-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Did you buy your last car with cash or on a finance plan?
Game up for Linux?
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Nope M$ don't compete.
They just extinguish everything everybody with there loads of cash.
Trying to stop everything and everybody with there thousands upon thousands of frivolous little patent rights.
Buying out competitive competent firms with there loads of cash.
They have done a lot of harm to the computer industry with bug–bloat-insecure ware.
Arthur
Honorary Master
There's quite bit more to it than that. The ultimate key is getting Developers (ISVs) to code to the API, so flooding the market with apps and skills that are universally available. Which is why Microsoft is fanatically focused on Developers! Developers! Developers! (I was there when steveb did his thing). I was for years directly and intimately involved in the last major non-Windows desktop operating system: OS/2. In the end it was the vastly larger Windows apps and developer base that sank OS/2 through a dearth of the countless apps, utilities, goodies and thingies people want on their PCs. With a small marketshare for the millions of developers to exploit, everyone went for the largest installed base which is of course the largest oppotunity. (As an aside, somewhere I still have the alpha release of StarOffice, originally developed for OS/2, and which eventually evolved into OpenOffice - I was working as PS/2-OS/2 product manager at IBM at the time). Some large SA organisations used OS/2 for mission-critical systems until fairly recently. Even a goodly portion of SA's ATMs were powered by OS/2 until a a few years ago. But I digress.
By the way, MS was once on the other end - when education and business apps were totally dominated by others: In the USA, Apple was entrenched in education, and where Apple wasn't, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, dBase and Corel Draw ruled the roost. These also totally dominated in business and government.
The nature of the software business is such that you never get even marketshares in platform systems - one player always emerges as the 900lb gorilla and de facto standard, for a whole host of failry obvious reasons (but which many software companies miss). When MS first released Excel (which btw was developed for the Macintosh, not Windows), and later when it bundled Word, Excel, and PPT into MS Office, MS was way behind these leaders in apps, with <5% marketshare. It acquired Foxbase to get a database, but that was less than successful, and Access went through three internal iterations before finally being released. In other areas MS developed apps that were never widely released (I still use PhotoDraw 2000 V2 as my primary graphics editor - a marvellous and hugely powerful app MS deemed would never unseat Corel/Photoshop, and so quietly abandoned).
How standards are driven is a very interesting study. It's not enough to look at international committees and alliances of vendors who gang up against common competitors. As I've long maintained, the nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. Even if Linux and OpenOffice are free and given away to schools and universities, it's very very very hard to unseat the dominant player. Not because people are sheep, but because the vast majority of people are not computer nerds and they don't want rely on expensive geeks to sort their systems or introduce wrinkles that marginalise them from the mainstream. Even though people use common platforms and apps, the market is in fact highly segmented, with different issues and concerns driving different segments. Any real challenger to MS hegemony is going to have to do a lot more than develop a superior operating system,, even if it's free. Schools will use what businesses use, and you have to look at the needs of those large businesses that drive what vendors do. In the end, the CTO of a large organisation with 100 000 PCs wants to phone someone when things break. Who do you phone when Linux needs a fix?
Have you watched revolution os ?
Linux distributors make their money by providing support for their operating systems.. Exactly to fit the need of these big business models.
adrianx
Expert Member
I just want to point out that there are propriety and in-house solutions for Linux and big business. Hollywood produces most of its blockbusters using Linux. Let's not forget that Google and Wikipedia also run on Linux.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hollywood-Loves-Linux-45571.shtml
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hollywood-Loves-Linux-45571.shtml
Last edited:
Arthur
Honorary Master
Yes
Which is why they're flocking to implement it throughout the corporate network?
Perhaps. But that's not the market what we're talking about.
Please, I'm not knocking Linux! I love open source, and support the movement wholeheartedly. But let's rememeber this is not religion. These are tools. Technology. Slaves of our humanity, so there's no need to get ideological (and that also means not gratuitously hating or trashing companies we don't like). Open source developers are not immune to bad code, buggy apps, bloatware, crapware or indeed any of the weaknesses that plague human life this side of the grave.
The Revolution OS guerilla-flick referenced above forgets that MS grew dominant precisely because it championed individual freedom, independence from the Data Center, and individual empowerment. Not too many years ago, it was Microsoft that was the upstart overthrowing the dominant players, and it was hackers and developers and PC nerds and geeks (other than Unix hex-heads) who loved MS. If Linux were ever to unseat MS as the dominant desktop OS, as certainly as night follows day you will get a movement of people opposing Linux dominance and railing against its hegemony. And in defence of Microsoft's Craig Mundie mentioned in the movie: he's one of the most unpretentious and humble people you can imagine. The 'hacker' saw only "Microsoft = Evil" and jumped to all sorts of conclusions. I know Craig Mundie and I'm quite certain his "and what do you do" was a humble and genuine question to a perfect stranger that the 'scruffy hacker' got completely wrong - his own prejudice projected on to Craig. There just isn't a more genuine decent guy. And the MS culture is casualwear - and suits when you visit the corporates who want to talk to suits. Which is as it should be if you're serious about long-term business and serving your customers.
Last edited:
The problem with the original article is the shallow heading designed as pure media hype to get readers reading - but at the expense of good journalism.
As Mark Twain said 'rumours of my death are greatly exaggerated'. Linux is far from dead and here's why.
