I've seen this article in a few versions. I'm just a bit curious - does anybody have the details of the actual patent numbers that Microsoft claims Linux is using?
Given that Microsoft keeps all of it's code locked up really tight, under strict nondisclosure agreements, and doesn't file for patents when they actually create something, it's a bit hard for them to argue that the Linux implementation of a device is identical to their device - AND was not intuitively derived.
Linux on the other hand, requires contributors to declare any known intellectual property rights and to certify that anything not listed as the intellectual property of others is their own original creation and not taken from some other copyright or patented source. In effect, the developer must certify that the code was intuitively created or invented.
Linux source code is published as soon as the submission is included in the compiled code and published. The code is available for anyone in the world to examine and review. Yet Microsoft has never bothered to tell anybody in the Linux community that the code in question was violated - so that the perpetrator of the patent fraud could be prosecuted for illegally submitting code to Linux.
This preponderance of the evidence would require that, in order to prove that their patent was legitimate and had been infringed - that the perpetrator had actually seen the code, knew the code was Microsoft's, knew the claim was Microsoft's, and that he knowingly and fraudulently submitted the code to Linux or OSS code.
This would then give the Linux community the option of creating alternative implementations of the device in question, or properly licensing the patents from Microsoft, possibly in a cross-licensing arrangement.
However, it's beginning to look a lot like the SCO case, where Daryl McBride claimed that hundreds of code devices were the exclusive property of SCO, yet it turned out that IBM was able to prove that 95% of those code segments in question - had been published as Open Source PRIOR to being published in proprietary form, and many had been published, with enhancements, under GPL, by the original author who was also the original publisher and copyright holder. The claims that IBM did not request to be dismissed, it was ready to prove were actually the intellectual property of IBM, who had been using it prior to agreements with either SCO or in some cases, AT&T. IBM decided not to drop those claims, because it wanted to countersue that the claims were fraudulent, and that the lawsuit was part of a conspiracy - allowing IBM to go after deeper pockets that helped fund SCO in it's lawsuit efforts.
If Microsoft has attempted to file patent applications on Open Source code - without citing that code as "Prior art" as required by patent law, Microsoft would be guilty of filing fraudulent applications, and ALL of their patents would need to be much more carefully scrutinized.
Steve Ballmer is being very careful to go after ACER rather than Lenovo or IBM, who could probably cite prior art referenced in their own thousands of defensive patent applications - proving that the code Microsoft claimed was theirs, was actually prior art.
And if Microsoft does prove that the patents are not fraudulent, that they are legitimate, what is the actual value of the patents? There are 3,000 applications, 30,000 files, and roughly 3 billion lines of code. The Microsoft patents cover how many lines of code? Let's assume that 235 patents cover 235 thousand lines of code. So that would be less than 1/10,000th of the code used in Linux.
And would Microsoft be willing to submit their code to the same level of scrutiny as that of the Linux community. Would they be willing to publish all of their source code to determine how many patches, enhancements, and upgrades - that were only ever published under GPL - were included in Microsoft's software offerings?
With Intellectual property such as software, you have 3 options; proprietary, publish, or pat
Both Windows and Linux have a problem with Desktop performance, because much of the performance is determined, not by the CPU speed, but by the disk drive access speed.
Linux servers run quite nicely on multi-core systems, including IBM's Z-Series. The old 2.2 kernel had some problems with spinlock contention that made it slower than NT 4.0 when used with 4 SCSI controllers and 4 ethernet cards, but Microsoft had to really be creative to come up with that infamous Mindcraft benchmark.
The 2.6 kernel uses queued events, which eliminates all but a few picoseconds of contention, giving Linux the ability to do some pretty radical performance on multi-core systems.
Linux also provides better support for clusters and virtualization. The result being that load can be more easily distributed when the application is designed for Linux/Unix in the first place.
One could make the case that HP_UX or Solaris might be faster or more reliable, but much of this depends on the specific types of benchmarks used, the types of specialized tuning allowed for that benchmark, and the optimization of hardware for that benchmark.
