25 Years After DOS - Lessons for Linux? 584
E IS mC(Square) writes "Microsoft is planning to celebrate 25 years of DOS. An article at ReallyLinux discusses what lessons Linux can learn from the history of DOS. The article begins with 'What can the Linux world learn from Microsoft's past 25 years of unique experiences and domination?', and ends with 'Only question now is not if but when will Linux become the number one OS on earth?'" From the article: "First, we must admit openly once and for all that the 'best solution' is not always the 'most used solution.' There are few who would be foolish enough to argue that back in 1981 PC-DOS was the best solution. There were obviously a number of choices. PC-DOS was the least robust, the most temperamental, and arguably not very compatible with the IBM hardware and BIOS it was sold to work on. Yet, somewhat like the odd but obvious dominance of the VHS over BETA, this simple, cheap OS stole the show."
Mmmm yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Why yes, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why yes, (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait. Dammit, my life sucks.
*stab*
Re:Why yes, (Score:3, Interesting)
Crap, and I got was a lousy Jacobsthal number.
Re:Mmmm yes... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is Novell Lobbying??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that many non US citizens have a great deal of anger or frustration over Microsoft and other US companies, but a sales pitch that is anti-US isn't going to gain the trust or participation of regular Joes here in the US. While Linux doesn't NEED the participation of American's to be successful (look at how many contributors are not American, most), it certainly is helpful. Even Linus lives here now, after all.
There are plenty of Americans like myself that are fed up with Microsoft's licensing plans and predatory methods. I would think you are better off by devising a plan that includes us, rather than isolates us by simply selling Linux as a way to get away from those bad old American companies.
Your suggestions is exactly what MS is hoping for: Pitching Linux not as a superior product at a better price, but as a knee jerk reaction to frustration about the US.
Capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)
After seeing the OS/2 Fiesta Bowl Halftime Celebration, the sheep couldn't resist.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
While capital and existing marketability help (Apple shows us the second can be leveraged quite a bit), the perhaps more correct factors are accessability and "it does it now, not later"
Re:Capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows 95 came just enough later to hit the first real wave of internet usage - IBM was just a hair too quick to take advantage of it.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
First, while IBM had a full licence deal to use Windows 3.1 (a bit remaining from the whole OS2/NT partnership), they made no real effort to make it work well inside their fancy 32bit OS (starting Windows programs resulted in a copy of Windows 3.1 actually being booted up just for that program). The care taken for supporting old DOS programs (which they didn't need Microsoft's help for) was even worse - while Windows 95 needed tweaking options too, OS/2 presented users with a huge checklist that had to have been literally copied straight from the constant names in the C header file (the option names even included the underscore). The options where so badly labeled that even an expert had a hard time figuring out what each option did, let alone what option should be used to get a program to run. It would have taken less then a day for someone at IBM to actually enter user readable options to run DOS applications - but IBM didn't give a shit.
Now poor DOS and Windows 3.1 support wouldn't completely doom OS/2. Even Windows 95 only included the (not always working) support so that users and companies could migrate to native 32bit apps. What really helped kill OS/2 Warp was that IBM was still sitting on it's high horse, demanding developers pay them just for the privilege of writing native OS/2 [Warp] applications. In the end OS/2 Warp suffered the self inflicted fate of many of Microsoft's competitors - fantastic platform, pity I can't actually run anything on it (Apple, despite having a strong niche market, fell into much the same trap in the late 80s when it got full of itself and bullied it's own third party developers, reducing them from a 10% market share to just 3% in a matter of years)
Sorry, but you're rewriting history... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't correct, or rather, it's not an accurate representation of the effort IBM made with Windows for their WinOS2 subsystem.
IBM had access to the Windows source from Microsoft as part of the deal they cut during the breakup. In order to get it to run properly, they made some changes to the WinOS2 subsystem to allow it to run as a DPMI client under their new MVDM (Multiple Virtual DOS Machine) subsystem,they recompiled the code with Watcom's C compiler to improve performance, and they also redesigned the Windows video driver layer to allow a WinOS2 session to poke a hole in OS/2's native PM (Presentation Manager) desktop and display that WinOS2 session alongside the rest of the screen (which was controlled by PM).
The end result was called Seamless Windows, and was both fascinating in its flexibity and disconcerting in its mixing of two window APIs and two sets of Window frames and mouse cursors on the same desktop.
Not only did IBM tweak the video subsystem, but networking, sound, and other elements of the virtualized Windows environment were allowed to use the OS/2 networking, sound, and mouse services, resulting in a hybrid that ran Windows software quite nicely without having to have direct access to any of that hardware (or to use any Windows or DOS drivers).