Although the % of users is smaller, they have passion and commitment to the product because they believe in the principles it espouses - freedom and open-ness and a rejection of the monopolistic practices of big players (I am not exaggerating, Microsoft has been found guilty at least in the US and Europe for these). Passion and commitment never die.
The economy now is all about ideas and information, and the keen sharing of Linux users will always give it an edge over the outdated industrial model that Microsoft was founded on.
Another winner is 'diversity'. Project which embrace diversity will succeed in our complex and fast moving society, whereas monolithic, slow-moving projects where people think alike are at risk of dying. Linux celebrates diversity.
Please let's all make Linux succeed. Even if you don't use it, you need it. Without it Microsoft would stagnate because they would not have competition. Innovation would stop and prices would go sky high. The fools who try to kill it off with articles or otherwise will end up shooting themselves in the foot. McLeod himself highlighted this point in his article - when Netbooks came out, Linux immediately started to take off, but Microsoft retaliated. That's the whole point - it was Linux that championed the changes we needed to make the Netbook the success that it is. Viva Linux
As Mark Twain said 'rumours of my death are greatly exaggerated'. Linux is far from dead and here's why.
Although the % of users is smaller, they have passion and commitment to the product because they believe in the principles it espouses - freedom and open-ness and a rejection of the monopolistic practices of big players (I am not exaggerating, Microsoft has been found guilty at least in the US and Europe for these). Passion and commitment never die.
The economy now is all about ideas and information, and the keen sharing of Linux users will always give it an edge over the outdated industrial model that Microsoft was founded on.
Another winner is 'diversity'. Project which embrace diversity will succeed in our complex and fast moving society, whereas monolithic, slow-moving projects where people think alike are at risk of dying. Linux celebrates diversity.
Please let's all make Linux succeed. Even if you don't use it, you need it. Without it Microsoft would stagnate because they would not have competition. Innovation would stop and prices would go sky high. The fools who try to kill it off with articles or otherwise will end up shooting themselves in the foot. McLeod himself highlighted this point in his article - when Netbooks came out, Linux immediately started to take off, but Microsoft retaliated. That's the whole point - it was Linux that championed the changes we needed to make the Netbook the success that it is. Viva Linux
Game up for Linux? ............
I think what the Linux Distro's need to do is to consolidate the many variations of Linux out there in a few suitable versions for the ordinary public, charge a nominal fee for it, market it through the usual IT channels in the industry, get dealers trained to provide support & most important - publish a few basic books such as "Linux for dummies" series. I admit at this stage Linux is for the more advanced IT fraternity.
MR T
I think what the Linux Distro's need to do is to consolidate the many variations of Linux out there in a few suitable versions for the ordinary public, charge a nominal fee for it, market it through the usual IT channels in the industry, get dealers trained to provide support & most important - publish a few basic books such as "Linux for dummies" series. I admit at this stage Linux is for the more advanced IT fraternity.
MR T
Linux charge a fee? huh that is not the way of opensource. It should be free. The various Distro's are there for a point. They exist because of freedom of speech, free thinking. They thought their way to configure a Unix Like (aka Linux) system was the best for a specific scenario. The only guidelines they enforce is what the kernel tells them how they should expect it. But you can still change it to the way you like it.
If you just like to get into a car and brag about it's mags, but don't tinker under the hood, then get a Distro that is well suited to your personality, if it is not the way you expect it, change it! If you don't want it and want to pay somebody else to make it the way for you. Get Microsoft to lease it to you, without handing over the rights and diagrams/plans etc, that is essentially what they do. Think about it.
If you just like to get into a car and brag about it's mags, but don't tinker under the hood, then get a Distro that is well suited to your personality, if it is not the way you expect it, change it! If you don't want it and want to pay somebody else to make it the way for you. Get Microsoft to lease it to you, without handing over the rights and diagrams/plans etc, that is essentially what they do. Think about it.
porchrat
Honorary Master
There are plenty of books out there for linux. Things like "Ubuntu Kung Fu" are extremely helpful for both new and advanced users. Not to mention the wealth of information on the internet and the community is always willing to help with any problem.
Ubuntu is pretty suitable for the ordinary public, it took my younger brother only a few days to figure it out and I haven't seen an "advanced IT fraternity" membership card anywhere near him. Granted he can't write many scripts and things, but for Ubuntu (and many of the new distros) you don't really have to, the GUI takes care of most functions the average user needs.
Also Linux exists in these many distros because a lot of them cater to a niche market, providing a specific function, if they all banded together to create "Linux Home Basic", "Linux Professional" and "Linux Ultimate" then they would be less functional and more bloaty.
EDIT: Sorry forgot about "Linux Server 2008" and "Linux ME", maybe a "Linux XP" just to be on the safe side.
Last edited:
Wogan
Well-Known Member
Dude, Linux NT as well, just in case.
I'd say the first step in solving this "problem" of disparate OSes is to acknowledge the fact that you'll never be able to solve it. Then accept that everyone has their own taste in software, and finally, get on with your life.
Or keep arguing - makes for incredibly entertaining reading
I'd say the first step in solving this "problem" of disparate OSes is to acknowledge the fact that you'll never be able to solve it. Then accept that everyone has their own taste in software, and finally, get on with your life.
Or keep arguing - makes for incredibly entertaining reading