Slashdot Log In
Harvard Concludes Linux Will Remain Second Best
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Sep 10, 2006 08:30 AM
from the i-said-number-two dept.
from the i-said-number-two dept.
watzinaneihm writes "A Harvard Study which uses formal economic modelling to determine "Will OSS ever displace traditional software from its market leadership position?" came to a (not so?) surprising result. Linux is likely to remain second best as long as Microsoft has a first mover advantage."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
OSX (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I know of a few friends who chose to get a MacBook and keep OSX on it because they described it as "Linux with more hardware support" (or at least better support directly for the Mac). Not saying this is true, but that it is another well supported Unix alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you move away from Micros
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The report's main finding though is that Window's initial install base, along with the network effects that all OS's have, mean that Microsoft Windows will ALWAYS win. Basically, that whoever's OS has the most market share is most likely to stay firmly fixed there, just because employers don't want to train employees on an OS they don't already know, and end-users don't want to relearn a new system when they already know one.
That may be a bit of a repugnant finding (that MS can perform really badly at th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having had experience of hardware support for both osx and linux I would agree with your friends description. However it goes far beyond hardware support. I think it comes down in the end to an OS that has been designed by people aware of users needs and who are aware of how to meet them. While the KDE and Gnome user interfaces are always be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Apple is worse in a lot of ways. While competition has driven them to use more open software, I don't view that as likely to remain the case if they were to become dominant.
Apple, in the past, always worked on the strategy of telling the user what's good for them and not giving the user any choices. They've only discovered fairly recen
Re:OSX (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:OSX (Score:4, Informative)
OS X has some minor issues, like having no "show desktop" button that I'd have to get a script for that doesn't always work correct.
I largely agree with you but OS X DOES address that one. If you have the Expose stuff turned on, press F11 and all the Windows will scootch to the sides. Do whatever you have to do and F11 pulls them back in.
Parent
Re:OSX (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you do it in Firefox, where F11 means full-screen? Or did they screw up Firefox too?
And shutdown without saving is "Shift-F7 N Y"?
Re:OSX (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't exactly 'minimizing', but there's always 'Hide [AppName]' and 'Hide Others' on the Application menu. So you can switch to Firefox and choose 'Hide Others' to reduce your clutter to only incode Firefox windows.
There are also various little extra things you can do with, for instance, the Option key. Click on an application window whilst holding the Option key and the target application will be activated while the current will be hidden. Hold down the Option key and click the minimize button on a window (or while pressing Cmd-M) and all windows in the application will be minimized. While you're looking through the menus in may applications (chiefly it's the Apple ones that actually implement this, so try Finder & Safari), tap the Option key. You'll likely see some items change -- Minimize Window becomes Minimize All. Close Window becomes Close All Windows. The ellipses after things like shutdown, restart, logout, and empty trash all disappear (meaning it won't put up an 'Are you sure?' prompt).
On the whole, the Macintosh interface is designed to make the things you need readily accessible -- in the words of Penny Arcade's Tycho, it's goal is that of "exposing functionality" -- and it does this pretty well. However, you'll likely find yourself surprised at the amount of more advanced functionality that's tucked just out of sight, yet always close enough that it isn't difficult to reach. The Option key is very often involved here, enough so that I sometimes just try doing normal things while hold Option, just to see if something different will happen...
Hope this helps,
-Q
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those trends are very misleading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second Best Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've talked at length about how I deploy an entirely Microsoft-enabled enviroment for my college. 600+ machines, all running XP and Office 2003. 24 servers, all 2000/2003. A pretty typical Microsoft-enabled environment really.
However, I've personally just gone down the Linux route for my work laptop, and I'm giving projects like Edubuntu serious consideration for older, non-Vista compliant hardware.
I have no doubt that companies with ££££s to throw around will buy new machines that are pre-loaded with Vista, and they'll inevitably begin the Vista rollout come SP1. But big business is not everything; I know many of my fellow network managers in education are giving serious consideration to OSS solutions.
We're educating the business people of tomorrow, and if they are introduced to OSS at a younger age, I think we'll see some interesting changes somewhere down the line.
Well, I hope so...
