light little machine, though pricy.
Tell me, have I missed something better (small, light, powerful) ? or did the original poster just want to sling mud at sony?
The screens are great, they're powerful, slim and light.
Seriously, I'll be pissed off (I got one recently) but I'd love to be shown something better. I looked.
To the customer, they are selling a one-off jobber with a combination of programs and UI features that represent no platform in particular. Even if they have looked at other "Linux" PCs, they are not likely to see something they recognize in a highly customized Enlightenment desktop. If they buy the system they
Linux boosters are showing their derangement here: Promoting "Linux" to end-users is like promoting Gecko to people who want a browser. But Linux and Gecko are effectively invisible to non-techies. The difference is that Mozilla are not stupid enough to work on only the Gecko engine, and then let umpteen distros implement various browsers and promote them all as "Gecko". Instead they made a complete product Firefox that users can consistently recognize and use, and protect their trademarks such that other browsers using Mozilla technology are not confused with Firefox in the slightest bit.
In short: Stop confusing end-users and yourselves with "desktop Linux" promotion. If you must promote a FOSS operating system to the public, then focus on a specific free distro that adheres to the LSB Desktop spec.
Again, stop confusing people!!
Without doubt, 2008 will be the year of the Linux desktop.
about Linux taking over the desktop now?
How has that worked out so far?
Grant Gross, Washington reporter, IDG News Service
No, they can't... the courts in EU has already told MS (and OEM's) exactly how much Windows costs... and neither MS nor the OEM's were especially happy about it.
You don't understand. When Linux gets going, $100 (or even lower) will be the permanent price for a decent computer with a full suite of useful software. Can Microsoft handle a permanent zero for Windows and Office pricing?
google is...the richest with 220.000.000.000 $ worth.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Linux will become mainstream" or how "Linux will make MS lose money" I would have more money than Bill right now. If anyone is making MS lose money these days it is Steve Jobs and Apple.....
There are also many brilliant developers at MS, but usually they work on other projects rather on Windows. Anyway, the best ones earn so much money they can retire after less than 10 years and go back playing with Linux and more advanced technology.
If I had the opportunity to retire to a Microsoft-less life after few years, and the price to pay was to spend those years developing for Microsoft, I'd sign immediately, though that wouldn't make me a developer devoted to the MS cause.
Here are some attributes that make linux environments better:
More secure. Boots faster. Runs faster. Consumes fewer resources. Scales better up and down. Creates no licensing liabilities for end users. Compatible with more software I can afford. Doesn't threaten me with license compliance audits. Compatible with more hardware than any other operating system ever. Crashes less. More maintainable. Has no kill switch. Evolving faster. More flexible. More available. Pendrive bootable. CD Bootable. Embeddable. More affordable. More durable. Uses less wall power. It doesn't have a BSA. Looks better. Is easier to use. Does not have >100,000 separate virus variant history. Comes with a workable set of applications. Comes with tools to make my own applications. Doesn't check every day to make sure I'm still "authorized" to use it.
It's engineered with the purpose of enabling me to do things with my computer, not preventing me from doing things with their software.
But.. but.. it's not compatible with {games/microsoft servers/Photoshop}! : Cedega and Citrix solve all of these problems I might have.
Don't brag Windows support until you've called them. It's a dismal experience and usually unrewarding. You would get better value for money and better service hiring a local professional.
Did I mention more secure?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Somehow always amuses me.
There's a fairly broad spectrum between working at Microsoft and starving. Maybe I'm not getting a joke?
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
Interesting.... to strain the analogy even more: I buy a Swiss Army Knife (or Multi-Tool), I don't need to sharpen all the blades. If I'm buying a Linux powered super-computer while I'm wearing that Linux powered wrist watch (or more likely, checking my invoice on my Linux powered cell phone), I probably didn't recompile the kernel on either of them. The vendor does the "sharpening" for me.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Deleted
You just bit, my friend. The troll most likely was hoping to watch as nerds battle over Linux vs. BSD. Sort of like starting a bar brawl and slipping out the back door.
Remember, kids: Don't feed the trolls!
the Linux Kernel.
Freedom is free.
I think it IS interesting that traditionally, Linux really found its "niche" with older, used hardware that people were trying to recycle. Costs of new hardware have dropped so much though, we're seeing a new situation here. The cost of the typical Microsoft pre-loaded operating system on a new PC can account for a large portion of its total cost.
