Windows 8: one step forward, two steps back (Column)

[Arthur]

I can give an example:

Your customers must be grateful you don't run your own software company. It would cease to exist in very short order if you happily concede key APIs and technologies to others who have much lower costs because they don't spend much on R&D. Microsoft spends at least $4b (yes that's four billion dollars, ie over R30 billion) a year on R&D, and that investment has to be protected and ultimately leveraged in real-world revenues. So you'd spend zillions developing a competitive advantage (like DirectX) and then not leverage it, or give it away, or abandon it for something else that a committe of your competitors chooses? Seriously? Seriously!

 

[recre8]

Your customers must be grateful you don't run your own software company. It would cease to exist in very short order if you happily concede key APIs and technologies to others who have much lower costs because they don't spend much on R&D. Microsoft spends at least $4b (yes that's four billion dollars, ie over R30 billion) a year on R&D, and that investment has to be protected and ultimately leveraged in real-world revenues. So you'd spend zillions developing a competitive advantage (like DirectX) and then not leverage it, or give it away, or abandon it for something else that a committe of your competitors chooses? Seriously? Seriously!

Thats is very very good point. My example was also that if for instance you had to have either DirectX or OpenGL ready by the time a new release of Windows is due, with DirectX you can motivate your DirectX team with extra money to meet that deadline, but with open source software developed by a committee of contributors it is completely out of your control and almost luck of the draw whether it will be finished in time or not. Given the almost intrinsical hate of all things Microsoft and commercial that open source enthusiasts harbour, I would even go as far as to say it would have been detrimental for Microsoft to rely on OpenGL IMO. Ultimately, my personal opinion is that reliance on open-source software is much too risky. Bugs which you deem important may or may not be deemed as important to the contributors and may or may not be fixed as soon as required.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Lol his profile explains everything.

Andrew is a qualified systems engineer and software developer; an avid open source enthusiast; and a keen follower of the information and technology sector. He sternly supports free media, free information and 'copyleft' principals.

Oh and the last bit of the article is clearly an attempt by him to push Ubuntu, by linking the words "more open options" to the Ubuntu website, as if it's the only open alternative. How "opinions" like this are allowed to be published on this site is beyond me.

 

[Elimentals]

Thats is very very good point. My example was also that if for instance you had to have either DirectX or OpenGL ready by the time a new release of Windows is due, with DirectX you can motivate your DirectX team with extra money to meet that deadline, but with open source software developed by a committee of contributors it is completely out of your control and almost luck of the draw whether it will be finished in time or not. Given the almost intrinsical hate of all things Microsoft and commercial that open source enthusiasts harbour, I would even go as far as to say it would have been detrimental for Microsoft to rely on OpenGL IMO. Ultimately, my personal opinion is that reliance on open-source software is much too risky. Bugs which you deem important may or may not be deemed as important to the contributors and may or may not be fixed as soon as required.

Now that is just plain crap!

Nothing stops you in the Open Source world to employ your own team of programmers and develop "That" feature on due dates, in fact many distro's do just that. The same DirectX team could just as easily have worked on OpenGL and submitted code back to the tree. But in fact its this need to submit code back to the tree that is the problem with Microsoft's idea.

Its all about vendor Lock-in and only that, I dont blame them either like I said if I was in charge of Microsoft I would have done exactly the same.

 

[recre8]

And therein lies the problem for me. If my company had to embrace and open standard instead of a proprietary one, especially one with a GNU license attached, it would mean that any code we write would be available freely. And hence we would not be able to profit it from it. My salary pays my bond and my car and everything. I rely on the stuff I write to be closed-source to sustain a decent living. While I appreciate the egalitarian concept of open source software I just don't see myself making a living off it. Yes, I can contribute to an open source project after hours, but I would have to retain my closed-source day job to pay for the DSL I use to submit my code back to the tree. Also, I see it as fair to develop a proprietary standard, because one day, I might meet the saturation point in sales of my software and would then have to rely solely on the licensing of these proprietary standards to earn an income. So for me personally, vendor lock-in is a way of ensuring a financial future.

