Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Halloween Document Revisited 284

Posted by timothy from the mu-ha-ha-ha dept.
GroundBounce writes: "The front page of LWN has an interesting three-year-after analysis of the predictions in the Halloween document, which was "leaked" from Microsoft around Halloween of 1998. It's interesting to see how their predictions have/have not panned out."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Halloween Document Revisited More

Halloween Document Revisited

Comments Filter:
  • if Linux keeps getting press like this:

    How Linux saved Amazon millions [cnet.com]

    :-)

    299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

    • Unfortunately, the story about Linux saving Amazon millions [cnet.com] was not as bad for Microsoft as it was good for Linux.

      Although many people think of Linux as a replacement for Windows, the truth is that Amazon used Linux instead of other Unixes.

      Oh well, it's still good news.

      • Re:Its going to be 'Halloween' for Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lightfoot jim ( 441918 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @11:00PM (#2510786) Homepage
        "Unfortunately, (emphasis mine) the story about Linux saving Amazon millions [cnet.com] was not as bad for Microsoft as it was good for Linux."

        What is so unfortunate about something not being harmful to MS? Does harming MS somehow benefit others? Somehow a large, or at least very vocal part of the linux user base thinks so. I see the same feeling in the article:

        "Reproducing what is available on a Microsoft desktop will win some users, but it is not enough. It may yet turn out, however, that Microsoft's licensing will provide that impetus to switch."

        Now for the authors here, I can almost see a reason to want MS to lose market share. Their readership is made almost entirely of linux users and they are operating under the assumption that for there to be more linux users, there will have to be less MS users as if the number of potential computer users were a finite quantity of persons and organizations that will use MS *or* linux.

        This assumption is just wrong. Number one, a majority of those who use linux on the desktop also use windows on desktop via dual booting or have multiple machines. Secondly, this is grounded on the notion that everyone who wants to use a computer for anything is already doing so and that the odd individual who purchases his/her first pc tomorrow will not possibly be a linux user. This might be the case for someone who heads to best buy and picks up a new system with winME preinstalled, but it neglects the guy who is first introduced to computers at his linux using friend's home or the second grader who browses her first website in a volunteer supported, linux based school computer lab. These are the people who will most likely stick with linux because after a few months becoming familiar with kde, mozilla, etc, they will have litle patience to "wait while windows builds a driver information database" or reboot for every "general protection fault in crappycode.dll"

        Even so, this is only beneficial to people who make their money from a linux using market. As a user who loves linux and uses it almost exclusively, I don't care how many other linux users there are. I certainly don't feel like it's *unfortunate* when something doesn't hurt MS. I use linux becaues it does what I want it to, and as long as it meets that requirement I could care less what liscense the new MS product is released under or how many people buy their products.

        • for the record ... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by timothy ( 36799 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @11:51PM (#2510892) Journal
          I agree with you. I bear no animus toward MS per se, though they've employed some some crummy marketing tactics at times. I don't like their licensing overmuch (in fact, I think it's horrible), nor some of (what I consider to be) their anti-user attitude (everything possible to get rid of MP3s), high prices, ever-shifting file formats, etc, but there's either nothing or little that *I* (speaking for myself, no one else) believe ought to be criminally liable or lead to government interference. However, I feel that way about most things, not just MS ;) I wish well for my friends who work or have worked there, and think MS has some very good aspects.

          My arguments for non-MS software aren't dependent on Microsoft (if it wasn't them being Microsoft, someone else would be the largest closed-source vvendor, of course), but it does serve as a convenient example sometimes. ("You'd rather have a proprietary WP format from a crash-worthy, bloated program? OK, give me $400 ...") I like to argue for Free SW as being similar to blueprints -- would you want to hire an architect who refused to let you have a copy of the blueprints and other technical documents? If MS didn't exist, the argument remains.

          You wrote: "Now for the authors here, I can almost see a reason to want MS to lose market share. Their readership is made almost entirely of linux users and they are operating under the assumption that for there to be more linux users, there will have to be less MS users as if the number of potential computer users were a finite quantity of persons and organizations that will use MS *or* linux."

          Well, there are a couple of statements in there ... at a certain level, sure, one system's gain means other systems' loss. But naturally, not that simple -- the market for OSes isn't static, and won't ever be static. I prefer Free software philosophically (and because it's often outstanding, philosophy notwithstanding), but I'd rather people use multiple operating systems anyhow, even if some of them are proprietary. People learn that way, projects are cross pollinated with different ideas. (Also, this enourages universal file formats, my personal small utopian wish.) As you hint, the person computer relationship is complicated, not simple at all, and you can't just start subtracting "them" from "us" to get any meaningful numbers. Them is Us, and sometimes vice versa.

          Speaking of which: I dunno current numbers, but I bet way more than 50% of /. readers (80? 75? 85?) are reading with IE on a Windows machine, or [IE,Netscape] on a Mac running Mac OS. Sure, I hope they're at least somewhat intrigued by Free / free SW, but it's just not the case that most readers are MS free. A lot of people feel trapped, and say they "can't" get rid of it, even if they (otherwise) want to, because they have a certain game / piece of hardware / etc. that they want to continue to use. Hard to argue against, but then again, humans are always balancing wishes. If you don't want to use MS, it's still possible to live a relatively productive life, sleep at night etc.

          I'm writing from an iBook which is destined to hold Mandrake 8.1 (when it's ready for PPC) but in the meantime has an OS as proprietary as Windows, depending on who's counting*). Compared to my linux desktops, there are good and bad things -- one of the bad is that I can't just loan the OS to friends so they can, say, use the GIMP, which most people want to do after even a quick demo.

          My personal hope, too, is that MS becomes the world's largest Free Software vendor. I can't say there's "no reason" they couldn't be that in 18 months from now (though I have said that on occasion), but it certainly would be posssible. Imagine MS-branded cross-platform free software, with certificates for limited MS support instead of an insane license agreement :) That would perhaps make the box worth buying, take advantage of the MS name, etc.

          Anyhow, just a small rant re: what the authors think (rather, what one of the thinks), and the conflict or imagagined conflict among various OSes and devpt systems. In sum, I like Free but respect closed source software as one way to organize things which is perfectly within the rights of the developers to choose. OTOH, speaking as a taxpayer, for anything the government buys, I think Open sure makes a better investment in the commonweal, encourages pursuit of happiness better, etc, discourages horrible code on teh taxpayer dime, etc.

          Cheers,

          timothy

        • What is so unfortunate about something not being harmful to MS?

          Apparrently you have not actually done business with Microsoft. Or somehow, the fact that Microsoft is an overbearing, oppressive monopoly has evaded you. And what of the Justice Department's ongoing scuffle with them - do you think it's just because Windows crashes? I could go on for days about all the reasons to hate Microsoft - literally.

          As we speak, tens of thousands of IT managers are having to purchase the lastest versions Office XP otherwise they won't be getting the upgrade price if they do it later.

          And why do you think that NONE of the big 5 PC vendors sell systems that dual-boot between Windows and Linux? I'll give you a hint: It ain't because Linux is too expensive. Microsoft actually forces vendors to agree not to ship dual-booting systems or - gues what - they can't sell Windows!

          Microsoft is a stank, festering chancre on the computer industry's face and anything unfortunate that happens to them is a good thing for the computer industry.

          So, yes, I do yearn for Microsoft's failure; but it's not so Linux can succeed, it's so anybody can.

        • What is so unfortunate about something not being harmful to MS? Does harming MS somehow benefit others?
          Actually, it's not so much a matter of "hurting" MS as it is wresting the control they have over the computer industry and the standards it runs on, out of their hands.

          Look at the Halloween Documents again. The strategy outlined there is to "Embrace and Extend". As long as Microsoft owns 95% or more of the desktop market, it remains a fairly simple matter for them to force their way into the server marketplace. Once they own both sides of the client/server equation, they have a blank check to extend previously open standards, creating an infrastructure where only they know all the "secret codes". The end result is that all competitors (including Open Source) are religated to a sort of software getto.

          If Microsoft loses some portion of its market share, it also loses the assurance that it can force standards to do its bidding, and customers in general end up with more choices.