Where throughput can be pipelined, queued, or otherwise isolated from the hard drives and video, the performance can be quite impressive.
Unfortunately, for desktops, you can't update the display too fast, because the user can only see about 30-60 frames/second. Databases are more dependent on the rotational speed, number of hard drives, and amount of hard drive cache, rather than the number and speed of CPUs.
For some applications, such as cracking encryption, or predicting the weather, 8-core Linux systems might be more useful.
Other applications where 8-core CPUs make sense are applications such as 3D Rendering. But is there a big corporate market for real-time 3D graphics? Maybe we'll see a corporate version of Second Life?
Perhaps something like predictive models based on real-time data mining, such as real-time display of actual call volumes in the sales department, allowing IT to see the entire economic results of the entire corporation in real-time, updated on a "per transaction" basis.
To really exploit 8-core desktops, we have to think outside the traditional "Windows" paradigm and programming models. We need to think less in terms of huge binary blobs that gobble up huge amounts of memory, and more in terms of streams, pipelines, queues, and parsers that pass results from standard input to standard output in small chunks, and message routing systems such as MPI and PVM, which eliminate the latentcy that plagues traditional "Model/View/Control" solutions.
Keep in mind that the BSD License does not prohibit the creation of derivative works under other licenses. For example, the BSD Sockets drivers were repackaged by Microsoft as WinSock for Windows NT. As a result, there is nothing improper about publishing an enhanced version, a derivative work, under the GNU Public license, or similar license. Where things get sticky is that just as patches and changes made to the Microsoft version are protected under Microsoft's propriatery copyrights and NDAs, so to are patches made to the GNU version only permitted under the GNU license.
Linux users have used the Atheros MadWifi drivers for quite a while now, but when HAL changes required to support the AR5008 chip were delayed excessively, a new version, under GPL, called DadWifi was created. This version had the HAL changes, but since they were not done by the "official"
maintainer, were not subject to the BSD license.
It seems that some vendors are not happy, because it appears that the Windows version may have also been based on the BSD version, and now the Linux version works, and Microsoft can't get the patches legally.
Keep in mind that most Linux browsers end up in the "other" catagory. Most browsers leave signatures like "Generic Unix" or "Generic X11" unless the distributor has carefully installed a signature that is distribution specific. Mac and Windows versions on the other hand, are required to correct the signature as a provision of the use of their shared libraries or DLLs.
It looks like Linux has gained about 3%, Mack has gained 2%, and Windows has lost 7% Vista is up 3% since it's release (presumably MSDN beta users prior to this).
It seems that people, especially Linux users DO NOT like their OS preinstalled.
HP, Dell, and Acer all provide installation media if desired, and usually at no
extra cost. Most of the AMD processor based laptops and desktops are "Linux Ready"
and can be converted to Linux systems in less than an hour using a standard Linux
installation DVD.
Desktop Virtualization
Desktop virtualization tools such as Xen and VMWare have also made it easier to install
Windows as a VM. A customer can now use VMWare converter to convert the installed Windows
XP system into a VMWare Image stored on a USB drive. The user can then install Linux,
install VMWare Player, and then pull the VMWare Image back-up back onto the main PC.
Now, the customer has Windows XP AND Linux running on the same machine, at the same
time. The Linux PC provides better disk caching, memory management, and security, as well
as providing a very reliable way to do back-ups of the easily corrupted Windows system.
Microsoft Still up to their usual "Dirty Tricks"
The bad news is that Microsoft has expressly forbidden the use of Vista Home edition as a
virtual machine. Vista users much purchase, or upgrade to, Vista Business Edititon.
The problem for HP is that most retail machines are being shipped with Vista Home edition,
and customers don't want to pay for, or perform, the upgrade to Business edition.
Dell and HP have indicated that a substantial portion of the PCs they are selling, are
being sold with XP instead of Vista. One report on CNBC indicated that "most" of the
machines being sold by these OEMs were still being sold with XP instead of Vista.