If you can convince a consumer to pay more for a higher-end system, then he/she is still buying a piece of hardware with a price-point more like what we're used to seeing. But the trend is, consumers who don't need that much power, or that many "bells and whistles" (or who simply can't afford them) are buying budget-priced boxes with warranties, vs. buying other people's used/discarded PCs.
The high-end purchases are starting to go towards Apple, since they offer a complete hardware+software bundled solution with "elegance" and "style" (and they can all boot into Windows XP or Vista anyway, if one is so inclined).
The low-end is steadily creeping towards Linux, leaving Microsoft selling primarily to the "middle of the road" PCs. (By this, I mean name-brand boxes like HP/Compaq, Gateway or Dell, but offerings of theirs in that $400-600 price-point, just under where new Apple Macs generally start out at.) That and the "media center PC" niche, which Microsoft currently has a stronghold on - because no other OS fully supports DVR functionality and the like, integrated into it.
Just explain that to me? Linux still doesn't do everything Windows does, face it people. The average user would be happier with XP.
Yet we are aiming Linux systems at them. Cmon, Ubuntu isn't half as easy to use as XP or Vista.
So give up easy installations, easy hardware setup, easy administration and all but a handful of games and you guy are seriously telling me that's what poor famailes should get over say 50 bucks more for XP.
Is 50 bucks more not worth it to be on the platform 80% of the world uses, especially when the other platform has less applications, almost no gaming, and significant hardware incompatability.
It may be great for what you do... but think of the little people.
They will just step in and 'disapprove' of any open source 'hacker OS' and confiscate your PC, for your safety of course ( or is that for the children, or to combat terrorism.. ).
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thesis: In the sub-$500 computer market, Linux comes fully featured for most users at a price of FREE. Microsoft cannot compete against this price. The end result will be a loss of market share for MS in this sector of the market.
There is a grain of truth in this... but only a little. Worse, the author then goes on to discuss the cost of IT in an office setting and basically runs off with this data in the exact opposite direction of where he should be taking it. He's missing the point.
When you are talking about ultra- cheap PCs this author is talking about - as currently marketed - you are talking about the lowest-end consumer machines. Up until Vista, the consumer who wanted to run Microsoft products but didn't want to pay for them simply pirated those products, making them "free". That's reality. It continues to be reality.
The problem is that Microsoft sees their largest future growth sector in the consumers who are using their products for free - and want to force them to pay for it. They have been able to ratchet up this strategy because there was no viable competition....until Ubuntu.
All things being equal, if Microsoft sees that consumers will be moving away from their products in order to become familiar with another product line, MS will pause. The threat is not in losing a sale to a consumer who didn't want to buy your product (and isn't buying somebody else's, either). The threat is allowing a large number of people to become very familiar with a competing product line - to the point where they are comfortable with it and will tell management in the business they work at that they are able to use it without any issues.
And THAT is a BIG problem for Microsoft, long term. That chips away at the superior good/inferior good reputation that has made them market leaders.
The solution to that problem is simply to scale back the anti-piracy measures in the Windows-flavor-of-the-day so that people can continue to choose the superior product at a cost of $0.00. That strategy made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. They are well able to run with the ball in that direction again.
The BIG issue is that software bloat in terms of resource requirements makes running Windows on these very cheap PCs difficult for MS. The Window-flavor-of-the-day - even if pirated - won't run on a eeePC. That's a serious problem for MS.
I predict MS will simply design a less resource intensive home and sub-compact OS that can run on these systems. And it will make the DRM/Piracy protection on it relatively easy to circumvent - and thereby preserves its medium term market share.
If it does not do this - the long terms risks are significant.
In any event - the one thing we have seen over the course of time as a result of MS' monopoly is that hardware prices trend down and software OS prices trend up. That decline in hardware price has now reached a dangerous crossover point. When the hardware comes down in price so far that the software cost of the OS doubles the price of the machine - you reach a crossover point where that whole software cost becomes impossible to justify.
And that trend keeps getting worse for MS. IT does not, under ANY REASONABLE SCENARIO **EVER** get better for MS in the future. It just keeps getting worse and worse...and still worse.
Will MS come crashing down? No. It will simply do the one thing to adapt that it has never really done over the course of its corporate history: it will be forced to lower its prices on its core product lines in order to maintain its market position.
Hence, Microsoft will be less profitable in the future. In the result, Microsoft's best days are , indeed, behind it.
.Robert
Thanks for the tips you guys. Why is it that the real geeks are the ones that are easy to communicate with and are not constantly trying to belittle others? Dunno, I just like it.