    • I see in my moderation totals that this article was rated "redundant" twice. I think the moderators should be forced to indicate what article they feel made the article they're rating 'redundant'. My post was something like the 15th overall in this topic, and I haven't seen any that mentioned the Amazon/Linux article.

      In short, I think Slashdot moderation is somewhat broken in this regard - no one metamoderates against 'redundant' mods since its too much trouble to figure out if they're correct.

      By the way, for those who think Sun will lose out to Linux as opposed to Microsoft, take a look at Sun's new anti-Wintel servers [sun.com]. Pretty sweet, eh? ;-)

      299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

  • Understanding a process (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PM4RK5 ( 265536 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @08:37PM (#2510427)
    As the memo says, they only way to "eliminate" OSS is to understand a process. Ironically enough, the entity searching for this "process" will in the end, find itself.

    This is much like the ancient greek story OEdipus Rex, where he searches for a murderer and finds himself to be the person for whom he was searching. IMO, Microsoft in itself is the type of thing that drives OSS projects. The desire for non-corporate software, because of their greediness in terms of money, and inefficency of their products, and the desire to re-invent the wheel to be better than the current one, with input from all parties interested.

    In order to combat the fees, the source code must be free and open, such that nobody will ever be able to claim it as their own and stop reproduction of it. And with OSS, anybody that sees a better way to do something, can contribute it. Whereas with the corporate model, you must write your programs to your manager's specifications, making innovation difficult at the developer level.

    So in the end, the drive for OSS is to get away from the monolithic corporate model, which Microsoft ultimately represents. To destroy OSS, they must truly make their products more efficient and cause people to desire to migrate back to their software despite licensing fees.

    Just some thoughts on the statments contained in the memo... maybe they're right, maybe they're not.

    • Re:Understanding a process (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @09:41PM (#2510609) Homepage Journal
      IMO, Microsoft in itself is the type of thing that drives OSS projects.

      I sure hope not! I would much rather use software that was written TO BE something, rather than software that was written NOT TO BE something.
      • So do you want to use Gnumeric because it IS Excel, or because it ISN'T Excel?
        • Actually, I don't want to use Gnumeric at all. I want a spreadsheet that works. ;-) Gumeric is pretty, but it's a toy.

          Sadly, I've yet to find a real alternative to Excel. That's not terribly surprising when you remember that the only reason Microsoft developed Windows in the first place was to run Excel (which started life as a Mac-only product) on the PC so as to have something to compete against Lotus 1-2-3. Anyone who is even a moderate "power-user" of Excel (even avoiding VB & macros, which is a very goood idea) finds all the alternatives (Gnumeric, Kspread, StarOffice, etc.) to be pretty featureless and flakey by comparison.

        • [Bond] So Goldfinger you want me to Excel?
          [Goldfinger] No Mr Bond, I expect you use SIAG!

          ..Bond tried desperately to excape...

          Seriously though do you want me to use Excel becuase it is Quattro Pro, or becuase it isn't SIAG?
      • > I sure hope not! I would much rather use software that was written TO
        > BE something, rather than software that was written NOT TO BE
        > something.

        GNU: GNU's Not Unix

        Hell, even Unix was created as a non-Multics Multics.

        You want software written to be something, run the original Amiga. (I will envy you.)

  • Good topic, Poor article (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aralin ( 107264 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @08:53PM (#2510465)
    This article is very poor. There could be way better answers to most of the claimed quoted from these Halloween memo's and though the author has made a substantial effort during writting of the article, it feels like he got tired and didn't think many of his arguments through.
    • While I wouldn't go as far as 'very poor' (I've read too much crap to use such strong language for something that's only mildly disapointing) I agree.

      The 'future credibility' paragraph is a good example. VinodV is admittedly somewhat vauge in that paragraph, but he could well be talking about a *major* feature addition, not just the addition of a new command line option to display errors in capitals.

      The LWN author doesn't really address this issue at all, just mumbles something about developers' statments being either careful or unreliable, and blithers about MS code being hidden from public view, neither of which seem particularly relevent to the issue of whether OSS *can* produce genuinely new features, or just improve the ones already in the bag.

      Of course, there *are* examples of genuine new features comming out of Free Software, but it's also true that it spends much of its time reproducing features available elsewhere. As far as I can tell, most of the end-user applications, including the GNU utilities, are improved versions of older software (in some cases much improved).

      OTOH, it's not like commercial software is known for it's revolutionaryness in general, either.

      Are there any examples of a genuinely new feature in a Free Software project intended on the end-user?
    • >> There could be way better answers to most of the claimed quoted from these Halloween memo's and though the author has made a substantial effort during writting of the article, it feels like he got tired and didn't think many of his arguments through.

      mmm, sweet irony. bit like your post really eh?

  • My favorite quote (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For many, Mozilla or its derivatives (Galeon, Skipstone, etc.) are the browser of choice.

    Sure, the many reading that article.

    Fact is, Microsoft continues its market dominance and the vast majority of OSS projects are stillborn or far behind their original schedules (take a look at how active most SourceForge projects are). While Linux users are crowing about how new and improved their latest kernel version is (which was released within 2 weeks of their previous version), Microsoft is loudly proclaiming XP as the messiah of operating systems. OSS users are patting each other on the back for the latest version of Mozilla, but Microsoft is telling the world about the newest changes to MSN. Linux is taking marketshare in the server market, but so is Windows, and they are taking it from the traditional big Unix companies Sun and IBM.

    Microsoft has found that they don't have to compete with OSS because OSS poses no credible threat at this time. They have effectively neutralized the movement by waiting until the remaining members were shown to be drooling zealots who could talk a good game but failed to deliver on the OSS promise.

    OSS has been shown for what it is: a non-commercial hobby. Because of the restrictions placed on it by the GPL, none of the software can become a commercial success (ask GNAT how well they're doing).

    No one wishes the programmer hobbyists harm, but those hobbyists who think they can beat Microsoft at its own game while wearing "Free" handcuffs are going to be disappointed everytime.

    Well, maybe not. As long as they only wear their OSS blinders and get their news from Slashdot.

    • You're Full of It (Score:4, Interesting)

      by krmt ( 91422 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .erehmrfereht.> on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:08AM (#2511188) Homepage
      Feed the troll...
      Fact is, Microsoft continues its market dominance and the vast majority of OSS projects are stillborn or far behind their original schedules (take a look at how active most SourceForge projects are).

      True, most projects don't make it out of the gate, but they don't all have to. Just because most projects fail doesn't mean that others don't succeed. The fact is that there are projects to fulfill just about every desire you could have on a computer. Web browser, instant messaging, servers, office suites, some games, programming tools, etc. etc. Sure, lots of projects fail and die, but enough succeed to make the system viable. If you don't believe me, try running a linux system for a little while.

      While Linux users are crowing about how new and improved their latest kernel version is (which was released within 2 weeks of their previous version), Microsoft is loudly proclaiming XP as the messiah of operating systems. OSS users are patting each other on the back for the latest version of Mozilla, but Microsoft is telling the world about the newest changes to MSN. Linux is taking marketshare in the server market, but so is Windows, and they are taking it from the traditional big Unix companies Sun and IBM.

      Straw men. What does this have to do with the previous argument, where you said OSS projects are all stillborn? Here you point out two that are actively in development and consistently improving, contradicting your earlier statement. Both Windows and Linux are moving targets, and just because both projects like to tout improvements with varying degrees of rhetoric doesn't mean that one is less viable than the other. Where's the argument here that says OSS is bad?

      Microsoft has found that they don't have to compete with OSS because OSS poses no credible threat at this time. They have effectively neutralized the movement by waiting until the remaining members were shown to be drooling zealots who could talk a good game but failed to deliver on the OSS promise.

      As far as I can tell, no such thing has been shown. Granted, OSS may not have lived up to all the Windows-killing hype, but that doesn't make it any less competitive. The availability of free tools that you have near total control of is a very powerful incentive for a lot of people, and will continue to be so in the future. The OSS promise isn't really "World Domination" as so many like to talk about, it's actually the opposite. It's about freedom from world domination by any one entity, and it's about personal empowerment. Linux, *BSD, et al. are still going strong, and in this sense they have completely delivered on the OSS promise.

      OSS has been shown for what it is: a non-commercial hobby. Because of the restrictions placed on it by the GPL, none of the software can become a commercial success.

