I really just don't get it. The OS and "new" desktop technology are so irrelevant. I don't see any new killer apps on the desktop for perhaps many years. It's important to remember that "new" technology doth not a killer app make. There's only so much you can do to improve a GUI. Linux will certainly get there, and probably before the next "killer" app for the desktop arrives.
As far as a killer app for the desktop is concerned, I can only see two possiblities: speech recognition and artificial intelligence (including natural language understanding). Speech recongition has arrived but is still a bit immature, and not quite what it's hyped up to be. Who wants everyone to hear the email they are dictating?! This just doesn't work in the modern-day office environment. Artificial intelligence is quite a ways off.
In short, the desktop is dead. The killer apps of the next ten years will be on the server. The Internet will be the next Big Thing. Broadband is where it's at. Rich multimedia. Great content. The ultimate in shopping convenience. Email. Where's the desktop in all this?
What does this have to do with Linux vs. Unix vs. Windows? Well, Windows is irrelevant. The next "Bill Gates" knows that the way to fame and fortune is to do just that -- to make your desktop irrelevant. Heck, some people will be using the Internet every day from their homes, and they won't even own a "computer." How many have paid money for a web browser? How many have paid for Real Player? How many have paid for Quicktime? Some, admittedly. But Real Networks knows that it can give away the client and potentially make a fortune on the server. AOL has been sending out client software for free in huge quantities. That's the successful business model of the future. Indeed, the real struggle ahead for Windows is to find a way to stay relevant.
The companies who create the killer server apps will find it very important to reach the broadest client base. So, maybe that means Windows will keep its monopoly for the forseeable future, but only as a totally boring, behind-the-scenes, enabling technology. However, if you as a company are not providing the "technology" per se -- if you are providing the "killerness" of the killer app -- then open standards serve you very well. Do you think Amazon.com cares whether you use Netscape or IE5? Or whether you are using Windows, Macintosh, Linux, JavaOS, etc.? The open standards will mean the Linux will be able to acheive whatever technology is necessary. And it will probably achieve it without Windows 2000's 50M lines of code.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. The point of his article was that Linux is a passing fad. "His other points" are of no consequence if Linux ultimately thrives.
As far as a killer app for the desktop is concerned, I can only see two possiblities: speech recognition and artificial intelligence (including natural language understanding). Speech recongition has arrived but is still a bit immature, and not quite what it's hyped up to be. Who wants everyone to hear the email they are dictating?! This just doesn't work in the modern-day office environment. Artificial intelligence is quite a ways off.
In short, the desktop is dead. The killer apps of the next ten years will be on the server. The Internet will be the next Big Thing. Broadband is where it's at. Rich multimedia. Great content. The ultimate in shopping convenience. Email. Where's the desktop in all this?
What does this have to do with Linux vs. Unix vs. Windows? Well, Windows is irrelevant. The next "Bill Gates" knows that the way to fame and fortune is to do just that -- to make your desktop irrelevant. Heck, some people will be using the Internet every day from their homes, and they won't even own a "computer." How many have paid money for a web browser? How many have paid for Real Player? How many have paid for Quicktime? Some, admittedly. But Real Networks knows that it can give away the client and potentially make a fortune on the server. AOL has been sending out client software for free in huge quantities. That's the successful business model of the future. Indeed, the real struggle ahead for Windows is to find a way to stay relevant.
The companies who create the killer server apps will find it very important to reach the broadest client base. So, maybe that means Windows will keep its monopoly for the forseeable future, but only as a totally boring, behind-the-scenes, enabling technology. However, if you as a company are not providing the "technology" per se -- if you are providing the "killerness" of the killer app -- then open standards serve you very well. Do you think Amazon.com cares whether you use Netscape or IE5? Or whether you are using Windows, Macintosh, Linux, JavaOS, etc.? The open standards will mean the Linux will be able to acheive whatever technology is necessary. And it will probably achieve it without Windows 2000's 50M lines of code.