Linus On The Future Of Microsoft

An anonymous reader writes "There's a pretty good interview with Linus over at Good Morning Silicon Valley. The discussion seems focused predominantly on the future of proprietary software and what the tech landscape might look like if Microsoft's market share declines. 'Says Linus: I do not believe that anything can "replace" Microsoft in the market that MS is right now. Instead, what I think happens is that markets mature, and as they mature and become commoditized, the kind of dominant player like MS just doesn't happen any more. You don't have another dominant player coming in and taking its place -- to find a new dominant player you actually have to start looking at a totally different market altogether.'"

Future of Microsoft?

[Richard_at_work]

Easy - take a long hard look at IBM.

"Like open source"?

[HyperChicken]

So it's no wonder that Microsoft is one of the very few players who really don't seem to like open source.

Define "like open source". Do you think IBM or Sun "likes" about open source? Sure, they open source their products, but they're not doing so because it's a good development model or will produce better code. They're doing it for marketing and I guess it is working -- Seems to have Linus fooled.

Also, lest we forget Microsoft has open source'd code too.

Another MS occurring?

[Torgo's Pizza]

the kind of dominant player like MS just doesn't happen any more.

Tell that to Google.

Why Isn't There A Microsoft Section?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, with all the stories slashdot devotes to Microsoft thru the years, it's amazing they never get their own section. There are probably more MS related stories and Linux stories on a daily basis.

Slashdot should put these stories in a dedicated section like they do with Linux, and Apple.

Oh, and they should get rid of the Gates borg icon. It was never funny, and it just looks so lame and childish. How come no other topic beside Microsoft gets that kind of immature treatment?

Linus is so modest and reasonable...

[soupdevil]

How does he remain a hero of fanboys and flamebaiters?

Re:If only Linus...

[mattyrobinson69]

i dunno, in 1977 there weren't as many programmers as there were in 1992.

if linus was born 17 years earlier, i dont think we would have linux as good as it is now.

Re:The trouble with this analysis...

[Bellum Aeternus]

All the "built in defense systems" won't keep a company alive forever if the market won't sustain them. Microsoft enjoys the Wal-Mart effect. People love to hate them and say "not here!" but they still go out and shop at Wal-Mart.

If MS were so destined to die and were only cheating to stay afloat, they'd be gone by now. The market just isn't that forgiving.

Re:Another MS occurring?

[Torgo's Pizza]

Considering that Google closed at $287.84, I'd say the market has been very good to Google.

Re:Another MS occurring?

[inerte]

You can easily switch between web search engines while the same is not true for operating systems. Google is on a much weaker lead spot than MS.

Re:People learn...

[DogDude]

Linus is basing what he thinks will happen on his experience of past monopolies.

You're right. And every "monopoly" is different. The PC market is completely different from most previous consumer-level markets that have existed in the past, and there's simply nothing to base this on. In business school, you do a *lot* of time reading and studying case studies of other companies because, you're right... business is so complex, it can't be boiled down to right and wrong answers, generally speaking. You have to look at the entire situation to see if there has been a precident. In the end, a prediction of the future of something as complex as Microsoft is just an opinion (educated or not). And, you know what they say about opinions...

Re:"Like open source"?

[node 3]

Define "like open source". Do you think IBM or Sun "likes" about open source?

"Like", when applied to a corporation, is a metaphor. Define it with that in mind.

They embrace open source because it helps them.

They're doing it for marketing

Not really. Yes, they take advantage of the marketing opportunities Open Source provides, but it's more than that. IBM has only so much capital to invest in future business. By embracing Open Source, they add to their offerings with minimal cost, so they can offer their customers just as much as before, plus what Open Source has to offer.

Seems to have Linus fooled.

Yeah, right.

Also, lest we forget Microsoft has open source'd code too.

One thing, an installer. Maybe they're up to two now, I'm not sure. IBM's support of Open Source compared to MS's is like comparing a Saturn V with an amateur model rocket.

Actually, it's much worse than that for MS. Bill Gates calling Open Source advocates "Communists" more than negates the miniscule props they get for their one Open Source project. Add to that MS's demands that government not be able to use Open Source software (WTF?!)...

In other words, MS is in absolutely no way a friend of Open Source software, and in *no way* is a friend of anyone who believes in Open Source/Free Software.

Re:The trouble with this analysis...