Re:Second Best Where? (Score:5, Funny)
Afterall, as a Windows user, you pay for and recieve the finest viruses, trojans, and spyware in the world!
The linux world doesn't get this but Steve Ballmer does, as he screamed out about Developers! Developers! Developers! That's a man that doesn't ignore the people who scratch his back!
Linux, OTOH, not only ignores virus writers, script-kiddies, and malware developers, but by default they are also turning their back to Anti-Virus, and anti-malware (incidentally often 1 and the same with malware) developers.
In contrast, Microsoft even has an in-house team supporting script kiddies with programs such as Visual Basic and releasing multiple deployment environments for such programs such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Microsoft Office so that everyone can easily enjoy their work.
I see no such combined effort on the Linux front.
I'm sorry, but until the time comes when I hear about a major virus outbreak on Linux, I cannot take them so called Operating System seriously.
Parent
problem right now is that linux is unknown. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then and not until then will my mother think "why do I need this windows for anyway?" and might try linux out on the home computer. Then the kids start getting used to it (from home, school and most important, friends) and the adoption to linux REALLY hits, because no household will pay $$$ for an operating system if they know one that's usable for free. Not to mention the applications.
Alongside, user friendly distros such as ubuntu, mandriva and feodora will grow even easier to use (as a matter of fact, I think ubuntu is easier (and faster) to install than windows XP or 2000).
Re:problem right now is that linux is unknown. (Score:5, Interesting)
You (and by you, I mean the linux community) have been beating this drum for a dozen years now. Somehow, I don't believe it will ever happen. If it will, it won't be the same Linux.
Parent
Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel always thought they'd be #1, eh?
I think Vista is where Microsoft will fork strongly. There are several smaller forks out there, people who refused to leave NT or 2000 or 98 SE, their PC's do what they want and they see no reason to buy new hardware everytime Intel or Microsoft say "Yow! New! Must have!"
As long as ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is like saying Tiger Woods will remain number one as long as no one comes along who is better. Or this guy will live as long as he does not die.
You need to go to Harvard to come to lame conclusions like this? Nah, you need to go to Harvard to write escape clauses like this. If Linux become dominant you just declare, "MSFT no longer has the first mover advantage, so I am right". If Linux fades to obscurity, you can go "See, I told ya, Linux will never become numero uno"
Re:As long as ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The flaw in this article is that they assume:
- Companies won't demand open standards
- Every version of MS software will continue making significant improvements
- MS will not start to get caught with the viral GPL license issues the way open source developers continuously get caught with patents. The nice thing about patents is that they eventually expire, GPL doesn't.
What will really happen is the law of diminishing returns will kick in, and MS users will have even less of a reason to upgrade each time as more eye candy and unneeded features requires more hardware. At some point, the features that MS gives over linux will not be worth the cost of MS. Additionally, as formats open, and applications move to the web, the ability to leverage the monopoly will continuously reduce. The best thing MS has going for it now is application support and the bundling that is done by all the major PC builders. If they lose either of those, they will lose their grip on being number 1.Parent
Rich Get Richer (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that the thinking that kept IBM in control of computing in the 1970s?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And well, when Vista comes preloaded with almost all PCs, and there's no other version of Windows availible, guess who continues XP's generation?
And the moral is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux does not aim to be best, second best or ninety-third best. Take Debian: it aims to provide a free universal operating system. How well it does, in the perception of others, is only incidental to Debian's core purpose. So, looking at all this in terms of winners and losers or best and worst is largely illusory. Linux is doing just fine and does not have to hit some arbitrary bar - such as overtaking Microsoft's market share - to continue to do just fine.
Why does this kind of thing ilicit so much emotion (Score:4, Insightful)
I consider my operating system to be a tool, not a way of life, not something that defines me. Maybe that is why I never understood OS evangelism. Can someone please explain to me that when someone says "Linux will not be the most popular desktop operating system in existence" Linux users feel the need to sling such insults as "numbnuts"(which by the way is not very mature and not likely to win you very many converts) towards them?
Re:Why does this kind of thing ilicit so much emot (Score:4, Insightful)
Another example, there's a radio station that I like to listen to online, and because they only offer Windows Media streams, I had to break the law (due to software patents) to play them on my Linux computer. Breaking the law isn't something I enjoy doing, and it shouldn't be something I have to do in order to not be excluded just because I am not using Microsoft software.