      I've really never understood this argument. True, OSS is a non-commerical hobby for many, but for many others they have been hired to work on OSS as their job. Companies use what they create as "tools" to make money, not as money makers themselves. How many software companies make money off of MS Word sales? One. How many companies make money by using MS Word as a productivity tool? Countless. Paying someone to develop GPL software is like purchasing a bunch of MS Word licenses. You're paying for your software (which you get complete control over BTW) and you make your money actually using the thing rather than selling it. That's where the profit motive actually lies. And even then, how does this relate back to the overall premise of your post that OSS is bad? Just because someone makes something as a non-commercial hobby doesn't mean it's a bad piece of work, nor does something have to be a commercial success to be a good product.

      Overall, your post is a load of shit troll-boy. There are plenty of disadvantages to OSS, but you sure didn't hit on any of them.

  • FUD from LWN (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kenneth Stephen ( 1950 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @08:54PM (#2510469) Journal

    Quoting from the Halloween doc : "The biggest roadblock for OSS projects is dealing with exponential growth of management costs as a project is scaled up in terms of rate of innovation and size. This implies a limit to the rate at which an OSS project can innovate." To this, LWN responds in a totally tangentially way that is more commonly used by politicians ducking the question.

    Indeed, Microsoft has made a spot on judgment of the management problem in open source : things eventually happen in open source projects, but not at a pace that anyone can control. Indeed, the management techniques that can be applied to closed source projects can allow people to define deadlines - whereas no such deadlines can be imposed (if one is honest) in the open source world.

    LWN has attempted to distract one from this fact by throwing in the red herring that closed source project management is not perfect and can have problems meeting deadlines. (1) The Halloween document is not addressing deadlines - just the rate at which a project can be planned to proceed at (2) While I have observed the slippage of deadlines first hand in closed source projects, mostly they arent very serious slippages. Maybe a few days here or there, but hardly the three month delay quoted by LWN ("2.5 will ...").

    • Re:FUD from LWN (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mce ( 509 )
      I fully agree that LWN's response to the management issue is weak, but on the other hand: so is yours to LWN.

      Major slippage occurs in professionally managed close source projects as well. In fact, many (Brook's The Mythical Man-Month comes to mind) will claim that it often is the norm. In any case, I've surely experienced it first hand. But to give a much more visible example: just consider the number of times MicroSoft has missed its intended OS deadlines. Just ask youself: how often they announced the one and only unified Windows version that would finally put DOS to rest for the home user? XP is years behind schedule!
    • 2.5 isn't out yet, and maybe it should be, but look- you have 2.4.1, 2.4.2... what are we at now, 2.4.13? You can use all of these if you want, and most of them will be (fairly) minor improvements upon the last. Who cares if .14 isn't here yet, run the version before.

      With closed-source, however, you're waiting for the next version which bundles all those subversions into one- Wind95... Wind98- three years with no major changes. That's why Linus can miss a target with no major repercussions, while the wait for the next version of Windows can seriously mess up plans.

    • Its not FUD (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gnugnugnu ( 178215 )
      You are oversimplyfing.
      When most people talk about open source projects the preclude the idea of Commercial but Open source projects, they may not be the majority but they do exist.

      If a project is both commercial and open (rather than commercial and propriatary) it is inevitable that the will have set deadlines and one can _honestly_ say that these deadlines exist.

      Of course they may be an increased likehood that developers get distracted by tangetial features or helping out less skilled volunteer programmers (Brooks Law, adding more programmers to a late project only makes it later).
      do you think the Open Office/Star Office Developers being paid for by Sun Microsystems or the Mozilla/Netscape developers being paid for by AOL/Netscape/TimeWarner/whoever are not forced to meet deadlines?

      Mmm, Fud, makes me think of that simpsons episode where Homer cant get Duff Beer and has to settle for Fud (or was that FFUD?).

    • Deadlines and value (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nels_tomlinson ( 106413 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @10:27PM (#2510714) Homepage
      Indeed, Microsoft has made a spot on judgment of the management problem in open source : things eventually happen in open source projects, but not at a pace that anyone can control. Indeed, the management techniques that can be applied to closed source projects can allow people to define deadlines - whereas no such deadlines can be imposed (if one is honest) in the open source world.

      It is true that closed-source projects can make one sort of deadline and stick to it. That's the "we'll ship by" sort of deadline. That's not the kind of deadline that knowledgeable users generally need.

      The sort of deadline that open-source projects can generally meet is the "we'll get a nightly build up every night" and the "we won't call it version 1.0 until we're ready" sorts. These will do just fine for knowledgeable users. No closed-source company can meet this kind of commitment.

      Notice that the one thing that for-profit, closed-source developers cannot do no matter how hard they try is ship bugfree software on a hard schedule. No one can. What they can do is ship version 1.0 when they said they would, and charge you for the service pack, and then charge you again when version 2.0 comes out with the features that you paid for in version 1.0 actually working.

      Here's where the libre software is so wonderful. The total cost of ownership may be higher, lower or just the same as the closed source stuff, but the total benefits of ownership are generally much higher.

      Folks like to say that you get what you pay for, and that's almost true: when you buy something you won't get any more than you pay for. The payment makes an upper bound on what you get. That isn't true when someone gives you something. The initial cost of $0.0 makes a lower bound on the value.

      With libre software you get what the developers claim they're delivering, and sometimes a lot more. You don't have to wait for a deadline or an official release to start using the latest version of GNUfoo; you can keep trying it and start using it when you say it's ready.

      Ask yourself: is it really an advantage for the closed-source companies to ship buggy crap that isn't ready, so they can meet a deadline? It is for them; it lets them gouge you and make a payroll. Is making a deadline that way really good for the customer?

      • I can find nothing to disagree with in the above piece - however...

        This iarguement eventually leads to the conclusion that commercial software development would cease immediately were it not for dumb ass users willing to swallow this kind of treatment.

        My concern at that is simply - how does open source, coded for free, working bug free software get written if no one is being paid to write software 'during the day'??

        Also, some commercial software IS worthy. I dislike MS, but macromedia do some fine software, Dreamweaver couldn't, I suspect, have arisen from an open source project.
          • There are more that enough problems out there that will never spawn an Open Source projects to solve it. A big number of situations falls into the "Company A (and only company A) needs X done".
          • There is also a need to integrate systems (even if they are made solely with open source components)
          • Plus there is a need for customizing software for a specific use.
          • Plus complex systems have to be designed, assembled, installed, tested and maintained.
          So there is more than enough paid work out there (most of it boring), and even if in the future all Closed Source Software is substituited by Open Source Software, very specific needs will still employ most if not all of IT developers.

      • It is true that closed-source projects can make one sort of deadline and stick to it. That's the "we'll ship by" sort of deadline. That's not the kind of deadline that knowledgeable users generally need.

        The sort of deadline that open-source projects can generally meet is the "we'll get a nightly build up every night" and the "we won't call it version 1.0 until we're ready" sorts. These will do just fine for knowledgeable users. No closed-source company can meet this kind of commitment.

        Indeed, but there are very serious problems with development processes that set these kinds of deadlines.

        Clearly, the "we'll ship by" deadline can lead to shipping products that were not ready to ship. But if project managers and developers are intelligent about it, it can also lead to debugging and other project finalizations being done when they need to be done.

        "We'll get a nightly build up every night" can become a completely worthless type of deadline very quickly. Nightly builds are worthless and should not count as any kind of achievement most of the time. No user needs a new release every night, especially at the cost of uncertainty of quality. Post builds when it's useful to users to do so. Developers shouldn't need a build posted every night to continue the development process.

        The "we won't call it 1.0 until it's ready" anti-deadline is obviously a rule that everyone should follow. It's tautological. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the time, especially in open source projects, this rule gets turned into "we won't call it 1.0 until we get bored of adding new features to it; and we won't debug it after that because that isn't as interesting to do." Worse yet, it turns in to "we won't bother releasing a version we'll call 1.0 any time soon because stableizing the project to an acceptable level isn't something anyone on the team is interested in."

