OSNews

They could still sell support licenses like they already do (ever wonder why OEM's are so much cheaper and you can still buy them without being a hardware manufacturer?).
But I imagine they would lose a lot of sales and I really can't see them even considering it either. Besides, if Windows is truly the nightmare of security problems many claim it to be, and the FOSS many eyes principle truly works then given open sourcing Windows the few months it takes to distribute repairs would be a nightmare of zero day exploits.

Give away shitty, clunky technology in exchange for free manpower to fix it for you? Doesn't sound that bad of a deal.
Microsoft would actually have more to gain from it than the open source community, because I can guarantee you that there is most likely not a single useful thing to learn from vista's source code - except that a sprawling bureaucracy managing an army of developper does result into an horrifying, towering heap of utterly shitty code.

Of course, it will never ever happen. Microsoft is determined and inflexible. If they end up in a hole, they'll keep digging no matter what.

Edited 2007-04-13 21:16

There's tonnes to learn! Then, unless your Novell, get your #$@ sued for.

Edited 2007-04-14 15:37

Replying only to the title of your comment: Going only by the amount given away by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the average development cost of $5B for a version of Windows, Bill Gates has effectively given away 2.5 different versions of Windows over the years.

Sure we could turn the Windows Source over to the Debian team, and then the operating system could take 2 years to come out. Oh wait that already happened so what is the gain. And what is this nonsense about open source developers delivering the goods? Honestly both open source and closed source have seen their fair share of failures as well as success.

Open source != success, Closed source != failure, and it is a little insulting to everybody from the software developer to the CEO that works on a software product for profit to insinuate this.

There are more OSS projects than Debian, and giving it to Debian might result in delays, but probably less delays than Vista suffered. They might also use some of their quality control talent.



Open source and closed source, yes. Technologically, however, Microsoft is widely seen as a failure even by those who applaud their business suckcess. Whoops. Freudian slip.



That goes both ways: Open source != failure, and closed source != success.



It's also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren't members of either group) to insinuate you can't make a profit from free software.

Is that the really the only way you know how to argue by twisting what I say to fit your view of the world. There is no difference between Open Source and Closed Source software, just different methodologies for getting the same job done. In addition my statements were in response to the original poster, and they were a reply.

Sure you can make a profit from Open Source, but you can also make a profit from Closed Source. That was never what was in debate, my comment was how insulting it was to say that for profit software automatically equals failure.

Also open source software wouldn't be were it is right now if wasn't for the tons of money that companies like AT&T, Xerox, IBM, Sun, and Microsoft poured in to universities for research on software and hardware. Nobody has ever analyzed what it would mean if all software went open source, and the distribution was free. The development of new software and research benefiting computing would slow.

You may disagree and you are entitled to, but one thing you can't disagree with is that money = research and research = new developments. So maybe you should think twice about your view of the world.

Because the benefits of Microsoft Research are in your home right now. Especially if you have digital TV which is based off the Microsoft research on IP-TV, which is based off Microsoft's research in to streaming video over the internet. But nobody uses that, (www.youtube.com, video.google.com), do they?

Is that the really the only way you know how to argue by twisting what I say to fit your view of the world. "

Nice try. Nevertheless, the insinuation that open source software robs developers of profits stands there in black and white.



Oh, but there's a big difference. Open Source depends on standing on the soldiers of giants; closed source centres on reinvention of the wheel.



I fail to see the relevance of this.





Actually, open source would be a lot better off if Microsoft were not the company it is. Sun also is not blameless in the proprietary technology department, even in software.



I think you will find that the first sentence above invalidates the second.



I don't remember ever posting that I'm against research. Maybe you should think twice about your view of what I write. In fact all editions of UNIX upto and including Seventh Edition were research - and THEY were open source.



So Microsoft actually made one contribution to the world outside itself, did it? Wow. That overshadows all the effort they have spent destroying competitors. Not.

But where did the money come from for that research. Yes companies who's practices weren't open. I believe AT&T was the father of UNIX, and they are hardly close to an open company. So don't get up on your high horse and pretend to be above everybody, you are using software that may be open, but the research was bought by the proprietary software you now speak against.

And when did it all start to go wrong for UNIX? When it was made proprietary?

UNIX was always proprietary, maybe you should re-read your history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix , it wasn't until Berkley decided to make BSD that the UNIX idea emerged from the proprietary idea. Then from BSD emerged NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Solaris. Then Linus came a long and took the same UNIX ideas and made Linux.

But in the beginning UNIX was a commercial product for commercial purposes and AT&T licensed it out for many years until SCO bought the rights to the license during the break up of AT&T.

So with out the funding of mega proprietary organizations like AT&T and GE UNIX would never exist. So do us all a favor at OSNews and read a book or at least a wikipedia article.