Seriously guys. We ALL know that Linux isn't going to penetrate any low cost PC market. Dell hardly sold any Ubuntus, the Lindows experiment was a failure and most of those sold because they were cheap and could be formatted to install pirated copies of Windows anyway. The mass Market doesnt care about Linux. They care about easy. That means Windows. Sad but true.
IBM kit is rock solid, I do like the thinkpads. I have a T60 at work. Not sure they're as capable as the vaio (in terms of Core 2 duo + nvidia) for the size and weight, but they are indeed rock solid machines.
Dell I just don't like. They have *some* good kit, but to be honest, much as I like buying stuff mail order, I don't like the idea of buying a whole laptop that way.
I don't really know what toys you're referring to and they didn't factor on my purchase. It has fingerprint recognition which I don't care about and haven't investigated in Linux. Otherwise.... I'm at a loss.
I think "overpays" would be the more appropriate verb.
The accounting equation is this: Assets = Liabilites + Owners' Equity.
Is it being too obvious to point out which side of the equation is affected most by things like closed-source, lawsuit threats, FUD, etc.? There's no such thing as an efficient lawsuit.
MS has lots of "fiscal legs". They will obviously miss having the OS if they lose it, but frankly it is a cash-cow now, and will probably generate another 100+ billion in profit before it disappears.
:)?
It looks to me like they no longer have their best and brightest on it but are just doing the minimum. Or maybe they just screwed up and the next version will be way better - who can tell from outside? (Can they even tell from inside
In any case the growth is coming from things like "Live", the Server market (Sharepoint is white-hot and anchors Office), XBox, etc.
Yes, but can it generate chronoton particles or phason radiation?
Not to mention warp fields!
Not sure how to quote, but you said:
:)
I don't like the fact that software is sent out before it is ready, just because some manager types want it to be released now.
If I buy clothes, I assume things are made and they didn't just ship me the cloth and expect me to sew it together myself.
Interestingly shopping last week in Oz i have noticed that the attitude to 'its good enough' does now apply to clothes, even a pair or jeans now only come in 1 length - so you (or a they suggested a tailor!) DOES have to sew it together, this is much more prevalent that it used to be. They cant be bothered to carry stock, so you pay the extra, or pay for a product thats not qutewhat you want!
There is a creeping and endemic attitude in society that 'just good enough' will do, and it does stem from the IT industry.
Now back to our regulary scheduled rant about OSS
So When M$ outsources it's programing to $(cheap) add here which ever country
is currently the cheapest
Thats ok then?
But FOSS is taking jobs and killing the software industry.
I don't think so, FOSS is the truly market driven software industry, only the best survives with no help from
governments and such.
FOSS is freedom
M$ and such is bondage
Cheers Bob
It Seems I've developed an aversion to proprietary software
Yeah, I was referring to one of the parent posts which talked about 'starving developers'
which is totally what she said
'per se'.
What about the grand daddy of Free Software - Emacs? This fine program seem to defeat all you points regarding lean and mean FS vs slow feature creep of proprietary.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I'm not entirely sure how that applies... but I look at it this way, IF an insignificant number of the population is using OO, as compared to Word, it's because they don't know OO exists, not because they have made an intelligent decision. What exactly are the features of MS Office that make it $600 better than OpenOffice?
the number 1 issue in computing is security or rather the lack thereof. and this is a defect that has been foisted upon us all by Ms. Windows
we patch and patch and patch. and we patch some more and we patch every tuesday
and still: NOTHING CHANGES security problems are getting worse at an increasing rate, not only in the number of attacks but in the sophistication and damages
one approach to breaking Ms monopoly would be to consider Ms Windows as an application program, not an OS. Security is a fundamental requirement of an operating system: the operating system must seize and maintain control over all system resources.
compatibilty operating environments have never been very satisfactory as they add a lot of system over-head and a lot of complexity. but these such systems have been helpful in making transitions
Arrgh, everyone in this thread is missing the point. It's return on investment, guys. As a managers of a public corporation, MS bigwigs are duty-bound to direct company resources to to maximize return on stockholder equity. Given that they have high margins and monopolistic market share with Windows & Office, there is no potential for growth there; no one is going to pay $800 anymore for an office suite no matter how good it is, ribbon or no ribbon. The optimum fiscal strategy is to invest the minimum required to protect the cash cow. At the same time, Linux/OO.o gradually cuts away at the ability to charge fat profit margins. In this way, Microsoft can maintain 90% marketshare forever and still lose.
The experience of GE small appliances is instructive. Despite the fact that GE toasters & irons had strong market share, GE's strong brand couldn't command a premium price. You care much less about the quality of, innovative new features of, & aftermarket service for, a $20 blender, compared to a $600 washer/dryer set, so Jack Welch sold the former business and invested in the latter.