Given the excessive memory requirements of Vista, the limited advantages, and the
inability to run AeroGlass on machines shipped with OpenGL oriented cards, there
seems to be some strong indicators that many people and companies are choosing to
upgrade to "Linux/XP" instead of switching to Vista.
History Repeats Itself - Is Vista another Windows NT 3.1 or Windows ME?
Remember that back in 1994-1996, Microsoft really had to struggle because there
were so many customers who were using Windows 3.1, and didn't want to have to
replace hardware, 3rd party software, and learn new user interfaces. Windows 95
eventually broke through, but even then, many businesses waited until Windows 95B
was released, providing a significantly more stable platform, before making the
transition to the new system.
Microsoft may be experiencing similar problems with Vista. Customers seem to be
rushing to get systems with XP while it's still available, while they tend to
wait for a "Service Pack 2" type upgrade to assure them of a reliable version.
Microsoft still has a big problem with 3rd party developers. After watching
what has happened to Symantic and McAffee, the last bastion of 3rd party software
on a "Windows Only" API set, it has become more obvious that coding in "Microsoft only"
APIs and tools is a "dead end street". Many developers are now using wrappers to
permit easy transition between DirectX video and OpenGL video. They are coding to
portable APIs such as Java, and using portable toolkits such as Eclipse.
What is remarkable is that Microsoft still refuses to permit the OEMs to offer
Linux based desktop and laptop systems that offer virtualized Windows. Microsoft
has permitted Apple to run OS/X with virtualized XP, yet Microsoft refuses to
allow OEMs who have been loyal, to offer competitive products based on Linux
with Virtualized XP or Vista.
The bigger problem, for Microsoft is that ACER is now about to purchase Gateway,
who's stock price has collapsed in the face of massive losses do to commodity pricing
and a glut of "Windows Only" PCs that had to be deeply discounted to clearance prices
below cost, even in their own retail stores.
The "Perfect Storm" is brewing. Trouble for Microsoft
This means that HP (who has openly defied Microsoft repeateddly), Dell (who has covertly
defied Microsoft
This is a good point. I would love to see Sun do well on the desktop. Unfortunately, I don't think Sun is sufficiently committed to such a strategy that they will be able to make Solaris competitive on the desktop. Solaris has done well in the server market, but then again, so has HP_UX and AIX. Linux is nibbling away at the Solaris market, but even that can be misleading. A Sun Starfire server could do the work of 70-80 single-processor Linux servers installed on PCs. It could probably do the work of 100 or more single-processor Windows servers. The advantage is that with 64 physical processors sharing the load of the equivalent of 100 logical or virtual processors (based on function points, not physical/logical machines, Solaris has done very well.
Solaris TCO has also been coming down rapidly. Again, this is because the processor array is capable of doing more, with lower power consumption and lower administration costs. Personally, I think IBM's AIX has a better virtualization management solution.
The big problem for Solaris vs Linux or even Solaris vs Windows, is that many developers, and even managers, like having the ability to create new software on their desktop. For Sun, this means turning Solaris into a "commodity" system that is just a nice Java platform. That could hurt profits
in the long run.
Can you go into a computer store and compare a PC running Windows, with a PC running Linux, or a PC running Solaris, or even a PC Running OS/X with the same ease as you can go into a video store and compare a VCR from RCA, Sony, Magnavox, and Phillips?
Can you go into a computer store and compare a PC loaded with OpenOffice to a PC loaded with MS-Office 2007?
Can you go into a computer store and see from the descriptions on or near the display which PCs are READY to run Linux?
Can you go into a computer store and run view FireFox, Sunbird, and OpenOffice preinstalled and ready to go?