On a different note, something I have always wondered about. If you wholeheartedly approve of open source, doesn't that mean that its hypocritical to not expect musicians to make their music freely available, or authors of books to do the same? Isn't it after all the same concept? Sharing of one's personal intellectual and creative property without a price tag attached?

 

[Elimentals]

On a different note, something I have always wondered about. If you wholeheartedly approve of open source, doesn't that mean that its hypocritical to not expect musicians to make their music freely available, or authors of books to do the same? Isn't it after all the same concept? Sharing of one's personal intellectual and creative property without a price tag attached?

Erm there is, go check http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

Also there is other ways to make money in Open Source. Service centers is one of them.

 

[Arthur]

Now that is just plain crap!

Nothing stops you in the Open Source world to employ your own team of programmers and develop "That" feature on due dates, in fact many distro's do just that.

Open Source is almost by definition at the trailing edge. I do not know of anyone other than the super-rich, religious open-sourcers, and fools who spend a huge amount of money developing stuff that others can use for free to eat into their own revenue stream. Generally it's some guy with maybe a mate or two who cobble together something in their spare time because they love tinkering and doing Open Source.

As an aside, the problem with "international" or "industry" standards in the technology business is ... there are so many of them to choose from. And that kinda defeats the whole objective. No-one cares about OpenGL (for example) if only a small portion of the market actually uses it and needs it specifically, especially when the de facto standards (open or closed) are readily available, accessible, and already on the great majority of target systems. Unless you're doing bespoke/custom systems, many (but not all) developers and software houses have a natural tendency to develop stuff for the largest possible target market, open or closed matters not a jot. That has nothing to do with MSFT or anyone else manipulating the market and driving monopolies - it's just basic business sense. Most of us can't afford to develop for charity or for our competitors - we actually have to put a plate of pap 'n derms on the table every night.

Also, please note that none of us are knocking Open Source. It has its place, and that's cool. But so too do proprietary/closed systems. All we're saying is the journo and his sympathisers need to enlarge their conception of the (software) universe. The shift from "is" to "ought" introduces a whole new moral dimension, and we ought to resist the tempation of getting the police (ie State) involved in deciding technology standards and marketshares.

 

[Elimentals]

Open Source is almost by definition at the trailing edge. I do not know of anyone other than the super-rich, religious open-sourcers, and fools who spend a huge amount of money developing stuff that others can use for free to eat into their own revenue stream. Generally it's some guy with maybe a mate or two or cobble together something in their spare time because they love tinkering and

As an aside, the problem with "international" or "industry" standards in the technology is business is ... there are so many of them to choose from. And that kinda defeats the whole objective. No-one cares about OpenGL (for example) if only a small portion of the market actually uses it and needs it specifically, especially when the de facto standards (open or closed) are readily available, accessible, and already on the great majority of target systems. Unless you're doing bespoke/custom systems, many (but not all) developers and software houses have a natural tendency to develop stuff for the largest possible target market, open or closed matters not a jot. Thas has nothing to do with MSFT or anyone else manipulating the market and driving monopolies - it's just basic business sense. Most of us can't afford to develop for charity or for our competitors - we actually have to put a plate of pap 'n derms on the table every night.

Also, please note that none of us are knocking Open Source. It has its place, and that's cool. But so too do proprietary/closed systems. All we're saying is the journo and his sympathisers need to enlarge their conception of the (software) universe.

What a lot of people dont get is that you dont have to program for free when you use an Open Source platform. You also not forced to give your code away for free. This decision still lies with the programmer. As long as you dont use Open Source code inside your application you have noting to worry about, but its always tempting to just copy a chunk of code from someone else instead of writing your own and I guess this was the bigest worry in Microsof's house, how to keep the code separate without showing your hand.

The benefits would have been that they needed less programers to work on that set of libraries.

Just a note on OpenGL
Its still used everywhere, from Playstation to iOS so its not a dead tech either in fact you can even create games for windows using OpenGL instead of DirectX. Microsoft just wanted to include it into the kernel(For more speed) and that is where the problems started.

What Open Source mostly address is the age old problem of why do something if its already been done, its such a waste of resources.

 

[recre8]

Sure, I like the creative commons licenses, especially with photos. But you still haven't answered my question: Should one expect musicians and authors to make their works available for free, and how is that different from open source software?

