I'll say it once, I'll say it again. Negraponte is an ass. The OLPC, developed with contributions of time and money from a lot of free software developers. The dream:
Extensively field-tested and validated among some of the poorest and most remote populations on earth, constructionism emphasizes what Papert calls âoelearning learningâ as the fundamental educational experience. A computer uniquely fosters learning learning by allowing children to âoethink about thinkingâ, in ways that are otherwise impossible. Using the XO as both their window on the world, as well as a highly programmable tool for exploring it, children in emerging nations will be opened to both illimitable knowledge and to their own creative and problem-solving potential.
OLPC is not, at heart, a technology program, nor is the XO a product in any conventional sense of the word. OLPC is a non-profit organization providing a means to an endâ"an end that sees children in even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world community.
I am sick and tired of everyone approaching life as if our only job is to buy the cheapest thing.
There are things that cost us money and are not a good monetary value, but which may or may not pay back over time.
Fighting for your rights takes your time, and as we all know, time is money.
Some people say "its only an OS, who cares." Well, *all* the things we are getting outraged about these days are from corporations who make far too much money from people who don't give a damn.
Sorry, but it is beyond laughable that this is news. Anti-virus software is like prayer. It lets you think you're doing something.
Anti-virus software is by its very nature a "post damage" measure, like closing the barn door after the horses leave. Of fixing the roof after the house is wrecked from rain.
The *only* way to prevent viruses is to understand that your computer only does what it is told and you need to control who gets to tell it what to do.
Windows, and we are talking about Windows here, is designed to allow foreign agents to control your system without your consent. Microsoft has so many holes in its system beyond just stack overflow exploits, but protocols and APIs designed to make it "easier" for application to do things "for you," and are we surprised that it is exploited?
Seriously, I hear what you are saying, but like all generalizations there are exceptions, but that does not mean that generalization is not a vital tool to understanding larger trends.
I stand by what I say from personal experience. I have *all* the Marx brother's movies and except for theater buffs and nostalgic types, no one wants to watch them.
I have done a number of projects for a number of companies focused on power saving in the data center.
One company was building a fan control system to reduce the power used by cooling fans in the racks. We just had a Slashdot article about being more selective about load distribution and shutting down systems not being utilized for the load.
Data centers use redundant power which is more expensive than line power because UPS system are never 100% efficient.
To top it off, servers put out a LOT of heat. That is two types of load: The power draw of the server and the power draw of the data center cooling system.
Data centers are a prime target for green work, and I bet with a little development work you could EASILY cut the power utilization by 30%. Upgrading and replacing four older machines with two newer machines will cut power usage.
Maybe software efficiency is important again as doing more with less power is greener.
I have a theory I call the Marx Brothers Syndrome and it works like this:
The Marx Brothers are old and boring today. A person having never seen them before will sit down in front of one of their classics and know all the jokes and nuances and just walk away.
If they were so great, why is this so?
It is because the were great, one of the greatest! Everyone in the business learned their tricks, copied their jokes, and expanded and improved on their dialog and themes. Now the Marx Brothers look diminished in comparison to what has developed after.
The same is true for Star Wars. It was great when it came out. It covered new ground. It did things that people had never seen before. In a lot of ways Star Wars was "dreadful." Today, I watch it and think Luke is such a whiner and C3PO shouldn't be an uptight english comic book character.
I think the episodes 1,2, and 3 suffered from the Marx Brothers Syndrome because the story, dialog, and "film making" of "Star Wars" has always been fairly flawed and needs to show us something new to allow us to overlook the weaknesses. Unfortunately, the cutting edge for special effects is irrelevant. Once you crossed over the "miniatures and props methodology" to CGI, improvements are now only incremental.
Star Wars fails because we already know it. We've seen it before in a thousand different ways since 1977. We already know the special effects. We have seen enough space opera, complete with bad dialog and acting, that there is almost nothing that would surprise us.
IMHO, Star Wars was ground breaking, but the space opera is as depleted a genre as the american western.
In the UK do churches or religions have "personhood?" because you can't "insult" or harm an inanimate object.
The sign said "Scientology is a cult," as far as I know, that may offend some people, but it insults or intends to insult no actual people.
