‘At last month’s Most Valuable Partners meeting in which Gates opened up about open source, he reflected back on his battle against IBM for supremacy of the desktop. “OS/2 wasn’t a joke; it was all of IBM that was ten times the size of Microsoft putting all their energy, their leverage on ISVs, bundling it with their systems, everything they could do to beat Windows,” Gates said.’ Read the editorial at ENT by Joe McKendrick.
ENT Magazine on Bill Gates, OS/2, Linux and Monopoly
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
ENT’s own survey of 800 Windows enterprise sites found that 37 percent of enterprise sites are running Linux on servers. Plus, Linux even appears to be gaining a foothold in Microsoft’s ancestral homeland — the desktop. The survey finds that 25 percent of the sites surveyed have Linux running on client machines. Just 18 percent run Macs.
Ok, something is wrong here. Either they have a very unrepresentative sample, making the whole survey BS, or the “macs have 3% market share” isn’t correct either.
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
This is one of the only complete benchmarks I have seen done (NT4 vs RH). Mindcraft was accused of skewing the test results, zdnet performed the same test and although not as one sided, still showed ISS ahead by quite a margin. The link above shows Mindcraft’s retest, which was about the same as the first.
I know there can be criticism of MS running IIS in kernel space etc. for performance, but does anyone have some recent(ish) benchmarks comparing IIS to Apache?
Other than that, I find it hard to believe that MS is that scared of Linux. If MS wanted to they strip the size of a windows install to almost nothing and still have IE, media player etc. Desktop Linux is getting large, releasing a small/light/fast install of windows would block Linuxs’ progress on the way to the desktop. I don’t believe MS has any intention of releasing such product in the near or distant future. They are not afraid yet.
month?s … ?OS/2? … Windows,? Gates
Comparing the text to the original site, this looks like a charset issue.
Yes, Safari crapped out it seems, as I posted that with Safari for a change.
The author goes into one of those “what if” scenarios, which never have any bearing on reality. He brings up the question of IBM’s subjunctive monopoly had they won out with OS/2, stating that not only would they have the mopolizing OS but also the hardware it ran on. He fails to recognize two factors:
1. They were using Intel chips long before that; other OS’s would still be able to run on “IBM compatibles” (how long has it been since you heard that phrase?)
2. If IBM were to take any steps whatsoever to make their entire system proprietary, the SEC would have stepped in and broken up the entity, causing OS/2 to be spun off (with or without a lawsuit). In fact, that may have happened even if they didn’t modify the system in this way.
In other words, his imaginary scenario would not have been quite as dramatic as he would like it to seem.
Sorry, I meant “Justice Department,” not SEC.
Please, please, please learn to count.
If 18% of the companies have macs, and each one of them has 100% macs, and we assume the number of desktop computers is the same for all companies, that would mean macs had 18% share.
If each of that 18% had in average 20% macs, same assumptions, it would make for 3,6% market share.
Same thing about the linux on desktops number, of course.
Phases 1 and 2 used only a four-processor configuration of a Dell PowerEdge 6300/400 server. We used Red Hat Linux 5.2 upgraded to the Linux 2.2.6 kernel for Phases 1 and 2 (“Linux” in Phases 1 and 2) in order to match the software used in our Second Benchmark.
That surely isn’t the recent test you were talking about.
Bill Gates appears to show more knowledge about Linux than you might expect…
…until you think about it. He says “there are more incompatible versions of linux than there are OSes.” Huh? What’s he talking about? Binary compatibility? Package management? ‘Coz if you have the source code, you can generally compile it. Binary compatibility is generally there between each distro at any given year, but things like new glibc/gcc majors break binary compatibility.
I wonder if when they see GNOME2 or KDE3 over at Redmond they can’t help but to think “man, these guys are really starting to catch up here.” Especially GNOME, which is really starting to look clean and polished enough for mainstream use.
Probably in terms of incompatibility between linux releases. For example, we run interactive tv servers on redhat 7.3. Problem here is that you can’t just pick up a new application with new lib requirements and run it out of the box. You can argue that ‘sure you can, just add the required libs/dependencies’ but that breaks the entire integration & testing procedure for enterprise applications, and doesn’t fly.
However it is worth noting that this applies equally to the microsoft world. Even deploying enterprise apps on NT4 does not mean they will run on Win2k out of the box. By run I mean have uptimes > 6 months with no problems.
The ever present RON and JIK like Microsoft Astrotufers ( see http://www.google.com/search?q=astroturf+microsoft ) claiming Linux will never be ready for the desktop, are the same kind of people who claimed that Linux would never be suitable for an enterprise class server.