As for the support center idea, I know that is how they try to make profit off it. But then my questions is the following. We are a small team, less than 10 people, all developers, and we simply do not have the resources available to run a full time support center. I guess we'd have even less resources if we only charged for support calls. Does that mean that open source is only viable for larger companies with other revenue streams subsidizing the developers?

 

[Elimentals]

As for the support center idea, I know that is how they try to make profit off it. But then my questions is the following. We are a small team, less than 10 people, all developers, and we simply do not have the resources available to run a full time support center. I guess we'd have even less resources if we only charged for support calls. Does that mean that open source is only viable for larger companies with other revenue streams subsidizing the developers?

I never said its the only way, I just said I can see it work in certain environments. But depending of what you do I can spin it this way, if you used open source in your example you could have used less programmers and more support people for example.

Again its not a 1 model fit everything world and one has to do a proper case study before you decide to go the open source route.

Without Open Source my company would have looked totally different
/me points to VMware + Linux server farms, with a in house developed management console and applications that end users rent.

 

[recre8]

you could have used less programmers and more support people for example.

Just an innocent question: If you had written your software well enough, wouldn't that imply that you would need less support staff? or the other way round: Doesn't a larger number of support staff than developers indicate bad coding?

I realize that not all problems are bug related, some are just users not reading errors well enough, but in a perfect world developers would be able to add so much diagnostics information that users would never need support.

 

[Elimentals]

Just a innocent question: If you had written your software well enough, wouldn't that imply that you would need less support staff? or the other way round: Doesn't a larger number of support staff than developers indicate bad coding?

Again depends on case by case.....

Dude seriously you attacking the wrong person. READ my posts.

This is what I dont get about Closed and Open source zealots.... its not a single model works for all world, it totally depends on what you do and how you do it, with that being said dont just close your mind to opportunities either, investigate learn and then decide.

 

[OpenTangent]

In an open source ecosystem you get to use the best there is and build upon that. Open source should be viewed as a vehicle to deliver services to the client. Android is a good example of this where Google's services are now far more accessible and therefore people become more reliant on them.

 

[Mouse]

That OpenGL/DX topic lasted quite a while :wtf:
I think I've noticed why some of you get the open source model and others don't: a lot of the counter points mention software that is sold.
My line of thinking, in fact my entire career as a software developer has been for companies that are selling a service, with the software being a tool to support the service. When you think about it like that, it makes sense that you leverage the work done by others, improve on it and give back to the community that gave it to you.

On the other hand, when your entire business is based on selling software, you will have to play the sort of game MS has been doing to screw the competition over (and have to battle piracy too)

Your customers must be grateful you don't run your own software company. It would cease to exist in very short order if you happily concede key APIs and technologies to others who have much lower costs because they don't spend much on R&D. Microsoft spends at least b (yes that's four billion dollars, ie over R30 billion) a year on R&D, and that investment has to be protected and ultimately leveraged in real-world revenues. So you'd spend zillions developing a competitive advantage (like DirectX) and then not leverage it, or give it away, or abandon it for something else that a committe of your competitors chooses? Seriously? Seriously!

Unfortunately for them, that model is failing: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/ibm-rises-again-as-its-stock-passes-a-declining-microsoft.ars
Although the decline isn't as bad as it could be if they didn't have that lock in.

Note that of the 3 tech companies mentioned (Apple, IBM, Google) all have contributed or used open source and it hasn't hurt their business, and 2 already have greater value than MS and the 3rd isn't far behind.

Also note that all 3 are in some form providing a service with software being just a tool given away for free (Google), or even both paid software and free (IBM, Apple)

Its not as easy to pirate a service, although one of them tried

 

[Necuno]

In an open source ecosystem you get to use the best there is and build upon that. Open source should be viewed as a vehicle to deliver services to the client. Android is a good example of this where Google's services are now far more accessible and therefore people become more reliant on them.

So when are we going to see a corrected article?

If in my article is “inaccurate” in any way please point it out so that it can be corrected.

See my response in the forums:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ack-(Column)?p=6949300&viewfull=1#post6949300

In case you have missed it by being caught up in your Stuff

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ack-(Column)?p=6951498&viewfull=1#post6951498
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ack-(Column)?p=6951584&viewfull=1#post6951584
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ack-(Column)?p=6949554&viewfull=1#post6949554

 

[BeVonk!]