Microsoft has locked out Linux from Retailer Shelves
Yes, the proliferation of broadband and WiFi hot spots that allow laptop users to download a CD-ROM in 30 minutes has made it easier for end users to install non-microsoft applications, by Microsoft still maintains total monopoly control over the OEM and retailer channel. When I shop at K-Mart, I can
look at the games available for Sony PlayStation, Nintendo, and even X-Box, even test drive them, even see if the kids will like them. When I buy software for a PC there is NO facility to take a "Test Drive". On the other hand, Microsoft makes sure that their middleware, "applets" (bundled applications), and other anticompetitive products are fully loaded and ready to demonstrate.
Applications Barrier to Entry Still Exists
Remember, the whole premise of the Antitrust case was that Microsoft had created an "Applications Barrier to Entry", preventing the widespread marketing and adoption of applications capable of running on competitive platforms. Furthermore, it was ruled that Microsoft was illegally using it's existing monopoly to exclude competitors from the marketplace (IE Distribution Channels).
Monopoly or Collusion
There are two possibilities. One is that Microsoft has been arm-twisting and coercing the OEMs, through fraud (vaporware) extortion (buy more than you need or we will give you NO licenses), blackmail (if you sell machines without Windows, we will claim you are promoting piracy), and sabotage (want a patch that permanently damages your hardware - similar to the way we fried IBM's Cyrix chips with Windows NT 4.0 service pack 2?).
The other possibility is that the OEMs were willing co-conspirators in a collusion scheme designed to exclude competitors like Novell, Sun, and Apple from the marketplace. Could it be that the OEMs openly conspired to exclude Linux distributors, and other distributors of PC compatible operating systems such as Linux, Solaris, BSD, and OS/X from the marketplace, by refusing to allow them into the OEM distribution channel?
The evidence and actions of the OEMs indicate quite the opposite. Hewlett Packard designed all of their AMD-64 based laptop and desktop PCs to be fully compatible with Linux. They even announced that they would offer their PCs with Linux - for about 3 days. Then what happened? Did Microsoft "crack down"? Dell and Toshiba have also attempted similar "Linux PC" announcements - only to withdraw the offerings within 3-4 days. IBM's Sam Palmisano had publicly announced that IBM would be converting to Linux and OSS by the end of 2007. It seems that Microsoft made it so unpleasant for IBM, that IBM scuttled the PC division, and sold it to Lenovo. The only Desktops they still sell - are available with Linux as well as Windows.
Yet with all these attempts to announce and promote Linux based PCs, not a single Linux PC has made it to the shelves of a major national or international retail franchise. Wal-Mart has offered Linux PCs for almost 10 years now, but only on their web site, and only as pretty much a seasonal offering.
Desktop Virtualization has been thwarted
The technology is available to enable Linux and Windows to run on the same machine. Dual-boot, Desktop Virtualization, and multicore processors have made it possible to run both Linux and Windows on the same desk
It was rather interesting that when Viacom requested that their content be removed from YouTube, Google was quite willing, even eager to comply. They disabled all accesses to anything produced by Viacom. There was only one problem. Much of this content included promotional clips and snippets which had been placed their by the producers of the respected shows. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.
Google has mechanisms to prevent indexing and caching of proprietary content that people do not want indexed or cached. In some cases, the entire site can be expunged from the archive with a single command. A simple comment in the content will exclude the content and all of it's subordinate links.
Viacom filed a lawsuit demanding payments for content, and Google removed the content. Now the advertizers and producers who want to promote their entertainment and provide links to sites that have advertizing are not able to get their content onto Google because Google has created a filter designed to prevent pirates from illegally posting Viacom's content. Google has a number of other services designed to appeal to the desires of commercial content owners. Clips can be replaced by versions which can be coupled with advertizing, provided by the licensed content provider and/or copyright owner.
Be careful what you ask for, you will probably get it, but it probably won't be what you wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen this article in a few versions. I'm just a bit curious - does anybody have the details of the actual patent numbers that Microsoft claims Linux is using?
Given that Microsoft keeps all of it's code locked up really tight, under strict nondisclosure agreements, and doesn't file for patents when they actually create something, it's a bit hard for them to argue that the Linux implementation of a device is identical to their device - AND was not intuitively derived.