Library/RPM conficts dependencies are handled by the Linux distributionsm, use the versions of the open source software included in the distribution, there is no problem. Recent/Modern Linux distributions provide a compatable Linux Standard Base ( http://www.linuxbase.org/ ) for third party and proprietary software developers.
For most of the buying public, it is the OEMs that source drivers for hardware. Drivers can be as much a hassle for XP as with Linux, the difference being that if you shop around for compatable linux hardware that has open source drivers, the hardware will not be obsoleted with the new release, as with a number of scanners vendors in XP. User controled and day to day system configration in most modern Linux distributions can be done though GUIs, and though different to Windows, is just as easy to do. Look inside the Windows registry or the c:/windows INI files, and you will see many more options and configurations details, preset by Microsoft.
Both the current release of GNOME and KDE surpass WindowsME in ease of use. Almost everybody agrees that since the begining, Apple ‘s Mac and OSX provides a superior user interface, then why does not everyone use Macs? It has to do with price and relative performance, Microsoft produced a far more cost effective bundle of OS and applications a decade ago and with a lot of leverage on the OEMs , Microsoft became the dominate desktop player.
It is Microsoft’s abuse of it’s dominant postition in the market to force OEMs to select it’s products that Microsoft has been found gulty of. Even after the “remedy”, Microsoft is still abusing it’s position in the market to prevent the newer Linux, with better price and relative performance, gaining a foothold on the market.
RON and JIK are just manifestations of a long used tactic, smear and lie to spread fear uncertainty and doubt. The truth is slowly dawning and under the light the [FUD] claims resolve to mear shadows.
Linux is coming to a server, a PDA, a TiVo, a wireless pad and a desktop near you. Check them out, if it is good enough, remember that open source products are always improving, deploy away.
“to the extent the open source model gains increasing market acceptance, sales of the company’s products may decline, the company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and operating margins may consequently decline.”
I hope so Windows XP home is like around $150, even SuSE linux pro is cheaper. Really if the media, besides linux magizines, started giving linux some atention it would be a lot easier for someone to know what linux is.
[/i]”…In other words, his imaginary scenario [an IBM PC monopoly] would not have been quite as dramatic as he would like it to seem.”[i]
I don’t agree with you on this point. Are you old enough to remember the IBM MCA (MicroChannel Architecture) go-for-broke PC hardware lock-in initiative of the early 90’s? Compaq and Microsoft (and other vendors) ganged up and produced the EISA standard to counter and defeat MCA, but if this had not happened, IBM would have become a PC hardware monopoly pretty much exactly as the article suggests. The EISA vs. MCA battle was a scary inflection-point in the history of the PC, even moreso than the OS/2 vs. NT battle, IMHO.
I remember hearing a story during OS/2’s hayday, that a man wanted to buy an IBM laptop, and wanted OS/2 on it. IBM didn’t support OS/2 on their line of laptops. Even during a “Demand OS/2!” ad campaign by the marketing/software side, IBM hardware didn’t support the OS on their OWN software. Bill exagerated a little when he stated that it was IBM full force pushing OS/2.
Why did IBM come in contact with DR and MS in the first place when they certainly had the ability to develop and spin-off a micro-computer OS (firm?) of their own? Firms like IBM and General Motors have a lion’s share of the engineering talent, and are so well entrenched in so many areas, that they never fail to make lots of money (honestly or not). These large firms make or break smaller up-and-coming firms, thats a fact of life in the technology world; it may well be part of how national security works. Of course, these firms still have to execute, or the’re allowed to die; Gates and Ballmer apparently have executed very well. OS/2 was never intended to compete with Win-3. OS/2 required a 486/66 box with 16MB (very expensive at that time) to work well at a time when most users in the mass-market were using 8088 and 286 boxes (approx. 1990). Win-3 required a 386 and 8MB, and the computer media writers hyped Win-3 to the moon; exhorting the masses of PC users to upgrade to a 386 box (so whats new?). Like Linux, OS/2 was difficult to install. As a user of both OS/2 (offline) and Win-Me, I think that OS/2 is an excellent desktop OS (far superior to Win-3/9x), and that no version of Linux will ever be as easy to install as Win-Me/XP on a box thats certified by MS to run it. Because MS have always been deeply involved with hardware (IBM PC mobos, 8086 accelerator board for Win-1,2, logo certification) and its integration with software (cutting total system costs), they are now in a position (with the PC makers and EMS firms) to cut prices and compete head-to-head with OSS. The OSS community apparently have no software/hardware integration strategy, nor do they have the clout probably necessary to execute it. The dial-up modem, which is probably the biggest key weakness for the MS dot-net strategy apparently is not exploitable by OSS or Linux.