[Pentavirate]

I'm having a bit of trouble with this analysis myself. Linus is talking as if it's all a foregone conclusion and we're just waiting for it to come to pass. He sites IBM as a big example of what will happen with Microsoft but it seems to me he's comparing apples and oranges.

IBM produce hardware that ran software. Other companies produced a clone of that hardware to be able to run the same software. Software being the key to what people wanted. They could care less who made the machine as long as they could buy the software they want.

Microsoft is a software company and specifically an OS company. There's no such thing as an OS clone. Sure there's emulators, but that's not the same thing. In the end people just want to run what software they want to and Microsoft is positioned to allow that to happen and I don't see an easy way for someone else to come in and take that away from them. Sure you can develop this office suite that does mostly the same things or that browser but unless you get the OS, it's only chinks in the armor.

The other problem is his view of the role of open source. He seems to think that OSS is going to take over much of the development and companies are going to handle support (at least that's the impression I got). Now, I'm not saying this won't happen, but never before have we had this kind of situation where masses of people are putting out a free commodity to replace a proprietary commodity. Linus has no history to back him up. It's truly extraordinary to think about it. What would happen if proprietary software went away in favor of OSS? What would all of these developers do to pay their bills while they're developing their pet OSS projects? I'm just wondering out loud whether OSS is capable of scaling to the size of the proprietary software industry without the that industry supporting its developers.

To make a short comment way too long, just take his "analysis" with a grain of salt.

Re:OS Competition Is Useless

[lafiel]

Here's the way I see it:

Despite most consumers not knowing very much about cars either, there's plenty of competition within the market there. A car is an extremely complicated beast, but you don't have to learn how to drive just a Ford, or just a Toyota. The interface becomes standard, things might be in a slightly different place, but there's not much difficulty necessary to adjust from one to another. Under the hood, the car is vastly different within the same brand, much less between different competitors. And yet this highly complicated machine somehow has plenty of competition and it can be hardly said that one maker 'dominates' the market.

And yes, this analogy is flawed, but the premise that I am pointing out is the key. That you can hide all the gritty nitty surface details and present the consumer with exactly enough to do what they want. Typical competition will lead people from one OS to another, whether it be brand names, the placement of your start button, or the power underneath the hood.

Just as I don't see the streets dominated by mass-produced Fords, there doesn't always have to be one primary operating system. Things will mature.

Is FireFox more a wedge to open source vs MSFT?

[WillAffleckUW]

It seems everyone I've talked to in the last 6 months is using FireFox. Plus everyone I tell FireFox about thanks me later. Everyone loves the tab feature and the "natural" defense against spyware. Anyhow... sure it's just a browser.

Now, if I were Bill Gates, and there's no truth to that rumor, I'd be much more concerned with the open-source browser adoption and implementation.

Why? Because if people aren't using IE - tightly bound into my OS or so I would claim - then they might realize they don't need my OS. And that would be double plus ungood.

So, in a way, projects like FireFox could make it easier to switch from my OS (Windows Daddy Longlegs) to an open source OS (insert name here).

Rather irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

gcc didn't exist on the x86 platform until 1987 or so. The 386 didn't come out until about 1985. There really wouldn't have been anything that Linus could've done until gcc was out (and C compilers are not his strength).

And don't forget the GPL didn't come until 1983. Even if Linus had written on OS for the 8086,
no one would've cared.

If he had been born 15 years earlier, he would probably wouldv'e been too tied up with a real job
to write Linux

Re:"Like open source"?

[16K Ram Pack]

It's actually more than just marketing.

IBM are in the software and hardware business, but more importantly, they are in the service business. They make nothing when they stick Windows on 1000 desktops. In fact, it costs them money. They also don't have the sort of control that they had on their mainframe operations.

By using OSS, they save money and can do much more with the software to meet their clients needs.

Re:Linux is not the future

[anubi]

Linux is more than an an Operating System, as is Windows. Its a language of system calls and processes upon which applications rely to communicate things which are to be done.

English, French, Spansish, all the other human languages... we also rely on them to communicate things to be done.

I don't see Linux going away any more than I see English going away. It, like English, may change from year to year, to reflect the the current usage of the day. But to obliterate years of legacy usage, nah...

What I do see though, is proprietary controlled systems disapearing as they become spoken by the few that pay to use them, while everyone else does the functional equivalent for free.

But they ( like COBOL ) will be around for a long time as some are highly ingrained in the infrastructure of the corporation which built using it. Look at the problem we have in the US with the English and Metric measurement systems!!! It is so ingrained over here we stubbornly hold onto feet and pounds despite the rest of the world possessing a much more elegant system! Quick- how many inches in a mile? How many centimeters in a kilometer?