Linux on the other hand, requires contributors to declare any known intellectual property rights and to certify that anything not listed as the intellectual property of others is their own original creation and not taken from some other copyright or patented source. In effect, the developer must certify that the code was intuitively created or invented.
Linux source code is published as soon as the submission is included in the compiled code and published. The code is available for anyone in the world to examine and review. Yet Microsoft has never bothered to tell anybody in the Linux community that the code in question was violated - so that the perpetrator of the patent fraud could be prosecuted for illegally submitting code to Linux.
This preponderance of the evidence would require that, in order to prove that their patent was legitimate and had been infringed - that the perpetrator had actually seen the code, knew the code was Microsoft's, knew the claim was Microsoft's, and that he knowingly and fraudulently submitted the code to Linux or OSS code.
This would then give the Linux community the option of creating alternative implementations of the device in question, or properly licensing the patents from Microsoft, possibly in a cross-licensing arrangement.
However, it's beginning to look a lot like the SCO case, where Daryl McBride claimed that hundreds of code devices were the exclusive property of SCO, yet it turned out that IBM was able to prove that 95% of those code segments in question - had been published as Open Source PRIOR to being published in proprietary form, and many had been published, with enhancements, under GPL, by the original author who was also the original publisher and copyright holder. The claims that IBM did not request to be dismissed, it was ready to prove were actually the intellectual property of IBM, who had been using it prior to agreements with either SCO or in some cases, AT&T. IBM decided not to drop those claims, because it wanted to countersue that the claims were fraudulent, and that the lawsuit was part of a conspiracy - allowing IBM to go after deeper pockets that helped fund SCO in it's lawsuit efforts.
If Microsoft has attempted to file patent applications on Open Source code - without citing that code as "Prior art" as required by patent law, Microsoft would be guilty of filing fraudulent applications, and ALL of their patents would need to be much more carefully scrutinized.
Steve Ballmer is being very careful to go after ACER rather than Lenovo or IBM, who could probably cite prior art referenced in their own thousands of defensive patent applications - proving that the code Microsoft claimed was theirs, was actually prior art.
And if Microsoft does prove that the patents are not fraudulent, that they are legitimate, what is the actual value of the patents? There are 3,000 applications, 30,000 files, and roughly 3 billion lines of code. The Microsoft patents cover how many lines of code? Let's assume that 235 patents cover 235 thousand lines of code. So that would be less than 1/10,000th of the code used in Linux.
And would Microsoft be willing to submit their code to the same level of scrutiny as that of the Linux community. Would they be willing to publish all of their source code to determine how many patches, enhancements, and upgrades - that were only ever published under GPL - were included in Microsoft's software offerings?
With Intellectual property such as software, you have 3 options; proprietary, publish, or pat
Linux servers run quite nicely on multi-core systems, including IBM's Z-Series. The old 2.2 kernel had some problems with spinlock contention that made it slower than NT 4.0 when used with 4 SCSI controllers and 4 ethernet cards, but Microsoft had to really be creative to come up with that infamous Mindcraft benchmark.
The 2.6 kernel uses queued events, which eliminates all but a few picoseconds of contention, giving Linux the ability to do some pretty radical performance on multi-core systems.
Linux also provides better support for clusters and virtualization. The result being that load can be more easily distributed when the application is designed for Linux/Unix in the first place.
One could make the case that HP_UX or Solaris might be faster or more reliable, but much of this depends on the specific types of benchmarks used, the types of specialized tuning allowed for that benchmark, and the optimization of hardware for that benchmark.
Where throughput can be pipelined, queued, or otherwise isolated from the hard drives and video, the performance can be quite impressive.
Unfortunately, for desktops, you can't update the display too fast, because the user can only see about 30-60 frames/second. Databases are more dependent on the rotational speed, number of hard drives, and amount of hard drive cache, rather than the number and speed of CPUs.
For some applications, such as cracking encryption, or predicting the weather, 8-core Linux systems might be more useful.
