The Linux Uprising 406
ballpoint writes "Business Week is featuring a list of articles under the header 'The Linux Uprising' including topics like 'Red Flags for Red Hat' and 'A Bad, Sad Hollywood Ending?' touching everything dear to the Slashdot community. A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed."
Did someone say Steak?! (Score:5, Funny)
I could sure go for a tasty steak right now! I know business people eat steak a lot... mmmm... steak!
I'm a business man... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can no longer play the "blame it on Microsoft game". You have to get up your lazy a$$ and do some research before recommending a m$ product next
Coz, next time you recommend a m$ solution, chances are your customer will ask ..Whats this linux thing We are hearing about ?
And if you say , "Oh its just some geeky thing used by hackers ." Chances are they might ask, "Oh yeah then how come IBM and HP and so many other big guns are supporting it ?"
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:5, Insightful)
Java, C, PHP, ASP - they couldn't give a toss. Well designed site that works and lets them sell things/get their prescence on the web, that's what they care about. The choice of technology is irrelevant - in fact, that's what they're paying us for.
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, though, the article is filled with stupidities, such as the following:
WTF - Intel makes chips for Windows || Linux? Since when? They make chips for PC manufacturers / assemblers. Microsoft only recently began (XBOX) selling hardware w. Intel cpus. I mean, why don't they pay a few bucks to have a geek proof-read their articles before looking sooo stoooopid...Re:I'm a business man... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wintel" -- When Microsoft releases a new OS -- lots of Intel chips are sold in the MS push. The most common way people get a new microsoft operating system is via new hardware.
Intel needs Microsoft to drive the hardware sales. Microsoft needs intel to get chips specs and support on optimizing their operating system for the next generations of intel chips. Microsoft also enjoys a market controlled by intel-compatible PCs.
Recently, Intel has been making moves away from Microsoft (and Microsoft away from Intel). I might be tempted to point to AMDs upcoming 64bit chip as the source of alot of the friction. But the fact that intel has decided to completely support Linux as a first class operating system also bothers Microsoft.
I basically think the authors point was fair.
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Wintel" -- When Microsoft releases a new OS -- lots of Intel chips are sold in the MS push. The most common way people get a new microsoft operating system is via new hardware.
Yes. True.
Intel needs Microsoft to drive the hardware sales.
Okay, now *that* is silly, unless that you're going to claim that this is entirely via virtue of massively inefficient code on the part of Microsoft or something.
Intel needs [operating system vendors] and [application vendors] to drive the hardware sales. It really doesn't matter who is doing the selling. As a matter of fact, Linux makes it much easier to migrate to Intel's higher end server chips, which throws Intel into paroxysms of joy.
Microsoft needs intel to get chips specs and support on optimizing their operating system for the next generations of intel chips
Sort of. I really doubt that Intel is going to withhold instruction set information from anyone. Zero benefit to them. Still, to some degree, *Microsoft* depends on *Intel*. Not the other way.
But the fact that intel has decided to completely support Linux as a first class operating system also bothers Microsoft.
What do you mean by "completely support"? Intel doesn't provide support for *any* operating system that I know of. If you go home, call up Intel and say "I'm having trouble installing Windows", they're going to tell you to piss off. Operating systems support CPUs, *not* the other way around.
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:3)
Oh really. I work with AIX every day, have worked with HP/UX in the past and have both an RS/6000 and a HP 9000 workstation at home (in addition to several SparcStations, a couple of Alpha boxes, etc). Saying that AIX and HP/UX are superior to Linux is over simplistic to the point of being inaccurate. It simply depends an awful lot on the criteria you are using to judge and the particular needs and purpose for which you are using it. Certainly in price to performance, Linux on x86 hardware is superior, and the fact that it allows IBM and HP to compete in market segments that AIX and HP/UX are not competitive in is reason enough to explain why both of them are supporting Linux. Even ignoring economics and looking strictly at technical merits, Linux actually beats both AIX and HP/UX in a number of areas, especially in the richness and completeness of applications and tools that most Linux distros ship with out of the box compared to commercial Unixes. I've got nothing against commercial Unixes, especially for certain high end server applications but for most things these days I'd be hard pressed to recommend anything other than Linux.
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the gist is... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's one stupid quote...
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
I guess they should have a sit-down with RMS first...