File suit against the officer writing the summons for false arrest and violation of your freedoms. The cult of scientology should not be protected like this.
With PD code, you *do* own the code. Everyone owns the code. So you can do anything you want. Now that is good manners.
There is a philosophical position that I think is important. The term "share and share alike" is something that most kids have learned in childhood for centuries for the greater good of society. The GPL simply puts that in the license.
I am a capitalist, seriously, I honestly think that real people deserve real compensation for their work. Actually, let me rephrase that, people have the right to try to get compensation for their work.
The BSD license makes no philosophical statement, and that is sad. I honestly believe that if you put your code out there for someone to use you should try to get something for it. Your life, the time you spend writing the code, is valuable. Make it worth something.
PD is better in is opinion because he finds it less restrictive.
I think that is really a cop-out. It isn't about OSS religion, it really is simply about good manners, i.e. make available to other that which was made available to you.
I can't legally utilize GPL'd source code within a commercial application without doing some very specific (and not always possible) things that the GPL license instructs me I must do.
You can absolutely create a commercial application sbased on GPL code. No one stops you from charging for distribution and packaging.
What you can't do is take code, written by someone else, funded by someone else, made available to you under the condition that any changes you make to the code which doesn't belong to you, be made available under the same conditions.
If that small and simple condition is too much of a burden, don't use it.
In 1980 the 5 MB Winchester hard disk drive would have set you back about $2000.
In 1970 a 5 MB RKO drive was about $10,000. And guess what, Windows wasn't needed for the price drop.
The Geek builds his Linux PC using commodity parts designed for the mass market Windows platform. Apple builds the Mac out of commodity parts designed for the Windows platform.
In 1978 I build my first computer out of commodity parts too, no Windows needed (or DOS for that matter.)
The concepts of commodity parts and rapidly accelerating technology development lowering prices is the nature of technology. I remember 256K DRAM chip prices sky high and falling fast, no Windows involved.
The fast track is the Windows implementation. The Windows driver.
Only because the caustic Microsoft monopoly. If there was competition, there would more standards in place and innovation would probably been even faster, or at least less wasteful.
I wrote:Macintosh is starting to out-sell Wintell on high end desktops.
Which is a fact.
You wrote: Macs are not starting to out-sell Windows
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
You continued:That is like opening a hotdog stand that charges $75 for a hot dog, selling one, and then bragging about how you are the #1 seller of > $75 hot dogs in the world.
Which is bogus, because a hotdog costs $3.00, and a $75 dollar hotdog would mean a > $25,000 computer in proper relationship.
Macintosh is out selling Wintel on high end desktop computers, This is a fact. It means people are mostly buying the cheapest Wintel they can because there is no point in buying anything better. People are buyig high end macs because its better.
As trends go, the high end almost always translates to low end over time.
Any nation's most precious natural resource is its children. We believe the emerging world must leverage this resource by tapping into the children's innate capacities to learn, share, and create on their own. Our answer to that challenge is the XO laptop, a children's machine designed for âoelearning learning.â
A computer uniquely fosters learning learning by allowing children to âoethink about thinkingâ, in ways that are otherwise impossible. Using the XO as both their window on the world, as well as a highly programmable tool for exploring it, children in emerging nations will be opened to both illimitable knowledge and to their own creative and problem-solving potential.
OLPC is not, at heart, a technology program, nor is the XO a product in any conventional sense of the word. OLPC is a non-profit organization providing a means to an endâ"an end that sees children in even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world community.
If the goal is to put lap-tops into the hands of children, and there is something about this deal with MS somehow makes that goal more attainable, then it might not be so bad.
That was NEVER the stated goal. That was the means to the goal, which was to promote freedom and self sufficiency and openness. An OLPC running free software leaves them free to manage and grow their infrastructure. Putting Windows on it eliminates this ability and makes them sharecroppers on a Microsoft owned farm.
How hard will it be to remove Windows and install Ubuntu on them?
the same old bullshit monopolist crap. Pay the M$TAX and then put something free on it.
No, the OLPC should come with Linux, and, if they want, pay the extra and put Windows on it.
Your complaints and corrections would only shift things around, not change them.
