If Microsoft puts out Linux anything, it validates Linux in the minds of the masses, and really starts the "Gee, why the hell should I pay $200 for WinXP and $450 for Office Professional when Linux stuff is free?"
I completely agree. And it goes deeper than perhaps the parent post implies.
Microsoft's ability to call the shots in the IT industry is strongly anchored in their dominance of the commodity desktop. Microsoft can leverage this dominance to introduce de-facto standards and create demand for proprietary infrastructure. There is certainly a financial motive to this. But it also makes it a lot easier to simply get your ideas adopted if you get to drive the standards rather than compete with everyone else for adoption.
Keep in mind that a huge part of Microsoft's success is the emergence of commodity hardware. This process created a market effect that almost swamped proprietary hardware leaders like Apple and IBM. But Microsoft rode that wave, taking a payment on each device sold no matter who sold it. And at the same time, it helped give them a presence in the majority of businesses and, in turn, homes with a computer.
Linux threatens this whole process. Linux is the digital embodiment of the next phase in the IT Industry; the commodity OS. What happened to IBM could be about to happen to Microsoft. Sure - IBM is still around. They're a major player. But they no longer set de-facto standards like they used to.
If Microsoft adopts or supports Linux, it risks strengthening Linux and the associated meme that the OS is a commodity. This erodes Microsoft's influence in the market. And that will quickly lead to a more difficult path for both its business strategy and its ability to implement its technical vision (if one can separate one from the other).
Wait a minute. Did you just take a discussion about Exchange vs. Sendmail configuration / setup and apply the Grandmother Argument? You're telling me you expect grandmothers, mothers, and simular stereotypical computer neophytes to be setting up their own email server infrastructure? Heck - my mother has a hard time distinguishing between IM and email.
Look at the filesystem navigation provided by GTK in the Open dialog, for example. It requires knowledge of relative pathing to even navigate upwards through the directory tree! There's no way to change the sort order of folders or filenames, or even view data other than the name. Compare this to the Open dialog provided by Notepad in Windows XP. It's a useability dream, powerful but also simple enough for new users to understand. Why the heck can't The GIMP act like this? Oh yeah, GTK.
I agree. There are several GTK apps that I drag with me to Windows (one being GIMP). The file dialogs are painfull. What's worse is that those same apps on my Linux workstation at home have the newer GTK dialogs... and it's much easier to deal with. And even then - I find myself preferring QT's dialogs.
And yes, while Qt is pretty nifty, it's not too common.
Very common in Linux. Not so common in Windows.
And you seem to miss my point about consistency. Consistency is good, but as long as each application has a decent UI, inconsistency is only a minor annoyance.
Actually - I think we agree on this.
The use of terrible graphics toolkits like GTK, however, is what is going to keep Linux and Open Source apps out of the mainstream unless people get wise to the fact that an good user interface is a NECESSITY, not an extravagance.
I bet you if cost wasn't a factor, os x would own linux. I bring this up because this is a discussion of usability and not price and you knew it.
If cost wasn't a factor, MacOS would "own" Windows. But MacOS runs on proprietary hardware. And while that does offer some advantages, it also has some disadvantages to the consumer. One of those is cost.
An interesting point is that for quite some time, Apple had superior technology. Great stuff (although I never used it, myself). But that doesn't matter. In the end, it comes down to money. To cost (selection / multiple vendors doesn't hurt either).
I find it interesting how simular the "Windows vs. Linux" argument sounds to the old "Mac vs. PC" argument in the past.
Amazing. Yet I use it all the time. Even on Windows. I will agree that it can be daunting - my daughter took a bit to warm up to it. Definate room for improvement. Hardly "worthless".
GTK is the single largest barrier between cross-platform open source application and the end user. Developers seem to like it well enough that there are no commonly used alternatives, while it's poor enough to prevent people from actually using the software.
Ever hear of QT? Commonly used alternative. In fact, I use a mixture of QT and GTK apps regularly.
I agree that consistancy is a definate plus. But I don't see it as this amazing block. It's never been in the past. And while consistancy is a laudible goal, even Microsoft and Apple occasionally ignore it on the very platforms that are held as prime examples of it.
...SCO has apparently chosen to make the company's core Unix business, and not its legal adventures, the center of this year's show.
Can you imagine what it'd be like if they hadn't decided this?