        Even microsoft has figured out a solution to the problem of making users wait for an official release. It's called releasing betas to the public. It's still up to the users if they feel the betas are good enough to use on a daily basis. Still, for most users, it is unacceptable to have to try out more than one release of a product to find out if it's up to their standards. A whole lot of users want that 1.0 release so they can try it will the expectation "if this release isn't good enough, the product isn't good enough, and I should go try something else."

    • bad logic from Ken (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Erris ( 531066 )
      Red herring, it's funny you should use that phrase to describe LWN's response to the M$ red herring of OSS scale and innovation problems. LWN correctly pointed out that closed source does not always do well when it get's large, but they did not stop there. They also try to remind us of just how innovative and fast moving OSS can be by citing Mozilla, KDE, Open Office and the kernel itself. Managing large projects is difficult, LWN just thinks OSS does it better. The reasons those projects work better are detailed in other parts of the article. The results are clear to anyone who's ever used the programs cited. They are especially clear to those of us who must suffer M$ junk at work.

      Sitting here, I know which model works better. I have several awsome window managers (each of which blows away the M$ GUI), dozens of good editors, three web browsers, great image manipulation software at my disposal. I can run it from any of my machines through secure shell to this laptop I have sitting on me here in bed. No, this is not just theory, I'm doing it now. Goodies are compiling on an Athlon while my P150 laptop with 24 megs of ram handles this silly post. A mailbox is dealing with DNS, FTP and mail behind a 486 firewall. Remote administration is secure and easy thanks to apt and friends. Most of these convinences run counter to the M$ business model. How well that has worked out is painfully obvious when I go to work [slashdot.org].

      Am I some sort of computer God? Far from it. I've got a little C and FORTRAN. Debian is taking care of the rest of things for me. Yes, it's all free. Yes, it's getting easy enough for a boneheaded engineer to get things done. Something is working well here, and I'm glad to help if I can.

      The only thing that LWN got wrong was thinking that M$ has laid off the FUD. GPL virus? Naked PC? Information Anarcy? Make it stop! I laugh at it, but others are taken in all day long.

    • Well you are better than most people. :)

      I just read an interesting quote from IEEE Software, Vol. 13, No. 5, September 1996 [construx.com]: "The 1994 Standish Group survey found that the average IT project took about 220 percent of its planned schedule."

      Perhaps we've become a lot better about setting up reasonable schedules since 1994, but I have a don't have enough faith in humanity to believe that.

  • Open protocols, open data formats (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aralin ( 107264 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @08:56PM (#2510474)
    This reminder of halloween document more than shows us that the ONLY important remedy in the M$-DOJ case is to force open protocols and open data exchange formats. Everything else is just a bonus or bogus. Even restrictive OEM contracts would not uphold long, but proprietary protocols and data formats might have the potential to break neck to OSS development
    • the ONLY important remedy in the M$-DOJ case is to force open protocols and open data exchange

      YES! I totally agree. I have been thinking the same thing. We need the idl definitions for all the MS-RPC calls. Then we could access Exchange, NT Domain stuff, etc.

    • Re:Open protocols, open data formats (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Soko ( 17987 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @10:36PM (#2510735) Homepage
      ...ONLY important remedy in the M$-DOJ case is to force open protocols and open data exchange formats. Everything else is just a bonus or bogus

      This is the remedy for all companies in the IT industry - not just Microsoft. This would protect consumers, since they would have a choice of tools to use in order to get at thier data. That's really what's at stake here - having some one or some thing get between the user and thier data. Some extract money, some extract code, some extract pain.

      With known open standards being enforced by the industry on the industry, we get a level playing field. Then, the company/project/whatever who interacts with the user best and meets thier needs gets the prize, not the one who duped the user into a proprietary format.

      (note: The Government may have to enforce this at first since getting the industry to agree on a standard is a daunting task, at best. Having Gates, McNealy and Elliston all in one room at one time may provide enough ego to reach critical mass and create a thermo-nuclear type explosion)

      Soko

      • The Gov't doesn't have to *force* a standard (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GroundBounce ( 20126 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @12:10AM (#2510938)
        I don't have a link handy, but a while ago I read a very interesting essay where the author made the observation that the government doesn't have to legislate or force standards in order to affect a change. The government is such a large purchaser of computers and software that they could simply use their huge purchasing power to influence the market in the direction of open standards if they wanted to. If the government refused to buy into proprietary standards, many companies would support open standards rather than loose a customer that size.
        • I don't have a link handy, but a while ago I read a very interesting essay where the author made the observation that the government doesn't have to legislate or force standards in order to affect a change. The government is such a large purchaser of computers and software that they could simply use their huge purchasing power to influence the market in the direction of open standards if they wanted to. If the government refused to buy into proprietary standards, many companies would support open standards rather than loose a customer that size.

          I agree, but I don't think "the government" is in a position to do this. There's no Secretary of IT that mandates what the Executive branch uses. For the most part, I assume there's a big "money pot", high-up employees get whatever toy they want, be it IBM, Dell, Apple, Sony, or Nintendo. (BTW - anyone else watch West Wing for the computers? Dell one week, Thinkpads the next, and I'm pretty sure I saw an iMac once...)

          Ditto for other branches - I can't imagine that there's a central IT org that can mandate what congressmen work on, or what field offices use. How do they network? Simple networks based around huge steel purchases from the 70's, or the government's intranet, the Internet.

          Even the millitary isn't too standardized. I've seen some rugidized laptops provided by, I think, Compaq, in huge metal cases. I imagine that heat generation is a problem, so these are probably kept in the low-power range. Vendors have to make sure their stuff works on the laptops, but that's it.

          I've done some military contract work, and one of the fundamentals is that the military owns the applications and the code, unless the applications are of-the-shelf equipment. If you are a big enough company, then you can claim that a peice of software is of-the-shelf, but they may look at you crooked and try to determine if you'll be around 20 years from now, when it breaks. It appears that Microsoft meets that criteria, since we've never had the military blink when we've based a small project on top of MS Windows or MS Office.

          That's the rub - government development is not ongoing, but instead in quantum leaps. They are more likely to develop a standard application, verify it works, then sit on it for 5-20 years until it no longer meets requirements, then start the process of budgetting for an upgrade, taking bids, etc., which can last years. Can open-source work in an environment where there is 20 years between patches, where it has to be right when you deliver it to the customer?

          It's not impossible, of course. I've seen the military force some interesting things on contractors, such as Ada. But I don't expect them to do it this year, this presidency, or even by the next president. This is a category where commerical businesses will have to lead.

      • This is the remedy for all companies in the IT industry - not just Microsoft.

        Wow, this is so right! Very few people understand that closing protocals does nothing but hurt everyone, INCLUDING your partners and yourself. The last company I worked for was a Microsoft "Partner" developing some business web-service things. Well, we had been developing for over two years and could simply not turn out a product. What was our problem? Over 90% of the work we were doing was fscking around with SOAP interop problems between the jillion ever-so-slightly-different implementations of SOAP and WSDL. Actual business logic took, perhaps, 2-4 months of coding work, the rest of that time was completely and totally focused on getting the "plumbing" to work. If standards were really solidified and not moving targets, we could have been out on the market a year ago...
        • Actual business logic took, perhaps, 2-4 months of coding work, the rest of that time was completely and totally focused on getting the "plumbing" to work. If standards were really solidified and not moving targets, we could have been out on the market a year ago...

          That's why so many people like J2EE. It's far from perfect, but it does work. As I've said before, the open source community would go much farther if it simply embraced Java/J2EE than if it goes off tilting at the CORBA windmill with some silly Gnomized .NET clone...

          In reality, Sun has proven to be a fairly responsible and even-handed steward of Java. The Gnazi's insistence on total "freedom" (read "GPL is the only acceptable license") is the single greatest threat to the success of open source software. Embrace Java or lose to Microsoft. It's really that simple. (There's not time to do Java over again, and the community has no proven ability to generate such complex code, anyway. Lots of the same pieces over and over, but no integrated, interoperable, and more importantly, interworkable systems.)

    • Re:Open protocols, open data formats (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mignon ( 34109 ) <satan@programmer.net> on Thursday November 01, 2001 @11:53PM (#2510897)
      That's a good point. Furthermore, the article talks about KDE vs. GNOME in relation to the issue of whether one OSS project '"kills" another.' The article goes on to say that OSS projects do indeed compete, but in "a different form." Here's what I think of this competition among OSS projects and why it's a good thing.