The WinOS2 subsystem in OS/2 2.0 only supported Windows 3.0 programs (note that Windows 3.1 had been released in APril 1992, roughly the same time that OS/2 2.0 was finally released as a General Availability product), but OS/2 2.1 corrected that in May of 1993, and the so-called emulation of Windows 3.1 was so good between the 2.1 release and the release of Windows 95 that many software vendors saw no real point in supporting OS/2's own native API, and Microsoft chose to respond to this threat by creating over a dozen different "Win32S.dll" additions to the Windows 3.1 API to make Windows a moving target that IBM couldn't possibly keep up with.
The care taken for supporting old DOS programs (which they didn't need Microsoft's help for) was even worse - while Windows 95 needed tweaking options too, OS/2 presented users with a huge checklist that had to have been literally copied straight from the constant names in the C header file (the option names even included the underscore). The options where so badly labeled that even an expert had a hard time figuring out what each option did, let alone what option should be used to get a program to run.
This is total nonsense. The options presented for a VDM were numerous, that is true, but that's simply a reflection of the tremendous amount of flexibility that IBM designed into their MVDM subsystem (a subsystem which has survived almost unchanged though Warp 4 to eComStation today). The options were (and are) clearly labelled, had fairly extensive online help, and were quite clear to anyone familiar with the terminology and options that were present in a copy of actual DOS.
Think of a Windows 3.1 PIF file on steroids.
I'm saying this as a DOS user from 1988 through 1992 who switched to OS/2 2.0 in 1992 from a combination MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1 environment for the main reason of running multiple virtual DOS machines for using my DOS software collection. I know the OS/2 VDM subsystem inside and out from a user perspective, and it was *trivial* for a knowledgable DOS user to master quickly.
DOS machines under OS/2, by default, used a virtual DOS kernel, not a real DOS kernel. That means they used an interface which looked like the real DOS interrupt interface, but which actually provided a link to OS/2's own system services. Because of this, a DOS program could usually use things like the mouse, soundcard, and networkin
Re:Sorry, but you're rewriting history... (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly are you having problems with? DOSEMU should behave exactly as an OS/2 VDM because the features are nearly identical. It's true that the
IBM's network was NOT a requirement. (Score:4, Informative)
(Technically speaking, the original red-spine Warp 3.0 boxes were only shiopped with only SLIP support, but PPP support was a free download from IBM and could also be obtained on diskette).
At that point in time, very few home users had any need for network card support (home LANs were almost unheard of), and of course Windows 95 wasn't released until ten months later.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Your refering to Gary Kildall and thus to DR (Digital Research) of CP/M, and GEM fame, not to DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) of Vax, VMS, and PDP-11 fame.
And yes I'm that old. I do remember when all the above was "hot stuff."
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case(as the FTA mentioned), Microsoft initially supplied the best product. This does not mean the supplied a superior product in a technical sense, but as a product, it excelled in the factors that meant the most at the time. After their MSDOS and later Windows became entirely ubiquitous, they had a base to leverage their power over the market. This position allowed them to force the market, and thusly the entire IT industry, to use their products over product that were truly superior.
Adam Smith was only correct with the assumption that consumers are free to choose their suppliers based on the factors that make them a good supplier. With MS's power, in many cases(especially businesses), the market is *not* free to choose other options. This has now, and will continue into the future, stagnated the industry. They are now trapped by the installed base of inferior products, upon which their ubiquity is actually what prevents them from changing suppliers to actually move to the better supplier.
Adam Smith wasn't wrong, he just assumed too much.
MikeD
"in their own interest" (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately for your example, customers have many, many definitions of "in their own interest".
One may, for example, assume a "smart" customer would choose a superior OS like... OS X. Or Linix. Or whatever.
However, they also consider other questions like... How much it is? Is it already installed so I don't have to mess with it? Do I have to relear
Old news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Old news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truthfully, plug and playLinux for business is already here in the form of SUSE. I've thrown it on brand new laptops - several brands - and had everything configured, no problem. But you probably won't find too many in the slashdot crowd praising it, because it's not free.
The real problem is those damn corporate web apps that the company spent a fortune to have developed - using activeX.
Not that Java (or anything else, for that matter) perfoms better, but at least it's cross-platform.
Re:Old news... (Score:5, Informative)
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/ [suse.com]
You can get the 9.2 Pro install disks, the 9.3 Live CD/DVDs - heck I have the Enterprise Server 9.0 disks here on my desk on CD-R so I must have found them out there somewhere too
With SuSE the cost is for support, not for the actual OS (although they may charge a nominal fee for the retail release in the pretty box with included media.)
And yes, if it weren't for the damn internally used web apps using ActiveX (or IE only features) I would be totally converted over at work.
sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the attitude that is going to prevent that from ever happening. I wish the movers and shakers in the Linux world would decide to focus on a subset of the OS market, and do it well, instead of trying to do everything and losing focus of good engineering practices...