Give me a break!

Microsoft has already thrown away millions on Vista, all open sourcing Windows would mean is an admission of what we already knew--Microsoft is better at languages and "business math" than it is at actually producing something useful...

Why keep throwing more good money after bad when you can open source and (hopefully) reap the benefit of having your code worked on people passionate about code?

--bornagainpenguin

Should be titled: Dear Mr. Gates, your company has proven itself incompetent at securing a proprietary operating system, so why don't you open it up and really let the black hats have their way with your customers?

You can't open a proprietary software system unless it is relatively secure against white-box attacks. Windows can't even stand up to black-box attacks. Open source is an incredibly efficient development model, but it is not a silver bullet for quality and security problems. In fact, the reality of distributed open source development raises the bar substantially in both of these areas. The code has to be clean, and it has to be robust. Otherwise nobody is going to be able to contribute, and everybody is going to be able to exploit it.

Since you are an AIX developer, could you say that the code is higher quality than what is available for example in GNU/Linux or BSD?

I think it's not a matter of proprietary vs open source but more like high-quality vs low-quality. In this respect Windows doesn't stand a chance but AIX, HP-UX, OpenVMS and MVS will continue to exist because of their proven quality.

And nowadays it's a fact that most commercially-available proprietary software (especially) for Windows is not very good although there are some good ones mostly from other companies than Microsoft.

In this sense third parties keep the Microsoft ecosystem alive while they could so easily kill it off by releasing versions for multiple platforms. GNU/Linux at least sets the bar high enough that something like Windows cannot compete.

It depends how you define quality. AIX doesn't depend on code quality to produce a high-quality release. It's put through millions of hours of pre-release testing with almost 100,000 test cases run in various workload patterns across our entire hardware product line. The service team says that 95% of all customer issues result from a customer choosing not to apply a fix we issued in response to internal testing.

I won't comment specifically on our internal defect rate, but suffice it to say that we cannot use a "release early, release often" strategy with AIX. The AIX kernel is significantly more sophisticated than any other UNIX kernel. The code quality is inconsistent across subsystems and generally mediocre. We don't often do proactive code cleanups. If it's working, we leave it alone until we discover defects or update the functionality.

I've hacked both the Linux and AIX kernels, and the differences in how they achieve a quality product are like night and day (or likely the other way around). The Linux kernel code is like a work of art compared to AIX, but AIX provides a much higher assurance to the customer that we've done everything in our power to ship a quality OS.

Another AIX developer put it best: AIX kernel development, for better or worse, is for black-belts only. That's why we can't open source it like Sun has done with Solaris. It wouldn't be productive, and it wouldn't have the best interests of our customers in mind.

If Vista source code was released, tens of thousands of programmers would die laughing.

I'm talking Monty Python's "Killer Sketch" becoming reality.

Nobody wants that, I hope.

LOL....

at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL

Why not? It's not as if it would make sense to produce closed-source derivatives in this case...

Because the less contact with the FSF the better, at least to me.

You don't need to have contacts with the FSF to license software under the GPL.

As long is related to the FSF like GPL is, its a problem to me.

The GPL is not related to the FSF. It's a license.

I think you're letting ideological concerns cloud your judgement, here.

Erm... they are intimately related, as the latter owns the former. Here's the first three lines of the license:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

Copyright © 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

The latter may have the copyright on the text, but that doesn't mean you owe them anything if you use their license. I could make a video game where you could throw eggs at RMS, Moglen, etc. and license it under the GPL, and - as immature as that would be - it would be perfectly legal and neither the FSF nor anyone would be able to prevent the game's distribution.

The GPL is a legal text. Use it or don't use it depending on your needs, that's fine. On the other hand, refusing to use it on ideological grounds (which basically boil down to: "one should be able to profit from the labour of others while denying others the same opportunity from their own") seems a bit silly to me.

I don't think Vista needs to be saved yet, and at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL.

I agree. Why would I want Windows to be released under the most successful open source license ever? I would rather see it whither and die under a lesser open source license.

it does suck.
but it would probably suck less if some modifications could be made.

Yes, and the evil force of republicans/democrats are out to get you with their welfare/big corporations.

Linux != FOSS
FOSS != Linux

Linux people != FOSS people
Linux people is not a subset of FOSS people
FOSS people is not a subset of Linux people

Call me confused because I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

What do you mean by "Linux != FOSS"

Linux IS free and open source software, but not all free and open source software is Linux. I thought that was one of the major selling points of linux is that it is free and open source for anyone to use provided they give back any modifications made to the source.

The same goes for this statement too "Linux people is not a subset of FOSS people".

