Long article, but a good read
Posted on 05/17/2007 6:38:27 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Long article, but a good read
The PC really killed the general innovation of the computer industry, and Microsoft clogs up the development of decent, fun-loving software.
I’ve been a Windows user since Windows 3.0 but Windows Vista is the reason my next PC will be a Mac.
LOL what was his supposed point? That Apple and IBM are the saviors of open source? I guess he doesn't realize their own software products are mostly closed source and not free to copy, as well as both companies being patent hordes themselves.
The advent of the PC was the bane of my existence in the early days.
Probably the worst example that comes to mind was having to load up IBM's PC Access, Novell IPX, and TCP/IP on a bunch of PCs running DOS.
It could be done, but good luck trying to run anything like an application afterwards.
I think you got it backwards my friend. Before desktop computers arrived computers were locked behind glass and run only by those christened with a white coat. Now I'm even able to post this from a computer small enough to serve as a telephone as well, the migration of computers out of the data center and first to the desktops and now to fitting in one hand has been a marvelous transformation in technology that benefits the many not the few.
Pretty good analysis and commentary, if a little slanted.
The perspective one has on Microsoft's recent patent nonsense (pun intentional) is highly dependent on how one views Vista, specifically its success or failure.
If Vista had been delivered on-time, had been received well by customers and reviewers, and had sold well as an upgrade in addition to new machine pre-installs, this recent move to stomp FOSS with patents would be seen as the giant dealing the death blow to the renegade Linux penguin-heads.
But in fact, Vista was years late, has been panned in the press and rejected by customers, and is only selling in places where it's the only choice. As a result, this move against FOSS is seen as the dying gasp of an already fatally weakened dinosaur.
I believe the latter is the more accurate one (although both views are simplistic). As you know, I'm no Microsoft fan. But I hope that Microsoft does not die from this monumentally stupid move. Microsoft has a legitimate place in the software market, for the products that they sell in fair competition. I'd imagine they could hold somewhere between 35% and 50% of the market even after they shoot themselves in the foot here.
What I don't know for sure is whether their business model, which for two decades has been built on monopoly ownership of the market, can actually adapt successfully to honest competition. It might not, and that would be a shame for all, since as this article points out, the success of FOSS is dependent on standardized hardware that Microsoft made into a commodity. Remember when computer hardware was expensive? I sure do.
There is no FOSS-produced hardware, folks. Remember that.
That said, I'm glad to see the massive ship of Ballmer, Gates, & Co. headed for the rocks. They've fought hard to make themselves so ugly and hated, and they've earned every bit of pain they're about to cause themselves.
It'll be an interesting ride down, as long as they don't take everybody in FOSS with them. Here's a wacky thought: the grand irony could be that Jobs might be the last man standing (because Apple produces its own hardware).
> I think you got it backwards my friend. Before desktop computers arrived computers were locked behind glass and run only by those christened with a white coat. Now I'm even able to post this from a computer small enough to serve as a telephone as well, the migration of computers out of the data center and first to the desktops and now to fitting in one hand has been a marvelous transformation in technology that benefits the many not the few.
Hi G.E. Not often we agree, but in this case you're right on -- the IBM-PC was the catalyst for an entire industry that has brought astonishing technology to everybody from my 82-y.o. mother who has her own website, to my daughter who was playing on Win95 at the age of 4.
Microsoft's role in that development was mainly to force the price of hardware into the basement (because as the article points out, the Microsoft business model is dependent on having cheap, commodity hardware, not specialized hardware like Apple's or Sun's). MS did their job well, and we've all benefited from it.
It's unfortunate that in doing so, MS also crushed software innovation by killing off their competition instead of working competitively but fairly. But apparently that is at last coming to an end as they flame themselves out. It'll be interesting to see what rises from the ashes of the monolith.
Good software is harder to engineer and support than hardware. The people who do this should be paid for their work. Part time hobbyists have a role but some software is a valuable product that has a price. The war against such commercial software is stupid.
>>The PC really killed
no unix, java, and sun/ibm who want everything to look the same killed it. Even MSFT would like developers to try new things, like other languages, guis but the standards nuts want everyone to believe we have already solved every problem and just do it in java on a *x box.
Of course. You're confused between "Free as in Beer" and "Free as in Speech".
There's no rule in FOSS-land that says you can't sell your FOSS software at a fair price -- and tons of FOSS companies do exactly that. Others sell support services. There's tremendous opportunity to make money in the the FOSS model.
> The war against such commercial software is stupid.
No, the attempt to make closed, proprietary software the ONLY software, is what is stupid. FOSS existed before Microsoft was created -- prior to 1975 (when Bill Gates wrote BASIC and started MS), all software was free because it came with the hardware. Hello????
FOSS is not a war against commercial software. The Microsoft model of closed, proprietary software is a losing war against the natural tendency of software developers to share ideas openly so that all benefit. Microsoft's success is due to their business monopoly practices, not the inherent correctness of their software.
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.