Re:the gist is... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
How is it stupid?
One, free software are free to use. It's just when you make derivative products from it where you come into contact with the GPL.
Two, not all free software are GPLed. Some significant examples, in fact, form the core of successful commercial products.
Three, there's nothing to actually sign. However, the effect is similar, so we can probably overlook that.
Four, "giving away your innovations" is a little oversimplified. It's theoretically possible that a competitor just downloads your sources, improves it a bit, and ships, but see how the best example of this - early versions of Mandrake - is near death but Red Hat is thriving.
The reason I'm bothering to list all of this on Slashdot is that this is, in fact, a bit nuanced, if not confusing. Is it possible that our political fervor is undermining us? Everything wrong with this statement comes from misunderstanding the GPL.
Look at Apple. They used BSD code, and are contributing their changes back even though they don't legally have to. They do that for good PR and for the potential of getting "free" bug fixes. In this case, free software is beneficial to all parties involved. I guess RMS never thought that would actually happen (without being legally required to by license). Perhaps relying on the fact that open source is good development practice is enough?
Visionaries as some of these prominent folks are, they've unfortunately "hijacked" the word "free" and made it so confusing that mainstream journalists cannot understand it anymore. They may be "stupid", but are we getting too smart for our own good?
Re:the gist is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know. You know. Why is a professional journalist still confused? You can sit there and conclude that he's stupid, or you can entertain the thought that perhaps we're not communicating as effectively as possible.
There are also people whose job it is to smear free software, and the GPL happens to be the easiest thing to confuse people with. Otherwise, free software is just like stuff on the shelf, only you don't have to pay. Easy.
Linux Uprising? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux Uprising? (Score:5, Funny)
The only way to stop open source is to make it illegal. If they're not going to make it illegal, it's pretty hard to stop it.
Hey Bruce, you givin' away the play book now?
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Informative)
A bit dramatic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A bit dramatic? (Score:2)
I don't know about *nix in general, but for GNU/Linux this [gnu.org] is probably appropriate...
Re:A bit dramatic? (Score:4, Funny)
Submitted by "Spam"
Sung to the tune of "A Modern Major-General"
by Gilbert and Sullivan
I've built a better model than the one at Data General
For data bases vegetable, animal, and mineral
My OS handles CPUs with multiplexed duality;
My PL/1 compiler shows impressive functionality.
My storage system's better than magnetic core polarity,
You never have to bother checking out a bit for parity;
There isn't any reason to install non-static floor matting;
My disk drive has capacity for variable formatting.
Chorus:
His disk drive has capacity for variable formatting,
His disk drive has capacity for variable formatting,
His disk drive has capacity for variable format-formatting.
I feel compelled to mention what I know to be a gloating point:
There's lots of room in memory for variables floating-point,
Which shows for input vegetable, animal, and mineral
I've built a better model than the one at Data General.
Chorus:
Which shows for input vegetable, animal, and mineral
He's built a better model than the one at Data General.
The IBM new home computer's nothing more than germinal;
At Prime they still have trouble with an interactive terminal;
While Tandy's done a lousy job with operations Boolean,
At Wang the byte capacity's too small to fit a coolie in.
Intel's mid-year finances are something of the trouble sort;
The Timex Sinclar crashes when you implement a bubble sort.
All DEC investors soon will find they haven't spent their money well;
And need I even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honeywell?
Chorus:
And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honeywell?
And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honeywell?
And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honey-Honeywell?
By striving to eliminate all source code that's repetitive
I've brought my benchmark standings to results that are competitive.
In short, for input vegetable, animal, and mineral
I've built a better model than the one at Data General.
Chorus:
In short for input vegetable, animal, and mineral
He's built a better model than the one at Data General.
In fact when I've a floppy of a maximum diameter,
When I can call a subroutine of infinite parameter,
When I can point to registers and keep their current map around,
And when I can prevent the need for mystifying wraparound,
When I can update record blocks with minimum of suffering,
And when I can afford to use a hundred K for buffering,
When I've performed a matrix sort and tested the addition rate,
You'll marvel at the speed of my asynchronous transmission rate.
Chorus:
You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission rate,
You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission rate,
You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission-mission rate.
Though all my better programs that self-reference recursively
Have only been obtained through expert spying, done subversively,
But still for input vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I've built a better model than the one at Data General.
