“Here’s a theory you hear a lot these days: “Microsoft is finished. As soon as Linux makes some inroads on the desktop and web applications replace desktop applications, the mighty empire will topple.” Although there is some truth to the fact that Linux is a huge threat to Microsoft, predictions of the Redmond company’s demise are, to say the least, premature.” Read Joel’s commentary here.
How Microsoft Lost the API War
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“64 bit is 32 bit compatible and MS cannot afford to drop compatibility.”
I never said that they would. You’re making assumptions, and bad ones at that. What I am saying is that the NEW compilers will be .NET/WinFX only. They aren’t going to be making Win32 apps forever you know. Seen any brand spanking new Win16 apps lately? No? I thought not.
“thats nonsense.”
That’s funny.
“I never said that they would. You’re making assumptions, and bad ones at that. What I am saying is that the NEW compilers will be .NET/WinFX only”
thats exactly what is called dropping compatibility. 16 to 32 was easy. market share was very low compared to what it is now. not today. dropping 32 bit is very hard. winfx only wont happen for quite sometime. people will be inclined to switch to other OS rather than drop win32 api completely. .net is better but is it worth the pain of switching is what joel asks. he is exactly hitting the point. you arent
“That Eclipse is an great application is out of question. And Eclipse is definatly not a IBM mass product, where they earn massive money with it.”
Steve – You haven’t been following IBM on their new “On-Demand Workplace” that was recently announced. It consists as follows:
Client side: A Rich Client Platform based on Eclipse it uses a new XML markup language RCPML for getting rich apps from the servers, i.e. the new Lotus Notes messaging. It has built in Openoffice based editors and connects to a database for its new document control system.
Server side: Websphere to serve the RCPML and DB2 for the docementation control system.
There will also be mobile implementations with a local database for Notebooks and even PDA’s that can then sync to the servers when on-line.
It is rather unfortunate OSnews didn’t cover this when it was announced (are you reading this Eugenia) but there is quite a good discussion on the IBM Workplace and how it relates to Eclipse in eWeek:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1592268,00.asp
Quite true. This is why I found this ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=111332&cid=9447722 ) attitude irritating. Basically computing’s maturing (not just programming), and if people want to stay in IT? They will have to either “learn or die”, be it in the US, or elsewere. Now what to learn is hard, but then that’s always been an issue for any technical field.
“people will be inclined to switch to other OS rather than drop win32 api completely.”
That’s a really dumb argument, saying that they won’t drop Win32 completely, but they will drop it completely by adopting a completely different OS.
“.net is better but is it worth the pain of switching is what joel asks.”
Right smart guy. It’s easier to switch to another OS that has no backwards compatibility to Windows applications than it is to migrate to a new version of Windows that is nearly completely backwards compatible on a new computer? You are obviously so completely delusional as to be completely beyond anything resembling reason.
“he is exactly hitting the point. you arent”
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that you’re nothing but an opinionated troll, who’s not open to outside ideas, and I’m not going to waste my time by talking with you further.
the reason that i have not switched yet is that my expensive music aplications (Orion Platinum, cubase, cakewalk, acid pro 4, sound forge, and my 4000$ worth of vst plugins) will not run on linux under wine.. as soon as wine works better or reactos http://www.reactos.com works better i will no longer be using windows. Reactos is preffered, because in all honesty i find the architechture of posix filesystems archaic and would rather deal with fat32 over any posix file system no matter how efficient.
It is very very difficult to not follow IBM’s strategy if you are an Advanced Business Partner (wich I am).
btw: IBM is so huge, that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
…but after skimming many of the comments I can only conclude that Joel’s article on Google Zeitgeist was *way* off base! 😀
Favored might imply it is done with the intention to do so; that is not what i’m implying.
It may, however, that was not what I was driving at. I don’t think any bias – if it existed – would be intentional.
The option that -with or without intention (doesn’t matter to me) one is in advantage over another is indeed one i find possible and because of the lack of the details i think i -and you- are not able to finnish the whole puzzle. Because of the lack of several stacks which are missing (which are becoming more and more as i see it) i find the possibility the statistic is not accurate more and more likely.
