The more I think about Microsoft, the more I realise that they are, possibly for the first time, seriously cornered (or surrounded, depending on how you want to see it). A little history will clarify why I think so - and why I think that this might really be the beginning of the end for Microsoft.
Full story »
mrmx
17 years 13 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago
I don't necessarily think Linux
I don't necessarily think Linux will eventually kill Microsoft but, instead, the browser. People can browse via phones, macs, windows, etc...
Recently, there was "Microsoft Surface" but then we saw the same sort of technology in the iPhone demos too, just at a smaller scale!
Microsoft will also struggle with VmWare installations. I have the OS Subscriptions and I'm limited to 10 installs. I have no idea how to manage the "10 installs" if I create and destroy VM's very often-- an issue that doesn't come up with Linux.
Can't wait for sigularity though!
felipec
17 years 13 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago
That's considering GLPv3 actually
That's considering GLPv3 actually was a good thing. I'm not sure it will bring that many good things to the OSS community. Actually I think GLPv3 is a good thing for Microsoft because it might create more fragmentation.
http://felipec.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/gplv3-microsofts-plans/
ChuckyFinster
17 years 13 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago
Microsoft is not afraid of Linux.
Microsoft is not afraid of Linux. Linux is still an inferior product by far and without a cohesive vision and quality leadership, the Linux product will never be as good. Google, if anyone, is Microsoft's competition right now.
gerbal
17 years 13 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago
chuck: Linux (foss in general)
chuck: Linux (foss in general) is a cultural movement as well as software so the lack of defined leadership is not crippling and in many cases it helps foss projects.
I see Microsofts most valid tactic as shifting their focus from dominating the software market to competing in the software market and to reinforce their excellent xbox and zune hardware products.
kiba
17 years 13 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago
Linux's momentum is practically
Linux's momentum is practically unstopable.
If they attack linux earlier, they might succeed.
But linux's momentum at that time doesn't seem real. Only when it get bigger over time, it become more visible and viable as
the platform that will take over.
Really, their momentum will follow an exponentional curves. It will become exponentionally more difficult to stop.
By the time MS noticed it, it is too late. Linux's market is too healthy. Too many companies and non entity to stamp out.
no-no
17 years 13 weeks 20 hours 3 min ago
The condemned live longer. I
The condemned live longer.
I have to throw in the following: you assume a few things.
1. You think, Linux will be licensed under the GPL3. That is not yet so definite.
2. You think Microsoft won't find any new ways to ensure their survival. They were and are quite good at surviving with their methods for a long time.
3. You assume that Microsoft won't be able to change. As mentioned before: The condemned live longer. Microsoft actually is not too limited or dumb. There are many ways that you don't look at right now. Don't be so arrogant to think that just because you stare at a blank wall they would be doing it too.
4. You assume everybody would be able to think for themselves. Actually it's different: Very few people can really think for themselves. Most people are simple consumers who don't have an insight into computer issues and they just want the "damn" thing to work.
5. The GPL has a "viral" side. Not everybody will like a "virus". You shouldn't consider yourself a standard.
I'm playing the advocatus diaboli here, the devil's advocate. I saw too many good approaches fail just because somebody declared the war to be over before it really was.
Jimbob
17 years 13 weeks 18 hours 12 min ago
"1. You think, Linux will be licensed
"1. You think, Linux will be licensed under the GPL3. That is not yet so definite."
First the author doesn't indicate that he thinks Linux will be moved to GPLv3. So you are assuming the author is assuming.
Second, it doesn't matter whether the kernel is moved to v3 or not. The fact is all the GNU stuff will be moved to v3 and GNU/Linux is useless without GNU. So, unless Tivo (or any other baddies) wants to fork off everything from previous GPLv2 versions, they will have to find other software to lock up their users in DRM with.
"2. You think Microsoft won't find any new ways to ensure their survival. They were and are quite good at surviving with their methods for a long time."
Just because they were good at surviving doesn't mean they are (or will continue to be) good at finding ways to survive.
"3. You assume that Microsoft won't be able to change. As mentioned before: The condemned live longer. Microsoft actually is not too limited or dumb. There are many ways that you don't look at right now. Don't be so arrogant to think that just because you stare at a blank wall they would be doing it too."
First, I didn't sense any arrogance. The author said he felt for MS because he sees a dying giant. Can you point out the arrogance?
Second, MS is trying to change and spread into: media players (they can't beat Apple on this); and games consoles (they can't beat Sony at this); and search engines and advertising (they can't beat Google at this); and new hardware technologies (they have so many competitors here that I can't list them). They are doing badly at all of these ventures either with low returns (eg: Zune, Xbox) or coming in too late to the game (eg. advertising, searching, Surface).