There is a large group of Linux advocates who are not FOSS advocates. I'm referring to groups of people (not the systems themselves) and by equality I mean that the right is a subset of the left and the left is a subset of the right (right and left side of the equation).

Linux is open source, but not everyone advocating and making Linux is pro-open source. The same goes for the other side.

That makes more sense, thanks for clearing it up.

Sorry but the news is published on linux-watch.com and if you click on the name of the author you will see:

Ziff Davis Internet Linux & Open Source Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

He might have meant their products can be compared to crap,(noun), because installing their products "might", have the same effect as someone dropping their bags and having a massive dump on the motherboard.

See, that is the problem with spellcheckers in general. They can check the words for misplaced letters, however, they cannot check the context the words are in.

Edited 2007-04-14 06:58

ROTFL. Oh, man, that is funny.

"crap" used as an adjective is perfectly acceptable in British English (though not in American English), as is "shit" - so it would be also be acceptable to say:

Microsoft make a lot of money out of closed-source. They do not care how shit their software is, as long as it makes them money.

For those still in school, you could try taking these two variants into your English class, as a way of sparking a fascinating debate on the many subtle differences between British and American forms of English.

Although personally, I would find "shitty" more acceptable than "shit" here, but "crappy" equally as acceptable as "crap".

Interesting language!

Linux? Solaris? MacOS X?

I'm going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it's so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.



One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN's article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.

There are computers with other OS preloaded like Linux and OSX but the marked rejects them because in someway they fail to give what the user needs.

Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me "the user needs" viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?

If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn't sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.

Edited 2007-04-13 17:34 UTC

I did't say Windows was better or not I said it gives what user needs and the other fail to do that, and about the security I have zero problems with spyware or virus and I have zero problems with stability because is rock solid, actually crash less than Ubuntu on me, but you see, the computer experience and productivity it is more than just the OS, is also the 3th party programs that makes you productive and those programs makes the OS irrelevant and till those options exist in alternative OS the market will keeps rejected them.

There are plenty of people who would do well with a noob-friendly version of Linux instead of Windows because they don't use anything beyond what a typical desktop version of Linux would install anyway and anyway I know people who use their computers less than 3 hours a day six days a week and still get spyware and just because Ubuntu crashes doesn't mean that Windows is a better OS it could be your configuration and their are other Linuxes out there and if the OS makes it impossible to uses the 3rd party programs because of viruses or spyware or crashes then it doesn't matter how many more thousans or millions more apps the OS has now does it and anyway plenty of people now are switching to MacOS X and it is as feasible to put Windows in a dual boot or virtualized configuration with Linux as it is with MacOS and anyway the number 1 request for an application to be ported to Linux is about to be ported to the Web where it will be accessible not only from Windows and Linux but also from BeOS and AmigaOS and RiscOS and any other OS and lastly next time please use punctuation I'm running out of brea--

Yes and they still choose windows as their os.

Please, those people don't even know what an OS is (and why should they, they just want to use a computer), they use windows because they went to a shop, asked for a pc and received a pc with windows preloaded.

"Yes and they [plenty of people] still choose windows as their os [instead of a noob-friendly version of Linux]."

No, they don't choose.

First, they don't know that it's possible to choose, second, they don't know what to choose from then. They take what is preinstalled. There is nothing else than "Windows", didn't you hear it? And Linux is a game. :-)

The intention is simple: People want it working right now, with no work to be done before. It has to run by itself. And they want to have the same "pictures" at home as they might know it from their place of work.

School did not teach them. Life does not teach them. They don't teach / educate theirselves.

Maybe you're considering my statements harsh or even impolite, but that's reality I had to deal with every day. Maybe it's different in the US, but in Germany people just don't care. Don't care about what they're doing, don't care about viruses, about security, about interoperability, about anything...

People are not interested in OSes because they don't use the OS, they don't work with it. Instead, they're using applications, and these should be the ones they know from work or from their neighbor (who gives them pirated copies of "Office" or "XP"). The basic demand is simple, the applications are available on Linux today, they are easy to use - but nobody knows them. Know "Nero"? Sure. But know KB3 (K3B)? No, never heared of it. The "Explorer"? Of course, I have it at work. But what's Thunar? What's a Konkveer (Konqueror)? A Carfine (Kaffein)? Or a Dshearst (YaST)? :-)

Opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has one. You might think your opinion matters, but in reality, it's an opinion in a sea of voices.

The primary problem is to do with applications - which is why I've been mandating for many years now that Microsoft must be forced to not only support OS X users with Microsoft Office, MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player etc, but also support Linux and BSD. The numbers are there. If they want to argue that Linux doesn't have enough numbers, then why the hell is Microsoft porting code to OS X, which has just as many users as Linux, probably less?

