Posted on 09/18/2002 10:39:02 PM PDT by Mathlete
One can find hundreds of innovative university (and private sector) research projects that are pushing the limits of human knowledge using Linux. For example:
The researchers at Buffalo University argue as follows:
“Why Linux instead of, say, Windows? Skolnick talks about Linux's scalability and stability. "We found it to be a very stable production environment," he says, gearing up for a not-so-subtle dig at Windows. "Stability is kind of nice. You don't want to be running around rebooting 1,000 machines all the time."It is not so significant the innovations that arise by those developers that work directly on the Microsoft and Linux products, which account for a very small portion of the world’s innovation, but the far numerous indirect innovations that are created by the users of these products. I seriously doubt that we will see solutions to quantum physics, genetics, systems theory, self-organizing processes, and other emerging technologies from Microsoft or the users of Microsoft products as much as we will see them from the Linux users.
Another Linux advantage is that it's free. With Windows, Skolnick would have to shell out money for 4,000 licenses. "All of a sudden, you're talking about real money," he says.
Microsoft is a great company. I won’t deny this. So is McDonalds. Anyone can find a better hamburger than a Big Mac. But can you find a better business model? McDonalds is not in the business of making fast food as everyone believes. They are in the business of buying real estate, marketing, and franchises. Likewise, Microsoft is not in the business of increasing innovation and technology. Rather, they are in the business of instilling a sense of intellectual dependency on their products. Their hidden motto is “Let Microsoft do all the thinking so your employees can be more passive monotonous worker bees in the office, which ultimately saves your company money because you can hire fewer and less technical workers.” Their hidden agenda is to get you to upgrade to their next version regardless of whether any short-term improvements marketed directly to the public are only invalidated by bugs and system chaos discovered in the long-term. The system chaos is not necessary found just in the computer system, but rather in the business system caused when employees must re-factor, reinstall, rewire, and retrain their existing, stable method of productive operations.
Linux development, on the other hand, seems to have a different philosophy. They like to invest more time increasing the quality and stability of their product than adding more “features” to it, which ultimately equate to new bugs, security holes, and instabilities. And yet this long-term strategy of stability is ridiculed by Microsoft.
The Open Source movement has far more people looking at the Linux source code (and suggesting improvements) than Microsoft has their non-disclosure bound employees looking at their code. Linux encourages everyone to look at its code. Microsoft, for internal proprietary security reasons, actually discourages their own employees from viewing more than a small portion of their intellectual property. By fiat, there doesn’t exist a single person that understands all of Microsoft code, or even a significant portion of it. There are many people that understand all of the Linux code. At least I know I can look at every line of code legally if I choose to.
The Linux movement instinctively knows that for innovation to occur efficiently, stability must first exist in its environment—a concept mirroring Maslow’s Hierarchy. Innovation is slowed when the innovators are wasting time working around bugs, ramping up with a new environment, and learning the idiosyncrasies of the newest, latest-and-greatest, questionably improved, mandatory upgrade.
No! Microsoft does not encourage innovation outside their walls. They only encourage a cash flow gradient from outside to inside. Linux, which has no cash flow prime directive, has only innovation and idealism to encourage.
The problem with the open source and Linux types though is that there is no single engine driving the force behind the innovation. While that is good in ways you have mentioned it does make it difficult for some to find a single, definitive, source for their developing needs. There are so many things going on all at once that focus can get lost and one is faced with a forest of choices without a trail.
SUN has organized JAVA and their products fairly well, but sadly we see a lack of java products on the market for the average user - and the average user also tends to stay with what is familiar to them when they go to work (and vice versa).
For those interested SUN now offers the new version of Java and Forte Community version for a GUI interface and development, and I just downloaded the advanced 2d imaging classes for free from their site which allows you to easily drop in photo manipulation to your products (so hopefully we will see a lot more free photo tools soon floating around).
I also recommend PERL, an excellent open source language.
What a dumb and inaccurate argument. It would be extremely simple to add handwriting recognition throughout the entire OS under just about any Unix.
Jump in, it is the best thing to happen to development in years. And it is why Microsoft will continue to lead the world in development tools and developers.
Linux will always lag behind because capitalism always trumps socialism. History has taught us that lesson time and time again. Linux is just a modern day IT commune.
Yeah, just like the Red Cross, NRA and churches.
Since when are volunteers who donate their time and resources considered communists?
Only in your fantasy, Microsoft-at-all-costs world.
Bzzzzzzzt! The BS-Meter just pegged.
Success in the business world is easy to measure in a capitalist society: is the product producing a measurable return in dollars. The Linux folks would have us believe that 'no, this isn't a valid measure, there is a new and better way'. Hence, I use the term IT commune, which is more than appropriate.
The Linux crowd wants so desperately to hurt Microsoft (due to jealousy IMHO) that they will latch on to the craziest ideas, even turning conservatives into collectivists.
A company that cared about the relationship with customers wouldn't wait 11 weeks to acknowledge and fix the problem.
