Microsoft open source OS theoretical discussion
polycounter lvl 18
This is an interesting read.
How does Microsoft face the growing challenges from open source, asks technology commentator Bill Thompson?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4727267.stm
How does Microsoft face the growing challenges from open source, asks technology commentator Bill Thompson?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4727267.stm
Replies
Both have thier strength as seriously speaking the article doesn't really speak for the adverage user. The problem with Linux is the entire package because of how it's run.
Although yes you can say that each Linux variation is working to the same standards (posix) the problem is that none of them can agree on a single executable format. They can't agree on one hell of a lot of things actually.
Often the in-fighting between the distros all trying to become 'the best Linux solution' is leading to one of the main reasons for Linuxs' abject ability to only be used by University Students and people who think they're "1337".
I have a distro on here, but purely for development purposes with Mono .NET. As such it's only used when I need to test that something works cross-platform. Other than that I'm using Windows or MacOSX.
It isn't the compatibility that these Operating Systems have that keep me using them though. Although yeah that's really awesome. It's how you use them.
Despite having used computers literally all my life, I don't want to have to use the Command Shell unless I absolutely have too. After all what's the point in a Graphics Interface if your forced to constantly use the Shell?
This is another issue I've often found to be extremely annoying. Let's forget for a second that there are so few drivers supporting Linux because of how difficult it is to make them (or make them capable of running on all distros), and focus on the end-user actually trying to install them.
There are only 2 Systems I currently know that provide simple solutions to install drivers. I use the term simple loosely too.
Gentoo, and Ubuntu. Both provie almost single-click options to install drivers.
However problems still lie in the fact that each time you do install a new driver you often have to risk it being incompatible with the Kernel leading to an unstable system.
More to the point is it can take an hour even more depending on the speed of you computer to install them.
Upgrading Linux is not a small job in terms of man-hours or effort. Knowlage of how the system works also often is a pre-requisit.
I think another main issue is, the public has grown up with Windows. As far as many understand in order for a computer to work it needs Microsoft Windows. This on it's own doesn't matter so much because given the right advertisement to hit the public and let them know about a product and they'll use it.
(Case & Point: Sony vs Nintnedo)
But this brings me to my next real point. Ease of use.
Windows has for the past 10years had a very simplistic interface that doesn't baffle users. Linux has tried to emulate this, but in thier bid to be "different" they've changed how things works and what is located where.
The issue here is Windows users just can't migrate without teething problems. As most people who use a product will need to be impressed and find it easy to use within minutes of trying, those first impressions are crucial. Something that every distro I have used to date has failed upon.
If you combine this with childish support services, that if you want real support you have to pay extra for. (Remember most adverage users again would buy from a shop not download for free) This doesn't seem fair from them perspective of the Consumer.
In all Microsoft have nothing to worry about. Vista may have been recieved poorly (mainly due to most people think the name is stupid), but they have to remember the reception if from the industry, and/or veteran computer users. They understand the score and Vista on the surface shows little evolution from Windows XP.
(there are also other factors though, like the recent cut-off of Corporate License support on Windows Update.. companies are REALLY not liking that)
Thing is, it isn't all those industry professionals and such that make up Microsoft's largest profit margin. It's the hundreds of millions of other users who know how to turn on thier computer and that it can be used to go online.
Those are the people you have to appeal to. Microsoft do a bloody good job at that, as do Apple. Currently the market shares also clearly show, that while Linux is being downloaded and used more often now. It is almost guarenteed that 1:3 of these Linux users will have a Microsoft Windows Dual-Boot. So Microsoft aren't loosing much, if any business over these recent trends.
Interesting article non the less. Still I always chringe when I read that guys' opinion on the Linux vs Windows market. IMO Children use Linux, Professionals use Unix.
It would be basicly a 'if you can't beat it, join it' strategy.
The point is though, that with that move Microsoft would be just another (although big and mighty) player in the 'OS game' and with that they would loose all their precious monopoly tactics, which are their main point of income right now.
But as I said, it sure is possible, and I wouldn't really mind such a situation (at least it is better than what we have right now).
Edit: Well I disagree on a couple of things Raven said concerning Linux, but I don't want to start another flame war
Well, I don't see that (fantasy) happen, but it is not completly unlikely either.
It would be basicly a 'if you can't beat it, join it' strategy.
The point is though, that with that move Microsoft would be just another (although big and mighty) player in the 'OS game' and with that they would loose all their precious monopoly tactics, which are their main point of income right now.
