Posted on 01/25/2009 1:53:54 PM PST by ShadowAce
Back in 2002, as Roy Schestowitz calls out, Microsoft was desperately trying to figure out a response to Linux. The problem wasn't Linux as a product-level competitor. The problem, as its Windows chief, Jim Allchin, told a small gathering of Microsoft partners (PDF), is that Linux changes the nature of software competition with odd things like "community" and "GPL licensing," the latter of which Microsoft didn't like one bit :
We feel a huge threat from Linux. Maybe we shouldn't, which is a question you could answer from your perspective...There's Linux the community. We're going to learn from Linux the community. Incredible what they did...We're going to practice and practice and practice (to learn how to respond to Linux)...
GPL is the licensing model. We thlnk it's very bad...We don't think it's the same as public domain. Somebody wants to put in a free DSB(?), we don't have a problem with that, at least on licensing. But GPL, we think it's very bad basically for the world, but especially for the United States.
This is not surprising, given that Allchin had earlier deprecated Linux as "an intellectual-property destroyer" in 2001.
But name-calling was proving not to be enough, and for a reason that Allchin and Microsoft struggled to grasp, but one that its partners, which distribute the bulk of Microsoft's software, felt first-hand on the front lines. When Allchin later asked the participants what the biggest driver of Linux is, they didn't mention its modularity, high performance, or other characteristics. Back in 2002 (and, indeed, today, in many instances), one thing mattered:
Linux was free.
Sure, there was the cost of deployment, training, etc., and Allchin called out the work Microsoft was going to do to "educate" the market through IDC and other analysts about the "true" costs of Linux, but price was why these Microsoft partners were starting to defect, in some instances, to Linux.
Allchin's response?
We'll never meet free."
And that is why Microsoft has struggled against open source, and why it will continue to do so. Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth called it out well over a year ago, arguing that the difference between $0.00 and $0.01 is huge and game changing. Microsoft can halve its price, and Allchin talks in the transcript about doing just that. But free? That's not its business model.
Given Microsoft's difficulty in competing with open source's price, it's perhaps not surprising that Allchin hinted at another way of competing with Linux and open source: patents. Imposing a patent tax on open source is a viable way of raising its price tag beyond $0.00.
There's going to be a patent lawsuit on Linux. It's bound to happen...and the patent lawsuit won't really be about the license. It will be simply, "Hey, these guys took intellectual property." And whether the lawsuit comes from Wind River or in X, Y, Z, there's going to be one. Guaranteed. As I sit here today, I will guarantee you at some point there's going to be a challenge about the patents...
(H)ere's indemnification that is being passed on when you buy products from Microsoft. You don't get that (with Linux). And eventually, you know, in the litigious society that we live in, something is going to happen.
Was Allchin just speaking of probabilities, or was he hinting that Microsoft was going to help ensure a certainty? Well, as we later found out through Groklaw, Microsoft was hard at work all this time supporting SCO's lawsuit against the integrity of Linux and its patent rights, and later as it went public in Forbes with wild accusations of Linux's infringement of 235 of its patents, completely without (public) substantiation.
To its credit, Microsoft has not directly launched a lawsuit against any open-source vendors, and it has become far less strident lately against open source in terms of patent FUD. Indeed, Microsoft's history is not litigious and I doubt it ever will file any such lawsuit.
But until it learns how to effectively compete with "free," there's always the risk that it will feel compelled to defend its "right" to a proprietary business model by launching a lawsuit. As I noted in 2007, "Microsoft makes good software; it doesn't need to be a lumbering Lenny of a patent troll."
I still believe that. Let's hope Microsoft does, too. It can compete on product quality. It doesn't need to compete on patent quality.
Interesting concept, bringing a lawsuit against Linux. Who exactly would you bring to court? And would it even matter?
Yep, Windows 7 while better than Vista, cannot compete with good enough Ubuntu.
A lawsuit against what? After all, didn’t that work out splendidly for SCO?
They don't have to meet "free" - they just have to provide a product that's good enough, and reasonably-priced so that people will choose it over 'free'.
Bill Gates and Microsoft never infringed anybody’s IP, never “borrowed” source code, and always played above the board and transparently when it came to the ideas and rights of others...
(ouch! A monkey just flew out of my butt! OW! And another one! And another one!! Crikey! Somebody get me a crying towel!)
Microsoft can still compete with “free” as long as they are worth what they are charging. If they keep putting out crappy sofware that costs way too much, then they are doomed.
Get the price down to 50 bucks, and make it work. And this crap about not getting an “install” disk with your new computer needs to end real fast.
Yup. People will pay a premium for Apple products. No real reason why Microsoft can't do the same.
Except Microsoft.
It can't compete with expensive OS/X, either. Lots of squeezing being felt in Redmond. ;)
Of course, Microsoft could wise up one day, buy Sun, make Windows 8 a free O/S based on OpenSolaris, and require Windows 8 to support the next very expensive versions of Office and their server tools, but they'll probably continue to believe they can do things their own way.