"Alright! Welcome to this year's Forum! We've got some exciting things to discuss this year. Now... before we start... how many of you are Solutions Providers and Software Engineers? How many hands? That many. Huh. I have no idea why you guys are here. Now... how about the lawyers? How many? Yeah! Hello. And Buisness Strategists from other companies competing against Linux solutions? Hello! Good crowd! We've got some really exciting news for all you guys...!"
Granted - any solution providers who DO show up should still be asking themselves what they're doing there.
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected in his person for his own speech?
From the article:
But CrimeThinc continued to ask attendees to deface the Republican National Committee Web sites, to launch denial of service attacks against their servers...
Yeah, yeah, I know it's slashdot code to hate Real, but they've finally done something good. They continue to support Linux, and gave us the core of their player (which, IMO no longer sucks ass) and we're still criticizing them? Has anyone here even used Realplayer 10 Linux or Helix?
Heaven forbid one would hold Real accountable for it's past behavior. Real didn't become a Slashdot pariah by giving us the core of their player. They got their reputation from introducing spyware, playing hide-the-link, and assorted other annoying behavior. If you feel that these criticisms are invalid, please jump in and point out the errors.
Having said that - I do think that some of the criticism I've seen under this thread is invalid. I'm glad Real is trying to do some Good Things. And I'm willing to see what they're doing these days.
Just don't expect this behavior to instantly wipe out years of previous history.
As has been pointed out several times during this thread, governmental computer use is never supposed to be for personal use.
It depends on where you work. The policy for my organization is limited personal use - same policy with the telephone. Of course, there are limitations on quantity and content.
OK, I'm mostly pro-open source but this one is interesting. What happened here is that a company had a product, fired the staff developing that product, and then still released a new version utilising the continuing free labour of those who it had put out of a job.
That's an interesting point. However, you're cutting out a whole lot of Netscape history. By the time Netscape released an Open Source codebase, it was already a doomed company. Creating the Mozilla project was a final defiant action. AOL's purchase of Netscape was both added life and final blow to what we knew as Netscape. It was an indication of Netscape's position as well as a corporate shift that caused a mass exodus of Netscape talent. But at the same time, it did present some continued corporate sponsorship to the Mozilla project.
The parent's timeline makes it sound like the decline of Netscape's employment started at, or was a direct result of the Open Source process. But this decline was already well underway. And it could even be argued that the Mozilla project maintained value in even a small number of Netscape jobs.
There is one major issue that would be easy to overlook. If Netscape had remained proprietary, it would have simply faded away with so many other codebases wiped out by the dot-boom collapse. And as many of us know, a failed product is not a great source of employment in itself.
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects? People who are familiar enough that they can catch an exploit that may only take 3-4 lines of code to perform?
...
I think that having experts able to review each line of code checked in and put into production defeats the whole idea of using Open Source: at that point, you might as well just hire the experts to write the code in the first place and eliminate the vector all together.
No - the Government will contract a company to do this for them. The difference is that when the contract comes up for bid, they will both have the source code involved and a better chance of finding competing contractors able to work with that code. At worse, they'll end up contracting with an outfit that is unfamiliar with the code and has to ramp-up... which isn't much different from a proprietary-based situation. Which brings us to a very important point...
If 3000 lines of dense mathematically rich C were checked in and a dozen lines acted in concert to create a miscalculation, how much expertise would be needed to catch that?
Are you implying that 3000 lines of proprietary code is going to go in to a system without any checks? And once that code is incorporated in to the system, that system is not going to undergo a strict battery of tests?
They are actually making money off this. Pump and dump? The only people who are going to be affected are the programmers at sco but i am sure they would find alternate employment once this fiasco is over.
OK - maybe I'm missing something very important here. If so, please educate me. Having said that...
During the duration of this ploy, SCO's stock has climbed and then dropped. I would assume this implies that a fairly high number of people have been buying the stock during its more lofty heights. And if so, they are losing money made as an investment on faulty claims. Sounds like being affected to me.
Furthermore, even though the damage isn't nearly as wide-spread as it could be, there are some IT managers who do / did listen to SCO. If (and that's a rather large "if") they had plans to purchase / deploy Linux architecture and then either held off or scrapped those plans, that's damage to the vendor being considered. More people being affected.
We know that it got moved up from something like 10th to replace the planned debut, because the studio wanted something more straightforward (read: predictable) to hook viewers. That alone probably helped doom Firefly; it started in the middle with characters we knew nothing about, but with an episode that presumed a bit was already known.
I'm a bit shocked at myself... but I may be agreeing with the actions of the studio. The first (aired) episode presented you with Serenity's crew in action. But at the same time, it hinted at the dynamics and characters involved. Things to be curious about. A hook.