But as I said, it sure is possible, and I wouldn't really mind such a situation (at least it is better than what we have right now).
Edit: Well I disagree on a couple of things Raven said concerning Linux, but I don't want to start another flame war
[/ QUOTE ]
They already have a Unix build. It'd only Linux they have a problem with, not Open Source or anything associated with it. Personally I can see the issues with Linux too.
It's hardly become what Linus Torvals has envisioned.
He was a clever businessman in the the 80s, but now he's like the previous Nintendo CEO. A dinosaur unwilling to change his ways and views of the world to fit.
With this so-called 'Google' threat quite quite frankly looks like Bill Gates Vs Google tbh, simply because they're making him look like a piss-poor business man. Pure Ego fight if you ask me.
As far as Bill Vs Open Source goes... well we all know he's all about the Benjamins. Though as far as Microsoft go, they seem to be quite happily moving the company as a whole forward.
Personally I think it's time the Senior Microsoft staff step down and let the younger generation take control. It's why the company is starting to really show signs of cracking, and why Bill is so determined to patent everything. (Thank god the EU have set our back to be revised YAY for another 5years of no Software Patents!)
It's basically because they can't terrorist the industry like they were once able to. Open Source in particular threatens Bill Gate's business tactics. You can't buy-out, and you can't force it off the market. The only way to get rid of it as a threat is to *gasp* produce better software.
While tbh Microsoft software has always been better, because they do have far more talent. It's the companies image that hurts it the most, because of the Nazi like nature of Bill Gates and his legal team. If they were to charge a more reasonable amount for Windows, and stop bullying companies into submission or buying them out in order to steal new technology. Instead let thier programmers do what they do best, be creative and come up with solutions.
Then Microsoft can move forward as a company and hopefully dispell this "Micro$oft" image. That just simply ticks everyone off. This recent bout of copy-cat nature isn't winning over fans.
I for one am completely disgusted at the new look to Explorer. Sure it's the most advanced browser to hit the market, but FGS it looks like FireFox. You know the reason I don't use FireFox? Because it looks like a retarded monkey put the UI together. Feels like that to use too.
The reason I prefer Explorer is because it's far more simplistic. The only time I use Mozilla is when browsing in Maya. Personally I don't see why they didn't mimic the design that the Visual Studio 2005 team created. Now that is a lovely browser design to use.
It's the same with other aspects of the company though.
Microsoft is just dribbling from being original for the x86 platform, to the market trailers hoping to keep current market shares they own.
It's no longer a case of attacking and capturing the market but bitterly holding on to what they currently have. All this is going to achieve is the downfall of the company overall. They're biggest threat doesn't even come from a free Operating System either.
MacOSX x86 will be out late next year, basically the same time as Windows Vista. Which is quite frankly better. They also have a much larger portion of the market currently than Linux can ever hope to secure with it's constant bickering.
Microsoft might own a portion of Mac, but not enough to stop them if they decide to truely compete. This is a likely situation that I just don't think Microsoft are paying attention too.
You ever wonder why the pure .NET design of Vista was scrapped? They claimed teething problems, but anyone who used the Beta knows that's BS. They're original .NET Kernels were running just fine.
Personally I think the reason is dotGNU and more-over Mono .NET. With these products Linux/Unix/MacOSX or any OS created can be fully compatible with Microsoft .NET 1.x, with 2.0 support on the way. Sure it'll always be slightly behind in terms of implimentation and slightly more buggy, but it does mean compatibility on a scale that could hurt Microsoft's dominance.
Imagine is people could run Microsoft products for free without complex setups, under say SuSE (which is a very easy to use Linux)?
Why would you shell out £70-120 for Windows Vista, when you can have SuSE 9.3 as a free download or £20 DVD/CD version.. being able to run all your favourite applications and games as you can on Windows?
I'm sure this is the reason for the drop of many of the ground-breaking and what could've been the first step in OS evolution since Windows 95.
Yet to protect assets Microsoft decides once again to trail. They're going to have to face facts though, it's going to happen sometime. Personally I'd prefer to be the leader forcing the industry direction, rather than just another croney vying for consumer attention.
But then again I'm not the Billionaire Business Moogle.
I agree with the statement saying that the young ones need to take control, but from what i've read about those guys, it seems they're all a bit brainwashed. They're all "OMG WINDOZE YEH!!" or they rant about how good IE is.
Then again, those articles were linked to me by mozilla-nuts, so it's safe to assume there were less irritating articles as well.