The economic facts are against your argument. Assuming the market stays constant and additional competition does not increase the marketplace (as almost always happens), taking the gross and net income of Microsoft, and divide it across 6 companies, 3 OS companies roughly balanced between 25% and 30% market share, and 3 office product companies, again, 25% to 30% market share.
The six companies would employ more people and have a lower profitability. The lower profitability of the companies would mean that they spend more and cause more circulation in the economy and decentralize and distribute the wealth better.
More people with more wealth means a better economy.
With multiple companies competing, there would be competition, competition would mean actively supporting your competitors formats so that you can hope to take their users. Competition would mean standards that enabled the various vendors to interact, because they would have too.
Startup companies would have a much lower barrier to entry in entrenched markets.
That's what capitalism is all about and why a monopoly destroys it.
No it is clear evidence that the momentum for Windows can't be ignored
Windows has no momentum, it is an obstacle. Vista is a joke. People are sticking with XP. Macintosh is starting to out-sell Wintell on high end desktops.
The *only* reason Windows hasn't been abandoned by its disgruntled users is because of Microsoft's continued illegal actions in maintaining its monopoly. All too many users say "I hate it, but have to use Windows."
There is *no* practical reason to put Windows on the OLPC. It brings nothing to the table but additional cost. The only purpose for it is to satisfy a vengeful and corrupt monopolist.
Typical troll, start with an insult and degenerate from there. To address your "points:"
Kids in developing nations don't want stupid crap FOSS software that only makes some Finish/Norwegian/Swedish a**hole richer! They want to have any available computer so they can actually learn it. So, why they will need a freak operational system that is only used by spoiled millionaires?
Sorry, I can't even parse this sentence. OS used by spoiled millionaires? What OS is that?
They need to know how to use Windows because that is the system they will find at work
Teaching dubious skills for the future that a certain segment of industry may find useful today is a waste of resources. Pushing an open and FREE (as in beer and freedom) software environment will promote learning and communication far better than the Microsoft monopoly tollbooth. The kids need TOOLS to learn.
Imperialist pricks! Interesting, the only "Imperialist" in this discussion seems to be Microsoft.
Is anyone going to use an Asus eee for a general purpose device?/I?
I think about this myself, but I'm not sure I agree. While it is not an optimal computing platform, it is a usable one.
When I started in computers, I hard to wirewrap my computer, solder the video connector, and connect it to my TV. I used it. It was usable. The EeePC is far better that my first computer.
Really? Rage and contempt? Over a value priced computer aimed at educating kids who otherwise would never get to use ANY computer?
Yes, helping Microsoft expand its monopoly is bad for the world. Its bad for the industry. The amount of money and control that Microsoft exercises because of its monopoly has ruined the ISO, destroyed companies, and kept back innovation in the marketplace.
Selling "Windows" when they could give away free software is not a good will gesture.
I have nothing but rage and contempt for Negroponte and the OLPC project. I will not support a project that betrays its contributors by abandoning the principles that motivated them.
Windows on the OLPC is an outrage and clear evidence that the OLPC project is no longer about helping children and only about making money and creating a new form "Microsoft Tax" for the poor and developing nations.
Its bullshit. Its like giving money and time to a charity called "one meal per child" and find out it has decided to use your contribution to bring dollar off coupons for McDonalds happy meals.
The fact that Microsoft will do this "to" its customers is proof that there is practically no competition in the market place.
If there were competition, a vendor would be terrified if their product did do what it was supposed to and would not side AGAINST the wishes of their paying customers. If there were laws that limited what their products would do, they would fight those laws to improve their products.
No, Microsoft has illegally protected its monopoly for too long. Almost all these abusive problems we see are a direct result of it. If there were real and thriving competition, none of this could happen because it would be the death of a vendor.
Why would Intuit spend the time to target a small market of around 5%?
Intuit is not a classical "Enterprise" solution. It mostly targets small companies and such. The phrase you are looking for is "Market Development."
Additionally, consider that that 5% consists of a large portion of people who dislike proprietary software?
Yea, I guess Oracle should never have ported to Linux. Didn't I read, a while ago, its the #1 OS base now?