Now imagine the Metric System was free to use for all, but we had to track royalty payments to use the English system... would us stubborn Americans finally give it up then? Or would we insist that the rest of the world use it if they were gonna do business with us? Does the threat of us not doing business with them if they don't comply with our demands hold much strength if year after year, we slip further and further into international debt?

Yes, I feel strongly that the basic operating system for all machines will be commoditized, much like generic foods.

I would venture to say that the Operating System of the future will be some standardized machine interface that allows one to communicate with a machine in much the way English ( or other language ) allows us to communicate to another human. I don't think cost will even be mentioned.... as it will be just part of the basic educattion of both Man and Machine. I don't think one would even think of it being a sellable concept any more than paying to use any other language!

However, this paradigm hinges on whether the United States Government continues to pass law to penalize anyone trying to participate in the "free enterprise system" by trying to compete in the market by doing the same thing others are doing... and trying to do better for less.

Well, if it can't be done here in the States anymore, it can always be done overseas... and just re-imported. Just don't expect the jobless Americans to put much down on the 1040 forms. And while they legislate things that keep us little guys in the courtrooms instead of the labs, Congress also needs to consider new ways of paying for their war toys.

Re:If only Linus...

[jumbledInTheHead]

then there would be no Minix for Linus to "copy" from, so linux would have never existed and maybe we would be using BSD instead of everyone saying BSD is dead.

It thus becomes quite clear that you use BSD instead of linux, and wish it had a much larger following.

Re:Linus is so modest and reasonable...

[TigerTale]

You assume the fanboys and flamebaiters actually bother to read what he has to say...

Re:OS Competition Is Useless

[mvdw]

That's a well thought-out decision, however you're kidding yourself if you think that "momentum has nothing to do with it". Momentum has everything to do with it: that is precisely why win2k beats Linux for your roll-out. Linux being too expensive is just another way of saying "we don't have the skill set in-house to implement this", which is a perfectly understandable and valid business decision.

Linus is very wise here...

[dantheman82]

I for one am sick of the usual /. flaming against MS that smacks of jealousy and extreme idealism for "their pet OS". The point of Linus makes a lot of sense, and I think that yes the market will correct some of the rather hefty prices, as he says. Of course, the question is for the next 5-10 years, "What OS can my company bank on in the meantime?" I'd say MS is a pretty safe bet if (a)you have a lot of infrastructure that works well (Win2K/Win2K3/whatever) for the intranet where you have the knowledge and experience (and also support for the near future) and (b)you diversify with some *NIX (or even Windows Server) offering for the webserver where you have enough knowledge and experience to support it sufficiently yourself rather than rely on some company (RH) or other (pick your company).

Basically, those who bet against MS have the burden of proof on their specific OS over the MS offerings that have worked for a lot of people...and their view may be right for their situation.

Re:"Like open source"?

[r_jensen11]

Actually, it's much worse than that for MS. Bill Gates calling Open Source advocates "Communists" more than negates the miniscule props they get for their one Open Source project.

You make it sound like being a communist is a horrible thing. Mind you, I'm not a communist, but it has just as much merrit as calling liberals living in the United States "Un-American." Anyone else upset at how the word "liberal" has now become "naughty?" Now when people hear the term "Liberal Arts", they think it's left-wing, rather than any of the other possible definitions.

The trouble with slashdot tribbles...

[MegaFur]

Therefore, while I would like to believe that what Linus says is true, I sincerely doubt it will happen, at least not in the forseeable future.

Please RTFA. Linus doesn't believe the MS empire will be crushed any year soon either. The closest he comes to saying that is

I just don't believe in dynasties. Things erode over time. Successes start to take themselves for granted, and the successful companies aren't nimble and hungry enough any more.

. . . So the question is how the decline happens, and in what timeframe. Will open source be a factor? Almost certainly. Will it be the factor? I don't know.

That part comes at the end. Probably because the interviewer wanted to finish on a strong note. Earlier in the interview however, Linus said

And yes, I think the big difference 10 years from now is not that MS is gone or even necessarily does anything very different, but that they have profit margins in line with the rest of the industry.

and, continuing backwards

That said, I don't see the MS market going away very fast, and I don't see why MS couldn't continue to function as a software company even if they don't control the commodity market any more. In many ways I think MS is in the same situation that IBM was in two decades ago, losing control of the basic market -- and thus the dominance of the market -- but not necessarily going away or even necessarily shrinking.

