Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Sees Linux As Bigger Competitor Than Apple
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 25, 2009 05:07 PM
from the third-place-is-interesting-too dept.
from the third-place-is-interesting-too dept.
Facetious writes "It seems Microsoft doesn't believe the data from Net Applications regarding Linux any more than Slashdot readers do. In a recent presentation, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer showed a slide showing, from Microsoft's internal analysis, that Linux client use is clearly ahead of Apple's."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense... a PC user can switch to Linux by downloading a LiveCD (or whatever) and installing or just running from the disk. A PC user has to buy new hardware to switch to Apple.
Embedded Difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trademark and copyright loss: no problem (Score:5, Interesting)
What if they offered Linus Torvalds a billion dollars for the trademark and the copyright to his code?
And assuming Linus accepted, of course...
Then we'd fork the latest version of the kernel (and git, and * FROM code WHERE copyright_holder = "Linus") and hack on.
To deal with the trademark, we'd have to rename the kernel. We could always use Linus' original name, Freax, or name it after some other maintainer... Mortonix? Coxix?
And then there'd be happy hacking all around.
Parent
Re:Of course! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Of course! (Score:5, Informative)
What if they offered Linus Torvalds a billion dollars for the trademark and the copyright to his code?
The Linux kernel is only a part of a GNU/Linux system. Almost everything, including the kernel, has been published under the GNU General Public License (cf. GNU [gnu.org]).
Linus Torvalds is still the figurehead of Linux kernel development, but even if Microsoft would manage to purchase all rights to the Linux kernel, that would have little impact, because the Linux kernel has already been published under the GPL, which makes it legal to modify it and keep it under the GPL forever, no matter if there also would be a proprietary version.
The GNU project (which contains all free Linux software including the Linux kernel) also develops their own Mach-based kernel, called "Hurd" (the OS would be called GNU/Hurd then).
Even if Microsoft would manage to purchase Richard Stallman, the head of GNU, it would have little impact on free software development, since all code that already exists can be forked away before any proprietary branches would emerge.
Parent
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy is in the dumps. Would you be worried about the over priced guy with no net book or the guy that's infiltrating the netbook space quite well when that's a fast growing sector?
Piracy a competitor? (Score:5, Insightful)
The day the manage to lock out piracy, a lot of that group will switch to Linux, not pay full prize full Windows licenses.
I can understand why they see Linux as a bigger threat. Linux is something completely different than Windows, MacOS is "just" another proprietary closed source company controlled desktop OS. These days, more and more people see the advantages of free sofware, and Microsoft will never be able to catch up with Linux on that one.
Re:Piracy a competitor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, a lot of more computer literate people understand the following workflow:
1. Have a task which needs done
2. Get a tool to do the task (Or choose one which you already have)
3. Use the tool to do the task.
Most people, however, are not computer-literate. They don't understand "Word Processor" but they do understand "Word" in reference to MS Word.
They do the following:
1. Have a task to do
2. Use the tool they know to do the task
The very idea that there are more word processors than MS Word still blows the mind of people like, say, my grandmother.
Parent
Installed base vs. market share (Score:5, Insightful)
An operating system's installed base is not the same as the market share.
Market share is measurable because it's based on percentage of sales over a given period of time.
Installed base is difficult or impossible to measure, because it's the percentage share an operating system has over the entire population of computers. This means the market share of Macs and Linux machines is underestimated. Macs, because they last on average 2 years longer than Windows PC's. Linux, well, because hardly anybody pays for Linux since they can legally get it for free.
So, essentially, market share figures are highly inaccurate for estimated the installed base of any given operating system.
Its beyond just the numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux cannot be dealt with in that fashion. The business model is different. Microsoft can pull a Novell or a Xandros deal, but that either 1) ends up helping those distros, or, more worryingly, 2) does nothing to fight the multiheaded hydra that Linux is. Add the fact that it cannot be bought or threatened with any serious lawsuits, its a major headache for Microsoft. All Microsoft can do, is to slow down its rate of adoption, through a combination of tactics, and that is what they have been doing for the past 10 years. This is also good for Linux, as it is giving the developers breathing time and space to improve the quality. In looks department, they are already comfortably ahead of anything Vista or Leopard throw up. The only missing pieces of the puzzle are UI workflow design (where Apple has a superior product) and apps (where Microsoft is ahead). The latter is changing, while the former, is IMO languishing a bit for Gnome, though KDE4 has made some notable improvements.
Microsoft's overall domination of the PC is currently not under threat, but Linux's success is forcing it to slash profit margins and do other things that it would rather not have do. The reason is that unlike Apple, Microsoft's userbase is full of people who want quality for a good price and don't want to be fooled into paying for pricy stuff they really do not need.
It is not the year of linux on the desktop yet. But its coming, and that is giving people in Redmond sleepless nights.
Re:Its beyond just the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
actually i think your missing the real point. its not really about who you can threaten.
Apple has a business model which literally cannot take a market majority. the day Apple hits 30% it can no longer be apple anymore. however Linux can go all out.
but even that is an aside in these times of recession people have a vested interest in their hardware. XP is getting long in tooth and vista was a flop if 7 doesn't pony up there will be a huge body of unsatisfied people who cannot afford to go buy a mac but *can* afford to download a Linux distro.
once Linux gets enough of a market foothold support for the platform snowballs. more drivers come out more people get linux etc etc.