Why do you think they aren't? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? How?
Are you saying that they have lost "focus of good engineering practices"?
Strange, Linux seems to be rock solid.
And it runs on everything from a wristwatch to a mainframe.
It seems as if they have the engineering practices
Just click on the floppy drive icon. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just double click on the floppy drive icon on the desktop.
That's a big "if" now-a-days.
Aside from running specific a
Re:sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
>
> This is the attitude that is going to prevent that from ever happening.
Agreed. About 20 years ago, many people said: "Only question now is not if but when will -Apple- become the number one -PC computer company- on earth?"
Apple had the opportunity to dominate, and failed to capitalize on it. No matter -how- good the product, no matter -how- perfect the opportunity, no matter -how- insanely ideal the timing, y
Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
20 years ago they were technologically dominating the market, but as soon as they decided they weren't going to commodify and license their designs, they were pretty much relegated to the "up-market" niche they hold today. Apple could barely supply their own market -- as people "wised up" to them, they responded by jacking up their margins to a gianormous size to keep the demand down. Which is a perfectly fine business strategy, but you won't get 90% marketshare that way.
The needs of the masses had to be supplied by open hardware, there was simply no other way. If anything Linux follows the Microsoft model rather than the Apple/Sun one -- run everywhere people want it to run.
Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux itself (the kernel) has frequently been dragged down routes that it shouldn't have simply to suit the needs of tools that run on top of it. A prime example (that supposedly has been dealt with in 2.6) was the /proc filesystem. It was always an ad-hoc set of entries, with no consistent data presentation format, and occasionally, some truly performance-killing requirements (eg: at one time, one had to close and reopen a file handle to get new data. A rewind() should have been sufficient, but didn't work.). These sorts of subtle things just show that the overall design is erratic, and frequently inconsistent since different developers have a different need or agenda that they are coding for. This is *not* a route towards a rock solid OS. Of course, these issues are being dealt with and fixed, but the fact that they occur in the first place is not a good thing.
Also, take a look at the recent thread on here regarding usability and KDE (and contained in the comments, Gnome). The user interface inconsistencies, flakiness, and generally poor design with respect to users is very sad. From an interface engineering perspective, Linux is near last place out there.
I believe this interface and kernel problem is not due to an inherently bad system (quite the contrary - Linux is great), but too many agendas and people driving one system in too many directions concurrently. Is Linux going to be a good server OS? What sort of server - a database server with one set of requirements, or a file server with a very different set? Or is it supposed to run on a workstation? How about my palm pilot? Or, how about bashing it into a form that can run on my Nintendo DS? All of these are places have a set of people with a different set of goals, and they're all pulling Linux in their respective directions. What is left? Something that is, without better words, somewhere in the centroid of all of their requirements - and far from the ideal point for any of them.
Re:sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, Windows once went from non-existant to a serious contender in the server market too...
Re:sigh (Score:2, Troll)
But today? Isn't it common sense by now that MS does not belong on a server?
Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, Linux's biggest strength is that it implements ideas from other oses very well. It just just implements them a few years after everyone else. Kde and Gnome look a lot like very pretty versions Windows 98. The whole Windows on a Dos kernel and X Windows on Linux kernel is a great example. Another example would be how Open Office is slowly implementing everything that MS Office does. I can make a list of programs that run on Windows and programs that reimplement them on Linux all night.
To make Linux really cool, someone needs to create something for Linux that everyone needs but doesn't exist on Windows or the Mac. I'd do it but I'm on Slashdot waiting for the booze to kick in instead of codeing
Anyone?
Re:sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
What linux will have in its favour is what it already has, a high quality opensource operating system, to go with other high quality opensource applications as they come into prominence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Believe it or not, there was a day and time when Unix security was considered a bad joke, and Unix machines were academic or research boxes for the most part. That ended with the entry of Unix powerhouses like Sun, but there was an earlier era. Technically you are right, because in the bare beginning Unix was essentially a time-sharing system with users connected by dumb terminals, and Unix was ONLY a server OS.
It's erroneous to call Linux 'the latest version of Unix.' The BSD OSes are direct decendents (through layers of evolutiona and re-write which excised all the code that 'evil' entities now 'own' and wield like a weapon, of course). Linux is a clone, similar to Coherent, QNX, or OS-9.
Re:sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's a terrible example. The only valid common thing in that comparison is that one has something to do with a graphical interface and the other doesn't.
Kde and Gnome look a lot like very pretty versions Windows 98.
So.. do they look like Windows 98 or not? If they look prettier than Windows 98, they don't look like Windows 98. WinXP looks like a pretty* version of Windows 98.
