Missed Many Others
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Sep 20, 2005 1:01 PM EDT |
I wouldn't be so limited on the reasons and I certainly wouldn't forget the main ones. The community, Freedom and low cost/free of FOSS that are so important and Unix lacked. These are the only ones that MS can't do anything about and they will bring its demise. |
| phsolide Sep 20, 2005 1:36 PM EDT |
I think SJVN UNDERestimates the effects of MSFT's monopoly maintenance had on the world. Only MSFT could have come out with Windows NT in 1993 and not had it laughed out of the room - it didn't have a network-transparent windowing system for starters, the filesystem, threading model and executable file format were totally undocumented, and it absolutely lacked any coherent design (Helen Custer's Inside Windows NT notwithstanding). Even MSFT took until Windows XP to make it successful. |
| tadelste Sep 20, 2005 7:24 PM EDT |
Stephen makes valid points. I do not underestimate Microsoft's ability; I study it, document it and raise issues about it. I write articles and yet I can't defame them no matter how hard I try, I suppose because truth is a defense for defamation of character. . Microsoft cannot win under the current scenario. Linux may not take them down this year or next, but the numbers don't work in Microsoft's favor. You know when someone talks about a tide surge that a wall of water spanks the shoreline. Use that analogy when you think of the development effort behind Linux. Linux innovation has made its way into Microsoft's products. That's stout! Linux innovation has made major strides in the last year and development will continue. Ultimately, Linux should surpass anything Microsoft puts up technologically, except of course dirty tricks. I believe Microsoft plays unfairly and that they should be broken up by our government. I think they take money out of people's pockets, destroy jobs and families and aid poverty's persistence. I blame the downturn in the tech sector on them. But, ultimately, they can only persist for a few years longer at best unless some weird things happen like someone going back to 1991 and giving Linus a new Sun workstation. Exponential adoption rates of Linux ultimately bring Microsoft down. The most they can do is slow the process. I watched from the hallways and cafeteria as IBM went from owning 95% of the PC hardware business to 8% in less than three years. At the time, no one believed that IBM could fail. But so many people hated them and ultimately little companies took them down. It wasn't Apple Computer, it was a bunch of startups in places like Austin. I also watched the UNIX wars. Did you know that during the same time that Windows 3.1 came out with DOS as the OS that they also released Windows 3.1 with Xenix? They sold some of it too. MS owned the first Bell Systems commercial license for UNIX. They put their attention on DOS and then Dave Cutler's New technology at DEC. The first NT disc I ever owned came from DEC and my EULA was with DEC - not Microsoft. Stephen is on target when he says that Linux standards will keep the OS out of the dog house. We should all be grateful for the hard work of so many people. |
| hkwint Sep 21, 2005 12:44 AM EDT |
Yes, I also believe SJVN is right. Also, because their ARE free-BSD's, people can always migrate to BSD if Linux goes in the wrong direction, which, in my opinion, assures Linux won't. I mean, free BSD's will assure Linux won't have a monopoly, because many Linux programs also run fine under BSD with Linux-emulation. It only takes some days to compile big programs like OpenOffice for FreeBSD, but theoretically, it is possible (though compiling OO or Opera for OpenBSD wasn't at the moment I tried, but that could have been my incompetence). But one thing which may still be a problem in my opinion, is certification. At the moment there's Red Hat, Novell and LPI certification (and even more). LPI-certification is split between the RedHat and Debian-version. It would be great if there's one major certification which covers all non-distro-specific Linux-topics (with 'tiny distro-specific specializations' available), This is important since there's only one (major) MS-certification, and this should be likewise for Linux. It's simpler to focus on one cert than on several ones, and it is far more convenient for business, because I noticed, one thing that won't make business migrate to Linux, is a (supposed) lack of support. There should also a certification office which aim isn't to make profits. I mean, they told me, Microsoft certifications expire pretty soon, because Microsoft can ask you money again if you have to re-certificate in 2 years again. This could also be the same for RedHat and Novell, so I think RedHat and Novell should work together with LPI to get the RedHat/Novell unspecific topics covered in LPI-certification. The quality of LPI-certification should also improve, for example, if I remember well, LPI level 1 didn't include CUPS and sudo (it was also slightly outdated, but I know they're working on that), but it did include over 13 (out 120) questions about the RPM-tool (which I never use, and never have to, because I have Gentoo). It's not a problem there are questions about the RPM tool, but it is a problem there are so much of them (I did almost get no questions about xinetd, and I think, it's more interesting to know xinetd than the RPM tool, because xinetd is cross-distro). If this problem is adressed, there's one more problem out of the way. |
| dinotrac Sep 21, 2005 2:55 AM EDT |
All - You can drive yourself nuts with Microsoft paranoia. Yes, Microsoft is a nasty company. Yes, Microsoft has a desktop monopoly. But... You can't chalk up every stupid act to nasty old Bill Gates. Now is not 1990. Unix servers are not desktops. For that matter, ten or fifteen years ago, Unix workstations would not have been considered desktops in the sense that PCs are today. They were, but they had a special cachet apart and above the mundane PCs. The Unix guys did themselves in, and, for as nasty as Microsoft is today, the Unix guys did their share to help Microsoft build its monopoly, as did Apple. Just remember: DOS was crap. Early versions of Windows were crap. Early PCs were crap, seeming wonderful only by comparison to nothing at all and the cost/aggravatin of mainframe computing. But -- Windows/DOS based computing was cheap. The Unix guys and, to a lesser extent, Apple,were quite happy to charge premium prices for their products. Lovely profit margins and all that. Same strategy the Big Three American automakers employed when they ignored Volkswagen, Toyota, etc. Same result, too. |