Chorus:
But still for input vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He's built a better model than the one at Data General.
KFG
The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:5, Insightful)
By then, it won't matter anymore.
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:4, Insightful)
They always find it interesting - despite the fact that it's about technology, the core story is a human one. It's about people who mostly have never met each other working together to achieve something totally amazing on a scale - nothing like it around.
So yes, some people use it because it's non mainstream. I expect when everybody uses Linux they'll go use some new ultra-cool OS with no apps or whatever. The story doesn't become any less interesting though.
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:3, Insightful)
Presently, people run the underdog Linux on the reigning champion x86, which uses the US standard 120V power supply using the worldwide standard A/C supply. Once Linux because too mainstream, they'll keep running Linux, but run it on obscure processors, or run obscure programs on it,
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:4, Insightful)
Maturation is what is generally refered to as a "Good Thing."
KFG
Chips for linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Specialized linux chips? Why didn't I see this posted on /.???? This is possibly the biggest story this year!
Great... now the PHB will never go for Linux... (Score:5, Funny)
PHB: Intel chips for Linux? No way! I would rather pay the licensing for Win2k Server than replace all of the hardware with special Linux chips that I have never heard of!
Me: Linux chips? Wait... Mmmmmm... chips. Mesquite chips.... or salt-vinegar chips.... okay, going to the cafeteria... you need anything?
PHB: No thanks.
No wonder nothing ever gets done around here....
Re:Chips for linux? (Score:5, Informative)
IMO, you have to be pretty close to any given industry to really understand it and even closer to try and draw conclusions as to what the future looks like. There's no way that you can get that close to more than one or two industries, so turning out an insightful article about a new industry for a magazine each month is a bit of a joke. So, these reporters are left looking at the tea leaves of the businesses they're reporting on -- the profit numbers, the growth rate, etc.
The more important data is beyond their grasp. For instance, I know that the advanced server and subscription update models are good because, even though I'm an old-school linux guy, I use them and find them valuable, esp. if my company's paying for them. I know that when I look on the desktops of the people who are making buying recommendations, I'm seeng Red Hat systems running as desktops. I know that in meetings, we make buying decisions for products based partly on how they support Linux.
None of this is available to these guys, which is why in the long term their advice in this (as well as many other) catagories is essentially worthless -- all they can do is point out the obvious, like "not making phone companies share will hurt DSL companies dependant on that sharing"... Gee, thanks.
Besides, if you knew how to play the market with any great degree of proficiancy, would you waste your time publishing a magazine?
Re:Chips for linux? (Score:3)
is far from useless if it wasn't obvious to the reader.
O.T. Sounds like you're a couple of years ahead of the curve, so please be kind to those of us trying to play catch up.
Re:Chips for linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
WTF? That has to be one of the more dangerous pieces of bad reporting I've seen lately. Not only is it utterly inaccurate (you don't have to sign anything to use open source software), it also hopelessly confuses "code" with "innovation".
Re:Chips for linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chips for linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Well actually companies (including Intel) have tried to design chips geared towards software. Floating point chips, graphics processors, dsp's all are geared toward solving specific software problems more quickly.
On a more directly applicable note, some have even tried creating cpu's that target specific languages. Most know about Majic (Suns Java chip), but not many know that Intel worked on a chip (the 432) that was geared towards high level languages (array bounds checking, type checking, etc). AT&T also tried going this route (being the inventors of C and all). And if I remember correctly, National Semiconductors 32K line (32016 and 32032) were chips that had higher level procedural languages in mind in their design.
intel making chips for linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Excellent Meme! (Score:2)
We all know this is just the journalist being ignorant but the the Meme has value. Intel is hardcore business and having PHBs thinking that Intel has committed resources to a Linux Chip is worth quite a lot.
The irony is that AMD actually is a bit close to this as present time, with the x64 for desktop being delayed due to MS not ready. The initial OS for the chip is Linux. (AIX??)
survey says? (Score:2, Funny)
No, they don't! Evidence: Napster, Kazaa, et al. Casual piracy in the workplace. Mix-tapes. etc.
Keep reading... (Score:3, Insightful)
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
WTF?!?!
I've been using open-source software for years, and I've never signed anything like this.
