Microsoft at the power point [why Linux is slandered at FR]

The Economist ^ | 13 September 2003 | Economist staff

[Salo]

You must not hit the tech threads that often. Debate is usually quite robust: the MS guys haven't shown up in force yet. I think the bickering and fighting that takes place is generally a good thing: you learn more. At the point where people begin refering to each other as communists or playing Martyr is when it gets pointless.

As far as the os that government pants after not being a good thing, the dept of homeland security just got spread-golden-eagled over their desks for MS, so you might not be far off. ;-)

From the looks of nearly all the posts on this thread, LINUX is WORSHIPPED on FR, NOT slandered. For my part, any OS that GOVERNMENTS pant after can't be all good.

[irv]

I simply know some industrical organization and economics of R&D.

I never said Open Source is the only way to make new stuff. I said it's a way that has worked. Maybe that doesn't fit into your economics, but some of us find it quite useful and even profitable.

Forget these little theories you "know." Reality matters more.

[PokeyJoe]

This is because private ownership stimulates innovation. Undertaking a new enterprise is risky, and the only compensation for an increased risk is higher reward. Remove that possibility --- and there is no reason to take risk; no reason to develope new products.

from this qoute . . .

to the point . . .

Linux is already available in 64bit versions (not XP), that Linux already has clustering capability (not XP), that Linux has a choice of over 4 desktops (not XP), that Linux can read HPFS, NTFS, FAT, UFS, DFS, and has a working version of a filesystem driven database-style transactional updates (not XP), and I could go on . . .

Innovation requires the FREEDOM to innovate.

[Nick Danger]

What also had in mind is that, placed in the public domain...

This was a thread about linux and Microsoft. What does the concept of public domain have to do with either of those things? Why would you introduce that concept into this thread?

[general_re]

Huh?

Linux is already available in 64bit versions (not XP)

What's this?

Linux already has clustering capability (not XP)

Clustering has been available since NT 4.

that Linux has a choice of over 4 desktops (not XP)

Huh? I can think of a half-dozen drop in replacements for Windows Explorer off the top of my head. Here's one. Here's another one.

that Linux can read HPFS, NTFS, FAT, UFS, DFS

Just don't think you can write to an NTFS partition under Linux. Anyway, you can get drop-ins to read (and write) all of those under Windows, plus ext2, ext3, and a lot more.

and has a working version of a filesystem driven database-style transactional updates (not XP)

Not ready for prime-time. So does the next version of NTFS. If you want production-ready, BeOS had one five years ago.

Nothing wrong with preferring Linux over Windows, but it's usually wise to be aware of the actual facts first...

[PokeyJoe]

But I get it all for FREE with Linux dood.

[general_re]

If that's the point you wanted to make, you should have made that point ;)

[Southack]

"IN MAY, the city of Munich decided to oust Microsoft Windows from the 14,000 computers used by local-government employees in favour of Linux, an open-source operating system."

One of the ways that MicroSoft could handle this sort of situation is to begin releasing its code for the versions of its OS's that it no longer supports.

Consider: Windows 95, 98, and NT 4 are no longer officially supported. MicroSoft is no longer selling those OS's, yet MicroSoft still has the source code for all of the above.

So why not earn REVENUE, marketshare, and goodwill from that source code?! Windows 95 could become Open Sourced.

MS Windows 95 code could easily be placed online. Let anyone use it for free. Volunteer teams could readily be assembled, especially with MicroSoft's corporate direction and guidance, and open source versions of Windows 95 could begin being developed out in the wild.

Such releases could be free for everyone, with the caveat that reselling such new releases would have to cut MicroSoft in on 15% of the gross. For developers who don't resell such new enhancements but rather instead use them internally, there would be no cost.

Poof! In one easy step MicroSoft would own the open source market, would gain goodwill, would add a new revenue stream for obsolete software code that they aren't even supporting, and could win back customers such as Munich as well as stop new defections to Linux.

It would be tough to argue against open source MicroSoft, after all!

This move would also have the effect of dampening MicroSoft's current over-enthusiasm for obsoleting (i.e. ceasing corporate sales and support) their releases quite so fast. Bean counters in Redmond would push to extend corporate support (a needed action) rather than see perfectly good proprietary software on the open source fast-track.

Moreover, MicroSoft would have a new pool of code to dip into for innovations. Naturally MicroSoft would retain the rights to use any enhancements made by open source groups to its code, so when the occassional gem comes along MicroSoft will get to incorporate that new code for free into its new systems.

The alternative, of course, is to continue to lose market share to open source projects from competitors, as well as to continue to lose any benefit from their old, retired software code in their unsupported and now obsoleted software (e.g. Windows 95).

[Bush2000]

One of the ways that MicroSoft could handle this sort of situation is to begin releasing its code for the versions of its OS's that it no longer supports. Consider: Windows 95, 98, and NT 4 are no longer officially supported. MicroSoft is no longer selling those OS's, yet MicroSoft still has the source code for all of the above. So why not earn REVENUE, marketshare, and goodwill from that source code?! Windows 95 could become Open Sourced. MS Windows 95 code could easily be placed online. Let anyone use it for free. Volunteer teams could readily be assembled, especially with MicroSoft's corporate direction and guidance, and open source versions of Windows 95 could begin being developed out in the wild. Such releases could be free for everyone, with the caveat that reselling such new releases would have to cut MicroSoft in on 15% of the gross. For developers who don't resell such new enhancements but rather instead use them internally, there would be no cost. Poof! In one easy step MicroSoft would own the open source market, would gain goodwill, would add a new revenue stream for obsolete software code that they aren't even supporting, and could win back customers such as Munich as well as stop new defections to Linux.