Linux users almost never spend money on software.
Speaking as a Linux user, I buy Linux software. RedHat, Mandrake, and others. I bought Applix when it was available. The only problem with the Linux market, if you really say there is one, is that
I absolutely would buy TurboTax. I would buy Quick Books. As long as they are "real" versions, not Frankenwine builds or proof of concepts. Like Corel Draw was a few years ago.
Wow... Wtf? What's the problem with that? Are you implying that businesses should actually switch to Linux, even if it offers no tangible benefit... just because it's Linux?
No, I am saying that almost every company I've worked at, on some level, hates the fact that they have to support Windows and *would* support other platforms if they could make the case.
The problem is the "chicken and the egg." ISVs won't invest development until Linux has more users. Users can't use Linux unless there are more ISVs supporting it.
The Windows market is pretty much all fished out. People are buying the same old applications and upgrades. There is very little movement. The moving target treadmill that Windows is, means ISVs can't take time to refactor their code and port to other platforms unless they get additional resources.
Intuit, for instance, could probably open a whole new segment of users if they supported Linux, but it is hard to make the case.
The ISVs are like the "Ghost Riders" having to work for ever and barely keeping up. Sure, some do really well, but most just run a lean business without the resources to explore new markets.
If Linux's TCO is higher than Windows', what company in their right mind would switch?
Linux has been proved to have a much lower TCO than Windows, but it takes up-front investment to get there. Should packages like "Quick Books" be available on Linux, that initial investment would be lowered. If there's no increase in productivity for the same cost, what company in their right mind would switch?
Linux is cheaper, easier to support, costs less to own, and is more reliable. Microsoft's strangle hold on the industry makes switching to a different OS intentionally more difficult than it needs to be. The OOXML bullshit is Microsoft at work protecting its monopoly. Without its monopoly control over formats, the market, the hardware vendors no one would use it.
Nobody, not software houses, retailers, or Joe Average wants to go back to the days of five or six different major platforms.
I call bullshit on this statement. Standardization would have resulted if no player gained dominance. Back in the days when Word Star, WordPerfect, and Word were fighting it out, everyone could read everyone's formats. Progress was being made in standardization until Microsoft started making extensions to DOS and Windows for Word. Word was the WORST!!!
Why are there multiple car companies? Why are their multiple television companies? Why are there multiple kitchen sink makers? Because of standards and competition.
As an ISV I hate the Microsoft is so dominant. It is such a difficult platform to do anything non-trivial. I have code that runs across Solaris, Linux, BSD, but the one that requires extra hacks is Windows.
Retailers would LOVE to have the option of multiple platforms. "Options" means opportunity to make money.
Joe Average probably doesn't know that he should want competition. Imaging competing platforms servicing the needs of users. That's what capitalism is supposed to do.
I am so sick and tired of the when will "Linux be Ready" crap. Linux is far more than ready.
The real issue is the Microsoft monopoly. If Microsoft's monopoly did not distort the computer industry, ISVs and big applications would already be supporting Linux in a big way. Boards and shareholders are cowards, if there is no financial incentive to do it, it won't happen. As long as Windows is preinstalled on over 80% of new desktops, no one would be able compete no matter how good their OS is.
Speaking as a long term Linux user, I laugh at Windows. It is almost useless at its core. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't work well at all. It is a confusing mess of incompatible technologies. The "control panel" is a joke. Its networking ability basic at best.
A kununtu/Ubunto/RHEL desktop is easier to navigate and use. A basic Linux install has so many more features and capabilities. I am *always* saying to Windows users, "let me do it, its easy on Linux."
Supporting Linux is easier too. Ask any "non-moron" internal support person. In my company remote Windows support is a mess of 3rd party utilities. The guys prefer Linux because they can use ssh and don't even have to rely on the user.
The *only* advantage Windows has in the market place is its monopoly position that is being illegally maintained by Microsoft. Basically making it a financially losing proposition for ISVs to support Linux.