Other applications where 8-core CPUs make sense are applications such as 3D Rendering. But is there a big corporate market for real-time 3D graphics? Maybe we'll see a corporate version of Second Life?
Perhaps something like predictive models based on real-time data mining, such as real-time display of actual call volumes in the sales department, allowing IT to see the entire economic results of the entire corporation in real-time, updated on a "per transaction" basis.
To really exploit 8-core desktops, we have to think outside the traditional "Windows" paradigm and programming models. We need to think less in terms of huge binary blobs that gobble up huge amounts of memory, and more in terms of streams, pipelines, queues, and parsers that pass results from standard input to standard output in small chunks, and message routing systems such as MPI and PVM, which eliminate the latentcy that plagues traditional "Model/View/Control" solutions.
Keep in mind that the BSD License does not prohibit the creation of derivative works under other licenses. For example, the BSD Sockets drivers were repackaged by Microsoft as WinSock for Windows NT. As a result, there is nothing improper about publishing an enhanced version, a derivative work, under the GNU Public license, or similar license. Where things get sticky is that just as patches and changes made to the Microsoft version are protected under Microsoft's propriatery copyrights and NDAs, so to are patches made to the GNU version only permitted under the GNU license.
Linux users have used the Atheros MadWifi drivers for quite a while now, but when HAL changes required to support the AR5008 chip were delayed excessively, a new version, under GPL, called DadWifi was created. This version had the HAL changes, but since they were not done by the "official" maintainer, were not subject to the BSD license.
It seems that some vendors are not happy, because it appears that the Windows version may have also been based on the BSD version, and now the Linux version works, and Microsoft can't get the patches legally.
Keep in mind that most Linux browsers end up in the "other" catagory.
Most browsers leave signatures like "Generic Unix" or "Generic X11" unless
the distributor has carefully installed a signature that is distribution
specific. Mac and Windows versions on the other hand, are required to
correct the signature as a provision of the use of their shared libraries
or DLLs.
It looks like Linux has gained about 3%, Mack has gained 2%, and Windows has lost 7%
Vista is up 3% since it's release (presumably MSDN beta users prior to this).
The chart looks really interesting.
Total Percent Net Change
Date Mac Linux Windows WinNC LinNC MacNC
07/31/07 4.00% 8.90% 85.10% 0.20% -0.20% 0.00%
06/30/07 4.00% 9.10% 84.90% -0.10% -0.10% 0.10%
05/30/07 3.90% 9.00% 85.20% -1.00% 0.80% 0.10%
04/30/07 3.90% 8.10% 86.10% -0.90% 0.60% 0.20%
03/31/07 3.80% 8.30% 86.00% -0.50% 0.20% 0.20%
02/28/07 3.80% 8.70% 85.60% -0.30% 0.00% 0.20%
01/31/07 3.80% 8.90% 85.40% -1.60% -0.60% 0.20%
12/31/06 3.80% 9.50% 86.70% 0.90% -1.40% 0.40%
11/30/06 3.60% 10.30% 84.20% 0.10% -0.50% 0.40%
10/31/06 3.60% 9.40% 85.00% -0.40% 0.00% 0.40%
09/30/06 3.60% 8.90% 85.50% -1.10% 0.80% 0.40%
08/31/06 3.60% 8.10% 86.20% -1.10% 0.70% 0.40%
07/31/06 3.60% 8.20% 86.20% -1.50% 1.10% 0.40%
06/30/06 3.60% 7.80% 86.60% -1.60% 1.20% 0.40%
05/30/06 3.60% 7.70% 86.70% -2.20% 1.70% 0.40%
04/30/06 3.60% 7.20% 87.30% -2.00% 1.30% 0.50%
03/31/06 3.50% 7.60% 87.10% -2.90% 2.30% 0.40%
02/28/06 3.60% 6.60% 88.00% -3.00% 2.20% 0.50%
01/31/06 3.50% 6.70% 88.10% -3.60% 2.60% 0.70%
12/31/05 3.30% 6.30% 88.70% -3.60% 2.40% 0.90%
11/30/05 3.10% 6.50% 88.70% -2.40% 1.00% 1.00%
10/31/05 3.00% 7.90% 87.50% -3.50% 1.80% 1.10%
09/30/05 2.90% 7.10% 88.60% -3.80%
It seems that people, especially Linux users DO NOT like their OS preinstalled. HP, Dell, and Acer all provide installation media if desired, and usually at no extra cost. Most of the AMD processor based laptops and desktops are "Linux Ready" and can be converted to Linux systems in less than an hour using a standard Linux installation DVD.