* debatable
Re:Obfuscated words (Score:3, Informative)
i think kde looks a hell of a lot better than 98 or xp.
there's far more functionality in kde than windows 98 too - ever heard of the kio slaves? i took a screenshot, then saved it to my ftp server, as though it was on my local hard disk. you can use kio slaves for many different protocols, including ssh and ftp.
We have TONS of things everybody needs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox. Pop-up-blocking -- never done by MS, only by third-parties. Tabbed browsing -- I'm not sure if Mozilla invented this, but MS certainly didn't. Firefox is ported to Windows, but I like it better with Linux.
Also, Windows on Dos vs. X Windows on Linux suggests that you R
PC sales and DOS licenses (Score:4, Insightful)
It was easy for DOS to "steal the show". The purchase of every PC basically required a license of this "cheap OS" by order of Mighty Microsoft. And of course that money went straight to them.
As a poster in the HP/Linux story wrote today, to this day some hardware vendors have contracts with MS that require them to sell a Windows license with every system, even if they're going to run Linux. Maybe THAT is what Microsoft is really celebrating. 25 years and going...
Re:PC sales and DOS licenses (Score:5, Insightful)
And it wasn't even the cheapest one (I believe that was the UCSD P-System).
But it WAS the only one that ran Lotus 1-2-3.
It's the apps, silly.
Nope DOS was much cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
Re:PC sales and DOS licenses (Score:2)
They were never just an idea, never just getting started - got that?
Film at 11 (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the only, and I mean ONLY good thing about dos was when you programmed for it, it got the hell out of the way and let you at the hardware. Software got full control of the machine at execution, giving great performance (which mattered at the time) and more reliable software. The only downside was a complete lack of library infrastructure for functionality sharing beyond simple io. Well that and the whole "ssh! pretend its a 8Mhz 8088" real-mode limitation.
Re:Film at 11 (Score:2)
I miss DOS (Score:2)
Actually, you can. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't freaking run old Dos programs on windows anymore.
Au contraire, and I am constantly amazed at the plethora of 16-bit programs that continue to run on kernels as recent as Windows 2000 - which is a real testament to M$FT & Intel/AMD's devotion to backwards compatibility [and which is also the lesson that FOSS types should take away from this].
However, I hear that Win64/AMD64 does NOT support 16-bit binaries.
Evolution theory (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm wondering if this couldn't be explained by evolution theory where the best adapted to environment survive, not the "best"
You pick your car. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, admit it. "Most used" isn't a criteria for Open Source development. MS has very, very little to teach OSS, because they are innately in different worlds. Stop with the "market think" already.
If, and when, Linux takes over as the most used OS it will be as a side effect. If it does not take over, well, then at least it's a better alternative freely available to anyone.
Mercedes doesn't feel any obligation to make Escort knockoffs just because more of them are sold, and they are market driven.
KFG
Re:You pick your car. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe most people propagating "impending market domination hype" relative to Unix variants aren't even major users of the OS. Those of us whose livlihood depends upon *solid*, *secure* computing performance actually don't give a darn whether Unix becomes universally accepted -- as long as we can use it for ourselves.
In fact, if I had my way, I'd prefer all my competitors use Windows-based systems. It would give me a major competitive advantage. On the Internet, nobody
Porn (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Porn (Score:2, Insightful)
A great comparison ... (Score:5, Interesting)
There were obviously a number of choices. PC-DOS was the least robust, the most temperamental, and arguably not very compatible with the IBM hardware and BIOS it was sold to work on. Yet, somewhat like the odd but obvious dominance of the VHS over BETA, this simple, cheap OS stole the show.
A more apt comparison I have not seen. In the end, both were about marketing---the inferior product had better marketing strategies pushing them. Both were championed by groups whose main selling point was that it was "good enough" to do what you wanted, but without you having to pay out the nose for more proprietary solutions.
Re:A great comparison ... (Score:2)
It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong sequence (Score:2)
When I can run 3D hardware out of the box... (Score:4, Insightful)
When distro makers license custom 3D drivers to go in their distributions as standard.
For example, ATI's 9800 driver installation process may suck (I still can't get them to work in any distro I've tried -- I am not a Linux expert by any stretch of the imagination), but if the distro makers want gamers and games developers to join them they're going to have to tackle this problem, even if it means coughing up cold hard cash.
Lesson of DOS: Give Credit Where Credit is Due (Score:3, Insightful)
William Gates was waiting in the wings, and he signed a deal to give IBM an operating system. Then, Gates bought PC-DOS from Seattle Computer Products. An engineer, Tim Paterson, at that company had stolen the ideas of CPM/86 and created a cheap clone of it. PC-DOS was that clone.