I use a number of shareware programs and many of them are excellent because they fill a little tiny niche. Hell, I even think that Linux can fill a niche or two.
However, when people start thinking that a large group of independent developers can compete against a very successful, integrated team, working for cash, I draw the line.
My analogy is that of a mob against an organized army. (and no, it isn't partisans because the marketplace doesn't allow for hiding).
Not at all. Volunteers contribute time and resources to build houses, collect donated blood, lobby the government and provide education without being called communists. But when volunteers contribute time and resources to build an operating system it's called communism by Microsofties.
Success in the business world is easy to measure in a capitalist society: is the product producing a measurable return in dollars. The Linux folks would have us believe that 'no, this isn't a valid measure, there is a new and better way'. Hence, I use the term IT commune, which is more than appropriate.
So I guess that the NRA and Red Cross aren't sucessful in your mind, eh? They don't get a measurable return in dollars. Calling Linux a commune is simply a way of hanging a disparaging label on a system that your buddies in Redmond can't compete with.
The Linux crowd wants so desperately to hurt Microsoft (due to jealousy IMHO) that they will latch on to the craziest ideas, even turning conservatives into collectivists.
The Microsoft crown wants so desperately to hurt Open Source (due to jealousy IMHO) that they latch on to time-tested methods of disparaging their opponents, namely lieing and decieving the public.
Tell me, between Microsoft and Open Source, which one uses the power of government (copyrights, patents, contract enforcement) to pursue their goals? And which one lets the public decide how they want to operate?
Microsoft easily competes (and crushes) Linux. All of the numbers show that this is the case including Linux revenues declining last year. Oh wait, it is all free downloads! Yeah, right. When MS drops below 90% on the desktops, give me a call...
The government has been out to destroy MS! Not sure where your last statement came from.
My argument is that Microsoft does not deliberately try to increase the amount of innovation in the world. If they could do something that would increase their company's total inside innovation by 1% by lowering the total outside innovation in the world by 50%, they would choose to do so. And they make these business decisions all the time. Their goal is money first with innovation a means to the end.
I claim that new ideas and new inventions are more likely to be discovered on Linux and other Open Source environments than on Microsoft platforms. The best ideas in the world come from young open-minded individuals with lots of free time on their hands and little money. Linux caters to this group--Apple too--Microsoft not!
Unfortunately, this innovation is stagnated because, since Microsoft's invents very little, they tend to steal, copy, purchase at low values, and market those inventions of others. They invest their cash flow into marketing, sales, lawyers, corporate earnings, and other business operations first--technology is probably a small proportion of their cash flow spite what they claim. This strategy tends to cool the passions of would be innovators, who know that if they do invest time and effort in a Linux idea, the "lion" will just come and take their kill. Better patents and copywrite laws may solve this though, but until then, the only solution against Microsoft is just to make it free to everyone.
And Microsoft is exactly how I would run a capitalistic company if my only goal was money. Personally, I think capitalism is the best, most fairest system in the world--far more honest than any other runner up. Ayn Rand rocks. However, there is more to personal happiness than just what money can buy. Linux provides the ideal, stable platform for people, like myself, who are interested in creating ideas and sharing them with others. And I am happier and more passionate for it. The only developers I know that are passionate for Microsoft development are Microsoft employees. The rest are just in it for the monetary rewards.
I find Linux fascinating, scientific, and pushing the limits of ideas. I find Microsoft boring and trite. But that's because I find business boring and trite--necessary nevertheless. I am a business owner myself.
Linux is not communistic. Communism is an economic system, which means it must deal with currency and the allocation of resources. In that sense, Microsoft is more communistic (and capitalistic) than Linux. Linux has no monetary motivations.
Yup. That's no different a problem than adding support for dictionary-assisted input of a language like Japanese. Been there, done that. I don't see the problem.
You know, if you want to play around with technology and Linux is what you crave, rock on. However, I don't code just for the money either. There are 3.5 million VB developers alone! Microsoft has opened up programming to a much wider audience than anyone else. At its core, microsoft is a pure development company and you will not find better developers anywhere.
Microsoft released its first product for the new .NET platform and guess what? it was an IDE. Not just any IDE but perhaps the finest IDE ever created, and that is not just my opinion.
Yes, MS plays hard-ball technology wise and legally but to do otherwise would be anti-capitalistic. I will easily concede that most technology innovations come from outside of MS but this is nothing new. A bunch of kids with time on their hands is normally how this stuff happens whether it is MS, Sun, Oracle, etc.
I won't comment on your asserttions that MS spends all of its money on legal issues: it is without fact. As a consultant who codes a lot, I know that what is in MS products does not come without a lot of time spent in front of a computer.
Bottom-line: if you guys want to code to Linux then have fun. However, the penguins see MS as this evil thing but they are unwilling to let the marketplace decide on who wins. Right now, MS has a $250B capitalization, 95+% desktop penetration, and their server penetration goes up every year, AND (BONUS!) their products work and they work very well together.
I code to Microsoft because MS products work, pure and simple.
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.