For anyone who doubts that Linux is "ready for the desktop." I dare you to install Kubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox, and all. And honestly try it for a month.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll say it once, I'll say it again. Negraponte is an ass. The OLPC, developed with contributions of time and money from a lot of free software developers. The dream:
Extensively field-tested and validated among some of the poorest and most remote populations on earth, constructionism emphasizes what Papert calls âoelearning learningâ as the fundamental educational experience. A computer uniquely fosters learning learning by allowing children to âoethink about thinkingâ, in ways that are otherwise impossible. Using the XO as both their window on the world, as well as a highly programmable tool for exploring it, children in emerging nations will be opened to both illimitable knowledge and to their own creative and problem-solving potential.
OLPC is not, at heart, a technology program, nor is the XO a product in any conventional sense of the word. OLPC is a non-profit organization providing a means to an endâ"an end that sees children in even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world community.
That was the dream.
I am sick and tired of everyone approaching life as if our only job is to buy the cheapest thing.
There are things that cost us money and are not a good monetary value, but which may or may not pay back over time.
Fighting for your rights takes your time, and as we all know, time is money.
Some people say "its only an OS, who cares." Well, *all* the things we are getting outraged about these days are from corporations who make far too much money from people who don't give a damn.
*We* have to give a damn.
Sorry, but it is beyond laughable that this is news. Anti-virus software is like prayer. It lets you think you're doing something.
Anti-virus software is by its very nature a "post damage" measure, like closing the barn door after the horses leave. Of fixing the roof after the house is wrecked from rain.
The *only* way to prevent viruses is to understand that your computer only does what it is told and you need to control who gets to tell it what to do.
Windows, and we are talking about Windows here, is designed to allow foreign agents to control your system without your consent. Microsoft has so many holes in its system beyond just stack overflow exploits, but protocols and APIs designed to make it "easier" for application to do things "for you," and are we surprised that it is exploited?
Funny will always be funny.
One word, Cramer.
Seriously, I hear what you are saying, but like all generalizations there are exceptions, but that does not mean that generalization is not a vital tool to understanding larger trends.
I stand by what I say from personal experience. I have *all* the Marx brother's movies and except for theater buffs and nostalgic types, no one wants to watch them.
I have done a number of projects for a number of companies focused on power saving in the data center.
One company was building a fan control system to reduce the power used by cooling fans in the racks. We just had a Slashdot article about being more selective about load distribution and shutting down systems not being utilized for the load.
Data centers use redundant power which is more expensive than line power because UPS system are never 100% efficient.
To top it off, servers put out a LOT of heat. That is two types of load: The power draw of the server and the power draw of the data center cooling system.
Data centers are a prime target for green work, and I bet with a little development work you could EASILY cut the power utilization by 30%. Upgrading and replacing four older machines with two newer machines will cut power usage.
Maybe software efficiency is important again as doing more with less power is greener.
I have a theory I call the Marx Brothers Syndrome and it works like this:
The Marx Brothers are old and boring today. A person having never seen them before will sit down in front of one of their classics and know all the jokes and nuances and just walk away.
If they were so great, why is this so?
It is because the were great, one of the greatest! Everyone in the business learned their tricks, copied their jokes, and expanded and improved on their dialog and themes. Now the Marx Brothers look diminished in comparison to what has developed after.
The same is true for Star Wars. It was great when it came out. It covered new ground. It did things that people had never seen before. In a lot of ways Star Wars was "dreadful." Today, I watch it and think Luke is such a whiner and C3PO shouldn't be an uptight english comic book character.
I think the episodes 1,2, and 3 suffered from the Marx Brothers Syndrome because the story, dialog, and "film making" of "Star Wars" has always been fairly flawed and needs to show us something new to allow us to overlook the weaknesses. Unfortunately, the cutting edge for special effects is irrelevant. Once you crossed over the "miniatures and props methodology" to CGI, improvements are now only incremental.
Star Wars fails because we already know it. We've seen it before in a thousand different ways since 1977. We already know the special effects. We have seen enough space opera, complete with bad dialog and acting, that there is almost nothing that would surprise us.
IMHO, Star Wars was ground breaking, but the space opera is as depleted a genre as the american western.
In the UK do churches or religions have "personhood?" because you can't "insult" or harm an inanimate object.
The sign said "Scientology is a cult," as far as I know, that may offend some people, but it insults or intends to insult no actual people.