In general, I'm rather annoyed with the way people have been responding to the article because it seems like they're not reading it, or if they are, they're only looking at it from out of the corners of their eyes. Linus has always seemed to me to be a very level headed, easy going, and above all realistic individual when it comes to discussing the future of MS, Linux, and IT in general. It should come as no surprise then that he's not really predicting the sudden and apocalyptic death of MS, but rather a very slow, very gradual, possible(!) marginalization of the company.

You can leave the "imminent death of X"-style predicting to lesser people.

Oh wait! This is slashdot! Oops, I'm sorry my bad... I forgot where I was posting for a while. Please. Forget everything I said. Thanks.

Hmmm ... This Was a Joke or A Troll Right?

[SteveM]

OSX? ... "upgrades" are too frequent and expensive.

So then don't upgrade. You haven't from W2K. Is W2K even supported by MS anymore? (I'm ignoring the expensive myth, as it has been beaten to death. If you want cheap go ahead and buy cheap.)

Linux? - Too expensive to implement.

W2K - Cheap to buy. Cheap to implement. Works well.

Curious, Linux is cheaper to buy (can't get much better than free). And Linux certainly works well (although in fairness we don't know what you business is). And Linux is as cheap to implement as W2K, unless of course you were already a Windows shop when you started the analysis. Then this was a momentum thing.

OS/2! Why didn't you mention VMX or System 360?

So I call bullshit.

SteveM

Re:Disagree, it's about innovation, not size.

[timeOday]

Think about foreign automobile makers and GM in today's world. GM is arguably a behemoth, and that in itself can be what drives a monopoly out of power. Even though this market is arguably very mature, market share can change fairly rapidly with innovation.

GM's situation is entirely different. Cars are interchangeable, there is no problem switching brands. The operating system, on the other hand, is a natural monopoly.

Re:Future of Microsoft?

[gavcam]

> > Exactly. When IBM's consumer software market dried up, they simply moved more focus onto their hardware.

> And now they've moved into services, and create basically nothing tangible. Well, at least for a majority of their revenue.
> "What's left" on the hardware side is still pretty massive, this being IBM and all, but it's not their bread and butter.

But, if IBM spun off it's Software Group, it would be the second largest software company in the world (behind MS).

Re:"Like open source"?

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> I've always wondered why Microsoft doesn't open source their no longer supported software.

Multiple reasons:

code reuse If they opened the source to previous operating systems and unsupported software, it would expose code used in current products. You don't think they write each iteration from scratch do you?

forced upgrade cycle If the source for NT 4.0 had been opened why in hell would I have ever upgraded to XP pro? I'd just patch it for Direct X and USB support and that's all she wrote. opening source would get us all off the forced upgrade cycle and that won't happen.

ideological I don't think the corporate mindset really embraces the cooperative concept of OSS (see the previous "Commie" comments attributed to WM. Gates in this topic)

Re:Disagree, it's about innovation, not size.

[ozmanjusri]

The operating system, on the other hand, is a natural monopoly.

It may seem that way now, but the best outcome for consumers will be when we have commodity software on commodity OS on commodity hardware. Apple is heading down a part of that path by switching to fat binaries and abstracting the architecture and OS. Virtualised Linux, projects like WINE and even Hypervisor under Windows will contribute to the trend. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

Troll

[Frankie70]

If Linus had actually posted on Slashdot "I do not believe that anything can replace Microsoft in the market that MS is right now.", then he would have probably been modded as a troll by the proLinux crowd on Slashdot.

Re:Future of Microsoft?

[jbolden]

Yeah the MS / IBM comparison is lazy, there has never been a company as successful as MS.

Sure there have been companies with this level of dominance. Standard oil, American Sugar trust, US steel, US fruit, General Motors, the new york stock exchange,

Re:"Like open source"?

[hermi]

Oh please, just cause they call themself communists doesen't make them such. Keyword 'Marx'. Several have risen a state-capitalistic regime and called themself "communist".

Re:Future of Microsoft?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Instead of blaming the grandparent poster for not knowing that OO isn't meant to Visio type drawings, wouldn't it have made more sense to point them in the direction of a tool for linux that can do Visio type drawings? Have you ever thought that most users don't care what the tool is supposed to do (and don't want to be reminded about it either), they just want it to work for their needs.