The problem isn't that people aren't running Linux, it's that they're running software from companies who are trying to exclude me (a Linux user) from being able to communicate other people (Windows and Mac users).
Parent
Most of us don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of us aren't in OSS for the the ride to the top. I personally couldn't care if 1% of the population used OSS or 99%. As long as I have the freedom to use the software that I want when I want to, then things are fine with me. And _that_ is one of my peeves against the Microsoft Corp.: by the very nature of their marketing/functioning the people who use their software tend to be drones in that they know not how to function with anyone else doesn't have the dam 4 colored Windows logo all over them.
I like Linux and the majority of OSS tools that I use because I prefer them to their Window's based counterparts, with a few exceptions. I have found that explaining to someone that Linux is "better" than Windows is like explaining gold is better than silver - they have a jewelry box full of a silver and their minds just aren't willing to absorb new information on that topic - and why, they think they are happy with what they have. All that will happen is that eventually, I will not know enough of Windows to troubleshoot their machines anymore
No mention of vendor lock and switching costs (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are selling garden hoses, the cost of switching to a competing brand is just the replacement cost of a garden hose. If a company is switching software from one vendor to another, the switching cost is considerably more than just plain cost of new software. Like changing the garden hose requiring you change all the plumbing fitting and pressure valves in your home! The first mover advantage is directly proportional to the switching cost. Where are Lycos and Hotbot now? All vendors know that and they strive hard to increase the switching costs, from AutoCAD, Ansys, Fluent, Cadence, to Oracle, MSFT every dominant vendor in the market tries as hard as possible to make it inpossible to switch.
The reason why garden hoses, light bulbs and tires have low switching cost is because of standardization. Standards defined by independant third parties, not by the manufacturers themselves. People, consumers and corporations are beginning to understand the issue, as seen the recent moves by Massassuchetts to mandate ODF as the archival format for its documents. It is inevitable that people will see the advantages of interoperability and standardization. The first mover advantage will diminish as consumers level the playing field by demanding interoperability and standardization. At that time the "second mover" into these fields will be OSS with value added services.
Where it all boils down to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where it all boils down to (Score:4, Informative)
> often NONE of them support Linux.
Really. How about the following list: IBM, SAP, Oracle Corp. PeopleSoft ERP , and Lotus?
(see http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1730276,00.a
Parent
Pff, Harvard? (Score:3, Funny)
Stealing Windows (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to this main result, we were also surprised to find that piracy may end up increasing Microsoft's profits. To understand why, notice that there are two types of pirates: those who would not have bought Windows in the first place because it is too expensive, and those who would have bought Windows but now decide to pirate it. The first category increases Windows' installed base without affecting sales. As a consequence, this group increases the value of Windows. And thanks to these pirates, Microsoft is able to set higher prices in the future (because the value of the system goes up). In addition, having these pirates means that Linux's installed base does not grow as much as it would have if piracy weren't there. The second type of pirates (those who in the absence of piracy would have bought Windows) reduces Windows' sales and profit. Thus, if the proportion of first-type pirates is sufficiently large, Microsoft's profits will increase with piracy.
I think a simple economic model gives answers (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why I think OSS software will slowly consume normal COTS software, because they will keep going after the commercial companies say "Well, we've now added every feature with a tolerable ROI". I'm not quite sure about the timescale, but I think the OSS software base is only in its infancy. Imagine 10, 25 or 50 years down the road, how many software packages have matured to a point where they're everything a user expects from a word processor/graphics editor/media player etc., feature-complete and bugfree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, that's where the big money is. As you point out correctly, commodity software is slowly being overtaken by OSS; I think this is inevitable in a level playing field: open source will be developed as long as people are interest, no matter how unprofitable it is, but proprietary software will have a difficult time luring users away from open-source software. And open source tends to drive the price towards 0.
The on
Havard concludes there's more money at MSFT (Score:5, Funny)
Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
``The basic trade-off is the following: With a duopoly, more individuals and organizations use PCs because prices are lower, and this raises welfare. However, with a duopoly, no operating system ends up exploiting fully its potential because developers' efforts wind up divided between the two systems. However, with a monopoly, the efforts to develop new software and improve the platform are directed towards one system only and this may turn out to be better from a social welfare perspective.''