MS Office is the stumbling box to Linux becoming more main stream. Period. Imagine how many businesses would dump Microsoft Windows and run Linux on their corporate desktop if MS Office ran on it. And I don't mean virtualisation. Once Linux penetrates the business market, it will start to gain ground elsewhere. I'm already seeing more and more people aware of Linux, but many are afraid to move because it means learning a new operating system (always hard), finding new applications (and learning them), or trying to make Windows applications run in a Linux environment.

I guarantee Linux would take off if the above listed applications, and also Photoshop and AutoCad were ported to it. These big software vendors won't make a move to port until Linux users probably number 25%, and that won't happen because Microsoft uses it's illegal monopoly on office suites to force users to continue to have to use Microsofts poor operating system offers.

I have a 2 month install of XP that is already falling apart...and no, I don't visit any nasty sites, yes I have anti spyware software running, anti virus software running, and no, I don't click on things willy nilly either. It's just plain unstable in so many ways. I ONLY use Windows XP because I'm a photographer on the side that uses Photoshop CS2 and also Capture One Pro and Neat Image. None of them either run on Linux under WINE/Cedega/Crossover office, or run very well. Open source equivalents simply do not match the above applications and my needs, imho. As a user, I'm being dictated to as to what operating system I can use and I don't really like it.

Oh, and it's dyslexic and I didn't find that comment very funny. Dyslexia is not a very funny thing for an individual to suffer from, a bit more respect for those unfortunate people wouldn't hurt you.

Dave

If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn't sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.

Well, you'd have to be able to get Windows for $0 too, to make it fair, right?

But.. why is it (Linux) not offered by major manufacturers, ask yourself please. Because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. don't know about Linux? Really?

No conspiracy theories in your answer, please

Dell and HP offer Linux.

Most OEMs are wary of retaliation from Microsoft, however. In the past this was commonplace (offer something else than Windows and you lose your Windows OEM discount...)

This is no conspiracy theory, either, but the reality.

Dell and HP offer Linux.

Yeah right. It is so insignificant that I'd be ashamed to make that argument.

Come on be realistic - when was it last time you saw HP desktop PC preloaded with Linux at, for example, Best Buy or Staples, etc.

Most OEMs are wary of retaliation from Microsoft, however.

Yeah, right.. How come they sell it on servers then? It just not correct. Maybe they were, some 9-10 years ago, but today? Can't believe that.

Dell seems pretty serious about their latest Linux offering. Also, realize that outside of the US market there is a bit more demand for it. I recently learned that Lenovo *does* sell Linux laptops, but only in China...



I was thinking more of B2B offerings, not B2C.



Because Servers are a totally different beast altogether. The market used to be mostly UNIX, so it's only logical that there would be demand for Linux. Also, the profit margins are not the same in that market, and OEMs are less vulnerable to MS in that area.

For someone so arrogant, you don't seem to know your stuff that well.



Nor your grammar.



It's certainly less severe today than it used to be, but I wouldn't say it never happens. Anyway, "once bitten, twice shy" says the proverb. Even if MS is less aggressive on that front (which is debatable) that doesn't mean OEM are not wary of it.

But.. why is it (Linux) not offered by major manufacturers, ask yourself please. Because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. don't know about Linux? Really?

Actually, Dell are about to and HP do (the one to large clients, and the other with an obscure version).

Some facts in your replies, please.

Actually, Dell are about to and HP do (the one to large clients, and the other with an obscure version).

As I said already, when I see HP (Gateway, Acer, Lenovo) preloaded with Linux and sold at Staples, BestBuy, etc, then it will make a difference.

Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me "the user needs" viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?

No, the user "needs" to be able to get an e-mail from somebody, click on a link and watch the funny video. The user "needs" to put their DVD's on their video iPod. The user "needs" to use the all-in-one software for their all-in-one printer/fax/scanner/copier. The user "needs" to let their kids play the computer game that came on their box of cereal.

It is nice to dream though.

I'm not trying to troll or anything. I run Gentoo Linux on 3 of my 4 computers and run Gentoox on my xbox. I keep my 4th computer running Windows around when I need to do any of the stuff mentioned above plus I'm sure I missed some.

As far as I know, all of these can be done in Linux (as long as the printer/fax/scanner/copier is a HP or an Epson).

For the game on the cereal box...well, I'd hardly call that a selling point. There's a reason these games are given out inside cereal boxes (I should say were, because the fad has kind of gone by): they suck. Big time.

Kids today play games on consoles. Gaming is less and less an issue for Linux adoption.



Why did you feel the need to mention this? Either an argument stands on its own, or it doesn't. Whatever you run (or claim to run - no one can verify if it's true or not, after all) is irrelevant.