Most people don't care for "open and free". They care more for secure and safe and the quality control that comes with a walled garden. Most people are gatvol of all the threats on- and off-line and will support the OS/company that offers best security. Parents cannot stand behind their kids all the time when online and when downloading and loading software. Most are not tech savvy to configure firewalls etc. Most are too busy to fiddle with configurations. Safe & Simple is good and people will pay for it. Apple got it right and MS is on the tight track now.

Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Most people don't care for "open and free". They care more for secure and safe and the quality control that comes with a walled garden. Most people are gatvol of all the threats on- and off-line and will support the OS/company that offers best security. Parents cannot stand behind their kids all the time when online and when downloading and loading software. Most are not tech savvy to configure firewalls etc. Most are too busy to fiddle with configurations. Safe & Simple is good and people will pay for it. Apple got it right and MS is on the tight track now.

Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk

A bit of a generalisation, but I agree with you on the ease of use. People will use whatever satisfies their requirements, and it must be simple to use. The entry into Linux is a bit daunting for most people, so they go with whatever they're already familiar with. If they need help then they can either Google it, or ask openly without being ridiculed for being a noob by some know-it-all (something that I've noticed on Linux forums). That's why people don't have a problem with Android-based phones - because it's simple to pick up and use.

 

[Mouse]

being ridiculed for being a noob by some know-it-all (something that I've noticed on Linux forums)

That reminds me of this: http://bash.org/?152037

<dm> I discovered that you'd never get an answer to a problem from Linux Gurus by asking. You have to troll in order for someone to help you with a Linux problem.
<dm> For example, I didn't know how to find files by contents and the man pages were way too confusing. What did I do? I knew from experience that if I just asked, I'd be told to read the man pages even though it was too hard for me.
<dm> Instead, I did what works. Trolling. By stating that Linux sucked because it was so hard to find a file compared to Windows, I got every self-described Linux Guru around the world coming to my aid. They gave me examples after examples of different ways to do it. All this in order to prove to everyone that Linux was better.
* ion has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<dm> brings a tear to my eye... :') so true..
<dm> So if you're starting out Linux, I advise you to use the same method as I did to get help. Start the sentence with "Linux is gay because it can't do XXX like Windows can". You will have PhDs running to tell you how to solve your problems.
<dm> this person must be a kindred spirit of mine

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

That reminds me of this: http://bash.org/?152037

Haha that's genius. I guess he worked it out - Linux people will try and convert everyone to Linux, but couldn't give a crap about you once you finally do. Easiest way is to troll them

 

[recre8]

Another question: Would anyone consider the future uptake of Linux threatened if Microsoft made a entry level version of Windows freely available that caters for people who mostly read e-mail, facebook and twitter, watch movies, etc. (i.e. most home users).

Windows 7 Stater Edition, although not readily available, sells for about R300-R400 and can do almost everything the average user wants to do. It has the familiarity of Windows, which they know, it can run Word, go on the internet. Microsoft already provides the Express editions of Visual Studio and SQL Server for free. I actually use the Express editions when I bring work home. So... lets say Microsoft significantly cuts the price of Windows Starter Edition to say about R100 or even provides it free of charge. Would it threaten Linux as a desktop operating system? Keeping in mind the question is aimed specifically at desktop OS, not as a server OS.

@Mouse:

Unfortunately for them, that model is failing: http://arstechnica.com/business/news...-microsoft.ars
Although the decline isn't as bad as it could be if they didn't have that lock in

the graph from ARS shows the market cap of the various companies which doesn't directly translate to market share. Take a look at http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share_trend.php?1=1&timeframe=custom|2008-09|2011-09&interval=month&chart_id=13&fltr_br=&fltr_os=&fltr_se=&fltr_cn=&chart_id=11. It shows the market share and even though Windows has definite decline over the last few years, Apple made up that loss, so I wouldn't agree that their model is failing at all. There is a definite shift in market share towards Apple with their more locked-in approach, but that just shows what comsumers want: something that's easy, safe, secure and just works.