The rest is history. Kildall faded into oblivion, and most people have no idea that he is, in fact, the original inventor of the PC operating system. Meanwhile, billions of people instantly recognize Bill Gates as the "inventor" of the PC operating system. Gates got both the profits and the undeserved fame. Kildall got nothing and drowned in his own bitterness. In the later years of his life, he drank himself into alcoholism and eventually died in a bar.
The greatest insult was, ultimately, assigning the name "William H. Gates" to the Stanford Computer Science building. It should have been called the "Kildall Memorial Building".
I have the utmost respect for the volunteers in the open-source movement. I know that they will give credit where credit is due.
Re:Lesson of DOS: Give Credit Where Credit is Due (Score:2)
Re:Lesson of DOS: Give Credit Where Credit is Due (Score:2)
I guess the ultimate question I've never had adequately answered is that while we know he's a business whiz, is there any real evidence that billg is a computer whiz? Besides looking the part I mean.
Re:Lesson of DOS: Give Credit Where Credit is Due (Score:5, Insightful)
You list no such deceit or treachery. All you list is Gary Kildall giving IBM the brushoff. Give credit where credit is due, the fault for CPM/86's failure in the mass market needs to be given to Mr. Kildall.
Then, Gates bought PC-DOS from Seattle Computer Products.
Nothing treacherous or deceitful about that.
An engineer, Tim Paterson, at that company had stolen the ideas of CPM/86 and created a cheap clone of it.
Thank you, Darl MacBride. Was there a patent on CPM/86? No, there wasn't, so no ideas where "stolen", because no ideas were sold. The implementation for CPM/86 itself (copyright) was not copied, modified or distributed. Hence, no "stolen" operating system.
He created a clone of CPM/86, in EXACTLY the same way Linus Torvalds created a clone of Minix/Unix. Why is Tim the thief but not Linus? Oh that's right, in your Darl MacBride world, Linus "stole" Unix. Sigh.
Inventor? What a load of crap! Next you'll be telling me that AT&T/USL/Caldera/SCO were the orginal inventors of Linux!
The greatest insult was, ultimately, assigning the name "William H. Gates" to the Stanford Computer Science building.
It was William H. Gates who donated money to Stanford, not Gary Kildall. Which is why Gar Kildall doesn't have a Stanford campus building named after him. This is so bloody obvious that only a total moron would question it.
Re:Lesson of DOS: Give Credit Where Credit is Due (Score:2)
The following is from a pcmag article [pcmag.com]:
"Another key decision was software. In July, members of the task force went to visit Digital Research to ask the firm to port its CP/M operating system to the 8086 architecture. Legend has it that founder Gary Kildall was flying his plane at the time. Whatever the reason, Kildall's wife, Dorothy
Re:Lesson of DOS: Give Credit Where Credit is Due (Score:5, Insightful)
Hnm...I worked at Digital Research for three summers while I was in high school and college. I don't think what you're saying really holds water. CP/M was a nice enough OS in some ways, but it was painfully primitive by modern standards. Rumor had it that Kildall wrote the original CP/M over a weekend on a handy machine he had access to at the Naval Postgraduate School. It was a very basic, bare-bones OS, and it was by no means a state-of-the-art OS compared to, say, Unix; but that's not surprising, because it had to run in a 64k address space.
I also don't think it's accurate to portray Gary Kildall as a naive engineer who didn't know business. Digital Research was quite a successful business by the standards of a time when "microcomputer" users were mostly hobbyists. The story about his being out flying his plane when IBM showed up for the meeting is memorable, but probably untrue. A more believable version that I've heard is that IBM wanted Kildall and his wife to sign NDA's, and they refused. That wasn't as crazy as it might seem today. IBM had never even entered the microcomputer market. In the world of microcomputers, DRI was the big, established, dominant company, and IBM was trying to break in.
Actually, TFA isn't referring to CP/M at all:
- Look I say this with caution but sincerity since I began using DOS around the same time I had used UNIX and its variants, VMS, Stratus VOS and others.
VMS and Unix were indeed much more sophisticated than PC-DOS (or CP/M), but, uh, you couldn't run them in a 64k address space. People had made various trimmed-down 8-bit versions of Unix (proprietary, of course), but they weren't as sophiaticated as real Unix.From the article:
- My only question now is not if but when will Linux become the number one OS on earth?
Sorry, but this is really dopey. The historical stuff he's talking about isn't parallel to the modern situation at all. Some crucial differences:Quality article (Score:2, Funny)
"A friend of mine told me he thinks that if Microsoft released just 10% of the roughly $2 BILLION in CASH (does not include other assets) to help curb diseases and help starvation, many people could be helped."
Wow, his friend is a deep thinker. Money can be used to help stuff... a quality contribution from a quality author.