Is Linux for everyone? No. Neither is OS X, for that matter. Yet both are viable alternatives for an increasing number of people. The idea that Linux needs to be a *total* replacement for *everything* Windows does is fallacious. Those whose needs are satisfied by it will use it.

Incidentally, I am noting an increased interest in Linux and OS X around me as people are more and more fed up with viruses, spyware and crashes with Windows. They may not be ready to switch, but they sure ain't happy about their current situation. That's a reality you shouldn't deny.

You can do all of that by running Windows virtualized.

Oh, and the first by running any GUI mailer in Linux.

Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me "the user needs" viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?

If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn't sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.

Are you telling me if you put one <insert luxury restaurant here> next to every McDonald's and the latter sells more, they're a better placer for eating?

Sorry, but a successful product and a good product aren't the same thing (ok ok, there might be some correlation but that's not the point).

The market doesn't reject them. The market hardly knows the existence of these options. Try buying a PC in Denmark with Linux preloaded. It's not possible, and sale of Linux isn't advertised nor aimed at ordinary users.

A more active strategy in regard to selling PC's with Linux/*BSD preloaded has just begun. It'll take a few years in order for this to seriously take off. OTOH there's a lot of dual-booting going on. Especially Ubuntu is popular with the younger next-generation power users. You'd be surprised to see how many youngsters are advocating use of Firefox, Gimp, Inkscape etc. - even on Windows.

A few more years and Linux/*BSD will see a surge in installed bases when the youngsters are grown up.

And then curmudgeons like us will complain about environmentalists who steal our profits by writing green source ;-)

What is "green source"?

"Curmudgeons"? ... heeey I'm not that ancient yet

In Brazil the poeple have access to computers with Linux preinstalled and get selled and guess what? they wipe out Linux and install Windows XP.

Probably with the same cracked CD of XP.

Where are your sources or are you deliberately being a gilipollas?

Probably with the same cracked CD of XP.

And ain't sad they prefer a pirated version than a free version? I wonder why they don't like the free version.

Where are your sources or are you deliberately being a gilipollas?

If will give you the sources if you say please.

Please :p

LOL. I love OSNews. ;-)

The same reason why people use cracked mIRC (Charset? What's that?) instead free XChat. They don't know any better and everybody around use it. It's a FACT.
It amazes me how often THEY tell me that I have wrong encoding... (In Polish ircnet iso-8859-2 is a standard, not cp-1250 /default encoding in Windows, used by mIRC/).

"In Brazil the poeple have access to computers with Linux preinstalled and get selled and guess what? they wipe out Linux and install Windows XP."

May I ask if these "Windows XP" are pirated copies?

Does it matter?

"Does it matter?"

Not to me, I was just curious. Maybe it says something about moral judgement and development of personality... :-)

And, yes, it does matter to MICROS~1, because they don't get money; but they get popularity and propagation, this makes them happy, too. Again more people who believe in needing them...

May I ask if these "Windows XP" are pirated copies?

And if those are pirated copies indeed (and we all know they are), then we can say that people rather risk fines and use pirated Windows than free Linux.

Kind of says enough about Linux, does it not?

"And if those are pirated copies indeed (and we all know they are), then we can say that people rather risk fines and use pirated Windows than free Linux.

Kind of says enough about Linux, does it not?"

No, it does not. In fact, it says "enough" (at least a lot) about those people.

Nope, it says a lot about those persons.

What is an original copy? Never heard of it here in Brazil...

"What is an original copy? Never heard of it here in Brazil."

I cannot remember to have used such a term, because it's completely nonsense... an original copy... A copy is a copy, not an original. I was just curious if the wiped off Linusi would be replaced with licensed copies (which is the opposite of a pirated copy).

Sources please, otherwise it's only FUD.

--Fixed for spelling and grammar.

You are assuming that:
1.) The market works and does this.
2.) The market has had enough time to do it.

I'll let you have number one since so many people agree with it, but I'd like to see evidence for number two.

And how much time do you think the market needs?

"To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there."

If you're working long enough in the field of data processing and information technology, you'll soon recognize this law:

The worst solution always prevails.

(In German: Das schlechteste setzt sich durch.)

You can easily figure out the implications of this law. :-)

Furthermore, I'd pay attention to use all-quantified statements including "everyone". Give one contra-example and the claim is proved to be untrue. Applied simple logic. :-)

Heh. I think it needs to be amended to "the worst adequate solution always prevails". Any more releases like Vista and Microsoft are in serious danger of becoming an inadequate solution - witness the complete lack of apps targeted to Vista, for example.

Either that, or the increasing popularity of Linux and Mac shows that they are the worst solution: I can live with that!