      It occurs to me that talking about projects killing each other is assuming the Microsoft paradigm - that there can only be one dominant force in any market. Also, many comments on the KDE/GNOME (or Linux/BSD, or which Linux distribution will "win" or "die next") situation assume that there can only be one "winner."

      However, who is to say what is the "natural state" of the OS/software market? Is it a winner-take-all market, as Microsoft would (a) like to be the winner of, and (b) like us to believe is the natural way, or is there room for multiple vendors? When there are open protocols, there is no technical reason limiting the number of clients that use a given protocol. There is also no compelling market force.

      Take for comparison word processors vs. web browsers. For word processors, Microsoft Word takes advantage of "network effects" with its closed-format document format. That is, the more people that use that format, the more valuable it becomes. Similarly, a new word processor purchaser deciding between closed formats will surely choose the one with the bigger installed base, or at least the one that most of their clients use - which, at this point, are probably the same. The network effect is why Microsoft wants us to think that the OS/software market is a winner-take all situation - this leads to the decision to buy the latest version of Word, simply because you're afraid to get left behind by everyone else upgrading their version.

      On the other hand, web browsers are dealing with an open protocol. Anyone can write a browser - and several parties have - that can render some form of HTML and communicate to http servers. On an open platform such as Linux, there are several to chose from and there's no reason to worry that you've chosen the wrong one. That is, as long as the protocol stays the same, you could just as well write your own browser as pick one of the existing ones.

      On Windows, there's strong disincentive against any browser but IE, since it is preinstalled, and you can't really avoid that. However, if you're willing to go through the effort, you can get another browser installed.

      Open protocols are why KDE vs. GNOME, Linux vs. BSD, or which Linux distribution to choose is not a big deal - just about any application you could want for either system either runs on the other, or a clone does. Then it's just a question of personal preference, but there's no danger of obsolescence.

      When it comes to distributions, there's the danger that your distribution vendor will go under, but then again, so what? Once you've got your kernel, utilities and applications installed, it's pretty simple to keep them up to date.

      Microsoft is trying so hard to kill other browsers by making its web server work best with its client. Fortunately they are limited in how much they can extend the protocols by their server customers since a company setting up a web presence doesn't want to shut out any potential customers.

      That's all I can think of for now, and sorry I can't summarize or introduce it better, but it's late. I hope there was some nugget of insight for someone out there.

      • Precisely. Open protocols give you a choice. If you're reading reasonably well written HTML transferred from a working HTTP server, it shouldn't matter whether you're using Mozilla or IE or Opera or Lynx or... I wish there was a standard, stable word processing format, because complete compatibility between AbiWord/KWord/OpenOffice/etc. would be cool. Especially if MS eventually included filters for the format in Word :-) (not going to happen though)

        As for the "winner takes all" model, something Microsoft didn't realise is that open source means a project can build on another project's work without the second project having died. Because *BSD is free and open source, Linux developers can and do use BSD code even though BSD is still available. In the Microsoft world, on the other hand, to do that sort of thing you have to either buy the company whose code you want, buy licensing for that code, or kill the company and buy their code cheaper.

        • Especially if MS eventually included filters for the format in Word :-)

          They don't have to - Word has an API so that you can write your own converters. See How to Obtain the WinWord Converter SDK (GC1039) [microsoft.com]. I looked at it a long time ago (Word 95/97 days) and it was beyond my abilities at the time, but the way it works is you write a dll that exports a few well-defined functions. The important ones convert your format to and from RTF and Word converts RTF to its own format and back.

          So anyone who wants to can write a converter so that Word users can read and write AbiWord/KWord/OpenOffice (is that what Star Office is now?) documents.

          This is not as silly as it sounds: a big reason not to use these word processors is because of their limited abilities with Word format. Well, if you can use their native format (which they are probably best at) and freely provide a converter to your format, then there's no technical reason a recipient using Word couldn't open your document in its native format.

    • This reminder of halloween document more than shows us that the ONLY important remedy in the M$-DOJ case is to force open protocols and open data exchange formats. Everything else is just a bonus or bogus. Even restrictive OEM contracts would not uphold long, but proprietary protocols and data formats might have the potential to break neck to OSS development

      Oh Jeez! much as I like open standards I really don't want the government enforcing them. That strikes me as a sure way to end up with bad standards and/or to put the corporations in the drivers seat (probably the same thing). Don't believe me? Look at the FDA...

      Jack

  • Interesting... (Score:3, Funny)

    by xanadu-xtroot.com ( 450073 ) <.moc.tibroni. .ta. .udanax.> on Thursday November 01, 2001 @09:21PM (#2510553) Homepage Journal
    In the memo there is a pretty graph of the differnt flavors of "Open Source". They list "BSD-Style". The interesting there is that the "All Derivatives Must Be Free" column is not checked.

    M$'s TCP/IP stack is directly from BSD.

    Windows isn't "free".

    Interesting...

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In what sense is it interesting? Microsoft isn't in the business to make "free" operating systems. Neither is Sun or Apple or IBM or HP or...

      The BSD sources are attributed in the Microsoft copyright notice if you ever cared to look.
      • In what sense is it interesting? Microsoft isn't in the business to make "free" operating systems. Neither is Sun or Apple or IBM or HP or...

        THe difference is that Microsoft's primary business is selling software. All of the others to a large extent sell hardware.
    • M$'s TCP/IP stack is directly from BSD.

      Often claimed, never substantiated. Got evidence?

      • Many of the windows 9X TCP/IP utilities were indeed derived from BSD. Just do a strings on any of them. The BSD copyright notice is right there in clear text.
      • Start here [microsoft.com].

        Then, since Microsoft themselves are documenting that Winsock is a superset of the BSD socket API, we can assume either they took the existing API and re-implemented it, or that they just took the existing BSD code (perfectly legally) and used it as a base for Winsock.

        Since there are BSD copyright notices sprinkled throughout various of the internet utilites that ship with Windows, I think it's pretty clear that it's the latter. And why not? If you're going to include a socket/IP implementation, and there's freely-usable code out there, why reinvent the wheel?

        Even if you want to go all out with the benefit of the doubt, and decide that they rewrote their own implementation of the API, it's still safe to say that MS' IP stack is based on BSD.

        • Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)

          by Dahan ( 130247 )
          Since there are BSD copyright notices sprinkled throughout various of the internet utilites that ship with Windows, I think it's pretty clear that it's the latter. And why not? If you're going to include a socket/IP implementation, and there's freely-usable code out there, why reinvent the wheel?

          There are BSD copyright notices in various userland utilities because Windows has an implementation of the BSD sockets API, which makes the BSD utilities relatively easy to port. The kernel is a different matter--while I haven't seen the source code to Windows, I have seen the DDK and the documentation for writing Windows device drivers. Windows device drivers are quite different from BSD device drivers; it would be a major undertaking to take BSD's TCP/IP stack and interface it with the rest of the Windows kernel. I don't think it'd be worth the effort... even with Unix-like OSes like *BSD and Linux, it's generally not worth the effort to actually take code; the other OS' code is just good as documentation. I think it's much more likely that MS reimplemented the sockets API to give programmers an interface they were familiar with.

          Even if you want to go all out with the benefit of the doubt, and decide that they rewrote their own implementation of the API, it's still safe to say that MS' IP stack is based on BSD.

          I don't see that that follows... the IP stack is the low level protocol implementation, not the API.

  • Setting themselves up for failure? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Halster ( 34667 ) <haldouglas@@@gmail...com> on Thursday November 01, 2001 @09:30PM (#2510581) Homepage
    I can't remember where I read it (it might have been slashdot) but somebody recently was comparing Microsoft currently to IBM in it's last years of domination in the industry.

    There are a lot of things in this article that support that theory too. Particularly Microsoft's concentration on proprietary protocols. Like the IBM of old Microsoft are trying to suck everything into their evil empire and proprietize (if that's a word) everything they can... including the internet.

    Now, if I said to any Slashdot readers (and some preschool picture book readers) that I thought somebody could control the internet for their own benefit, and be truly successful at it you'd probably just point at me and laugh. And that would be quite fair I think. But not Microsoft. They're still trying to tame this internet thing.