Re:Quality article (Score:2)
Why must Linux win? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft continues to dominate with its ties to big OEMs, and on volume sales that these OEMs deal with, Microsoft remains a pretty competitive option for providing support, brand recognition, etc. Plus it doesn't hurt companies and customers that nearly every app written has a version for M$.
People have been claiming Microsoft dead for years now, just like Apple should have been dead a few years ago. It isn't going to happen. If anything, Microsoft will figure out how to buy Linux and jigger with it.
Re:Why must Linux win? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Linux seems to have done so far (in most cases, but that BSD seems to do better) is to take a page out of the tenets of Judo (and probably other martial arts as well): the best defense is to NOT BE WHERE THE OPPONENT IS STRIKING. Microsoft will waste all of their energy trying to drag Linux into the marketing game, the legislation and lobbying game, the featuritis and well-publicized second-system effects game, and so on. Nobody who is using Linux these days cares that Linus doesn't buy a five-lot booth at CES as a monument to himself and his helpers, nobody cares that laws can't be passed to require people to use Windows, and nobody cares that Linux isn't competing with Windows on anybody's terms. They aren't competing because - Microsoft themselves said it best - you can't compete with free. So competing has nothing to do with winning, and the proof is the adoption rate of Linux. Ta da!
But hey, you know...I wouldn't be as good at the command line as I am now if it wasn't for 15 years of DOS throughout my youth. So party the night away, Uncle Bill, you deserve it.
Re:Why must Linux win? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with pretty much everything else you say, but I'd warn about being too complacent on this point. Now, I seriously doubt any law is going to be passed saying that Windows is the only OS people are allowed to use -- but what Microsoft may be able to do, and will certainly try to do, is a) take advantage of our absurdly permissive patent system to control simple, obvious features which are necessary to make software usable, and b) exploit the bugaboos of the moment (currently terrorism and "piracy", it may be something else tomorrow) to bully and/or bribe lawmakers into passing laws mandating "security" restrictions for consumer systems which -- surprise! -- Microsoft has locked up in patents and licenses. The F/OSS world ignores this at its peril.
Lessons Learned.... (Score:3, Insightful)
LESSON: Easier may not be better, but more people buy it. Windows was easier for grandma to use than command line interfaces, and thus made DOS obsolete.
LESSON: A product that is targeted to hardware and to a userbase will get market share. DOS was a derivitave work aimed at the microcomputer of the day. This allowed the average company or person to buy that hardware and use it effectively. Its target users were anyone that wanted stand alone computing resources, free of mainframes.
LESSON: Control is not the answer, simplicity is. Because DOS could be installed by anyone on almost any compatible machine, buying it made sense, and money was spent for the version of DOS that had the features required for the job. For this very reason, Microsoft has garnered a long list of detractors.
For the *nix world, what should be learned is that if you want to do something right, make it simple and easy to use by anyone. Make it portable: that is to say, yourLinux should work on many or any hardware platform that would be used by your target userbase. If you are targeting people who want to build their HTPC then by all means, make your own version of Linux if you find benefit to this, otherwise, use some other stable distribution and package it with the software you need to give the end user a sleek and easy installation and maintenance of their HTPC system. If you feel the need to innovate, remember that simple is when you take a good idea and make it usable on any *nix distro, and compatible with other OSs. It is the ease of use that creates marketshare.
While *nix developers struggle with competing with entrenched software vendors, it is time to remember that to beat them you have to be better, not simply a good-enough alternative if you want to get grandma and aunt velda using your code.
Just some thoughts...
The PC was intended to be low priced (Score:2, Informative)
DOS...? (Score:2)
Sad. My first thought was "what, Microsoft thinks they invented the Denial Of Service attack?"
Even sadder -- my second thought: "Oh, right. Blue Screen of Death."
Live and Learn (Score:3, Insightful)
Then do everything you can to abuse your monopoly position in bundled OS, apps, development and content - too numerous to list here. Then, if a new OS, unburdened with decades of backwards-compatibility baggage and shortsighted design decisions, becomes so popular as to threaten your entire business model, not just your OS product, you can continue to win based on lock-in and political manipulations. Don't worry if you're found to legally abuse your monopoly; you'll be so important that no one can touch you, even the US government. Especially if you just do what all the other popular, important, and big-spending monopolies do: bribe^Wcontribute to important campaigns, and create a "millionaires" cult that fills people with dreams of cheating their own way to the top.
BTW, if you can manage to be supported in your early years by a couple of the country's top corporate lawyers, their son (your CEO) can even drop out of college, looking like everyman while his PR team keeps his trustfund quiet.
To Quote Suse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To Quote Suse (Score:2)
"im not sure if you could qualify insects as animals..."
WTF. I could understand such thinking about amöbae, or bacteria, but insects? What would YOU classify insects, if not animals?