Consider that one of the hallmarks of good modern scifi is an implied familiarity with technology and devices. Characters don't spend much time on commonplace items no matter now uncommon they would be to us. This is a change from classic scifi which often went to considerable length in describing the mechanics of some technology. It's akin to Sam Spade having a long conversation about the telephone instead of simply making the call. That's not to say that there's no room for the background of such devices. Star Trek is a classic example of introducing "commonplace" technology that gets treated to increased detail over time.
The same can be applied to character development. Firefly showed us characters already in play. Characters with distinct personalities, existing relationships, and slowly shifting relationships. Part of the interest to the series for me was slowly finding out more about the characters. If anything, I think I appreciated the intended pilot more for providing nuggets of background information than the origional intent of introducing characters I didn't know or (yet) care about.
Nice summery. It's a shame the article itself has nothing to do with banner ads specifically or how either technology is used in general. Then there's all that techno-mumble-jumble about features are or are not present in said technologies. You missed that too. But otherwise, spot on. Other than, you know... the facts. But we all know that those just get in the way.
One additional comment to this... I am being a bit fast and loose with my history. Calling Windows the catalyst for microcomputer hardware commoditization ignores the fact that it began with DOS. Windows was simply an extension; continuing a process that was well established before Windows came in to its own.
But then, in the bigger picture, we're really talking about Microsoft. Microsoft and it's rather brilliant (or lucky - depending on who you talk to) licensing.
Funny how 'the early years' keeps getting redefined. I just realized: commodity hardware -- you're talking about the 1990s, or late 80s at best. Those are the early years?! Wow. I'm fucking old.
Early years for Windows. My first home computer choice involved a short list of the TRS-80 Model I, Apple ][, and Commodore PET (and I'm sure there are others who'll look at these as being late-comers). But then... that's got little to do with the discusson on Windows' success.
In the realm of personal computers, I do not think this observation is accurate at all. Microsoft's approach was not to compete on price in the normal sense of the word.
It depends on exactly what you're looking at. One of my old Unix labs was converted to Win2K due to percieved cost / value of the hardware involved (user preferences or whether management had good data are subjects for another conversation). It also might be noted that questionable data for a TCO on desktops launched the great JSC Mac Jihad.
Microsoft has certainly competed on price in the past. Their recent TCO strategy is nothing new. But like the article notes - this is the first time they aren't attacking from the lower price point.
'...What really propelled Microsoft Windows success was an ecosystem that they created that allowed other people to benefit from your success. Actually your success was really a side effect or byproduct of their own success.'
Let's not forget that Windows was also running on commodity hardware. In the early years, it wasn't "Windows" - it was Mac or PC. People were buying a platform with all the advantages of commodity hardware; price, selection, customization, etc. The PC platform had considerable draw from the market. It was able to provide value to customers that previous proprietary computing products lacked. And in the end, the commodity platform "won".
That's not to say Microsoft didn't do a good job with supporting developers. They did better than Apple in many ways. But in those days, that simply ensured that "Killer App Version 2.0" was available for the "PC" as well as other platforms.
The real success for Windows was in it's being the catalyst for commoditization of the hardware market. And then riding the ensuing wave.
Now we're facing a possible next wave in IT; commoditization of the OS. Microsoft would clearly have issues with this. And they would rather fight it than try and ride this one too (or at least not start paddling for it until the very last minute). It's interesting to see that one notable who was plowed under by the earlier wave is now trying to set up to ride this one; IBM.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree. And it goes deeper than perhaps the parent post implies.
Microsoft's ability to call the shots in the IT industry is strongly anchored in their dominance of the commodity desktop. Microsoft can leverage this dominance to introduce de-facto standards and create demand for proprietary infrastructure. There is certainly a financial motive to this. But it also makes it a lot easier to simply get your ideas adopted if you get to drive the standards rather than compete with everyone else for adoption.
Keep in mind that a huge part of Microsoft's success is the emergence of commodity hardware. This process created a market effect that almost swamped proprietary hardware leaders like Apple and IBM. But Microsoft rode that wave, taking a payment on each device sold no matter who sold it. And at the same time, it helped give them a presence in the majority of businesses and, in turn, homes with a computer.
Linux threatens this whole process. Linux is the digital embodiment of the next phase in the IT Industry; the commodity OS. What happened to IBM could be about to happen to Microsoft. Sure - IBM is still around. They're a major player. But they no longer set de-facto standards like they used to.
