Re: [SLUG] <OT> RIP Microsoft?

From: Norbert Omar Cartagena (slug@gnorb.net)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 04:28:21 EST


> Paul M Foster wrote:

I was wondering how long it would take for my replies to get you talking
;-)

>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.
>
>
It didn't cause it, but it was the first significant event, since it led
to the splintering and the higher costs.

>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?
>
>
Sorry. During my statements I kept a complete separation between the
server software and the desktop software. AT&T's desktop Unix and Xenix
(I believe) were the only desktop *nix's at the time, and treated the
desktop as a "second class citizen."

>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.
>
Uhmm... one?

>But they insisted on maintaining a closed architecture.
>
>
Bingo.

>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.
>
>
*heh* A wonderful little serendipity, eh?

>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.
>
6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.21, 6.22...

>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.
>
Hmm... I'm not sure that the "central authority" part is all bad.
Doesn't this kind of get into the "cathedral/bazaar" debate? After all,
you could argue that decentralization leads to higher response time for
a larger number of needs. A bit like "narrowcasting" instead of
"broadcasting."

>Microsoft
>has $30 billion in _cash_ to pay programmers, and a head lock on
>hardware and software vendors.
>
Who will only support Linux when they see a market demand. However, the
market will only demand it when the hardware is capable of interfacing
cleanly with the OS. Catch 22.

>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.
>
>
And this right here might be the long term killer. Will anyone dedicate
themselves to creating LINUX drivers, provided that doing so will likely
force them to reveal code and even their proprietary hardware specs?

>Linux continues to gather market share because we continue to improve
>it. Remember installers back in 1995?
>
Even in 1999...

> 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.
>
Yes, much like AT&T at one point in time. Oh, wait... SBC, right...

>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.
>
>
I guess I'm still looking at the anti-trust case statements where MS
mentioned Sony as their biggest competitor.

>Linux has quite a lot of mileage left in it.
>
>
That it does.

>And it's too early to speculate who'll ultimately win.
>
>
>
I don't think it's a matter of anyone ultimately winning. The players
will likely all change before all's said and done.

Gnorb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 - 19:12:44 EDT