There's the rub. With the constant, steady improvements in Linux, they're shooting at a moving target. Linux now supports more hardware than Windows does (including obsolete hardware), and the number of software packages that can perform whatever job you want to perform keeps growing as well.
The standard 2-5 year development cycle for Windows is now just way too long. The average Linux distro is undergoing major revisions every six months now. That is because the technology and the code is improving at a much faster rate than it was 10-15 years ago.
I currently work in a MS shop and it’s okay, the job is interesting and I’m continually learning some little nuance of MS stuff I wasn’t aware of.
And, our stuff does tend to stay up (unless someone higher up the food chain does something stupid, like load untested software on a root server in the domain, blowing up the domain schema, but, I digress....)
Anyway, I’m all for Unix, Linux and Windows. The more kinds of OS’s out there, the less chance of having “single point of failure” when it comes to various systems across the US.
I agree that OS/X is somewhat better ... Prettier.
But these days people want good enough and cheap. With the netbooks taking over, that's forever going to be more important.
Or MS could make Windows 7 just another Linux desktop ... Like apple did.
The high end stuff isn't even likely to succumb. The difference between Sun and standard PC is quite considerable when you talk about availability and error recovery. I doubt that will change much.
PCs are PCs and if they crap out, only their user cares. It's getting increasingly expensive if your server craps out, almost daily.
Useing Ubunta here.Paid $30 for ISO Buster,burned
a copy.After a week of Linux-its not difficult at all.
Ran Shields Up,invisible it said even before using
the Linux firewall (free) Firestarter
Plugged in my HP printer,done.Thought it was supposed
to be hard
The standard 2-5 year development cycle for Windows is now just way too long. The average Linux distro is undergoing major revisions every six months now. That is because the technology and the code is improving at a much faster rate than it was 10-15 years ago.The Linux codebase is crap. It's a badly reimplemented version of 1960's technology. Windows is far worse(windows NT wasn't but that's because they stole code from VMS) but that's like saying a Gremlin is better than a Yugo.
What makes Linux a game changer is its license, not its technological sophistication.
They should know they got MSDOS for almost free. Boohoo.
Or MS could make Windows 7 just another Linux desktop ... Like apple did.Mach is completely different from Linux. It's not even a Unix. Quartz and quartz-wm are completely different from the X model as well.
Just because OSX supports BSD and POSIX doesn't mean it *is* a Unix.
> Anyway, I’m all for Unix, Linux and Windows. The more kinds of OS’s out there, the less chance of having “single point of failure” when it comes to various systems across the US.
I’m the same. I learned my craft on VM/CMS just after Noah’s Flood, and have been thru UNIX in its various incarnations, CP/M, MS Dos, Windows, Mac OS... I’m not really bigoted about any of them.
If I had a favorite it would be VM/CMS followed by UNIX, and if I had a least favorite it would be Windows (because it isn’t an Operating System, it’s a file loader), but those preferences aren’t absolute. I’m using a Windows system now...
why would you want free? When your computer crashes who is gonna be there to fix it?
Microsoft also has to worry about all the software patents held by IBM that Windows infringes on.
The Windows source code would have to all be presented in court....not a very pretty thought I must say ;-)
Software patents are stoopid and evil...and IBM has lots of them just as MS does. Mutually Assured Destruction
The biggest threat to Microsoft’s business model is not Linux or OSS in general, it’s the immense base of already bought and paid for Microsoft products that are still perfectly adequate to meet their user’s needs.
Hint: Don't try installing CompizFusion on it -- it just messes everything up.
Sweet! :-)
Been with Slackware since 95. Never looked back. That said, there is enough room under the sun for both the proprietary/commercial versus open source code models. Use what is best for you.
Ummm, I believe the folks who define what Unix *is* have decided that OSX *is* Unix, as of Leopard 10.5
We could take a tangent off into whether those folks have the right to define what Unix is (and being a Unix-head since the mid-80's, Sys5, and so on I'd be tempted to), but at least for today, OSX most certainly is a Unix.
Incidentally, I believe that instead of "OSX supports BSD and POSIX", you actually meant, "OSX is a BSD derivative and is POSIX-compliant", right?
I’m simply tired of the Blue Screen of Death.
Ummm, I believe the folks who define what Unix *is* have decided that OSX *is* Unix, as of Leopard 10.5Figure out what a microkernel is and get back to me. Moron.We could take a tangent off into whether those folks have the right to define what Unix is (and being a Unix-head since the mid-80's, Sys5, and so on I'd be tempted to), but at least for today, OSX most certainly is a Unix.
Incidentally, I believe that instead of "OSX supports BSD and POSIX", you actually meant, "OSX is a BSD derivative and is POSIX-compliant", right?