OOo will eventually kill Office and MS knows it; that's why they are trying to kill ODF. GNU/Linux will eventually kill Windows and MS knows it; that's why they are trying all this patent infringement BS.
The above points lead me to the same conclusion as the author: MS is fighting a losing battle and seem to have no decent battle strategies left. What's next? Vista 2 how much worse can they make their OS? Maybe they'll start making cars; Toyota, Ford, etc., aren't doing a good enough job already are they Steve?
"4. You assume everybody would be able to think for themselves. Actually it's different: Very few people can really think for themselves. Most people are simple consumers who don't have an insight into computer issues and they just want the "damn" thing to work."
Umm. You pulled this from nowhere. The author doesn't talk about this at all.
"5. The GPL has a "viral" side. Not everybody will like a "virus". You shouldn't consider yourself a standard."
The only people who don't like the viral nature of the GPL are distributors who wish to use GPL'd software but not give end users their 4 freedoms. Distributors won't catch the GPL virus unless they willing incorporate it into their software and distribute it.
You see: some developers say "You can distribute my software (or software derived from my software) as long as you pay me" - and in doing so protect their financial interests by licensing their software in proprietary licenses; others say "You can use my software (or software derived from my software) as long as you allow everyone you give it to to do whatever they want with it" - and in doing so protect the freedoms of the end users by licensing their software with a free software license like the GPL.
--
So many confused individuals, so little time - Jimbob
Temujin12
17 years 13 weeks 16 hours 33 min ago
Here's my take on the "Microsoft
Here's my take on the "Microsoft going open source" theory people throw around.
As much as it may pain MS to admit it, they aren't very good at making an operating system (UI aside). Although I'm not a fan of their UI, a good percentage of the world seems to be fine with it (or just doesn't know anything different). What MS needs to do is take a lesson from Apple and get into the business of building a custom UI on top of an underlying GNU/Linux (or BSD) core along with a suite of productivity applications.
By switching to an underlying GNU/Linux (or BSD) core, and porting their UI and applications to it, MS would not alienate any of their average users--since to these users Windows is just the UI (ie: they never run DOS commands or peek under the hood so they wouldn't know the difference). MS still keeps their bread winning applications like Office and IIS. They could even still keep their proprietary document formats. This would also free up a large amount of resources at MS that they could redirect towards products like Office, XBox, Zune, MS Live!, etc. to make those better. This would put MS on a level playing field with Apple and would even introduce an apples-to-apples competitor for OpenOffice and other FOSS desktop productivity applications (which is a good thing right?).
Computer users (and server admins), as a whole, would be better off as they would inherit the robustness and security of a GNU/Linux core. Yes, this would mean that hackers and virus writers would now be focusing their attention on GNU/Linux (since it would be the defacto OS for MS/Apple/Linux), but I think GNU/Linux is up to the task (especially since MS/Apple/Linux would all be backing it).
Of course, this is all wishful thinking on my part. MS would have to abandon NT and port their API and applications to GNU/Linux. The other problem is, of course, the drivers. MS would upset the entire hardware industry as they would now have to port their drivers over to a GNU/Linux core. This would be a huge undertaking but I think (if MS could negotiate with hardware manufacturers) in the end MS would be in a much stronger position.
no-no
17 years 12 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago
@ Jimbob: Somehow I cannot find
@ Jimbob: Somehow I cannot find a reply button so I will post a new comment here.
First off, it's interesting to see that my post gets a negative rating just because I argue against a few things. Looking at posts from other people who experienced the same I found that everything that doesn't praise the "free" ideal or tries to have an objective viewpoint not favoring one side gets a negative rating. Maybe something a few people should think about.
"First the author doesn't indicate that he thinks Linux will be moved to GPLv3."
Well, he implies it. He connects arguments to the GPL that are only valid if he means the GPLv3. So, he assumes / implies / ... it.
"Just because they were good at surviving doesn't mean they are (or will continue to be) good at finding ways to survive."
I know what you mean. All I wanted to say is: You can't be 100% sure about it. That is a general problem in your post: You are convinced (like the author) that everything will work out the way he and you projected. I am just warning that it may not come this way if you're too sure about it. Many people predicted something, didn't worry about it and suddenly were surprised that it didn't work the way they thought. I am not against the things the author projected but I'd like to see that you remain prudent enough. You can only defeat an enemy if you watch him constantly. You will not defeat him if you're too sure about what he is going to do.
"First, I didn't sense any arrogance."
