Wait a minute!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| montezuma May 02, 2012 10:16 AM EDT |
Isn't Linux just like communism according to Ballmer? "Ballmer wanted "to emphasise the competitive threat, and in some senses the competitive opportunity, that Linux represents. Linux is a tough competitor. There's no company called Linux, there's barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it's free." Ballmer 2000 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_... Looks like Linux certainly was a tough competitor after-all since MS is not using their own dogfood. |
| Bob_Robertson May 02, 2012 11:08 AM EDT |
I love competition. |
| montezuma May 02, 2012 11:32 AM EDT |
As do I and the neat thing is, it comes in all shapes and sizes: The complex open source model of wealth creation is rather different to the traditional corporate model. They seem to be better at different things. One might argue that the open source model resembles more strongly the scientific social model which relies also on the free exchange of ideas for its vitality. Scientists are also intensely competitive and value useful products. |
| Bob_Robertson May 02, 2012 12:17 PM EDT |
Monte, there has been quite a bit of work on "the theory of the firm", a more general term for organizations created to achieve a particular goal. If you're interested I can find some links and post them privately. One of the very specific attributes of the "scientific revolution" was the sharing of information. Guild structures, limited numbers and categories of people who could read, etc, were all barriers to the flourishing of knowledge which prevented wide-spread technical advancement. There's always a "good reason" to prevent the spread of knowledge, be it ..... never mind. Intimidation works, too. The F/OSS development environment is not so much "modeled" on the Scientific Method as it is founded on the same basic principle, that knowledge shared is more valuable than knowledge restrained. |
| montezuma May 02, 2012 12:31 PM EDT |
Bob, I agree FOSS wasn't modelled on the scientific community at all, it is just that both use a similar principle for their operation. Not to be pedantic but the scientific method is distinct from the scientific community. The scientific method involves hypothesis testing and revision. The scientific community involves knowledge sharing and institutionalised skepticism. The community more resembles FOSS than the method. I think the reason that FOSS works for software is that the commodity produced is essentially indestructible. It can thus be shared without loss. This is very different to a physical commodity which is typically degradable and sharing involves some degree of loss to the individual. This basic difference in the product produced tends to favour different most efficient social organisations. I find this area of sociology (for want of a better word) fascinating. There are great connections with evolutionary theory too. Large scale social organisation characterises us as a species and indeed among primates there is a strong positive correlation between brain size and typical number of social contacts. |
| Bob_Robertson May 02, 2012 12:49 PM EDT |
Thus my use of "scientific revolution" first, rather than "method" or "community". It's enough to make one a Pronoiac! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoia_ %28psychology%29 "the sneaking feeling one has that others are conspiring behind your back to help you" |
| BernardSwiss May 02, 2012 6:24 PM EDT |
I personally suspect that one of the more pertinent questions is: How long will it take MS to migrate these Skype super nodes to Windows servers? (Does anyone suppose Microsoft will let these super-nodes remain on Linux?) Not that I doubt Linux servers are more efficient, and would ordinarily be a better (not to mention cheaper) choice. But I'm supposing that MS will insist on moving these servers to Windows as soon as possible -- not doing so would "look bad" -- and Windows is apparently a much better server OS now, than it was in the days when Microsoft took over Hotmail, and had so much trouble migrating it to Windows servers from FreeBSD. So I expect the transition to Windows servers will be considerably easier this time, even if it wouldn't make sense for anyone else to do so. Make sense? |
| DrGeoffrey May 02, 2012 7:18 PM EDT |
Possibly. But it's also possible that the spectre of 20+ years of duct tape might be getting MS's attention. |
| tracyanne May 02, 2012 8:15 PM EDT |
Most likely they will migrate to Windows servers, eventually, with a significant drop in security, though probably not as bad as the old Skype super node model. But until then the irony is wonderful. |
| jdixon May 02, 2012 9:36 PM EDT |
> Not that I doubt Linux servers are more efficient, and would ordinarily be a better (not to mention cheaper) choice. You're forgetting that Microsoft doesn't have to pay licensing fees for their use of Windows. So it's only the drop in efficiency they have to worry about. |
| gus3 May 02, 2012 10:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:So it's only the drop in efficiency they have to worry about.Wait, are you saying that using Microsoft Windows causes more greenhouse gas emissions than does Linux? |
| claudecat May 02, 2012 10:12 PM EDT |
is methane a greenhouse gas? |
| BernardSwiss May 02, 2012 10:40 PM EDT |
M4ethane is most definitely a greenhouse gas (aprox 200 X more powerful than CO2, but it doesn't stick around long). But I don't see what point you're trying to make. |
| tracyanne May 02, 2012 11:06 PM EDT |
perhaps that Windows causes bad smells. |
| gus3 May 02, 2012 11:11 PM EDT |
Because running Microsoft Windows takes more electricity than Linux for the same tasks. |
| TxtEdMacs May 03, 2012 6:55 AM EDT |
Quoting: is methane a greenhouse gas? [all serious] Methane, counter to the implicit message (as is apparent from its structure) is an odorless [and colorless] gas. It is the mercaptans* added to the methane stream in natural gas that adds the pungent stink. * where the active portion is an -S-H group attached to a short chain hydrocarbon. [/serious] MS's product may stink for a number of reasons, but it is not due to its methane content. A pertinent fact that might affect MS's decision to go Windows Server or stay with Linux was the recent fiasco where they got an individual (or maybe his group) that has a significant following to switch from gmail to hotmail where upon his new account was promptly breached spewing mailing lists, etc. Sorry do not have the link. As always, YBT |
| claudecat May 03, 2012 2:27 PM EDT |
perhaps I shoulda added a smiley... But thanks nonetheless for the chemistry lesson :=} |
| Bob_Robertson May 03, 2012 4:31 PM EDT |
Really, I thought the methane reference was from the quantity of bovine excrement (and thus digestive byproducts) of which Windows consists. |
| DrGeoffrey May 03, 2012 5:20 PM EDT |
Or from the smell of the load in someone's pants, once s/he discovers their presentation/report/analysis is lost due to yet another Windows/Office virus. |
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!