I’m looking to get into a mixed Unix/Windows environment at some point. At least, that’s my goal.
I liked working with Unix (I learned Unix on SCO Openserver and Unixware) but don’t much care for Linux. The way I see it, if I want a GUI, I’ll use Windows, but command line..give me Unix every time.
It is not Linux, which is entirely different thing, and is merely similar to UNIX.
But Mac OS X is just as much UNIX as AIX, HP-UX and Solaris.
The windowing system it uses is irrelevant (although it certainly can run X11 as well).
Please see:
Good quality, at a reasonable price, can always compete with “free”. The problem that Microsoft has is that the system is a resource hog, and provides thousands of loopholes for malware (and simple crapware), to invade a user’s system. Many users don’t regard this as “good quality”.
> I liked working with Unix (I learned Unix on SCO Openserver and Unixware) but don’t much care for Linux. The way I see it, if I want a GUI, I’ll use Windows, but command line..give me Unix every time.
Same. Although about 20 years ago I saw something called “X/Windows” and it was running on a UNIX box. It was a nice looking GUI, more Mac-like than Windows-like, and the neat thing was that all windows seemed to be active concurrently.
My next machine will likely be Linux. My favorite flavor of UNIX is HP/ux but that isn’t really needed for a desktop machine.
I used to say “GUIs are for Girls” and I think I still believe it — but truth be told I’m as lazy as the next man, probably lazier than most. GUIs suit lazy people to a T.
ping for later
That's incorrect. Mac OS X is, in fact, UNIX.No it's not. It supports BSD system calls and has BSD code in the kernel, but it is *not* a Unix. Its BSD subsystem is Unix certified but the XNU/Mach kernel is a completely different beast entirely.
From the article and the responses posted here, one would think everybody was running Linux and Microsoft and Apple were out of business.
I seem to recall similar threads and responses for the last nine years. Does that mean Linux will have 5% of the desktop market in 9 more years rather than the 2% they have now?
If you really want UNIX, you can download Solaris free, or get OpenSolaris, which is open-source.
The default system utilties and shell are awful on most UNIXes, though. If you simply prefer an awful shell, you can download the sources to the original bourne shell here:
Microsoft’s competitive problems are the market working. It irritates the pants off liberals.
Wasn’t Linux a party to the Microsoft suit a few years back? Payback is a you-know-what. (I can’t say it, but it rhymes with rich.)
I’ve managed to find FreeBSD (book & CD) for next to nothing; if I can figure out what I’m doing and actually have the time (and use it for that), some of these hoary old boxes will have new lives. Either I’ll give ‘em to someone who needs computers for their kids, or set up my long-rumored “Whee! Republic” forum system here in the house. ;’)
Thanks for the ping and pic. The EEE, and that Acer model, have keyboards way too small for my hands, and the screens are like old Ataris. :’D My next computer (whatever year that happens) will probably be a notebook, and a Mac, but if these netbooks get much cheaper...
Does the EEE support external monitors? A tiny little $200 box like that wouldn’t be bad if it’s fairly fast, and can use a decent sized monitor (and a USB keyboard and mouse).
You loose the debate. When you have to resort to name calling rather than facts, you show you don’t have the facts supporting you.
You loose the debate. When you have to resort to name calling rather than facts, you show you don’t have the facts supporting you.Uuuum... you mean I "lose" the debate? UTFG before you pontificate next time.
You're making a fool out of yourself.
Can Linux run Photoshop, Phase One C1 or Lightroom?
The answer is no. It’s not good enough yet.
That will never happen of course, but they could significantly reduce the cost of the OS, fix the driver issues, and include a convenient package server/app-store for tested working software. That may bring them up to par with Linux, and with momentum, keep them at a healthy percentage of the market.
No, you aren't worth the effort.
Yeah, I can't wait until the Eee PC comes with nvidia's ion platform.
> You’re making a fool out of yourself.
How so?
No, you aren't worth the effort.Then your stupidity isn't my problem.
How so?Windows became a full multitasking OS as of NT. You're confusing it with DOS.
Why do people prefer Ford to GM?
Anyway, I should have said, I don’t much care for the Linux GUI. I don’t see the point.
It’s just a preference and an opinion.
Bookmark for later rumination.
Maybe I should have said *NIX based which is the real issue.
Yeah, I know, MS says their Windows abomination is POSIX as well. Windows is a giant monolithic hairball, which is what MS’s real problem is. Their design style guide resembles a giant pumpkin.
*NIX is a design style thing, as well as a OS organization issue. All the good OSes use the *NIX design style guide. MS is stealing some of the bits, but not the overall concepts.
I always thought, while mach was a good idea, the additional complexity wasn't needed. I would probably buy OS/X if it were available without the high priced hardward -- LOL.
Wifi performance as good as Xandros?
Any needed fixes after install? Does all the eeepc features work?
Do you think it would work well on an eeepc 900 16g? Linux Newbie here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.