Well, then you didn't understand what I wrote. The author said he stares at a blank wall and doesn't know what to do. He said that this is Microsoft's position. I think this is arrogance because he is too sure that he knows what Microsoft thinks. Call it whatever you like, I can't find a good synonym for somebody who is so convinced of his opinion that he assumes others must think the same way too.
Again, it's just a warning. I somewhat AGREE to the authors opinion. What I simply don't like is if people are too sure about it, that they know what will happen. You actually never know.
"They are doing badly at all of these ventures either with low returns or coming in too late to the game."
I don't object too much here but actually this is only half the truth. You know that Microsoft came late to the game numerous times and in the end they became a monopolist. Again, I'm just warning. Sharpen your senses and keep on observing. If you think you've already won, well, maybe you will not win.
"Umm. You pulled this from nowhere. The author doesn't talk about this at all."
He doesn't say it. That's right. But again, presumptions lead to viewpoints that may be in-congruent to reality.
"The only people who don't like the viral nature of the GPL are distributors who wish to use GPL'd software but not give end users their 4 freedoms."
Don't limit your mind. It's not only about using GPL'd software. Simply not everybody is willing to release (own) software under the GPL. Freedom? Well you should be free to choose whatever you like, shouldn't you? Isn't that part of freedom? Not to choose the GPL doesn't mean you automatically want to limit the users. There are a few more open source licenses that are not named GPL.
Let's leave it at that. My posts have a simple statement: You shouldn't be too sure about everything and you should try to get/keep a somewhat objective viewpoint. Don't get caught too much in idealistic mind patterns.
Jimbob
17 years 12 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago
10 things you should know: 1)
10 things you should know:
1) You reply by hitting the reply link. Seeing as fsdaily uses threads that have only one layer of replies, if you want to reply to a reply, then you have to reply to original comment of the thread and your reply to the reply will then be added under all the other replies to the original comment. Don't understand? Read it again it makes perfect sense.
2) I doubt your comment got a negative rating just because you argued with a few things. It far more likely that people didn't agree with your arguments or thought they were flawed. I didn't mod you down, but, if I had, I would have done so for the latter reason. IMHO, people are entitled to their opinions but I do prefer it when they make sense and are well reasoned. Especially if they are gonna go throwing them about.
3) You created a link between GPLv3 and Linux in your own mind. It was not done in this article. Perhaps your confusion stems from an inability to differentiate between Linux and GNU/Linux. Parts of every up-to-date GNU/Linux distro will be licensed under GPLv3 very soon regardless of whether Linux moves to GPLv3. The author understands the distinction. Do you?
4) I understood everything you wrote. You seem to have had difficulty understanding the author and me though. This article is an opinion piece. The author is giving his opinion. But you leap to the conclusion that because he is stating his opinion it means he thinks everyone thinks like him. I see no indication at all that the author thinks you or anyone else thinks like him.
5) If you are going to call something a half truth, how about backing up your opinion. What I said is true and can be backed up. For example, MS has just announced that it is having to pay 1.1 *B*illion dollars for repairs of faulty under-warranty Xbox360s.
6) "Presumptions lead to viewpoints that may be in-congruent to reality" is probably the most accurate thing you've said. It's funny that you said that but, at the same time you, made so many presumptions in your arguments. And it's your based-on-assumptions-incongruent-to-reality opinions that I have a problem with.
7) My mind is not closed I am a very open minded person. You are again making things up in your own mind.
8) I never said that people must choose the GPL to license their own software if they wrote all of it. I also said very clearly: "a free software license like the GPL." It appears you have a problem reading. Is it possible you read only a few words here and there and make the rest up? It certainly appears that way.
9) You won't win many people over with your faux "sage-like" wisdom when you don't even make the smallest effort to understand what someone has clearly put in black and white for you.
10) If your going to argue, learn how to do it properly. You make vague claims that you either can't back up or are completely untrue. You follow them up by stating something unrelated that we all know to be true. And you top it off with some cliched zen-like wisdom. Here's an example of your method: You are wrong. The sky is blue. You will only know your enemy when you truly know yourself.
no-no
17 years 12 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago
@ Jimbob I see that it doesn't
@ Jimbob
I see that it doesn't make sense to argue with you. If you don't agree with my opinion - well that's perfectly ok. But it seems that you have no interest in discussing properly if the opinion of the other doesn't reflect yours.
I won't go into your 10 subjects but it's interesting to see how rhetoric can be used to disguise a lack of will to discuss things properly and instead serve as a means of defamation. I perfectly understood what you wrote but I simply don't agree about a few things and I don't deserve such attacks on me. Obviously you didn't understand anything except how to defame other people.