File suit against the officer writing the summons for false arrest and violation of your freedoms. The cult of scientology should not be protected like this.
With PD code, you *do* own the code. Everyone owns the code. So you can do anything you want. Now that is good manners.
There is a philosophical position that I think is important. The term "share and share alike" is something that most kids have learned in childhood for centuries for the greater good of society. The GPL simply puts that in the license.
I am a capitalist, seriously, I honestly think that real people deserve real compensation for their work. Actually, let me rephrase that, people have the right to try to get compensation for their work.
The BSD license makes no philosophical statement, and that is sad. I honestly believe that if you put your code out there for someone to use you should try to get something for it. Your life, the time you spend writing the code, is valuable. Make it worth something.
PD is better in is opinion because he finds it less restrictive.
I think that is really a cop-out. It isn't about OSS religion, it really is simply about good manners, i.e. make available to other that which was made available to you.
I can't legally utilize GPL'd source code within a commercial application without doing some very specific (and not always possible) things that the GPL license instructs me I must do.
You can absolutely create a commercial application sbased on GPL code. No one stops you from charging for distribution and packaging.
What you can't do is take code, written by someone else, funded by someone else, made available to you under the condition that any changes you make to the code which doesn't belong to you, be made available under the same conditions.
If that small and simple condition is too much of a burden, don't use it.
Spare me.
I don't think I can.
In 1980 the 5 MB Winchester hard disk drive would have set you back about $2000.
In 1970 a 5 MB RKO drive was about $10,000. And guess what, Windows wasn't needed for the price drop.
The Geek builds his Linux PC using commodity parts designed for the mass market Windows platform. Apple builds the Mac out of commodity parts designed for the Windows platform.
In 1978 I build my first computer out of commodity parts too, no Windows needed (or DOS for that matter.)
The concepts of commodity parts and rapidly accelerating technology development lowering prices is the nature of technology. I remember 256K DRAM chip prices sky high and falling fast, no Windows involved.
The fast track is the Windows implementation. The Windows driver.
Only because the caustic Microsoft monopoly. If there was competition, there would more standards in place and innovation would probably been even faster, or at least less wasteful.
I wrote:Macintosh is starting to out-sell Wintell on high end desktops.
Which is a fact.
You wrote: Macs are not starting to out-sell Windows
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
You continued:That is like opening a hotdog stand that charges $75 for a hot dog, selling one, and then bragging about how you are the #1 seller of > $75 hot dogs in the world.
Which is bogus, because a hotdog costs $3.00, and a $75 dollar hotdog would mean a > $25,000 computer in proper relationship.
Macintosh is out selling Wintel on high end desktop computers, This is a fact. It means people are mostly buying the cheapest Wintel they can because there is no point in buying anything better. People are buyig high end macs because its better.
As trends go, the high end almost always translates to low end over time.
The purpose of the OLPC:
Any nation's most precious natural resource is its children. We believe the emerging world must leverage this resource by tapping into the children's innate capacities to learn, share, and create on their own. Our answer to that challenge is the XO laptop, a children's machine designed for âoelearning learning.â
A computer uniquely fosters learning learning by allowing children to âoethink about thinkingâ, in ways that are otherwise impossible. Using the XO as both their window on the world, as well as a highly programmable tool for exploring it, children in emerging nations will be opened to both illimitable knowledge and to their own creative and problem-solving potential.
OLPC is not, at heart, a technology program, nor is the XO a product in any conventional sense of the word. OLPC is a non-profit organization providing a means to an endâ"an end that sees children in even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world community.
http://www.laptop.org/en/vision/mission/
If the goal is to put lap-tops into the hands of children, and there is something about this deal with MS somehow makes that goal more attainable, then it might not be so bad.
That was NEVER the stated goal. That was the means to the goal, which was to promote freedom and self sufficiency and openness. An OLPC running free software leaves them free to manage and grow their infrastructure. Putting Windows on it eliminates this ability and makes them sharecroppers on a Microsoft owned farm.
How hard will it be to remove Windows and install Ubuntu on them?
the same old bullshit monopolist crap. Pay the M$TAX and then put something free on it.