| tadelste Sep 21, 2005 7:18 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Early versions of Windows were cr*p. And, current versions of Windows qualify for that same distinction. The Big Three automakers (an oligopoly) still provided choices. Finally, please don't underestimate the value of Micro$ paranoia. |
| dinotrac Sep 21, 2005 7:57 AM EDT |
Tom - The thing is, the Unix guys and Apple turned their noses up at "cheap" computing. Weren't interested. Beneath them, I guess. They gave the market to Microsoft. Never forget -- You can't abuse a monopoly until you have one. |
| justme Sep 21, 2005 8:41 AM EDT |
The author (and a few of you) miss the real reason that Linux thrived and will thrive while others died. It's the GPL, people! Yes, you need open source to have a community, and open standards can provide some interoperability, but what Linux features is the de facto standard: one kernel, one glib, one GNU toolset. It also features an active and diverse community of developers. Why? Why hasn't someone, disenchanted with Torvalds, established NetLinux, OpenLinux, whatever? Why have we had re-merges like egcs/gcc rather than permanent splits? Why have so many new developers come to Linux and not BSD? The answer is that the GPL doesn't allow embrace-extend-exterminate (you can't keep differentiating code to yourself), so people don't tend to roll out replacements to mature code, which also ensures that your code, if contributed to a de facto standard rather than to a fork or competing project, will be used and maintained as long as it is the best available. The GPL also ensures that your code can't be used to enrich others at your expense. |
| Corriher Sep 21, 2005 9:53 AM EDT |
Well... the Japanese cars were cheaper AND better. Thus, their competition does not exactly mirror Microsoft's. Perhaps a better analogy is how McDonald's has competed. Eating at McDonald's has been cheaper, the purchases have been quicker, and overall it has been an easier process... but in the long run there is actually a high price to pay for it -- ranging from health issues all the way to injuring the local economy by killing local restaurants which actually did provide fine dining. Sadly, the Microsofts, McDonald's and Wall-Marts (ie "China-Mart") may be a reflection of our society's lack of loyality, standards, and personal responsibility. We still haven't learned from Japan. Now that most manufacturing is overseas, I suspect that in the future China will teach us the painful unlearned lessons once they stop offering credit and overvaluing the dollar. By the way... they're moving that way now -- and have been considering moving to the Euro standard. Remember the quote: (from memory) "We will conquer them without firing a shot". Once China offloads its billions of dollars... don't even want to think about it... |
| Corriher Sep 21, 2005 9:54 AM EDT |
Oh yeah... I just want to add that I agree the GPL is what has protected Linux the most. |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 21, 2005 11:44 AM EDT |
One nit pick: GPL is NOT "Open Source(TM)" it's part of Free (as in freedom) software and the underlying code must be available for both examination and alteration. The BSD's are both free (perhaps too) and open source. GPL requires that when you redistribute a version built upon a product covered by this license, all purchasers/users are allowed to do the same with the new code. I agree that GPL is probably the reason MS will/has great problems confronting Linux, with no easy end run. [Moreover, some may not know that MS is a user of BSD code, all it requires is the display of the proper BSD copyright notice. Hence, BSD's does not protect the code modifications. Apache must have a similar license, otherwise MS would not be able to "fix" IIS so easily.] |
| Abe Sep 21, 2005 11:53 AM EDT |
justme, Corriher, Yes, the GPL protects FOSS from embrace-extend-exterminate, but the issue addressed in the article is proliferation and survival not protecting FOSS (See the difference). Most users probably never heard of the GPL and don't care about it or anything else for that matter. What they care about is a user friendly OS and good useful applications for free or minimal cost. Unix didn't furnish them that, but Linux does. That is why more and more users will move to and adopt Linux while MS will not be able to stop it or kill it like it has been able to do with Unix. the weakness of Unix wasn't in its technical features, its weakness was it was very expensive compared to Windows. If it wasn't dirt cheap and sometimes even for free, Windows wouldn't have survived or made it against Unix. |
| dinotrac Sep 21, 2005 1:33 PM EDT |
Corriher - Cheaper and better is not true. The Japanese cars started out in a market segment that Detroit didn't bother to contest. They weren't cheaper and better until Detroit started serving up crap like the Pinto and Vega, thus providing something to be cheaper and better than. Detroit didn't care because there wasn't enough profit in the little low-ball tin boxes. Trouble is, those little low-ball tin boxes were well-made, reliable, and satisfied the people who bought them, creating a market for more upscale offerings to follow. DOS/Windows PCs fit the same paradigm because the early years were a time of initial adaption. Consumers did not yet have a comparison. Most folks bought what they used or saw at work, and what they saw or used at work was driven by Lotus 1-2-3 and the fact that many managers could squeeze a PC purchase under their signature limit. Microsoft took the low margin and cornered the market. Never had to sweat. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!