I won't comment on this thread again and I find it sad that my first contact with fsdaily ended up getting attacked by you in such a way. I don't want to project your behaviour on others here, so hopefully others are willing to discuss properly.
Jimbob
17 years 12 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago
Another 10 points: 1) I see
Another 10 points:
1) I see you still don't know how to reply in-thread. I guess you didn't read my last comment either.
2) It makes perfect sense to argue a different opinion to mine but you have no ability to do so.
3) It is obvious you didn't read the article properly and you didn't read my replies to your nonsense properly either.
4) You are still jumping to conclusions.
5) There is no defamation. I challenge anyone to show where I have defamed you. You have made comments publicly which I have rebuked. If anyone has defamed you, it is yourself.
6) If you are unwilling to comment again because your arguments are flawed and you can't come up with a decent response to mine... fair enough. I would do the same if I were you.
7) You can't "project" my behavior on to anyone else.
8) If you arrive in a new community and immediately offer up flawed arguments that are contrary to the opinions of the community at large (in general) and one of the leaders of the community (in specific), then you are bound to meet resistance.
9) I hope that other people can make valid arguments here too. If they don't, I'm sure they will meet resistance too (and I'm sure not just from me).
10) If you are leaving fsdaily, I hope you have at least learned a lesson or two. And, if you are staying, I hope you come up with reasonable, valid arguments before you offer them up.
peacemaker
17 years 12 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago
Hey Jimbob go easy. His arguments
Hey Jimbob go easy. His arguments might not make much sense but don't be so hard on him. He'll learn if he sticks around but if you scare him off then he'll never work things out. Give him a chance.
And no-no, if you read this, Jimbob probably just doesn't want you giving other less astute readers the wrong ideas. Most of what you've said doesn't make much sense to me either. Stick around and read everything carefully before you reply. That way Jimbob won't have any reason to have words with you.
:)
randyist
17 years 11 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago
Quite possibly the greatest computer
Quite possibly the greatest computer article ever written, in my opinion :-D. Good work!
Randy
Michigan, USA
acg
17 years 8 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago
Brilliant article. Really enjoyed
Brilliant article. Really enjoyed reading it.
I think that no-no's points would make an interesting discussion. For example OSS appears to be dominating on the good-will of many volunteers. Actually many of the volunteers (quite probably the key volunteers) are in paid employment of large companies. This is another trend. Where does that lead? Also DRM and Patents old technology might be open-source but there are dangers that any new technology you're going to have to pay something for. The mobile industry has shown, if proof were needed, that the subscriber model is more lucrative. Who really owns the future? Is the battle over which O/S your are running on your desktop? It used to be, but the market has changed in the last 15 years. The future appears to be service-driven. Interesting that Microsoft recently created a plugin to make their platform still reliant to the web: see Silverlight.
Stallman might well be right, if we still want freedom in the future then it is important to protect content and services from being patented.
Microsoft are great copiers. There is a trend where they've converted their development platform over to a more VM type environment. Cleaning up the APIs so they are more consistent. Now they've created a plugin to allow the platform to be used on the Web. It does seem to me that they are putting technologies and services in place to compete. They are this year becoming a serious threat (I think for the first time) to Google: though imaging. Google need to catch up quick as the latest in mapping technology is about who's zoom is best. Both are developing technology that allows map users to walk the street (at street level). Microsoft appears to be in the lead here.
So I'm asking myself the question: so what if I have a free operating system and free tools if most of what I want to use is online? Then: What if the service-providers start subscription charging when they beat the competition? What is so free about using a single online service anyway... where is the freedom to choose if the information belongs to someone else.
motters
16 years 48 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago
Well Microsoft have come out with
Well Microsoft have come out with a couple of "open source" licences which have been OSI approved. Where they're going with this strategy I'm not sure. At best it's a "if you can't beat em join em" policy, but I remain suspicious that this is actually the case since they have always been very opposed to any kind of FOSS right from the getgo.
There are some smart people at Microsoft and they must realize which way the wind is blowing. GNU/Linux is currently a tiny minority desktop operating system with less than 1% of the market, but it looks likely that this could grow quite rapidly over the next few years, especially with major retailers now pre-installing Ubuntu.
The best thing that MS could do would be to ensure that all their future applications will run inside a browser. That way the operating system itself doesn't matter and opens up new markets for various kinds of mobile/embedded devices. Even so, it looks like their traditional cash cows, such as Office, will face stiff competition from open source alternatives. It's not the end for Microsoft, but it may be the beginning of the end.