That's a bit naive. First, Microsoft isn't a charity. It isn't practical for MS to support old software forever -- just as it isn't practical for RedHat to support Linux versions forever. Second, if Microsoft were to release Windows 95 under an open source model, it wouldn't own anything other than a pretty useless copyright. That's the whole point of the OSS model: It belongs to everyone. Third, there would be no enforcement mechanism for collecting revenues gained under this new model You're suggesting that MS become a shareware-like company. That isn't realistic. Fourth, the Windows 95 codebase is dead. Microsoft moved away from that code after Windows 98 SE, when it built Windows XP on top of Windows 2000. So, frankly, nobody would want to build on top of Win9x, anyway.

[Southack]

"So, frankly, nobody would want to build on top of Win9x, anyway."

No, there are large numbers of players who would love to be able to have that source code, along with the rights to develop, enhance, and use. Most shelfware and large amounts of proprietary code still runs on Windows 95, you know.

Besides, if nobody wants it, what does MicroSoft have to lose? Make it Open Source.

At the very least MicroSoft can gain goodwill and have an irrefutable talking point for the Linux crowd; i.e. that anyone can develop on Windows 95 because we've just made it an Open Source code base.

And if some developer comes up with some outstanding enhancement or niche market for resale, then MicroSoft is going to get 15% of the profits (read: a **new** revenue stream).

Corporate goodwill, free development, and a new revenue stream all from software code that you freely admit is "dead."

How can you beat that tri-fecta?!

[Southack]

"Second, if Microsoft were to release Windows 95 under an open source model, it wouldn't own anything other than a pretty useless copyright. That's the whole point of the OSS model: It belongs to everyone."

There's no downside. Windows 95 is already dead, so MicroSoft's copyright on that code is essentially useless already.

So why not allow an Open Source community to rally around that Windows 95 code base rather than Linux?!

My firm would take up the charge in a heartbeat, for instance. We'd love to be able to tell our clients that **we** could supply them with a Windows-compatible OS that we would be willing to support for them for as long as they desired.

Hell Yes we'd love to lock our clients into our proprietary version of Windows 95-on-steroids!

[Southack]

"Third, there would be no enforcement mechanism for collecting revenues gained under this new model You're suggesting that MS become a shareware-like company. That isn't realistic."

No, I'm suggesting that some money coming in from currently dead code is more profitable to MicroSoft than would be no money coming in.

Large commercial resellers of Open Source Windows 95+ systems would clearly pay MicroSoft a percentage of the gross rather than face lawsuits or jail.

What I'm suggesting is that MicroSoft allow there to become a "Redhat" for the very old, already dead versions of Windows (e.g. 95, 98, NT 4, etc.).

A "Redhat," mind you, that would be willing to pay MicroSoft 15%!

[Southack]

"That's a bit naive. First, Microsoft isn't a charity. It isn't practical for MS to support old software forever -- just as it isn't practical for RedHat to support Linux versions forever."

No, what I'm saying is let 3rd party companies provide such support and enhancements after MicroSoft reaches its own cutoff points/times.

Think about the movie industry. Hollywood first starts out with theatre releases, followed by pay per view cable sales, followed by DVD/video sales, followed finally by network TV releases.

I'm suggesting applying a very similar model to MicroSoft's sales. MicroSoft releases first, then supports it, then offloads it to a few preferred vendors, then finally makes it fully Open Source.

In contrast, MicroSoft currently kills the revenue stream from each release after a fixed time. Why? Why not follow the Hollywood movie model and continue to bring in revenue from old releases?

[rdb3]

I like your thinking. The only thing I would change is Win95 to NT 4.

[Bush2000]

Besides, if nobody wants it, what does MicroSoft have to lose?

Erosion of the marketplace for its future products.

[Southack]

"Fourth, the Windows 95 codebase is dead."

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

Windows 95 is currently generating ZERO $$$ in new revenues for MicroSoft.

That's like burning the old movie reels after an early Hollywood theatre release instead of selling the movie on DVD or to TV.

Let firms such as mine have first crack at Windows 95. Earn revenue from them, and when they tire of it, release the code completely onto the Open Source world where at least MicroSoft can pick up a percentage of the resales.

Sell the movie on DVD and to TV. There's more to the release than just the big publicity and the glory release in the theatres!

[Bush2000]

So why not allow an Open Source community to rally around that Windows 95 code base rather than Linux?!

I wouldn't wish Windows 95 on anyone but our ChiCom enemies.

[Bush2000]

No, I'm suggesting that some money coming in from currently dead code is more profitable to MicroSoft than would be no money coming in. Large commercial resellers of Open Source Windows 95+ systems would clearly pay MicroSoft a percentage of the gross rather than face lawsuits or jail.

And the money coming in for these dead OSes wouldn't be spent on its new products...

[Bush2000]

Windows 95 is currently generating ZERO $$$ in new revenues for MicroSoft.

But Windows XP is. There's virtually no upside for MS in your plan.

[Southack]

"Erosion of the marketplace for its future products."

Fine, but do the math.

Compare how many customers like Munich's 14,000 desktops you are losing to Linux versus what sending an old, dead OS like Windows 95 into Open Source would do.

Is Windows 95 really a threat to new MicroSoft OS releases?! I have a tough time swallowing that claim, anyway.

It's dead already. It's useless to Microsoft, so earn some revenue by following the Hollywood release model.