If Microsoft adopts or supports Linux, it risks strengthening Linux and the associated meme that the OS is a commodity. This erodes Microsoft's influence in the market. And that will quickly lead to a more difficult path for both its business strategy and its ability to implement its technical vision (if one can separate one from the other).
Ahhh! So you HAVE read the EULA!
Wait a minute. Did you just take a discussion about Exchange vs. Sendmail configuration / setup and apply the Grandmother Argument? You're telling me you expect grandmothers, mothers, and simular stereotypical computer neophytes to be setting up their own email server infrastructure? Heck - my mother has a hard time distinguishing between IM and email.
I like this new Slashdot spell-checker / grammar feature! Good work, guys!
I agree. There are several GTK apps that I drag with me to Windows (one being GIMP). The file dialogs are painfull. What's worse is that those same apps on my Linux workstation at home have the newer GTK dialogs... and it's much easier to deal with. And even then - I find myself preferring QT's dialogs.
Very common in Linux. Not so common in Windows.
Actually - I think we agree on this.
What would be your suggestion for a good toolkit?
Thanks. Every once in a while, one tends to fire-and-forget without proofreading. Or taking advantage of a spell checker.
If cost wasn't a factor, MacOS would "own" Windows. But MacOS runs on proprietary hardware. And while that does offer some advantages, it also has some disadvantages to the consumer. One of those is cost.
An interesting point is that for quite some time, Apple had superior technology. Great stuff (although I never used it, myself). But that doesn't matter. In the end, it comes down to money. To cost (selection / multiple vendors doesn't hurt either).
I find it interesting how simular the "Windows vs. Linux" argument sounds to the old "Mac vs. PC" argument in the past.
Amazing. Yet I use it all the time. Even on Windows. I will agree that it can be daunting - my daughter took a bit to warm up to it. Definate room for improvement. Hardly "worthless".
Ever hear of QT? Commonly used alternative. In fact, I use a mixture of QT and GTK apps regularly.
I agree that consistancy is a definate plus. But I don't see it as this amazing block. It's never been in the past. And while consistancy is a laudible goal, even Microsoft and Apple occasionally ignore it on the very platforms that are held as prime examples of it.
Can you imagine what it'd be like if they hadn't decided this?
"Alright! Welcome to this year's Forum! We've got some exciting things to discuss this year. Now... before we start... how many of you are Solutions Providers and Software Engineers? How many hands? That many. Huh. I have no idea why you guys are here. Now... how about the lawyers? How many? Yeah! Hello. And Buisness Strategists from other companies competing against Linux solutions? Hello! Good crowd! We've got some really exciting news for all you guys...!"
Granted - any solution providers who DO show up should still be asking themselves what they're doing there.
Engage the suit and nuke them in court. It's the only way to be sure.
-- IBM
From the article:
Think of it as Crimethinc's podium had a DoS.
Heaven forbid one would hold Real accountable for it's past behavior. Real didn't become a Slashdot pariah by giving us the core of their player. They got their reputation from introducing spyware, playing hide-the-link, and assorted other annoying behavior. If you feel that these criticisms are invalid, please jump in and point out the errors.
Having said that - I do think that some of the criticism I've seen under this thread is invalid. I'm glad Real is trying to do some Good Things. And I'm willing to see what they're doing these days.
Just don't expect this behavior to instantly wipe out years of previous history.
NOBODY exects a redundancy mod!
It depends on where you work. The policy for my organization is limited personal use - same policy with the telephone. Of course, there are limitations on quantity and content.
There's a distinct difference between having a key and keeping that key under the doormat.
That's an interesting point. However, you're cutting out a whole lot of Netscape history. By the time Netscape released an Open Source codebase, it was already a doomed company. Creating the Mozilla project was a final defiant action. AOL's purchase of Netscape was both added life and final blow to what we knew as Netscape. It was an indication of Netscape's position as well as a corporate shift that caused a mass exodus of Netscape talent. But at the same time, it did present some continued corporate sponsorship to the Mozilla project.
The parent's timeline makes it sound like the decline of Netscape's employment started at, or was a direct result of the Open Source process. But this decline was already well underway. And it could even be argued that the Mozilla project maintained value in even a small number of Netscape jobs.
There is one major issue that would be easy to overlook. If Netscape had remained proprietary, it would have simply faded away with so many other codebases wiped out by the dot-boom collapse. And as many of us know, a failed product is not a great source of employment in itself.