    You'd think after the success [sarcasm] of Push internet technology (remember active channels) and the microsoft network in it's original incarnation (now reduced to virtually an MS owned webring and AOL ripoff) and, speak of the devil; AOL's attempts to make the internet branded with AOL for anyone that uses it.

    After all this has anyone ever come out on top of the internet? No. Of course there have been plenty of successes, but the internet still remains a global brand-name-independant network.

    As the internet grows more it's that very size and reach that prevents it from becoming the MICROSOFT-InterNETWORK.

    IMHO, this quest for making everything proprietary is just Microsoft going out of their way to piss people off. And much like the IBM keeping everything IBM attitude of past decades they risk screwing themselves royally because of it.
    • There's a difference, however: nobody liked IBM. Everyone thought they were arrogant and useless (and they were right). Most people (not Slashdotters, but we're not most people) like Microsoft. Most people are convinced that Bill Gates INVENTED computers, operating systems, word processors, and the Internet ("What an idiot Al Gore is! Everybody knows that *Bill Gates* invented the Internet!"). People seriously believe that all good things in this world proceed directly from Bill Gates and his incredible genius. I know, I know--but that's honestly what they think.
      • You can't really compare the people who knew about computers in 1976 and the people who do in 2001. Someone who knew about computers in 1976 was almost certainly technically skilled and could provide an informed opinion. In 2001 the majority are point and drool who think that AOL is the internet and that Gates invented the technology they use.
    • I can't remember where I read it (it might have been slashdot) but somebody recently was comparing Microsoft currently to IBM in it's last years of domination in the industry.

      There are a lot of things in this article that support that theory too. Particularly Microsoft's concentration on proprietary protocols. Like the IBM of old Microsoft are trying to suck everything into their evil empire and proprietize (if that's a word) everything they can... including the internet.

      I dunno... IBM didn't invent the closed protocol, and closed protocols have succeded in the past. IBM bit off more than it could chew, but was already in decline anyway -- otherwise maybe it could have chewed up all its competition. It had done so before. MS has done so before.

      Pretty much all history tells us there is: IBM tried something, and it failed.

      MS might try and succede. It might try and fail. When it tries and fails, people will say, "hey, that's just like IBM". And MS will decline. But really, failure is failure. Closed protocols are not failure. Being a giant company is not failure. Being a giant company in decline is failure. Presenting closed protocols that no one uses is failure.

      When that happens, MS will have failed. Not because it's just like IBM, but just because that stuff happens. When you lose something, you always find it in the last place you look. Failure precedes decline. These aren't grand patterns, they just are.

  • Ease of use (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@gmai3.14159l.com minus pi> on Thursday November 01, 2001 @09:46PM (#2510621)
    "Ease of use must be engineered from the ground up. Linux's hacker orientation will never provide the ease-of-use requirements of the average desktop user."

    "The desktop projects _are_ being engineered from the ground up. It remains true that ease of use is not always at the top of many hackers' priorities, however."

    Sorry folks, but this isn't really true at all. All those flashy new GUIs are doing is putting a prettier, more easily configured face onto X and have a whole bunch of standalone applications that look and feel the same. To engineer "from the ground up", they need a _complete package_ that handles _all aspects_ of using and managing the machine.

    For example (with KDE on FreeBSD):
    * Where do I partition disks ?
    * Where do I mount and unmount things ?
    * Where do I set the colour depth and resolution of my display (on the fly is even better) ?
    * Where do I load and unload kernel modules ?
    * Where do I start and stop runnig daemons ?
    * Where do I share things ?
    * Where do I reconfigure my network settings ?
    * Where can I reconfigure my kernel, compile it, isntall it and reboot all by checking a few boxes and hitting a button ?
    * Etc.
    You can just put a bunch of pretty pictures in front of a few things and call it "user friendly". The whole thing has to look and feel integrated as a single package. That means I should be able to do pretty much anything a normal person would want to do without ever having to
    a) leave the GUI and use a commandline
    b) use software with a different GUI (like gtk apps under KDE), or
    c) install the software myself.
    *That* is what they mean by "engineer from the ground up". Everything has to be doable with "user friendly" tools, not just a few things and not just things to do with the GUI itself.
    Projects like KDE and GNOME, for all the good work they've done, still really haven't looked past creating Yet Another Window Manager. They still haven't really delved into the guts of the underlying operating system to try and make them easier to use.

    I certainly hope these projects are working towards this sort of "complete product" integration. Until they do, you'll _never_ get the "ease of use" of Windows, MacOS, OS/2 etc because at the end of the day the OS still looks like a patchwork quilt.
    CS

    • Re:Ease of use (Score:4, Insightful)

      by iomud ( 241310 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @10:19PM (#2510695) Homepage Journal
      Those are almost all application requests with the exception of something like setting colour depth, kde would face many problems if they had to write an abstraction layer for every single possible graphics card or every possible kernel permutation not to mention version management, there are applications which address many of your issues but "delving into the guts" is the job of the distro maintainer as they have control over what goes into what boots up after install. Plus it's that type of value added resell which drives competition between the various distributions. I too would like a more-integrated-environment but I cant look to one group and dump all my issues on them. I also have no problems with configuration with provided tools and applications. We'll get there though, it'll take time but we'll get there.

    • Where do I set the colour depth and resolution of my display (on the fly is even better) ?

      By the way is it even possible to change resolution and color on my display "on the fly" in X?

    • Re:Ease of use (Score:2, Insightful)

      by raistlinne ( 13725 )
      "Where can I reconfigure my kernel, compile it, isntall it and reboot all by checking a few boxes and hitting a button ?"

      You are kidding, right?

      While you have, at the kernel of your message, a valid point (leaving off the fact that it's not even remotely new), you've listed a whole bunch of administrative functions. The average user doesn't need to do administrative functions.

      And if you're in redhat, I believe that the redhat control center, or maybe it's called the command center, handles more or less all of these things. But how many average users need to:

      *Partition disks
      *Set the colour depth and resolution of your display (though gnome has a little panel applet for this that even an idiot could figure out how to add to their toolbar and use, and I'd imagine that KDE has the same thing)
      *load and unload kernel modules that aren't configured by their distro to autoload when needed
      *start and stop daemons? Do you really think that the average user runs their own http server?
      *reconfigure and compile their kernel? These things are always provided by distros will virtually all modules compiled and configured to autoload.
      *etc. what average user needs to do things in latin? :-)

      Also, who exactly do you expect to install software for you? Is your computer supposed to guess what you want and install it for you? I don't quite understand how you expect new programs to get to your computer if you don't tell your computer that you want them there (i.e. install them)

      However, much of what you request is already handled pretty well in recent distributions of redhat, and debian isn't for people who want such a unified tool (it's simply got a different audience). Moreover, you really should notice that right now there really aren't any user-friendly OSes (with the possible exception of MacOS, but I really don't know) by your criteria. Given this, why do you only point out that linux needs improvement in this area?

      • Also, who exactly do you expect to install software for you? Is your computer supposed to guess what you want and install it for you? I don't quite understand how you expect new programs to get to your computer if you don't tell your computer that you want them there (i.e. install them)


        Compiling my own software from source isn't exactly what most people mean by "installing" software. They mean clicking a nice "setup.exe" or "setup.msi" icon amd launching something from InstallShield or Microsoft Installer, which will take care of placing the right files in their proper places, and put a nice little icon on your desktop.

        I'm a Windows "admin" but can't even install something simple like OpenSSH onto my Linux box. I haven't a clue how. And admining on Windows is more complicated than most MCSEs will tell you.

      • The average user doesn't need to do administrative functions.

        Not only don't they need to do them, they shouldn't even be able to even attempt them.
        Indeed Windows allowing (even expecting) end users to perform sysadmin tasks is the cause of much heartache. Both on the technical side, i.e. user messes up machine because they don't know what they are doing and financial i.e. user installs something either without a licence or without making sure that who ever manages licences knows they have a licence. BSA come around and lots of money gets spent "auditing" and buying licences which may have already been paid for.
    • And you wonder why one thing we may see in the 2.5.x developmental kernel releases is Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support.

      With ACPI implemented in Linux, things like OS upgrades, changes in OS components, and adding software support for new hardware could become quite a bit easier.