Re:To Quote Suse (Score:3, Funny)
Your doubt was well founded. Insects are actually very clever plants.
Re: 25 Years After DOS - Lessons for Linux? (Score:2)
Unlike the Microsoft systems, Unix has not changed significantly. This is a good story about getting the design right from the start.
It's about the apps, stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
People buy computers because of applications, not operating systems. Although Microsoft has managed to turn the OS into the application, the best, most solid systems respect the separation of OS and application. The only thing worthy of analysis relative to all this is the fact that MS's bloating up of DOS with a GUI and bundled apps ended up delivering them market share. But ultimately nobody ever chose a PC based on the OS... never, ever. They may have chosen a PC/OS based on the applications available for the OS, but with the exception of just a few, most computer users don't care what's under the hood as long as it gets them from point A to point B.
That's the way it was, is, and always will be. This holds true for everything from cell phones to console gaming. The system with the most versatility and functionality will win out in the absence of any domineering marketing campaign (which has a tendency of nullifying objectivity).
1. DOS was stable.
2. Because DOS was stable, developers were more comfortable developing applications for it.
3. Because there were more applications available for DOS, it garnered market share.
#2 is the key to it all... Had the first IBM PC been more closed like the Macintosh, the whole industry may have evolved differently. Had the TRS-80 been easier to hack and upgrade, we'd all probably be using TRSDOS v900. Had Apple not decided to turn their backs on the great original idea of embracing third party development when they went the route of Mac/Lisa, we'd all probably be using Apples. It's all about the applications, and how those who develop systems pander to the widest array of appdev talent.
What's funny is what's happened to the software development industry. I'd bet even today, 10+ years after the demise of DOS as a viable platform, there are still more DOS apps than Windows apps. So MS's pie-in-the-sky-OS idea has hurt the industry as a whole by crippling independent software development. That's what we can learn from this whole mess.
Re:It's about the apps, stupid. (Score:2)
Have you ever paused to wonder why Office includes Access, Excel, Word, and Powerpoint, but not Frontpage, or Photoshop or Publisher?
Learning? (Score:2)
The main things that seem to take down everything from leaders to companies to countries to empires are arrogance, overconfidence and bureaucracy. Open source won't stop either of those problems, but hopefully they can have less of all of the above.
If people haven't learned from thousands of years of documented history - I'm not sure why we expect software to start learning from it
Hold on here! (Score:4, Funny)
Objectivity is like hens' teeth in the Linux community, so I suggest that most non-zealots are currently rolling their eyes.
Economic Rent and Nontradables (Score:2, Insightful)
Gates struck deal that gave him a natural monopoly. There were other operating systems for the 808x family around and any one of them could have been the predominant one shipped by IBM with its PC. Any one of them would have formed a natural monopoly on that platform and made the owner rich.
Such monopoly profits are called "economic rent [wikipedia.org]" which everyone with any sort of mental faculties about economics, including such staunch advocates of laissez-faire capitalism [wikipedia.org], as Milton Friedman [wikipedia.org] recognize as the mo
Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
As it is this article is a factless, pointless rant about Microsoft. It doesn't answer the question it purports to ask ("What can the Linux world learn from Microsoft's past 25 years of unique experiences and domination?") at all. It does however spew every bit of geek lore that makes geeks feel all fuzzy inside knowing how 'superior' they are, regardless of the facts or relevance.
If it were posted on /., it would be modded right up to the stratosphere. As an example of Linux journalism - it's pretty sad.
Re:Double Standard (Score:3, Informative)
The OS sceptic viewpoint is very much present on Slashdot so please stop playing the underdog.
(yes, I agree the original article sucks)
Re:Double Standard (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, you still don't (usually) get away with really blatant flamebait or obvious nonsense, but generally, it works.
I also know that I myself will get modded Offtopic now for saying this, but I think it's an interesting observation with regard to how Slashdot works.
Will history repeat? MS in '80s vs. OSS in '00s (Score:2)
Learning from this history suggests that the key to Linux' suc
Autopackage is the key! (Score:2)
Uber-Parents Solution: Take All the Money and Run (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uber-Parents Solution: Take All the Money and R (Score:3, Informative)
You've stumbled across old geeks talking to old geeks. To people using computers twenty-five years ago - even teenagers, it was a great surpise that PC-DOS was the system of choice. You'll have to look at a pile of old computer magazines of the time, all of which were biased in one way or another, or find an old PC running
How I Spent My Summer Vacation (Score:3, Funny)
Sometime after Mr. Koenning learns to write an editorial that reads less like a bad high school essay.