"Heh. I think it needs to be amended to "the worst adequate solution always prevails". "

Take the example of media sizes: disks: 8", 5.25", 3.5" (decreasing), CDs: 5.25" again. Alternative: MD (mini discs), safe handling because of cartridge. Did not prevail.

Take the example of the PDs (as the "mother" of DVD-RAMS), coming in a cartridge, hard to destroy data, reliable. Did not prevail.

Take the examples of video tape recorders with automatic indexing and archiving function. Did not prevail.

You can surely get more examples of solutions that were good in fact, but did not make it to the customer because of bad marketing or stupid pricing. On the other hand, you can get examples of crap that made it to the customer for years because of good marketing. :-)

"Any more releases like Vista and Microsoft are in serious danger of becoming an inadequate solution - witness the complete lack of apps targeted to Vista, for example."

It still is to new, I think. Developers would have to spend money again to get a development environment to create "Vista" binaries.

"Either that, or the increasing popularity of Linux and Mac shows that they are the worst solution: I can live with that!"

Oh come on, where's the good and fine oh joy "market share" statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one! :-)

But I fear, if Linux is getting more and more like some strange MICROS~1 product, it really might get worse... let's see how this tendency develops.

I for myself can always live with the result because I'm not using any MICROS~1 product, any Mac or any Linux (last two ones just for my individual entertainment). :-)

Linux is not getting worse at all. There might be some distributions such as Ubuntu that attract Windows people but thankfully there are still distributions like Slackware, Debian, Arch and Gentoo.

And there is always BSD and Solaris too :-)

"Linux is not getting worse at all."

Maybe "worse" was not a good description of what I'd like to mention. Let me say it more verbose: While some aspects of security and ease of use are getting better, other ones are fading. You might consider them not neccessary anymore, obsoleted or unusual, but some of them are intended. In many cases, Linux is far ahead in comparison to its competitors. The mentioned loss of aspects of security and ease of use is one means of making Linux more user friendly, I think.

"There might be some distributions such as Ubuntu that attract Windows people but thankfully there are still distributions like Slackware, Debian, Arch and Gentoo."

Distributions that look (and maybe feel) like "Windows" are Linux's chance to get more usage share (and therefore, maybe oh joy oh market share), that's why I welcome them. They have a certrain group of (potential) users they're targeting at, but I'm convinced there's not "the one Linux of choice". The different distributions may have their advantages and disadvantages, so one has to look and even try which distribution fits best.

"And there is always BSD and Solaris too :-)"

I'm aware of this fact for years now and I am happy to still have the choice what OS to use. :-)

Again, they were more expensive than CDs and less cumbersome.

[qTake the examples of video tape recorders with automatic indexing and archiving function. Did not prevail. "

Is that a reference to BetaMax? Again, single supplier/higher cost.



True - but then that was also true of DOS, Windows, Win95, WinXP... I don't recall any of those suffering from a dearth of apps at the time of launch, with the possible exception of Windows 3.0.



Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers...someone also on this site I think made the point that in some areas, Mac marketshare is really very high.



I too used to fear that. In fact DIY distros like Debian and Arch seem to be doing just fine.

Oh come on, where's the good and fine oh joy "market share" statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one! :-)

Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers...

1. MacOS costs money and you need new computer to run it (legally). And people want Apple hardware too.

2. Linux is free and runs on your existing PC.

Linux then should have much larger market share than Mac. It does not. Why? Because it is crap.

I bet if MacOS was available for $0 and Apple made it legal to run it on any PC, it would have much much higher market share than Linux, it is kind of obvious. Heck, I'd get it too, just for fun.

Edited 2007-04-14 17:19

Hmm, let's see. 25% of market share on servers and 5% on desktops (Linux) versus 5% on desktops. When I went to school 30% was 6 times higher than 5%. Perhaps if you went to school you should get a refund?



And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Besides, I doubt it would unless they open-sourced Aqua, which is another thing that isn't going to happen until hell freezes over (again).



Obviously, then, you enjoy being shafted by proprietary companies. I for one do not share your sexual appetites.



Methinks you doth protest too much. Or just confuse Linux with what you come out with here.

"3.5" floppies prevaileds."

I didn't claim they did not prevail. Now, they are obsoleted; USB storage sticks or SD cards have taken over their function.

"MD's didn't prevail because (a) they weren't enough of an incentive over CD's to switch (most MD's sold, I think, were used for home recording rather than off-the-shelf music) (b) they were single-supplier aka proprietary (c) because of (b) they wree expensive."

(a) up to (d) are the results of bad marketing, I think. In aspects of handling security and usability they were superior to the CD.

"Again, they were more expensive than CDs and less cumbersome."