Desktop Virtualization
Desktop virtualization tools such as Xen and VMWare have also made it easier to install Windows as a VM. A customer can now use VMWare converter to convert the installed Windows XP system into a VMWare Image stored on a USB drive. The user can then install Linux, install VMWare Player, and then pull the VMWare Image back-up back onto the main PC.
Now, the customer has Windows XP AND Linux running on the same machine, at the same time. The Linux PC provides better disk caching, memory management, and security, as well as providing a very reliable way to do back-ups of the easily corrupted Windows system.
Microsoft Still up to their usual "Dirty Tricks"
The bad news is that Microsoft has expressly forbidden the use of Vista Home edition as a virtual machine. Vista users much purchase, or upgrade to, Vista Business Edititon. The problem for HP is that most retail machines are being shipped with Vista Home edition, and customers don't want to pay for, or perform, the upgrade to Business edition.
Dell and HP have indicated that a substantial portion of the PCs they are selling, are being sold with XP instead of Vista. One report on CNBC indicated that "most" of the machines being sold by these OEMs were still being sold with XP instead of Vista. Given the excessive memory requirements of Vista, the limited advantages, and the inability to run AeroGlass on machines shipped with OpenGL oriented cards, there seems to be some strong indicators that many people and companies are choosing to upgrade to "Linux/XP" instead of switching to Vista.
History Repeats Itself - Is Vista another Windows NT 3.1 or Windows ME?
Remember that back in 1994-1996, Microsoft really had to struggle because there were so many customers who were using Windows 3.1, and didn't want to have to replace hardware, 3rd party software, and learn new user interfaces. Windows 95 eventually broke through, but even then, many businesses waited until Windows 95B was released, providing a significantly more stable platform, before making the transition to the new system.
Microsoft may be experiencing similar problems with Vista. Customers seem to be rushing to get systems with XP while it's still available, while they tend to wait for a "Service Pack 2" type upgrade to assure them of a reliable version.
Microsoft still has a big problem with 3rd party developers. After watching what has happened to Symantic and McAffee, the last bastion of 3rd party software on a "Windows Only" API set, it has become more obvious that coding in "Microsoft only" APIs and tools is a "dead end street". Many developers are now using wrappers to permit easy transition between DirectX video and OpenGL video. They are coding to portable APIs such as Java, and using portable toolkits such as Eclipse.
What is remarkable is that Microsoft still refuses to permit the OEMs to offer Linux based desktop and laptop systems that offer virtualized Windows. Microsoft has permitted Apple to run OS/X with virtualized XP, yet Microsoft refuses to allow OEMs who have been loyal, to offer competitive products based on Linux with Virtualized XP or Vista.
The bigger problem, for Microsoft is that ACER is now about to purchase Gateway, who's stock price has collapsed in the face of massive losses do to commodity pricing and a glut of "Windows Only" PCs that had to be deeply discounted to clearance prices below cost, even in their own retail stores.
The "Perfect Storm" is brewing. Trouble for Microsoft
This means that HP (who has openly defied Microsoft repeateddly), Dell (who has covertly defied Microsoft
Solaris TCO has also been coming down rapidly. Again, this is because the processor array is capable of doing more, with lower power consumption and lower administration costs. Personally, I think IBM's AIX has a better virtualization management solution.
The big problem for Solaris vs Linux or even Solaris vs Windows, is that many developers, and even managers, like having the ability to create new software on their desktop. For Sun, this means turning Solaris into a "commodity" system that is just a nice Java platform. That could hurt profits in the long run.