I think another issue here is that you are trying to interpret the numbers as giving “excact” or “accurate” figures and think I am as well. I’m not. I don’t think the numbers are accurate, I think they’re indicative of *general* trends. In other words, I’m not trying to say that the zeitgeist definitely says Linux has 1% (or 3%), I’m saying that it *indicates* that Linux still has an insignificantly low share of the market.
Yes — an assumption. I do not want to assume such, because i’m not able in any way to know details on this. I’m able to state examples of relevant, niche platforms which generally are never using a WWW browser. Does that apply to your terms of discrimination?
No, because they’re simply not a significant chunk of the market and there’s no reason to think they favour one platform’s numbers over another. The number of people still using Amigas is not going to take Windows’ marketshare from 90% to 60%.
Here is also exactly where we differ, methinks. I find inaccuracies very fast relevant, and the danger with inaccurate statistics (a lot are) is when the inaccuracies are not pointed out; ignored in order to gain trust and credibility, sacrificing honesty and clearity. When the statistic is then used to draw other conclusions for example with a few other statistics we get this problem of so-called “inaccurate conclusions”.
I think the big difference is that I’m happy to just use the numbers as a rough guide, because I’m only interested in that, whereas you want to be able to get more exact figures.
In other words, I’m not trying to say that the zeitgeist definitely says Linux has 1% (or 3%), I’m saying that it *indicates* that Linux still has an insignificantly low share of the market.
That may not be significant to *you*, but that still represents 24 million computers. Enough of a critical mass to build upon, IMO.
Anyway, the prize goes to A.Coward for best comment. We really shouldn’t be discussing Google Zeitgest in an article about Microsoft’s API fiasco. At least we all seem to agree that Google’s stats are not representative of market share, and therefore shouldn’t be used as an anti-Linux marketing tool…
You haven’t given good arguments as to why my arguments would be wrong, and no figures to contradict mine.
Seems to me your arguments are about as strong as mine. Apart from the higher proportion of broadband users in the Linux market – which I agree with – it’s all “I think this, I think that”.
Right. You’re not very good at math, are you? What matters is not the absolute numbers, but the proportions. If 20% of Windows users would be underepresented, then it would balance out with 20% of the Linux underepresented (20% of 3%, if you will).
So 20% (Windows 2k+NT) of 90% (all Windows) isn’t a big enough proportion of 100% (all computers) to compare to 85% (Linux broadband) of 3% (your estimate of all Linux) of 100% (all computers) ?
And you think this is going to make enough difference to the figures to be significant ?
But anyway that doesn’t matter. You’re trying to confuse the issues (as I predicted you would). The important figure is that 35% of computer users have broadband: that means about 35% of Windows users, whether or not they use Win2K, Win98, etc.
Meanwhile, 85% of Linux users have broadband. That’s where the discrepancy lies, and that’s why Linux users are underepresented.
I haven’t argued with this. I argue with your conclusion that the difference it makes matters.
When I mentioned the fact that Linux users were more computer-savvy, it wasn’t to support the fact that Linux users are underepresented, but rather to justify why the proportion of broadband users was higher.
I know. And by the same logic, Windows 2000 and NT users are similarly under-represented.
But since you obviously don’t care about this argument, you’re predictably trying to distort it instead of answering it.
I have answered it. Even if we were to assume every single one of your assumptions and best case scenarios were correct (a foolish thing to do at the best of times), it would still only bump Linux into the region of 5%.
Right. Sorry, but personal experience is worthless to figure out statistics.
No, it’s worthless for trying to convince people who don’t know you of your argument.
Anyway, since you’re obviously biased against Linux, this would unconsciously taint your estimates.
Obviously, since not being a frothing at the mouth Linux evangelist means I’m biased against it.
Agreed. Though I can guarantee you drsmithy won’t be able to refrain from posting one more message about it!
Correct. Given that the purpose of forums is to discuss, I’m not quite sure why I shouldn’t.
And yet they do not represent an accurate account of market share. Otherwise, companies wouldn’t be paying thousands of dollars to research firms to get accurate market share numbers.
I don’t think anyone has tried to claim they do represent an accurate account of market share. I’m pretty sure everyone agrees they only represent a *rough idea* of market share.
No one’s questioning the numbers. It’s what those numbers mean that are in question. The methodology, if you will.
Uh, your entire argument revolves around questioning the numbers (or, more correctly, whether those numbers are accurate).
What the numbers mean have not even entered into the discussion. It’s all been about whether Linux has 1%, 3% or maybe even 5% of the market.