Expensive, yes, see reasons above. Cumbersome, no, they could be accessed directly (direct access storage device) via standard SCSI or ATA commands and could hold any file system needed (FFS, EXT2, even DOS) or no file system at all (tar).

"Is that a reference to BetaMax? Again, single supplier/higher cost."

No, I didn't talk about BetaMax, I saw this feature on a VHS video tape recorder. Single supplier, yes, closed standards... but a useful feature, don't you think?

"True - but then that was also true of DOS, Windows, Win95, WinXP... I don't recall any of those suffering from a dearth of apps at the time of launch, with the possible exception of Windows 3.0."

This tells a lot about the OS. And I agree, DOS programs could only be run until "Windows ME", I think...?

"Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers...someone also on this site I think made the point that in some areas, Mac marketshare is really very high."

Have you notices ":-)"? It indicates a humous statement. Of course Linux and MacOS have noteable market shares, but in most cases if someone suggests using Linux or MacOS, some MICROS~1 guy comes along and shouts out there's no market share. :-)

MacOS and Linux are still present in niche markets only. The reality shows that this state is changing, and I welcome this development.

I like to introduce the difference between market share and usage share. The first one is connected to money, the second one is not.

"I too used to fear that. In fact DIY distros like Debian and Arch seem to be doing just fine."

What does "DIY" mean? In fact, I like Archlinux and Slackware a lot, but I prefer BSD.

OK, let me state my point again, since you seem to have missed it: All the products you quoted failed because they were proprietary and/or too expensive, without offering significant enough benefits over the entrenched ones. The fact that 3.5" floppies (as well as 5.25" ones) are now obsoleted by USB sticks is irrelevant, since USB sticks weren't around when the technologies you quoted were.

"""
I'm going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it's so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.
"""

An oldie but a goodie. :-) If Operating Systems Were Soup:

http://tinyurl.com/37zz8u

Edited 2007-04-13 18:33

Hahah! Thankyou, that was hilarious (yes, even the bit about Linux!) 8D. Beats a Youtube Microsoft video any time!

Linux? Solaris? MacOS X?

I'm going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it's so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.

Don't forget that both Linux and Solaris are free. Windows is not, it is far from that.

One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN's article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.

Even on servers? People that buy servers don't know about alternatives?

Companies that sell desktop PCs, don't know about Linux? They don't know they could preload it?

Yeah, I agree: Jeeze.

It's effectively "free" with a new computer.

One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN's article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.

Even on servers? People that buy servers don't know about alternatives? [/q]

Sonny, Linux is more popular on servers than anything else. In fact the growth rate of Linux on servers is higher than that of Windows.



I mean that customers don't know about Linux because companies don't preload it. When you have to completely miss the point in order to make yours, you don't really have one.

Sonny, Linux is more popular on servers than anything else.

Well, I'm sure Microsoft would like to use that argument in EU. Alas, they can't.

Not really, according to EU comission dealing with Microsoft these days. That is one of the reasons why EU is pressuring MS so hard to deliver the specs on the protocols.

Since 1999, Windows server market share has increased from 35% to around 75% today in the workgroup market.

See it for yourself:
The Commission said Microsoft had a 35 percent 40 percent share of the workgroup server market in 1999 when the EU executive began its investigation. Between 2001 and 2003 that grew to 60 percent, and now Microsoft has 70 to 75 percent of the market.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6169555.html

Microsoft has deals with company's like Dell, Gateway, or Hewlett-Packard so that their latest software is pre-installed with a new PC. That's what gives them the market share. It's not that users are holding on to their seat in anticipation to go out and buy the latest boxed version of their operating-system.

True, some do. But most of the time, they deal with what they got out-of-the-box. If that was untrue, then why don't people go and remove OS X on the new Intel-based Macs, and put Vista on instead? It's because Windows is not a superior product. At one point it was, but no longer is.

If that was untrue, then why don't people go and remove OS X on the new Intel-based Macs, and put Vista on instead?

I didn't say nobody uses MacOS or Linux. They do have about (max) 5% of desktop market. You will always have that.

Hmmn, Vista may or may not be much good but, hey, let's keep an open mind here. I haven't tried it yet and probably won't for many months or until 2008. But I think I'll form my own judgement on it rather than listen either to the boosters or to the mongers of doom. After all, Vista may turn out to be very good - for me, though maybe not for you. Each to their own.


There are 2 things you already can know about it without testing it yourself.

1) it's to expencive
2) the system requirements are to high.

Enough reason to no bother testing it for yourself.

Actually, I take back some of what I said before: Most of the article is good. But that crazy idea that MS will open source the crown jewels - whoa!

(Yes, I realize that in this case the crown jewels are made of cubic zirconia and paste!)