Microsoft has locked out Linux from Retailer Shelves
Yes, the proliferation of broadband and WiFi hot spots that allow laptop users to download a CD-ROM in 30 minutes has made it easier for end users to install non-microsoft applications, by Microsoft still maintains total monopoly control over the OEM and retailer channel. When I shop at K-Mart, I can look at the games available for Sony PlayStation, Nintendo, and even X-Box, even test drive them, even see if the kids will like them. When I buy software for a PC there is NO facility to take a "Test Drive". On the other hand, Microsoft makes sure that their middleware, "applets" (bundled applications), and other anticompetitive products are fully loaded and ready to demonstrate.
Applications Barrier to Entry Still Exists
Remember, the whole premise of the Antitrust case was that Microsoft had created an "Applications Barrier to Entry", preventing the widespread marketing and adoption of applications capable of running on competitive platforms. Furthermore, it was ruled that Microsoft was illegally using it's existing monopoly to exclude competitors from the marketplace (IE Distribution Channels).
Monopoly or Collusion
There are two possibilities. One is that Microsoft has been arm-twisting and coercing the OEMs, through fraud (vaporware) extortion (buy more than you need or we will give you NO licenses), blackmail (if you sell machines without Windows, we will claim you are promoting piracy), and sabotage (want a patch that permanently damages your hardware - similar to the way we fried IBM's Cyrix chips with Windows NT 4.0 service pack 2?).
The other possibility is that the OEMs were willing co-conspirators in a collusion scheme designed to exclude competitors like Novell, Sun, and Apple from the marketplace. Could it be that the OEMs openly conspired to exclude Linux distributors, and other distributors of PC compatible operating systems such as Linux, Solaris, BSD, and OS/X from the marketplace, by refusing to allow them into the OEM distribution channel?
The evidence and actions of the OEMs indicate quite the opposite. Hewlett Packard designed all of their AMD-64 based laptop and desktop PCs to be fully compatible with Linux. They even announced that they would offer their PCs with Linux - for about 3 days. Then what happened? Did Microsoft "crack down"? Dell and Toshiba have also attempted similar "Linux PC" announcements - only to withdraw the offerings within 3-4 days. IBM's Sam Palmisano had publicly announced that IBM would be converting to Linux and OSS by the end of 2007. It seems that Microsoft made it so unpleasant for IBM, that IBM scuttled the PC division, and sold it to Lenovo. The only Desktops they still sell - are available with Linux as well as Windows.
Yet with all these attempts to announce and promote Linux based PCs, not a single Linux PC has made it to the shelves of a major national or international retail franchise. Wal-Mart has offered Linux PCs for almost 10 years now, but only on their web site, and only as pretty much a seasonal offering.
Desktop Virtualization has been thwarted
The technology is available to enable Linux and Windows to run on the same machine. Dual-boot, Desktop Virtualization, and multicore processors have made it possible to run both Linux and Windows on the same desk
It was rather interesting that when Viacom requested that their content be removed from YouTube, Google was quite willing, even eager to comply. They disabled all accesses to anything produced by Viacom. There was only one problem. Much of this content included promotional clips and snippets which had been placed their by the producers of the respected shows. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Google has mechanisms to prevent indexing and caching of proprietary content that people do not want indexed or cached. In some cases, the entire site can be expunged from the archive with a single command. A simple comment in the content will exclude the content and all of it's subordinate links. Viacom filed a lawsuit demanding payments for content, and Google removed the content. Now the advertizers and producers who want to promote their entertainment and provide links to sites that have advertizing are not able to get their content onto Google because Google has created a filter designed to prevent pirates from illegally posting Viacom's content. Google has a number of other services designed to appeal to the desires of commercial content owners. Clips can be replaced by versions which can be coupled with advertizing, provided by the licensed content provider and/or copyright owner. Be careful what you ask for, you will probably get it, but it probably won't be what you wanted.