That is, unless there are standardized APIs between the competing operating systems. As it happens, Windows does not implement the same APIs that its competitors implement, and that's what really causes the duplication of developer effort. If, say, the competition had been between Linux and Mac OS X, the situation would have been much better.
Harvard's Credibility is in Question (Score:4, Funny)
How can we expect cogent analysis from a diploma mill like that?
Economic modelling is very accurate! (Score:4, Insightful)
-russ
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Did they, really? Slackware 1.0 was released in July 1993, years before Windows 95. Being Linux, it was 32-bit, had proper multi tasking, separation of tasks, permissions, the ext2 filesystem, etc. It also had X, and there was a dos emulator included, so you could run old DOS programs. Basically, a lot of features that Microsoft's offerings would only have years later.
I think GNU/Linux was there first...it just didn't have the marketing that Windows had.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is not whether a Linux ditribution existed prior to Windows 95, but whether it existed prior to Microsoft's software being installed on some high percentage of the world's IBM-compatible computers. The latter has been the case pretty much from the word go. When my dad bought a PC, he bought DR-DOS 6 to go with it, but never got around to installing it because the hard drive actually had MS-DOS 5 installed on it at the factory (the hard drive factory, that is -- apparently not uncommon back in 1991-ish). Until relatively recently, it's been fairly rare to find an IBM-compatible computer that does NOT use a Microsoft operating system. Sure, a few people back in the day would run DR-DOS, a few less would run something akin to BSD, although I have an idea the first PC-compatible BSD was for the 386, so that's got to be at least six or seven years after MS started shipping PC operating systems.
Sure, Linux distributions were available before Windows 95, but the same argument made by TFA existed back in 1993 too -- Microsoft's software was entrenched, it was the de facto system on most IBM-compatible computers, and it's reasonable to assume that a high proportion of the people using those would stick to what they have/know, rather than switch to something entirely new. Therefore, despite the existence of Linux, most folks stayed with DOS & Windows 3 until Win95 came along, which was a funkier Windows which didn't need you to mess about with DOS to get it running.
-Q
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an interesting view, and OSS and proprietary software definitely have different dynamics, but I don't agree that "\"users\" (that would be brought by marketing) hurt OSS". Man
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
They do point out that OSS is coming from behind in terms of market share becasue it is much newer. In addition, the
Our main result is that in the absence of cost asymmetries and as long as Windows has a first-mover advantage (a larger installed base at time zero), Linux never displaces Windows of its leadership position.
One of the things the study suggested that MS will have to do to maintain its dominance is significantly lower Windows' price to the point where price is not a factor when choosing between MS and OSS. There were cases in the model where OSS 'beats' Windows, but they all assumed a significant price difference between the two, which, as OSS threatens MS more and more, may become less and less likely, due to MS lowering it's prices.
The article also went into interesting points like which is better for the people. The conclusion was that an OSS monopoly is better than a Windows monopoly, but that a OSS-Windows mix is not always better than a Windows monopoly, due to a splitting of efforts. As a person who feels that the spitting of efforts in OSS is one of it's strengths due to the choices it gives us, I disagree with that one.
Parent
Conclusions Flawed but Very Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary is not as much fun as the article, which declares Microsoft's future dependent on FUD, sabotage, intentional waste and dumping rather than code quality. The whole summary reasoning boils down to, "It will be like this tomorrow because it's like this today." Even M$ knows that's not true. What M$ and IBM did to DEC used to keep Bill Gates up at night, and still might despite all of his ill gotten wealth. The authors have much more interesting things to say and do not really conclude M$ will always be around. The authors, while they do overplay the importance of an undefined "network effect" don't make such a gross error.
The authors don't really understand free software development but they do understand what M$ must do to stay alive. They understand the M$ network effect, which is difficulty working with people who don't have the latest and greatest M$ crap, but completely miss the free software networking effect and much of free software's social benefit. The more free software does, the more it will be used and the more it will grow. It's a power function, not dependent on large organizations and we are still at the very start of the curve.