No, the OLPC should come with Linux, and, if they want, pay the extra and put Windows on it.
Your complaints and corrections would only shift things around, not change them.
The economic facts are against your argument. Assuming the market stays constant and additional competition does not increase the marketplace (as almost always happens), taking the gross and net income of Microsoft, and divide it across 6 companies, 3 OS companies roughly balanced between 25% and 30% market share, and 3 office product companies, again, 25% to 30% market share.
The six companies would employ more people and have a lower profitability. The lower profitability of the companies would mean that they spend more and cause more circulation in the economy and decentralize and distribute the wealth better.
More people with more wealth means a better economy.
With multiple companies competing, there would be competition, competition would mean actively supporting your competitors formats so that you can hope to take their users. Competition would mean standards that enabled the various vendors to interact, because they would have too.
Startup companies would have a much lower barrier to entry in entrenched markets.
That's what capitalism is all about and why a monopoly destroys it.
No it is clear evidence that the momentum for Windows can't be ignored
Windows has no momentum, it is an obstacle. Vista is a joke. People are sticking with XP. Macintosh is starting to out-sell Wintell on high end desktops.
The *only* reason Windows hasn't been abandoned by its disgruntled users is because of Microsoft's continued illegal actions in maintaining its monopoly. All too many users say "I hate it, but have to use Windows."
There is *no* practical reason to put Windows on the OLPC. It brings nothing to the table but additional cost. The only purpose for it is to satisfy a vengeful and corrupt monopolist.
Typical troll, start with an insult and degenerate from there. To address your "points:"
Kids in developing nations don't want stupid crap FOSS software that only makes some Finish/Norwegian/Swedish a**hole richer! They want to have any available computer so they can actually learn it. So, why they will need a freak operational system that is only used by spoiled millionaires?
Sorry, I can't even parse this sentence. OS used by spoiled millionaires? What OS is that?
They need to know how to use Windows because that is the system they will find at work
Teaching dubious skills for the future that a certain segment of industry may find useful today is a waste of resources. Pushing an open and FREE (as in beer and freedom) software environment will promote learning and communication far better than the Microsoft monopoly tollbooth. The kids need TOOLS to learn.
Imperialist pricks!
Interesting, the only "Imperialist" in this discussion seems to be Microsoft.
Is anyone going to use an Asus eee for a general purpose device?/I?
I think about this myself, but I'm not sure I agree. While it is not an optimal computing platform, it is a usable one.
When I started in computers, I hard to wirewrap my computer, solder the video connector, and connect it to my TV. I used it. It was usable. The EeePC is far better that my first computer.
Really? Rage and contempt? Over a value priced computer aimed at educating kids who otherwise would never get to use ANY computer?
Yes, helping Microsoft expand its monopoly is bad for the world. Its bad for the industry. The amount of money and control that Microsoft exercises because of its monopoly has ruined the ISO, destroyed companies, and kept back innovation in the marketplace.
Selling "Windows" when they could give away free software is not a good will gesture.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
I have nothing but rage and contempt for Negroponte and the OLPC project. I will not support a project that betrays its contributors by abandoning the principles that motivated them.
Windows on the OLPC is an outrage and clear evidence that the OLPC project is no longer about helping children and only about making money and creating a new form "Microsoft Tax" for the poor and developing nations.
Its bullshit. Its like giving money and time to a charity called "one meal per child" and find out it has decided to use your contribution to bring dollar off coupons for McDonalds happy meals.
The fact that Microsoft will do this "to" its customers is proof that there is practically no competition in the market place.
If there were competition, a vendor would be terrified if their product did do what it was supposed to and would not side AGAINST the wishes of their paying customers. If there were laws that limited what their products would do, they would fight those laws to improve their products.
No, Microsoft has illegally protected its monopoly for too long. Almost all these abusive problems we see are a direct result of it. If there were real and thriving competition, none of this could happen because it would be the death of a vendor.
Why would Intuit spend the time to target a small market of around 5%?
Intuit is not a classical "Enterprise" solution. It mostly targets small companies and such. The phrase you are looking for is "Market Development."
Additionally, consider that that 5% consists of a large portion of people who dislike proprietary software?