Parent
Terminator quote (paraphrased) (Score:5, Funny)
Listen, and understand. That linux is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Linux IS a real threat. (Score:5, Insightful)
I revently took a course in Microsoft AD after having been a linux guy since RH 5. I couldnt in my wildest dreams think that Microsofts server products are such pile of manure that they are. The more i learn about Windows the more surprised i get that people stand for all the shortcomings, the bad usability, the lack of customer centric solutions and the costs.
In my mind there are just some small things that needs to be pieced in for Linux to be a really dangerous threat to Windows. Most of the things already exists for a Linux solution to completely replace a Microsoft centric network.
I have run Linux Terminal Servers, Linux Fileservers, Linux webservers, Novell, Windows various solutions and Novell Linux solutions. The only thing really needed is an easier and faster way of setting a Linux solution up. Novell and Windows is very hard and tedious to manage once setup but its really easy to get a minimal system up and running. Linux on the other hand is very hard to setup but very easy to manage on a daily basis.
If someone packages a solution where you can get a file, print, ldap and policy handling up and running without much fuss i think Linux would explode. Windows integration is from my view overrated, its much more important of making it easier to get up to speed with a pure linux network. Right now to much work is put into following Microsofts whims around with AD and whatnot instead of building a better solution on linux. A copy can only be so good as its original.
Linux is more young geek friendly (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was a kid, I had an Apple IIgs and a DOS box. The Apple was a nice machine, but the DOS box felt a lot more like a computer. At the time, I had a full instruction manual for DOS. That manual included descriptions of all the COM and EXE files on the system, their switches and examples of how to use them. Apple lacks that raw computing experience. It is there in the terminal window, but you don't need to go there to use the OS. Linux on the other hand still has that natural and exposed underbelly that geek kids can get into. Some kids are curious and those kids like figuring out how things work. Those kids don't need mommy and daddy to shell out $1000 for a computer that runs OSX because they can get Linux for free and run it on a 486. Those kids are a lot more likely to go a school that will move toward open source as a cost saving measure, as opposed to a school that will come up with a lot of money to pay the Apple tax.
If I were Microsoft and I was focused on the next generation of geeks, I'd be scared shitless of Linux.
Re:Microsoft confirms it! (Score:5, Funny)
That's because they use BSD.
Parent
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, OSX is certified Unix.
Parent
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know whether it's POSIX-compliant?
Yes.
Is it proper to refer to it as a "Unix" or is it a "Unix clone" or "Unix-like system" like Linux?
OS X is a certified UNIX.
I'd also be interested in anything explaining why they went with a Mach microkernel and whether that has any non-negligible impact on performance (i.e. message-passing overhead, switching from kernel to userspace, etc). I'd appreciate anything you are able to explain since I'm honestly rather ignorant about OSX.
The message passing overhead is fairly high compared to other systems like Linux or other BSDs. Unlike monolithic kernels, the Mach based one that Darwin (The UNIX part of OS X) uses actually has to do a full context switch when one makes a system call. That can be slow, especially with TLB flushes and such.
Wikipedia and Apple have some pretty good docs on how it works.
Parent
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know whether it's POSIX-compliant
POSIX is a subset of the Single UNIX Specification. Any system that is UNIX(tm) is also POSIX, but not every POSIX system is UNIX.
I'd also be interested in anything explaining why they went with a Mach microkernel and whether that has any non-negligible impact on performance
Because, in 1988, when they designed the system, Mach was the state of the art. NeXT used it and so did OSF/1 and a few other systems. Everything since then has been incremental improvements. There is almost no message-passing overhead in OS X because Mach is just used as a hardware abstraction layer, and most of the stuff runs in the BSD single server.
If you want to know more about how OS X works at a system level, Amit Singh has written an excellent book about it.
Parent
Re:They aren't in the same business (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple sells hardware and software. You may have heard of Final Cut Pro, or Aperture, just to state a few high end products of theirs.
Microsoft sells software and hardware. You may have heard of the Xbox360 or the Zune.
The generalization that Apple sells computers and Microsoft sells software is a gross one, to say the least.
Parent
Re:They aren't in the same business (Score:5, Insightful)
There are Apple products that compete directly with Microsoft ones. Both Apple and Microsoft make keyboards and mice. I regard Microsoft keyboards and mice as the nicest products they sell.
Parent
Re:They aren't in the same business (Score:5, Funny)
SQL Server comes as a distant third, BTW.
Parent
Re:Servers (Score:5, Informative)
Actually there is far more money in clients than in servers. The profit margins on server software (and hardware) tend to be higher per sale, but in terms of both gross revenue and total profit clients wins hands down.
Heck, that's why Microsoft is the 800 pound gorilla of software. Windows makes truly ridiculous amounts of money, and the fact that Microsoft controls the end user experience at a very low level gives Microsoft a great deal of leverage.
Microsoft has a very profitable server software division, but its profits are barely a third of Microsoft's Client division, and MS Office (another piece of client software) generates nearly as much profit as Windows.
The client rules, plain and simple.
Parent