You're right, of course. I could see from the title of the article that it was a troll. Since I expected it would hook many readers into posting some knee-jerk reaction, I had to peruse the comments. I was not disappointed.

Mmmm... invest a couple of billion dollars. Sell a couple of million copies at a couple hundred bucks.

You'd really want that?


P.S. Not saying Vista only sold a couple of million copies or that they invested 2 billion dollars either. Just saying beware of vague figures and consider what they invested to argue if it's a failure or not

>>Mmmm... invest a couple of billion dollars. Sell a couple of million copies at a couple hundred bucks.

You'd really want that?
>>

No I would not! You're right, I didn't think about the development investment. But let's not forget that Vista has only been publicly released for a few months, I'm fairly sure it will rapidly increase its market share whether it's a piece of junk or not.

Quite correct. (of you)

That's why closed source software will never compete - the marketing types just don't understand the technical things, they just want a pretty thing that sounds good, and will sell and make lots of money.

Dave

Wow. Finally someone who understood the article.

It's an article about how vista is a failure and about how this shows that open source is a better way to develop software.

The call to open source vista is just the rhetorical icing on the cake.

Don't worry, I hear Dell will be offering it pre-installed.

Holy potatoes!

Are you serious? If so, then I'm buying a Dell... where have you heard this?

Edited 2007-04-13 19:49 UTC

Sorry, I was kidding. BUT...

I hope that is the kind of choice we have soon. Dell is trying the waters with Linux. Who knows, users may someday have a lot more choices. However, the whole support thing would have to be worked out. This may be one of the ways some of these communities can make a living - by offering support for their product to customers of OEM's like Dell. That way the OEM doesn't have to have technicians on staff for all the OS's they offer.

I doubt any major computer company is going to outsource support again anytime soon. Look at the recent India debacle -- using outsourced support resulted in a loss of quality most of the time, with resulting losses in reputation and business.

You have a good point there! However, I just can't imagine Dell technicians getting up to speed on Linux (or other OS's). In this instance, I would see Dell as selling the laptop, but the user (as part of their purchase) would also be buying support from the creator of the OS - Novell, Redhat or Canonical (creator of Ubuntu). The contract would be between the user and the creator of the OS. Of course, the problem would be if Dell thinks something is Novell's fault, and Novell says something is Dell's fault.

Edit - changed Suse to Novell, since it is the company.

Edited 2007-04-13 21:29 UTC

LOL, ow shucks, I was hoping Dell would pre-install Haiku first. Maybe even Syllable......! No dearth of competitors to Windows.

I think 70,000 people is well beyond the negative return threshold. Having more people is a liability not an asset.

What is Darwin then ?

What is Darwin then ?

The crippled, bastard stepchild of OS X*? You don't get Aqua with Darwin, do you (rhetorical question). Indeed, seems to me that interest in Darwin has declined recently.

*Not that I have anything against crippled stepchildren, seeing as I am one. Or bastards - in the technical sense (which I ain't).

I think that's the first thing you've written that I agree with.

Well I used 2000 for 18 months and it wasn't until SP2 that it didn't suffer from the most stupid bugs I had seen since abandoning 98.

My intention was to go to Linux after 98 but SUSE didn't really work on my hardware and I didn't know enough about it at that time to fix it. So 2000 was my refuge from a horribly unstable Windows 98 experience until I got Linux working the way I wanted.

I first dipped my toes in the water with Mandrake 8.1/8.2. Mandrake 9.0 has very big performance problems. So in 2002 when Red Hat released version 8 I switched to that.

The Xft support made the system usable for my family as well. Then having gone through Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 1 I landed onto Slackware Linux in 2003 and have been using that ever since.



I have been doing exactly that for the last few years. I am of the opinion that many distributions are patching too much unnecessarily so it could also be something like "don't patch/fix what isn't broken".

Unsatisfied with any system before I have settled on Slackware Linux and am building packages for it to make it a complete system usable for end-users. I also contribute to Slackware/Armedslack development.

My friends, relatives and customers are very happy because they get a stable, fast and complete system that doesn't require any maintenance to keep running unlike their previous Windows eXPerience.

Edited 2007-04-14 20:11

It seems to me that people spend way too much time screwing around, complaining about Microsoft. They are what they are, a monopolistic giant of a good-idea-imitator. There are better things that people can do with their time, such as identifying the problems with Free Software operating systems like GNU/Linux and FIXING them. Of course, they don't, and that gives Microsoft more time to catch up.


Have you been tracking the progress of Linux desktop distros recently? Indeed, the progress of Linux itself is phenomenal compared to that of Windows.

It's much easier to complain than to actually DO something.

Particularly when you have no control over the way the software is developed and/or packaged...