      Anyway, the current process of Linux kernel updates is too complicated for the average home user. I've read about the process involved and it can get a bit tricky for less-experienced computer users.

    • One tool which I have found making process in this area is Ximian Setup Tools [ximian.com].

      You can get it with Ximian Desktop [ximian.com] but you may have to hunt for them in Red Carpet [ximian.com]. Best thing to try Ximian in is probably Red Hat.

    • Your post is probably not make you very popular but I think it's pretty insightful. This are somethings ever Linux user thinks about from time to time. Here are some of my thoughts.

      * Where do I mount and unmount things ?

      I don't think users should have to do this at all. It should be done automatically by the kernel. The fact you have to do it at all is a problem.

      * Where do I load and unload kernel modules ?

      This is also a kernel thing. You mention that you are using BSD. I haven't used that but Linux really should be able to do this stuff automatically. Providing an graphical UI to make up for kernel deficiencies is not a good solution. :P

      * Where can I reconfigure my kernel, compile it, isntall it and reboot all by checking a few boxes and hitting a button ?

      Most distros provide an RPM/deb of the kernel. Regular users shouldn't have to compile their own kernels. Advanced users can use command line tools. (I find "make menuconfig" surprisingly well thought out and intuitive).

      You mention that you don't like using gnome apps. Personally I use enlightenment with Gnome apps. I have some KDE apps installed just to see how they work, but I never use kde apps in day to day work.

      The real solution is to make KDE and Gnome look and feel the same. Developers do not want to develop two diferent user interfaces for Linux. They often don't want to "join" KDE or Gnome and have to deal with all the backage that entails. Developers just want to write a program that works on ALL Linux desktops.

      As it is, instead of saying, "I use Linux" people should just say, "I use Gnome." or "I use KDE." That would be more honest.

      Some desktop applications that I would like would be more tools to work with .debs. Also I don't seem to have any graphical frontend to "find" installed on my computer but I think there must be one somewhere.

      You talk about the command line. I was just looking through my ~/.bash_history and I don't see much that I couldn't have done in a graphical way. Some things like dict, gcc, make, grep, apt-cache search, and so on are more easily done from the command line even though there are graphical ways to do them.

    • Check out Mac OS X (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SeanAhern ( 25764 )
      At the risk of sounding pedantic, I suggest that people working on new distributions or new enhancement to Gnome/KDE-like desktop environments look at what Apple has done with the user interface of Mac OS X [apple.com].

      On top of what is basically BSD [apple.com], they have created a wonderful system. What looks and feels like a regular old Mac cranked up to 11, with semitransparent windows [apple.com] and buttons [apple.com], trilinearly-interpolated stuff flying all around, antialiased fonts and lines everywhere, OpenGL [apple.com] and PDF widgets, has all of the UNIX-like underpinnings. I can open up a terminal window, run my zsh, fire up ssh, launch emacs, and compile stuff with gcc. X11 runs seamlessly [sourceforge.net] with the rest of the windows using OroborOSX [ic.ac.uk], and that's just for the geeks. The people like my wife still have GUIs for all of the "other stuff" [apple.com] that people want to deal with: preference settings, launching commonly-used apps, network diagnostics, heck, even the files in /etc are modifiable through a really nice GUI system (Netinfo Manager).

      So check it out for inspiration!
    • To engineer "from the ground up", they need a _complete package_ that handles _all aspects_ of using and managing the machine.

      No you don't, you need an interface which is sysadmin friendly dosn't matter a bit if it is or isn't "user friendly"

      For example (with KDE on FreeBSD):
      * Where do I partition disks ?
      * Where do I mount and unmount things ?
      * Where do I set the colour depth and resolution of my display (on the fly is even better) ?
      * Where do I load and unload kernel modules ?
      * Where do I start and stop runnig daemons ?
      * Where do I share things ?
      * Where do I reconfigure my network settings ? * Etc.

      Of this long list only changing the screen resolution is likely to be something a user should even be attempting in the first place.

      Everything has to be doable with "user friendly" tools, not just a few things and not just things to do with the GUI itself.
      Wrong a great many things need to be "sysadmin" friendly, indeed should be impossible for users to even attempt.
      You don't expect car mechanics to do their work from the driving seat; areo engines to be serviced from the cockpit; etc.

  • MS is in a different fight now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wateshay ( 122749 ) <bill.nagelNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday November 01, 2001 @10:06PM (#2510659) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I think that there has been a fundamental change in the marketplace during the last three years that Microsoft didn't anticipate. Three years ago, they were trying to figure out the best way to protect their interests from the likes of Linux and the rest of OSS. However, while they were concentrating on the external enemy, they missed the internal one. With Windows and Office 2K, Microsoft developed a product that is good enough for most people. That, combined with the subsequent major falloff in PC sales that accompanied the tech bust, meant that people had no reason to buy their software in the huge numbers they had previously been buying them in, and they certainly didn't see much need for further updates. Why pay for more software when what you have works. I would argue that OSS software is superior in most ways to CSS, but the simple fact is that most of Microsofts recent sales falloffs have not been attributable to OSS. Rather, we are seeing a general falloff in sales, mostly due to the fact that people don't need to buy more MS software. Thus, we have seen many of the recent (scared sh*tless) tactics that MS has been using. I'm sure Linux is still on Microsofts radar, but their real worry right now is how to get people to pay for something they really don't want or need, because their current business model is unsustainable long term. Therefore, they are making stupid moves that just serve to make people mad (licensing, Passport, copy protection). This is both good and bad news for Linux. It's good news because Linux has an opportunity to move in and usurp the reigning king. On the other hand, it could be very dangerous for OSS in general. There are few things deadlier than a cornered animal, and right now Microsoft has been backed into a pretty tight corner.

    • Re:MS is in a different fight now (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Very good observation, that the latest MS products are generally good enough. I'm running W2K right now, and don't need anything better (OK, my switch to Linux is slow).

      BUT - this might be part of a new MS business strategy. How many old products are "unsupported"? Can't buy Windows 95 anymore - even though it has most of what I need.

      My guess - MS is going to phase out their older (Office 97 and 2000) stuff, then step up their license audits. A company will suddenly discover they can't legally run Office 97 and they need more licenses - MS won't be selling Office 97 or 2000 licenses then, so the company HAS to upgrade to Office XP, with the fancy anti-copying features. In a few years, MS will be able to GUARANTEE a stream of revenue from ANYONE who uses MS products with this subscription-based model. Repeat this strategy for Windows and your other favorite MS apps...

      MS is trying to consolidate their revenue stream.
      • A company will suddenly discover they can't legally run Office 97 and they need more licenses - MS won't be selling Office 97 or 2000 licenses then, so the company HAS to upgrade to Office XP, with the fancy anti-copying features.

        And at this point companies will start wondering if they should upgrade to Office XP or investigate an alternative. There is a huge difference between buying 100 new licenses and buying 40,000 new licenses when you're happy with the earlier product.

  • Microsoft missed out on what (IMHO) make open source truly great, It not a money or company issue , it's that OSS mimics two mechanisms found in nature:

    First of all - I love FreeBSD for fileservers and OpenBSD for firewalls and VPN gateways. Increasingly Linux has been making great strides in file-system stability, and I imagine in a few years I'll be happily installing Linux fileservers instead of FreeBSD. And it doesn?t matter one bit if Linux or FreeBSD 'win' - because they are both evolving toward an optimum. Just like how sharks (a fish) and whales (a mammal) are evolving to an optimum underwater shape. In addition, if OpenBSD comes up with another security patch - Linux can quickly mimic the new behavior - just like one species of bacteria can swap genetic code with another species to quickly acquire a new resistance to a new threat.

    This is the true two pronged advantage of open source - is that the development model mimics Darwinian style evolution, and that and gains in one piece of open source software can be rapidly assimilated in another.