Yes, another insult from a wintroll! I’m on a roll!
It never ceases to amazes me how anyone not beating the “anything but Windows” drum is a “wintroll”.
Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone seriously challenging my arguments…
That’s because they don’t have any substance to challenge.
The “guy” runs the Linux Counter web site. The figure represents registered Linux users (more than 140,000), and so should give a good ballpark of the proportion of broadband Linux users. I’ve also given pretty good hypothesis as why Linux users would favor broadband. I notice you haven’t tried to address these as well.
Uh huh, a self-selecting poll that only more technical and “enthusiastic” users are likely to have even heard of, let alone participated in (90% of respondents are using Linux at home) that appears to have sampled in the region of 0.5 to 1.5% of the estimated total of Linux machines out there (depending on which percentage you want to use).
Yup. Can’t imagine how that could possibly be biased towards respondents who have broadband.
(Another entertaining statistic from that site – apparently ~60% of people registering as Linux users did it from a browser that claims to be running on Windows.)
As I said earlier – I think browsers mis-identifying themselves would have a *much* greater influence on the figures than whether or not people have broadband.
I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m thoroughly unimpressed
I was not trying to impress a troll. I was not even talking to you.
Get lost, Linux zealot.
So 20% (Windows 2k+NT) of 90% (all Windows) isn’t a big enough proportion of 100% (all computers) to compare to 85% (Linux broadband) of 3% (your estimate of all Linux) of 100% (all computers) ?
As I’ve said, you’re not very good at math – or, more likely, you’re trying to obfuscate the issue, which I notice seems to be your favorite debating tactic.
Look at it this way: 20% of Windows users are underepresented, while 85% of Linux users are underpresented. Therefore, Linux users are, on average, more likely to be underepresented by a factor of 4:1. That’s all you need to know. The actual market share percentage is irrelevant, and bringing it into the equation is useless (or an exercise in obfuscating, as I’m more inclined to believe now).
Even if we were to assume every single one of your assumptions and best case scenarios were correct (a foolish thing to do at the best of times), it would still only bump Linux into the region of 5%.
This is a significant amount. But since we’re not going with “best case scenarios”, we can settle for a more realistic 2.5% (which is consistent with the Linux Counter estimate).
Anyway, market share doesn’t matter as much as growth. And in that area, Linux has shown some remarkable progress.
Obviously, since not being a frothing at the mouth Linux evangelist means I’m biased against it.
Come on, you’ve been posting on this site long enough for everyone to know that you’re biased against Linux. You’re just being ridiculous, now!
I’ve read quite a few of your posts before, and you haven’t changed: determined to have the last word, even though you don’t bring any real arguments but rather try to confuse the debate.
That’s because they don’t have any substance to challenge.
More substance than your non-arguments, however.
It never ceases to amazes me how anyone not beating the “anything but Windows” drum is a “wintroll”.
No, people who attack me and insult me because I defend Linux are wintrolls. I don’t care if people use Windows – hey, I’m a Windows user, and I have been since Windows 2.0…you’re trying to pigeonhole me, now. Well, I guess you don’t have much of a choice, seeing how you haven’t been able to come up with a single valid counter-argument.
Uh huh, a self-selecting poll that only more technical and “enthusiastic” users are likely to have even heard of, let alone participated in (90% of respondents are using Linux at home) that appears to have sampled in the region of 0.5 to 1.5% of the estimated total of Linux machines out there (depending on which percentage you want to use).
In statistics, 1% of a total population is more than enough to make a good estimate – if that population is large enough. In any case, Linux users are known to be technical (geeks) and enthusiastic (zealots), so this shouldn’t play against the Linux Counter in this case, now, would it?
Yup. Can’t imagine how that could possibly be biased towards respondents who have broadband.
Make up your mind: are you challenging the broadband figure, or are you not? Do you agree that Linux users are overwhelmingly users of broadband, or not? Is the Google Zeitgeist a dependable index of market share, or not?
It would help you make a convincing argument if you showed a modicum of consistency…just wanting to have the last word at any cost isn’t enough, you know. You actually have to say something. But then again, you’re here to obfuscate.
Well, you can have the last word, I’m moving on to the next thread. See ya!
Thank you for proving once again that you have nothing to say if it’s not part of your anti-Linux agenda.