My broader theory is that properly-managed technology companies, as their core technical competence becomes obsolete, metamorph.
- Into an investment bank, which is essentially what GE & GM are now, or similarly
- a conglomerate (United Technologies, Tyco)
- a break-up, (AT&T, Motorola)
- or a completely different company in a different business (IBM, Apple)
Military contractors seem to go through (2) and (3) on 30-year cycle. Companies that cannot adapt can only merge together to reduce costs, the process of dinosaurs mating, as happened to all the mainframe makers except IBM, or just shrivel away (Kodak, Zenith). But that is not necessarily failure; sometimes the sound business decision is to close up shop, like Dairy Queen does every November. If the company crashes and explodes (Commodore), that is failure.So what is Microsoft's fate? They seem to be attempting (2) with XBox and MSN/Windows live or whatever it is, but doing rather poorly. Even with healthy growth from here forward, the money invested in XBox would have returned better yields in treasury bonds. MS-branded Linux would seem to be an example of (4), so that seems unlikely to me. Either MS will get better at (2) (by mastering such conglomerate basics as buying medium-sized companies that are already good at what they do) or at some point a chainsaw-wielding exec will take over, lay everybody off, chop the company apart, and walk home with a jillion dollars in stock bonuses. The mind boggles at the prospect of a leveraged buyout of Microsoft, but we have been surprised before. The world needs a new Neutron Jack!
That website seems a bit Windows-centric. They offer dotnet and ASP certs, and to them PHP is an alternative to ASP that "can be used with Microsoft's IIS on Windows". Not a representative place to track trends. Would you think website statistics on amiga.org are representative?
Per say, 'mercan Inn-glish, "I can only think of one think at once, so don't confuse me!"
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
To answer your question in one word: Familiarity.
How much time is wasted on training or re-learning going from OO to MSO? At home, that's probably not worth $600 to Joe User. In the office with 100's or 1000's (or more) users using known software saves a lot in 'soft costs'.
As for intelligent decisions between OO and MSO - where are most of the MSO sales? Corporate customers. Where are most of the higher-price editions sold? Corporate customers. The same people with the productivity justification above. Joe user will more often than not buy (assuming he doesn't pirate) the student version or OEM CD-and-Key that's far less than $600.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
What I did say was "optimal". Imagine the ideal sets of features for all the users of some software. The software that describes the largest intersection of all those sets would be "optimal" in this little thought experiment. You can't include everything everybody wants but you can include the ones most people want and reach a point where, generally, people say, "Yeah, I can use that".
And, again, I said this is all abstract and ideal and reality can always go sour on you. Being FOSS doesn't gaurantee success.
Far as emacs, it must satisfy enough people that it's still around. Why, I don't know. I don't know why vi still exists. But it does. People are still using trn and slrn and such for Usenet. Hey, if they're happy... shrug.
But I stand by my point that proprietary software--despite claims to the contrary--is not actually driven by the needs of the user. It cannot be so.
Take creaky old Usenet for example. Everybody who uses it is more less satisfied with the way it is and there's no serious push to change things. Other than minor tweaking here and there, now and then, Usenet is pretty much at the "stick a fork in it, it's done" stage.
(I mean, look at the date on the RFCs covering Usenet. They're *old*. There's just no big push to do much at all with Usenet. Tweaking, yes. But major changes? No.)
What does a profit driven company do with that situation? Say, "Well, that's done. Anybody for lunch?"
No, they'll keep going back and beating on it and trying to convince people they "need" all these new "features" so they can charge for upgrades. Take a look at Quicken. Okay, don't, it's been known to cause nightmares. That was a great little program once. Now it's got bells and whistles and dancing bears and video and.... last time I remember trying to use it a couple of years back, I remember clicking something then feeling like I should take a coffee break. It was breathtakingly sluggish. Ended up yelling at the computer "ALL I WANT TO IS BALANCE MY CHECKBOOK NOT MANAGE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT!!!!!"
Personally, I don't see any way for the proprietary model to work. It seems to me that it must inevitably lead to unuseable software that has had tons of "features" nobody actually wanted piled on endlessly.
In the FOSS world, there's no incentive to keep cramming in things until your users despise you. I mean, you can do that but your project will end up forked and you'll be left in the cold. In the proprietary world, you deal with this issue by "lock in". You cage your users so while they may hate you, it would cost them more to leave than to stay.
Until it reaches the point where people despise you so much, you can't sell, you know, Vista...