On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:18:06PM -0500, Norbert Omar Cartagena wrote:
<snip>
>
> Yes, but you guys are talking almost specifically about problems *right
> now* that have been with Linux and open source software for a while,
> problems which are being addressed and fixed. What I'm talking about is
> the long term cycle and problems that may be (and likely are) with us
> now, but which we don't perceive as problems -- and might not until its
> too late. Bill Gates once pointed out (and I believe this was pointed
> out in the story that originated this conversation) that no one sits
> atop the world of technology forever. He's right. What I'm specifically
> talking about is this:
>
> In the long term, Unix's fall came because of (1) deregulation (when
> AT&T closed the source),
Deregulation didn't cause this, though.
> (2) because of splintering, and (3) because of
> cost.
Also Unix companies had a superior attitude, and didn't see the need to
put Unix in computer desktops. The AT&T PC was about the only one to put
Unix on a desktop box. Where was the software to run on it?
> At the same time, Apple was the wonder kid of the home PC market,
> but fell after lack of innovation and its closed mentality made Apple
> stagnant as a company.
Apple wasn't really a wunderkind. They had a superior technological
platform (68xx vs x86). And they had a killer app that captured one
specific market. But they insisted on maintaining a closed architecture.
That killed them, at a time when 1) IBM had been the go-to technology
company, and 2) IBM unwisely left the architecture open. IBM didn't
really think the PC would amount to much. When they figured it out, they
came out with microchannel and unsuccessfully tried to license it to
everyone.
Microsoft cut a great deal with IBM, and so were on nearly every IBM PC
that shipped. When people made compatibles, compatibility dictated they
use MS-DOS. Gates was always a master of marketing, never a true
innovator. They stole or copied much of the technology they use today.
Linux and the Open Source movement suffer from not being paid to do what
they do, and no central authority to dictate what gets done. Microsoft
has $30 billion in _cash_ to pay programmers, and a head lock on
hardware and software vendors. Easy. For us, we have to wait until some
programmer in Slovenia gets around to doing the drivers for X hardware.
And we have to wait until someone figures out how the make the pretty
dialog boxes seamlessly move across the screen without leaving artifacts
and killing the X server.
Linux continues to gather market share because we continue to improve
it. Remember installers back in 1995? And remember, Linux is still
dwarfed on the desktop, partially because hardware vendors don't
typically promote and pre-install it. But with the tech folks, it's
doing great in the server arena. Which gives it momentum on the desktop.
Microsoft's got $30B in the bank. They're going to be around a loooong
time. Their deficiencies and shortcomings are becoming apparent. Since
the anti-trust trial, people have begun to speak out and look for
alternatives. But Microsoft's got patents, money, influence. Their stock
still looks good, and so they're not all _that_ worried about us yet.
They're trying to diversify to cover their bets.
The original article was an example of someone who came late to the
party. Had he been paying attention earlier, he would have noticed
Microsoft's inner rot earlier. We all did.
Linux has quite a lot of mileage left in it.
And it's too early to speculate who'll ultimately win.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:11:51 EDT