Methinks you’re not simpley a MS Zealot, but you’re in fact an astroturfer. How much is MS paying you a week? Or is it per message? One thing’s for sure, they’re certainly not getting their money’s worth!!!
And now, I will do as you suggest, and get lost…into antoher thread. Russian Pitbulls and Obfuscatrolls bore me.
Look at it this way: 20% of Windows users are underepresented, while 85% of Linux users are underpresented. Therefore, Linux users are, on average, more likely to be underepresented by a factor of 4:1.
On the other hand, *as a proportion of the whole*, said under-represented Linux users are vastly outsized by under-represented Windows users.
That’s all you need to know.
No, it isn’t, because in a discussion about linux marketshare *as part of the whole market*, the proportion *of the whole market* they represent is a somewhat important aspect of the discussion.
The actual market share percentage is irrelevant, and bringing it into the equation is useless (or an exercise in obfuscating, as I’m more inclined to believe now).
“The actual market share percentage” is one of the main points you’re discussing, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, market share doesn’t matter as much as growth. And in that area, Linux has shown some remarkable progress.
Not by any of the numbers presented in this discussion, it hasn’t.
Well, I guess you don’t have much of a choice, seeing how you haven’t been able to come up with a single valid counter-argument.
Ignoring them doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Come on, you’ve been posting on this site long enough for everyone to know that you’re biased against Linux. You’re just being ridiculous, now!
Of course I am. I have Linux machines at home. I recommend Linux machines to my clients. A significant part of my current job revolves around administering Linux machines.
Yep, I sure am biased against Linux.
I’ve read quite a few of your posts before, and you haven’t changed: determined to have the last word, even though you don’t bring any real arguments but rather try to confuse the debate.
Because if I just posted “you’re wrong”, you’d be perfectly happy to agree, right ?
No, people who attack me and insult me because I defend Linux are wintrolls.
But it’s fine for you to attack and insult people who disagree with you ?
In statistics, 1% of a total population is more than enough to make a good estimate – if that population is large enough.
And the sample is unbiased.
In any case, Linux users are known to be technical (geeks) and enthusiastic (zealots), so this shouldn’t play against the Linux Counter in this case, now, would it?
It would suggest that the registrations it lists are biased towards more technical and enthusiastic users, which would subsequently skew any assumptions made based on their attributes.
Make up your mind: are you challenging the broadband figure, or are you not?
Not really, but it’s got SFA to do with the “Linux Counter” and everything to do with experience and reason.
Do you agree that Linux users are overwhelmingly users of broadband, or not?
Yes.
Is the Google Zeitgeist a dependable index of market share, or not?
It’s a reasonable *rough* indication of marketshare.
It would help you make a convincing argument if you showed a modicum of consistency…just wanting to have the last word at any cost isn’t enough, you know. You actually have to say something. But then again, you’re here to obfuscate.
My positions haven’t changed.
* The zeitgeist is a reasonable representation of marketshare.
* Linux users almost certainly have a higher proportion of broadband users.
* The under-representation this might result in *as part of the whole* would be more than outweighed by a similar under-representation for the same reasons on other platforms.
* There are certain aspects of the Linux demographic that probably make them over-represented by google.
* Similarly there are certain aspects of the Windows demographic that probably make them (less so) under-represented by google.
* Overall, any biases due to the collection method shouldn’t favour any platform significantly over another.
* Linux still has an insignificantly small chunk of the desktop market.
* Linux’s share of the desktop market does not appear to be growing at any significant rate.
Well, you can have the last word, I’m moving on to the next thread. See ya!
Undoubtedly.
fuck off
Your true colors? Dickass.
😛
But can you try and keep this conversation civil? You guys are giving OSNEWS a bad name.
~KTHXBI
so we have two options – rich client or browser application.
if a company has need for a rich client application then it could be written to run on a linux desktop – possibly with kylix/phpgtk/java – as these are managed memory solutions.
these applications could run on linux and if a company changes all of its desktops to linux they would have a stable/reliable platform which is running their application. due to the incremental nature of development of open source products they will have a relatively safe investment in this type of solution.
next thing – why not use thin-client with a central application server running everybody’s desktops – this would incorporate several advantages of browser based solutions (centralised code/easy upgrades etc) but also give the user a rich client interface.
kev bailey