Yeah, I remember that. And you’re right. However, that’s a seperate issue from the OS issue–that was about the same time as the OS/2 vs. Windows battle, but that’s hardware.
By the way, has anyone else noticed that IBM loses just about every potential monopoly it has? BIOS, the above-mentioned architecture, etc. Had they won with OS/2, someone else would have cloned it; IBM would have sued, but they would have lost. History speaks volumes! 😉
“Why did IBM come in contact with DR and MS in the first place when they certainly had the ability to develop and spin-off a micro-computer OS (firm?) of their own?”
Actually IBM didn’t have any such ability. Before it came out with the PC, IBM was ruled by the “big iron”, where margins were high, product cycles were long, and nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. The PC was dreamed up by a small team in Boca Raton, and given 18 months and a meagre budget to implement it. In fact, the budget only stretched as far as buying pre-existing components, and the only internal development was the BIOS. Apparently, nobody in IBM at that time knew how to write code for a micro architecture, so they went shopping for an OS and some apps. Enter DOS and Visicalc and the rest, as they say, is history.
“OS/2 was never intended to compete with Win-3.”
Not exactly. It WAS intended to compete with Windows 2.0, which scared MS and accelerated Windows 3.0, and ultimately MS dumping development of OS/2. But had IBM gone ahead with 32-bit architecture like MS wanted, then very likely Windows would no longer exist, and MS would still be an apps developer.
>>>Recent IIS vs Apache Benchmark?
By Jim (IP: —.hvc.rr.com) – Posted on 2003-03-23 17:18:09
http://www .mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
Jim, as a technical person who has used NT since 3.5, performed hundreds of IIS installs, and an MCSE….
you are an idiot.
lol, the benchmark is ancient, yes. That is the reason I asked for recent benchmarks. Linux advocates are a very vocal minority. It is my opinion that if the results have changed in the last 4 years there is not one advocate that would pass up the opportunity to give MS a black eye, but I have found no such benchmarks. I find it hard to believe nobody has done an IIS vs Apache benchmark in the last 4 years, so where are they? Your ball.
Look where is has gotten Microsoft, they have an OS with backwards compatibility so that all the complainers can run their 20 year old DOS applications yet on the other hand they’re trying to juggle fixing security and bugs whilst maintaining backwards compatibility.
It is about time people realised two things:
1) It is up to the software producer NOT the operating system producer to maintain compatibility. These software companies KNOW 3-6months in advance what to expect in the new operating system, therefore, it is up to THEM to produce patches that will address the so-called “incompatibilities”.
2) The most important process the operating system manufacturer should do is address bugs and security holes NOT worrying about complainers who can’t get their 20year old win16 application to work.
Take those two steps and we will have a rock solid and secure Windows. It will never happen because there are several million Johnny cheapskates who don’t want to upgrade once every 20years. I say, as quoting The Castle (Australian Film) “suffer in your jocks!”.
Ok, something is wrong here. Either they have a very unrepresentative sample, making the whole survey BS, or the “macs have 3% market share” isn’t correct either.
Something is wrong here. You aren’t understanding the figure. He isn’t asserting that 18% of desktops are macs but rather that 18% of corporations surveyed had at least one mac installation. So for example if the 25 people in creative arts use macs while the other 3000 employees use PCs that would count as an installation that uses macs and an installation that uses PCs.
To make an even broader example there is probably under 20,000 zSeries machines in use at all. I’d bet though that 50% of the Fortune 1000 use one.
i hate when people are reasonable;-)
you make it difficult for me to light you up. so i will return the civility. i retract my statement that you are an idiot 😉
as to the benchmarks. it’s never been a real concern of mine. i know first hand that the performance of iis AND apache, in regards to the ability to handle a load efficiently, is *good enough* in 90% of the cases.
that means that other variables come into play as to which web server one might choose.
for various reasons, i run apache on a freebsd server. i’m totally confident in my current setup provides me a faster, more secure, easier to manage server. on less expensive hardware to boot.
i like the response times of the apache developers vs. microsoft.
i know you want hard numbers…i don’t have any. just years of experience. when i started out using IIS…i had no hard numbers that convinced me to use it….i just did..it was there, it was fairly easy to setup. my experience was mostly positive.
now i’m on apache/bsd, in much the same way. just started trying it. my experience is more positive then the iis experience. there are other benefits as well that have less to do with apache vs. iis, but more to do with the underlying host system. that would be windows vs. freebsd.
would i still run an iis/windows server? for a client yes. but i would not want it exposed to the internet at all. intranet stuff, sure…if they insisted.
i won’t run it for myself.