Yea, I guess Oracle should never have ported to Linux. Didn't I read, a while ago, its the #1 OS base now?
Linux users almost never spend money on software.
Speaking as a Linux user, I buy Linux software. RedHat, Mandrake, and others. I bought Applix when it was available. The only problem with the Linux market, if you really say there is one, is that
I absolutely would buy TurboTax. I would buy Quick Books. As long as they are "real" versions, not Frankenwine builds or proof of concepts. Like Corel Draw was a few years ago.
Wow... Wtf? What's the problem with that? Are you implying that businesses should actually switch to Linux, even if it offers no tangible benefit... just because it's Linux?
No, I am saying that almost every company I've worked at, on some level, hates the fact that they have to support Windows and *would* support other platforms if they could make the case.
The problem is the "chicken and the egg." ISVs won't invest development until Linux has more users. Users can't use Linux unless there are more ISVs supporting it.
The Windows market is pretty much all fished out. People are buying the same old applications and upgrades. There is very little movement. The moving target treadmill that Windows is, means ISVs can't take time to refactor their code and port to other platforms unless they get additional resources.
Intuit, for instance, could probably open a whole new segment of users if they supported Linux, but it is hard to make the case.
The ISVs are like the "Ghost Riders" having to work for ever and barely keeping up. Sure, some do really well, but most just run a lean business without the resources to explore new markets.
If Linux's TCO is higher than Windows', what company in their right mind would switch?
Linux has been proved to have a much lower TCO than Windows, but it takes up-front investment to get there. Should packages like "Quick Books" be available on Linux, that initial investment would be lowered.
If there's no increase in productivity for the same cost, what company in their right mind would switch?
Linux is cheaper, easier to support, costs less to own, and is more reliable. Microsoft's strangle hold on the industry makes switching to a different OS intentionally more difficult than it needs to be. The OOXML bullshit is Microsoft at work protecting its monopoly. Without its monopoly control over formats, the market, the hardware vendors no one would use it.
Nobody, not software houses, retailers, or Joe Average wants to go back to the days of five or six different major platforms.
I call bullshit on this statement. Standardization would have resulted if no player gained dominance. Back in the days when Word Star, WordPerfect, and Word were fighting it out, everyone could read everyone's formats. Progress was being made in standardization until Microsoft started making extensions to DOS and Windows for Word. Word was the WORST!!!
Why are there multiple car companies? Why are their multiple television companies? Why are there multiple kitchen sink makers? Because of standards and competition.
As an ISV I hate the Microsoft is so dominant. It is such a difficult platform to do anything non-trivial. I have code that runs across Solaris, Linux, BSD, but the one that requires extra hacks is Windows.
Retailers would LOVE to have the option of multiple platforms. "Options" means opportunity to make money.
Joe Average probably doesn't know that he should want competition. Imaging competing platforms servicing the needs of users. That's what capitalism is supposed to do.
I am so sick and tired of the when will "Linux be Ready" crap. Linux is far more than ready.
The real issue is the Microsoft monopoly. If Microsoft's monopoly did not distort the computer industry, ISVs and big applications would already be supporting Linux in a big way. Boards and shareholders are cowards, if there is no financial incentive to do it, it won't happen. As long as Windows is preinstalled on over 80% of new desktops, no one would be able compete no matter how good their OS is.
Speaking as a long term Linux user, I laugh at Windows. It is almost useless at its core. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't work well at all. It is a confusing mess of incompatible technologies. The "control panel" is a joke. Its networking ability basic at best.
A kununtu/Ubunto/RHEL desktop is easier to navigate and use. A basic Linux install has so many more features and capabilities. I am *always* saying to Windows users, "let me do it, its easy on Linux."
Supporting Linux is easier too. Ask any "non-moron" internal support person. In my company remote Windows support is a mess of 3rd party utilities. The guys prefer Linux because they can use ssh and don't even have to rely on the user.
The *only* advantage Windows has in the market place is its monopoly position that is being illegally maintained by Microsoft. Basically making it a financially losing proposition for ISVs to support Linux.
For anyone who doubts that Linux is "ready for the desktop." I dare you to install Kubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox, and all. And honestly try it for a month.