No - the Government will contract a company to do this for them. The difference is that when the contract comes up for bid, they will both have the source code involved and a better chance of finding competing contractors able to work with that code. At worse, they'll end up contracting with an outfit that is unfamiliar with the code and has to ramp-up... which isn't much different from a proprietary-based situation. Which brings us to a very important point...
Are you implying that 3000 lines of proprietary code is going to go in to a system without any checks? And once that code is incorporated in to the system, that system is not going to undergo a strict battery of tests?
OK - maybe I'm missing something very important here. If so, please educate me. Having said that...
During the duration of this ploy, SCO's stock has climbed and then dropped. I would assume this implies that a fairly high number of people have been buying the stock during its more lofty heights. And if so, they are losing money made as an investment on faulty claims. Sounds like being affected to me.
Furthermore, even though the damage isn't nearly as wide-spread as it could be, there are some IT managers who do / did listen to SCO. If (and that's a rather large "if") they had plans to purchase / deploy Linux architecture and then either held off or scrapped those plans, that's damage to the vendor being considered. More people being affected.
I'm a bit shocked at myself... but I may be agreeing with the actions of the studio. The first (aired) episode presented you with Serenity's crew in action. But at the same time, it hinted at the dynamics and characters involved. Things to be curious about. A hook.
Consider that one of the hallmarks of good modern scifi is an implied familiarity with technology and devices. Characters don't spend much time on commonplace items no matter now uncommon they would be to us. This is a change from classic scifi which often went to considerable length in describing the mechanics of some technology. It's akin to Sam Spade having a long conversation about the telephone instead of simply making the call. That's not to say that there's no room for the background of such devices. Star Trek is a classic example of introducing "commonplace" technology that gets treated to increased detail over time.
The same can be applied to character development. Firefly showed us characters already in play. Characters with distinct personalities, existing relationships, and slowly shifting relationships. Part of the interest to the series for me was slowly finding out more about the characters. If anything, I think I appreciated the intended pilot more for providing nuggets of background information than the origional intent of introducing characters I didn't know or (yet) care about.
Nice summery. It's a shame the article itself has nothing to do with banner ads specifically or how either technology is used in general. Then there's all that techno-mumble-jumble about features are or are not present in said technologies. You missed that too. But otherwise, spot on. Other than, you know... the facts. But we all know that those just get in the way.
One additional comment to this... I am being a bit fast and loose with my history. Calling Windows the catalyst for microcomputer hardware commoditization ignores the fact that it began with DOS. Windows was simply an extension; continuing a process that was well established before Windows came in to its own.
But then, in the bigger picture, we're really talking about Microsoft. Microsoft and it's rather brilliant (or lucky - depending on who you talk to) licensing.
Early years for Windows. My first home computer choice involved a short list of the TRS-80 Model I, Apple ][, and Commodore PET (and I'm sure there are others who'll look at these as being late-comers). But then... that's got little to do with the discusson on Windows' success.
It depends on exactly what you're looking at. One of my old Unix labs was converted to Win2K due to percieved cost / value of the hardware involved (user preferences or whether management had good data are subjects for another conversation). It also might be noted that questionable data for a TCO on desktops launched the great JSC Mac Jihad.
Microsoft has certainly competed on price in the past. Their recent TCO strategy is nothing new. But like the article notes - this is the first time they aren't attacking from the lower price point.
Let's not forget that Windows was also running on commodity hardware. In the early years, it wasn't "Windows" - it was Mac or PC. People were buying a platform with all the advantages of commodity hardware; price, selection, customization, etc. The PC platform had considerable draw from the market. It was able to provide value to customers that previous proprietary computing products lacked. And in the end, the commodity platform "won".
That's not to say Microsoft didn't do a good job with supporting developers. They did better than Apple in many ways. But in those days, that simply ensured that "Killer App Version 2.0" was available for the "PC" as well as other platforms.
The real success for Windows was in it's being the catalyst for commoditization of the hardware market. And then riding the ensuing wave.
Now we're facing a possible next wave in IT; commoditization of the OS. Microsoft would clearly have issues with this. And they would rather fight it than try and ride this one too (or at least not start paddling for it until the very last minute). It's interesting to see that one notable who was plowed under by the earlier wave is now trying to set up to ride this one; IBM.
And remember, not all "free software" is Open Source, it simply means you didn't pay for the program; like Internet Explorer.
Wow. Back to hashing over concepts from what... 1998? This is why the FSF publishes its definition of Free Software and OSI publishes it's Open Source Definition.