OS/2 *always* (sometimes with difficulty!
run on non-IBM machines. How could IBM control the hardware if OS/2’s running on non-IBM machines? Shows how much the author knew.
Though matter how fast IIS runs, it is a pretty common fact that the webserver is the most vunerable kind of server – and a webserver running a HTTP software that is the most vunerable in the market is NOT my cup of tea 🙂
Besides, Apache performance is pretty much relative to where and how to install it.
The previous announymous post from the same IP is from me, FYI.
Captain Chris: 1. They were using Intel chips long before that; other OS’s would still be able to run on “IBM compatibles” (how long has it been since you heard that phrase?)
Most Windows licenses are via OEMs, agreed? So in this case, IBM doesn’t have to pay itself more than the R&D cost while they can charge pretty much anmy price to the clone makers. In fact, this was the reason they fail, but if they didn’t do this first and then only did it after gaining a monopoly, it would have a far worser effect on consumers. The courts can intervene? Read below.
Captain Chris: 2. If IBM were to take any steps whatsoever to make their entire system proprietary, the SEC would have stepped in and broken up the entity, causing OS/2 to be spun off (with or without a lawsuit).
The Justice Department took more than 4 years to get to a judgement regarding the Netscape case which is pretty small in comparison with both hypotectical scenarios – how fast can the courts intervene? No less than 4 years.
ThanatosNL: Binary compatibility? Package management? ‘Coz if you have the source code, you can generally compile it.
If Sun acknowlegdes the very importance of binary compatible, it is important. Not all applications have source code, and not all open source applications are the bets for their job. What happens if you are using Oracle, you need to upgrade your version of Red Hat but Oracle doesn’t support it yet – what do you do?
Besides, a year of binary compatiblity isn’t enough… heck, it is far from enough. If I have to recompile/reinstall my software every year or stick with older software – what’s the point? Besides the fact that what about the closed source applications?
Especially GNOME, which is really starting to look clean and polished enough for mainstream use.
GNOME is far from mainstream usage. In fact KDE is getting there faster. Sure, it is more cluttered, but it is quite easy for distributions to clean up the clutter – and some do like Xandros.
NZheretic: Recent/Modern Linux distributions provide a compatable Linux Standard Base ( http://www.linuxbase.org/ ) for third party and proprietary software developers.
LSB, from what I’ve seen, is a step in the right direction. But still, unless you love statically linking everything, all it does is reduce the development time of developers because they don’t have to port their software to different distributions and they just have to worry about the product itself and the packages.
Besides, what happen if the app you were running on Red Hat 7.3, you want to run on Mandrake 9.1 – you can’t. Why? glibc and GCC binary compatiblity is broken.
NZheretic: Microsoft is still abusing it’s position in the market to prevent the newer Linux[snip]
Actually, the court case is about BeOS, not Linux. Linux was only used in the court case as a viable upcoming competition.
mburns: IBM didn’t support OS/2 on their line of laptops.
It must be a old line of laptops.
Donny_S: Why did IBM come in contact with DR and MS in the first place when they certainly had the ability to develop and spin-off a micro-computer OS (firm?) of their own?
To look good at courts, mostly.
Captain Chris: Had they won with OS/2, someone else would have cloned it; IBM would have sued, but they would have lost.
If cloning OS/2 is possible, isn’t cloning Windows possible too? Cloning BIOS in comparison with OS/2 is far easier my friend. Not to say it isn’t complicated.
SofaShark: Not exactly. It WAS intended to compete with Windows 2.0, which scared MS and accelerated Windows 3.0, and ultimately MS dumping development of OS/2.
Indeed Microsoft was scared, and for Windows 3.x, they spent more money on it than on OS/2 – more marketing money too. The deal between IBM and Microsoft at that time was that Windows and OS/2 wouldn’t compete directly with each other. Which means, Windows gets the average grandma grandpa while OS/2 gets the banks and offices. Of course Microsoft didn’t like the idea too much – most grandma and granpas that time couldn’t really afford computers.
Anonymous: How could IBM control the hardware if OS/2’s running on non-IBM machines?
OEMs. Pricing OEMs high. Pricing OEMs really high so they can’t compete with you. Easy. Think.