Re:survey says? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they don't! Evidence: Napster, Kazaa, et al. Casual piracy in the workplace. Mix-tapes. etc.
I'm waiting to hear how many people at the Redmond campus have been busted for using Napster or Kazaa. It's simply too much to expect of the 10,000 people Microsoft employs that all 10,000 are above photocopying magazine articles, giving tapes or CDR's to friends, downloading TV or Movie shows off the internet, or lifting the odd bit of code from someone else's project to insert into their own. Heck, even the British government has done such. [greenleft.org.au] I wonder what St. Mundie has in his closet.
Art (Score:4, Interesting)
Art is anything (Score:2)
This is the motivation behind many OS programmers. The people who love to code are the ones who don't need money to do it. They code because they love to.
I'm a bad boy (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
they put it back. (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: It seems strange that social and psychological factors are more important incentives for creating open-source software than money.
A: I worked for Pixar for 12 years. During those 12 years, every piece of software I wrote, except for one, hit its end of life before I left the company -- the projects were canceled or never deployed. Nothing survives. Now, programmers are like artists. They derive gratification from lots of people using their work. Writing software that just gets put away feels like intellectual masturbation. All of the good comes from someone else participating.
I'm glad that you were not refering to the efforts of free software writers. Who'd have ever thought of a bunch of softies as wankers? I'll leave that piece of filth about the de-bugger alone as they might be against the law in Southern California.
Not so bad at all really. A better analogy, and one I can tell my daughter, would be to compare such work with an Egyptian Slave's job. You eat and work on beautiful objects but your work is secret and in the end it gets locked up in a tomb with a dead man and perhaps yourself never to be seen again by anyone you know or care about. Not very satisfying at all, especiall when you cosider that your work is paid for and props up the nasty structure that enslaves everyone you know. Nah, jerk off works better.
"The Raw, the Cooked and the Half Baked" why does that ring a bell?
Linux IS mainstrem (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Ford (or whatever car comany) has market share, it doesn't make my buying a Honda "rebellious". It just might be the choice that fits my needs better.
Executives need to know that Linux isn't a rogue OS. It's a choice you can make that provides different features. For those whose requirements would be better by Linux, they need to know they are simply making another mainstream choice.
Business Week needs to catch up to the present.
The process not the product (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux IS mainstrem (Score:3, Insightful)
However! we're dealing with BUSINESS MAJORS!
These are the folks that thought classroom attendance was optional and a 'C' on the ole report card stood for 'Cool!'
If the editors hadn't used words like 'rebellious' & 'radical' they wouldn't read the articles!
Why??
Cause there's something shiny ...right..Over....There...
That distracts them!
Blame the Linux "activists"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to be too negative about it, though. Some of the attention they've brought to Linux has probably been good for attracting resources, though I worry that some has probably scared away resources, too.
A lot of us Linux users don't see ourselves as activists battling anybody. We just use it because we like it, not because we hate some Evil Empire. We don't get much press, though, because we're surrounded by noisy "M$ sucks!" activists screaming for attention.
Re:Linux IS mainstrem (Score:3, Interesting)
In one of the interviews, someone said something insightful. It was approximately like this: "The establishment never sees the next paradigm shift comming. They always miss it. So they hire someone to tell them. And then when they are told, they don't believe them until it is too late."
I think this also strikes a chord even with articles about Microsoft of late. I think, unlike most establishment, they are good at looking to the future instead of being stuck in their ways. But they are still sufficiently stuck in their ways that something will bite them. I think it may very well be the whole open source model of development.
Shifting gears slightly...
The reality is that ones and zeros are now cheap to copy and send all over the planet. Business models that were built on scarcity can't stand this. I'm not advocating music or software piracy or that artists or developers shouldn't get paid. I'm just pointing out the fact. The technology is here. You can't ignore it. Patterns of ones and zeros can be instantaneously sent all over the planet. Get used to it.
When the printing press appeared, it caused big problems to the establishment that relied on scarcity of information. It was now cheap to reproduce information and circulate it. People were more informed. Other people didn't like this. But they got used to it. It was a mere reality of technology. They could try to stop it, control it, control how people used it, require a license for photocopiers in soviet russia, etc. But like standing on the beach trying to stop the incomming tide, they failed.