  • One point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SpeelingChekka ( 314128 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @11:52PM (#2510895) Homepage

    One could argue that future features in open source code could be more credible, not less. Features in Microsoft code are hidden from public view until they spring, fully developed, from the head of Bill. Until a product is released, nobody really knows how development is progressing

    It should be pointed out that this (MS springing fully developed features on an unsuspecting public) is most likely more due to Microsoft's monopoly (and their own way of doing things) than due to any natural side effect of commercial, proprietary software development in general. Microsoft's monopoly means that they *don't have to give a damn* what customers *really* want, instead, they are free to put into their software whatever is in *their* best interests (a good example is the recent "smart links" fiasco). These features are not there because they are best for customers but because they are best for Microsoft, but the only reason Microsoft can get away with doing this is (1) the public usually doesn't *know* any better, and (2) the public has no alternatives. In a truly competitive environment, software features would probably align more closely to what customers want. Right now the public will simply swallow whatever is dished up onto their plates.

    • What Smartlinks fiasco?

      They took the idea of Smart tags from Office XP which was broadly received by the customer base and put this into the IE 6.0 beta.

      Hint: see that word beta?

      People took a look at it, generally said they didn't really care for it. It caused pages to be difficult to read, etc.

      So Microsoft, listening to the customer, removed it from the final product.

      Looks to me like you've just provided evidence for the exact opposite point you were trying to make.

      If you look further into this, Microsoft uses a very open beta program to get feedback on their products. They have a usability test lab at their facilities and constantly bring people in from outside the company to provide feedback. They work with industry experts long in advance to help define the features that consumers would like to see in the products.

      Microsoft is one of the few vendors that really listens to their customers, which is why they are so successful at making products that people actually want to use.
      • Wow, you really bought the spin on that SmarkLinks event didnt you.

        Here is how it went down: MS reveals SmartLinks to the world in there beta sw. People (citizens, privacy advocates, capitalists and publishers) are immediately up in arms b/c M$ is essentially trying to become a broker or gatekeeper of internet content itself. M$ realizing that it had revealed a bit of a no-no at the wrong time (pre-monopoly-settlement) and in the face of the abomination XP is (from the POV of the above). They then withdraw the feature because they knew every editorial from here to hell would be damming them for such an obvious abuse of monopoly.

        Dont confuse this with concern for their "consumers" (there vial language, not mine - i hate that terminology).

        Want a better example? The abuse of HTTP and IE to redirect to MSN, the 404-2-MNS.search page garbage.

        Do i really need MSN tracking* that i mis-typed www.hotdoggiemidgetpr0n.com?

        SmartLinks is another one of M$'s methods to move people to its 'content'... XP with media-player (and the mp3 'extinguish' push), SmartLink, Digital Camera to Printer-Partner(TM) application - hell even the Xbox - is a move on M$s part to get away from the stagnant SW market (which they wholly control) and into the mindspace as publisher (think RIAA/MPAA for the new totally- wired-digital media delivery future.

        Be afraid. Very afraid. XP is a method to turn your PC into a content-delivery system under M$s control, i offer you SmartLinks as proof of this.

        Bottom line: Dont believe the hype, marketing does not buy reality.

        *and i dont mean that in a tin-foil-head-covered paranoia. you know as well as i do what kind of abuse these kind subversion of IE can result in, how about M$ decides they would like to start tracking your surfing completely... what you click, how fast, what time of day and harvest all this for marketing garbage to you. Most people might not even notice it, most people have no idea how such tech could be possible (if its not on the screen it dosnt exist) - but we certainly dont need this kind of bullshit getting out of hand. Ever read Ferenheight451, where your TV 'watches back'? Welcome to the media future, simply s/tv/computer.

  • Mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This article would have been objective and well-argued, were it not for its ridiculously biased take on Mozilla. The Haloween document predicted that the Mozilla project would fail. In this, the Haloween document was right on. For the purposes of competing with IE, Mozilla is deader than the bird in the Monty Python skit.

    Mozilla is not "going strong" in any sense that matters to Microsoft. Remeber that long-dead company Netscape? Wasn't the Mozilla project concieved to save it? And as for its browser, not only has Navigator dropped under 20% to IE's 80%, but most of those are the 4.x generation browsers. Hardly anyone has upgraded to Navigator 6.x, and no one could in good conscience recommed that the typical desktop user do so.

    Mozilla is nice for the Linux niche -- it is my main browser -- but to claim that it is going strong in any sense that Microsoft cares about is laughable, and really makes one look about as reliable as the old Pravda.

    Linux may well win the war for the enterprise. With endurance, luck, and a hell of a lot of work it might even someday win the war for the desktop. But history has already given its verdict on the browser war, and the verdict is that MS won, hands-down. Period.
    • But history has already given its verdict on the browser war, and the verdict is that MS won, hands-down. Period.

      The fact is that it is extremely hard to "kill" an OSS project completely, since anyone anytime anywhere could pick it up and start it going again.

      Mazilla still has a presence, and is moving forward. Other closed and open browsers are still out there, so it isn't clear that the "hands" are completely "down".

      In fact, with Netscape's recent addition of the ability to read/write AOL email (did I read that feature spec correctly?) I would guess that the Netscape browser has a lot of life left in it. There are a lot of people using AOL who might want to read their email without the AOL application and their only choice now is Emailer on the Mac (quite old) and now Netscape on a large number of platforms.

  • Halloween Document 2001 (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    [ With deepest apologies to Mark Knofler and Dire Straits ]

    "Money for Microsoft" by Dire Warnings
    Sung by Steve Ballmer, backing by Bill Gates

    You must buy ...
    You must buy Win-XP

    You must buy ...
    You must buy Win-XP

    You must buy ...
    You must buy Win-XP

    You must buy ...
    You must buy Win-XP

    Now look at them bozo's that's the way you do it
    You lock them always on the Win-XP
    That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
    Money for Microsoft from Dot Net usage fees
    Now that ain't workin' thats the way we do it
    Lemme tell ya them guys are dumb
    Maybe get a licence on your little desktop
    Maybe get a licence on everyone

    They gotta install Microsoft Office
    Passport Dot-Net deliveries
    They gotta take these applications
    They gotta take these subscription fees

    Look at that, look at that

    See the little Win-Troll who is spreading spin we makeup
    Yeah buddy thats our own fear
    That little Win-Troll got them always complain'
    That little Win-Troll makes us billionares

    They gotta install Microsoft Office
    Passport Dot-Net deliveries
    They gotta take these applications
    They gotta take these subscription fees

    They shoulda learned to use the Linux
    They shoulda learned to use them Macs
    Look at that user, we got it stickin' to the customer
    Man we could have some fun
    And their down there, whats that? Protesting noises?
    Plannin' on me dancing like a chimpanzee
    That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
    Get the money for Microsoft get our usage fee

    They gotta install Microsoft Office
    Passport Dot-Net deliveries
    They gotta take these applications
    They gotta take these subscription fees

    That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
    You lock them always on the Win-XP
    That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
    Money for Microsoft from the license fee
    Money for Microsoft from subscription fee

  • MS Licensing and the Desktop (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RatFink100 ( 189508 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @04:31AM (#2511312)
    Reproducing what is available on a Microsoft desktop will win some users, but it is not enough. It may yet turn out, however, that Microsoft's licensing will provide that impetus to switch.

    This seems to be common view amongst Open Source/Linux advocates. What people seem to ignore is that Microsoft can change its licensing at any time. Let's assume that an OSS desktop did begin to displace Windows in some significant way. Microsoft could switch back to a more reasonable licensing scheme to bring back those who were leaving, or at least stem the flow. Anyone who is ditching Windows because of the licensing - probably isn't very committed to OSS per se.



    Displacing Microsoft as the dominant desktop will take more than bad licensing or even technically better alternatives. When you get to 90%+ (or whatever the actual figure is) - the only way you get replaced by the market is if there's a total paradigm shift. A lot of us thought initially that that shift had occurred with Proprietary vs Open Source. But whilst that's a paradigm shift for developers it doesn't appear to be perceived as such by users - so it fails to have the necessary effect.


    So I believe the market itself will resist displacing Microsoft for a while yet. But hang on isn't that why we have Anti-Trust laws? Oh wait - for laws to be effective you have to enforce them in some meaningful way...


  • One way sueing? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Mathness ( 145187 )
    Did not notice this before in the Halloween memo:

    "Who do you sue if the next version of Linux breaks some commitment?"

    MS have in their EULA (?) made it clear that you can not sue MS over any damage resulting from use of their software.
    Quite an odd thing to put in their FUD, since it expose a weakness in their own reliability and ways to deal with, or rather lack thereoff.

Slashdot Top Deals

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Close