Another reason to go open source

Microsoft isn't going away anytime soon. The software giant's presence is deeply anchored in homes and businesses globally. Microsoft is guaranteed a place in the annals of technology history. But, due to a recent spate of mishaps, it sure looks like that when it comes to the desktop and end-user side of things, Microsoft's days may be numbered.

I think the answer to Microsoft lies in some corporation putting open source software on a chip set, like Apple, and selling the hardware, not the software.

The way this can be “sold” as an idea to the open source community is to create an open source and proprietary blend in hardware in software.

In other words, in exchange for buying the hardware from any one of a number of manufacturers, users not only get a more advanced operating system, but are also able to modify other chip functions as well.

This is all designed to lead to bringing open source modifications into the hardware as well as the software. Users can create and swap hardware modifications, by buying blank chips and either having the chip programming done by the manufacturer of the chip, or doing it themselves.

They can even open source modify the motherboards to their specs, if enough of them want the mod and are willing to pay the price for a limited run.

Instead of the standard PC used today, computer hardware would again be wide open to innovation.

I've had my share of times when I was screaming at my computer and pounding the keyboard due to Microsoft software.

As much as many hate Microsoft, some good has come from them. My daughter in law worked on a project at the CDC funded by the Gates Foundation. In a little over a year and a half they developed a new meningitis vaccine that does not require refrigeration and is expected to save 65,000 lives the first year alone.

I have often wondered why HP doesn’t hire some code monkeys to create a nice Windows Manager and strap it onto HP-UX. Then marry that to a strictly controlled hardware spec. It would likely put them in the spot of only competing with Apple in that 5-8% market share, but Apple has shown that can be very profitable. I think controlling the software and hardware is a good way to profitability. No more being bullied by MS, which can affect your hardware sales.

Back in the eighties when I went to work in IT we had an IBM AS400. A propriety system made by IBM. The folks who designed the hardware worked with the engineers who developed the operating system and developmet tools and more.

Everything was integrated. The system soon was all 64 bit. The hardware, OS and applications. The database, OS, development tools, communications subsystems all came with the system. The most robust, mission critical system available. I always said you run nuclear power facilities or life support systems with confidence. The only time the system ever stopped is when you commanded it to.

But we were told it was no good. You have go go to an open system. You get to choose your database, your OS, and any development tools you want. You will be free and not locked into one vendor.

Fast forward to 2009. 30+ stand alone servers. 32 bit no less. Try to run more that one app on a server and you are asking for trouble. Multiple versions of Windows OS. SQL hell. Have a problem with a product? Well it's the other vendors fault. A complete nightmare to administer. This was what an open system was refered to as years back. I believe now you are talking about open code source. But in a way that's where we were with the AS400. A multi-application server that allowed you to embed system commands and API's into your applications. I miss those days.

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.