One of the key flaws I found in the author's reasoning was this:
However, with a monopoly, the efforts to develop new software and improve the platform are directed towards one system only and this may turn out to be better from a social welfare perspective.
That's seriously flawed for two reasons. First there is no such thing as a "Linux Monopoly". It's only freely publish standards that make it look like a coherent whole and it's only M$ intentional ignorance of those standards that keeps both systems from interacting freely. The second, they seriously underestimate the size of the free software community and it's growth potential. The free developer community is and will allways be larger than the non free community. The whole point of the non free monopoly is to charge people money to participate. Free participation will never cost more than time and effort. GCC comes with most GNU/Linux distributions and there is a fantastic library of source code for every purpose no further than a network request away. The cost of a full version of M$ Visual Studio is close to $800, after you have paid the OS tax, and you need to buy a new one for each programmer every year or so. How economists could miss such a basic part of their model as cost of raw materials is beyond me, but part of it is a flawed assumption that free software is dependent on government and business support:
This questions the social desirability of policies aimed at guaranteeing Linux's survival. ... This [corporate] support is important because there are tedious portions of the code that would rarely be developed spontaneously by members of the Linux-developer community.
Wile corporate and government participation are welcome, studies don't bear out the necessity of their involvement [blueoxen.com]. Companies and governments are going to increasingly use free software because of the tremendous flexibility and cost savings. There are hosts of things you just can't do with non free softare and most programmers spend all of their time making things work. Most programmers would be just as happy or happier with free software as long as it does the job.
Recognition of all the evil things M$ must do, while common here, are welcome from economists and business types. Formal recognition of the SCO and other FUD attacks, dumping by "piracy", the Halloween Documents, even sabotage of free software by "encouraging forks" are nice to see in print from a "respectable" organization. Remarkably, nowhere is there a statement that M$ has or must improve the quality of their code. Their conclusion is telling:
We conjecture that there are multiple equilibria and that the use of FUD to mold perceptions about future value becomes crucial.
Essentially, M$'s future is depends on lies. That's not a very bright future. Admission to that fact is all it takes for them and all of their intentional waste to dissapear.
Parent
Re:From TFA-Tortise-hare. (Score:5, Insightful)
In case people haven't noticed, linux has not only caught up, but surpassed Windows, in terms of stability, modularity, customizability, ease of install, maintainability of the code base, etc.
That last one - maintainability of the code base, is a killer. There will be no Windows after Vista. Even Microsoft has alluded to as much.
BTW - That "etc" I mentioned includes REPUTATION. What is the reputation of linux vs windows? Ask any virus-writer.
Parent
I think you are wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
That is what the study was referring to. (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
It isn't that Linux is not "better" than Windows TODAY.
It is that Windows was "good enough" YESTERDAY.
And yesterday, the companies deployed Windows and locked up their data / training / money in apps that are not supported on Linux
All the companies I see now have their data AND business logic locked up in Access database apps that have evolved over the years to the point where they are un-maintainable. But still "necessary" to the daily operation of that company.
Where the Harvard study went wrong is that new companies are constantly forming and old ones dying. The base of companies are not static. It is dynamic. The new companies will NOT be bound by the headstart that Microsoft has in existing companies.
Parent
Re:I think you are wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial packages (such as the CAD software you mention) are a different problem which mostly depends on the market penetration of the OS. Although even then, some stuff will never be natively available to our platforms. While in some cases emulation through Wine can help, it's not something I'd wager my business on.
Those two cases are indeed often forgotten by the enthusiasts who blindly believe you can easily replace windows by Linux on any desktop.
I don't have many examples of those, but the few I've met usually hate themselves for the switch because the main factor was the price of Unix workstations and they willingly ended up with what they knew would be a less versatile tool to save money. And now they find out they could have saved even more money by sticking with Unix. Sucks to be them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great insight, thanks for clearing that up for us.
The cost of switching is a lot higher than just the "Microsoft tax." Most companies are heavily invested in particular software packages (CAD, accounting, payroll, etc). These are very specialized packages that often must be guaranteed (and often certified) to meet specific regulatory requirements. Unless the companies behind those packages can be convinced to migrate, there really is no option to switch for the company. When y
Not wrong -- merely dubious (Score:3, Interesting)