Something Linux CAN learn from DOS (Score:3, Informative)
Linux has to take this fact - people learn something one way, and don't like to learn how to do it a different way unless they are forced to or are very curious. Linux has to force people to move, by providing killer aps, that every kid wants. They need GAMES, and INSTANT MESSENGERS that blow the pants off of anything on a Windows box, and then we'll see mainstream Linux on the Desktops in 10 years when these kids are buying their own computers for University.
Gates Foundation (Score:5, Insightful)
...
A friend of mine told me he thinks that if Microsoft released just 10% of the roughly $2 BILLION in CASH (does not include other assets) to help curb diseases and help starvation, many people could be helped."
I was uneasy reading this OP/Ed piece. But once I got to the "social" problem, I stopped reading. So, what charitable organization has the one of the largest endowments in the world? That would be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that has an endowment of roughly $29 billion. And what do they focus on? Global health problems like HIV/AIDS in Africa and education.
So only Microsoft should be held to this lofty standard of donating 10% of its cash to help the needy? Why not every company? Why shouldn't Ford donate 10% of its cash hoard (~$10 billion). What about Apple's $6 billion cash hoard? Or what about ordinary people? Why don't we require everyone to donate 10% of their savings account? Because Micro$oft is evil and should give back? As soon as I read this I knew this op/ed piece was a waste.
Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but it is not going to happen. Linux needs to grow away from MS and stop comparing itself to it. The more I read about how Linux can compare to MS (let alone 25 years ago) just leads me to believe more and more that Linux will keep copying Windows until Microsoft goes out of business. What happens then?
If Linux is to come out on top it needs to be more innovative and less whiny about Microsoft. Seriously. The entire "whine" (TM) factor needs to go the way of the dodo. It is a great turnoff to those of us that are considering Linux but are reluctant to leave MS.
Why does it have to be Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does it have to be Linux? Why Windows? I would bet good money that the "number one OS on Earth" will be neither of the two.
Unix and its early variants, around for about 30 years, are quickly losing share to Linux. DOS only had a 20-year shelf-life. Windows, around now in various forms for about 15 years, is probably going to give-way soon to another major evolution in OS. Linux, too, probably will go away to be replaced by something better. It's just a matter of time.
But to say that "Linux will become the number one OS on Earth" is a bit like a mother claiming her child is the best actress of all time, just undiscovered at the moment.
OSS zealots need to be less focused on smashing Microsoft and their self-claimed superiority, and more focused on solving the problems that are limiting their market-share.
Either that, or - as someone earlier stated - focus on a niche that Linux can properly serve and stick with that.
25 years of whaaat?!! (Score:3, Funny)
More seriously, as a so-called MS Partner (heck, they gave me that one day, I still don't know why folks!) I'm a bit mystified. I've looked high and low in my XP and Server 2003 systems, even those bits of Longhorn they let me play with and I don't see any DOS. Something of a DOS emulator, but nothing on point. Oh well.
Not that I want DOS anyway. Given my druthers, I'd shoot this machine if someone would give me mi Amigas back!
DOS, blech!
Betamax vs VHS is a myth (Score:4, Informative)
VHS was better [guardian.co.uk] for a number of reasons, the most important being that you could actually fit a movie on one tape.
Really, I wish people would stop using it as an example of something it's not.
You know, here's the problem.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Know why DOS succeeded, and then Windows? Because it was professional. Professionalism breeds trust. Imagine some pundit trying to sell tax cuts using this guy's writing style. You'd think he was a nut who wasn't prepared to sell his ideas.
And that my friends, as much as I like open source software, is the story of why open source software gets beaten by Microsoft and Apple -- they're great at ideas in places where Microsoft is blindsided, but have no clue how to present themselves to the mass market.
There's a reason why icons like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are icons -- they've honed their craft and are master salesmen. Open source makes no effort to sell themselves like established companies.
Strive for Invisibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I know people will bring up the issues of security , scalability, etc... but most computer users don't care. They don't care what encryption you're using, just stop viruses from getting on their computers! So that's the key: mold the operating system so that the user doesn't even know it's there and provide some new essential applications that don't run on Windows. There really haven't been any real breakthrough applications on ANY platform in the last decade. Programmers are still creating Word Processors, Databases and Spreadsheets... The OS that supports the next breakthrough App will be able to "catch" Microsoft.
Re:Not going to happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it worked. (Score:2)
Which means it was also easy to isolate any problems and work around them.
DOS was just the loader program for NetWare. Once NetWare had load, you could remove DOS from memory.
I'm running NetWare 6.5 and I'm still booting to DOS.
Re:Flamebait, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason that the IBM PC took over the market was because it was the right computer (business oriented, super number crunching, fast hi-res text display), at the right time, from the right people.
The IBM PC would still have stormed the market if it was running CP/M.
MS-DOS played an insignificant role in the early success of the PC, if anything it hindered developers and owners of businesses already running on CP/M machin
Re:Flamebait, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)