You, sir, happened to see how Linux would affect the Unix business several years before it was apparent to most people. Sun still seems to be in denial. IBM has said Linux is the future, even over AIX.
ooo... "e-mail" ! (Score:4, Funny)
It's the Mascots (Score:5, Funny)
For Microsoft, the symbol right now is a fat guy in a skintight butterfly suit.
Now, which mascot is more appealing?
Re:It's the Mascots (Score:2, Funny)
The Linux Uprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Linux Uprising? (Score:2, Informative)
With regards to L.A. and Seattle, I think they are different beats. L.A. was primarily one group of people expressing outrage at perceived (read: real) economic disparities and the growing prison industrial complex that primarily targets people of color. I think your definition of Seattle's WTO protest is pretty accurate. A lot of white people protesting, but a lot more up there for the spirit of things or just tryin' to bust shit up. IMHO, anyhow.
gross margins (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the main issue in open source: using open software for your business is a no-brainer (unless there is no open source solution for your problem), however developing open source software and making a living out of it is not easy. I am not saying it is impossible, it is just pretty difficult.
I have the feeling that the next main contribution to Free/Open Source Software will come from a business person, not from a developer. We need to find a way so that people can make money producing (as opposed to "using") free software, without compromising the spirit of free software.
Re:gross margins (Score:2)
Re:gross margins (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: Why do companies that use software participate in open-source projects, given that they're contractually required to make public whatever improvements they make to it?
A: It works better than consortia. Companies have poured millions into consortia to develop software standards. But they always go down in flames. And open-source projects win over and over again. Why? It's because open-source licensing makes things fair for all the partners. In the consortium projects, there's always the handshake with one hand and a dagger in the other.
Re:gross margins (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be hard to replace the 50% to 80% gross margins of the software business with the 20% or less gross margins typical for software-service companies.
20% gross margin? Christ, there are businesses that would KILL for 20% margins. What is so special about Microsoft (and that's who we're talking about) that they can make 80% profit margins??
In my economics classes I learned that in perfect competition, profits are driven to zero in the long run. Why is the software industry so messed up??
Re:gross margins (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that's so hard.
Software isn't perfect. It's practically guaranteed that somebody, somewhere, is right now cursing some piece of softare. Maybe it's buggy, perhaps it's missing a feature they want. Maybe it costs so much they can't afford it. Maybe it's obsolete.
If all software in the world was under the (L)GPL, we could stil make money, by eliminating imperfection. Let's say I need some cash. OK, so I go bug hunting. A quick bugzilla query... what features have the most votes? Hmm, this one is pretty popular. It's a lot of work, and the maintainers are busy with other stuff. It's not got done. There are 200 votes. I think it'll take me a month. If each one of those people who voted chips in £5, that's £1000 for a months work, not bad at all.
They won't all pay of course, but if you state that you need £1000 for the feature, then the people who really want it will pledge money for it, and the ones who thought it'd be neat but don't care enough to pay will just wait it out. Eventually it'll get there.
Because, the model we use currently is actually very inefficient. Companies attempt to predict what all their customers want, and then write the code, and then sell it. What if really their customers wanted something different? Your shafted. Worse, because the culture is that you don't pay for bugfixes, new features are constantly introduced, with little thought given to whether they are actually useful or not.
So, freelance work on free software is more efficient. The example I gave above is less likely than a business saying "I need the software to do X, how much will it cost" - it's more efficient for them, because they only pay for what they need, and it's more efficient for us, because everybodies contributions are lumped together and we can all co-operate.
I call it the bounty hunter model, you hunt for bounty. Maybe a company wants you to port their apps to Linux using WineLib. Maybe a film company needs a new feature in the Gimp. Maybe an ISP is concerned about the security in the networking stacks and wants an audit.
And for new projects? Well, that's what volunteers are for :)
Whatever. Basically the 80% of people that work in software services becomes 100%. I think it's workable.
Not a good plan... (Score:2)
There's typically a fairly limited market for rotund, gigolo's with bad complexions.
Red Flags for Red Hat (Score:2)
Turns out, it's just talking about how they don't make much money.
Re:Red Flags for Red Hat (Score:4, Insightful)
They still don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Implying that Free Software has a problem with people making money which isn't the case given:
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software.
found here. [gnu.org]
It might be said that Free Software has a problem with how you go about making money off of software not the fact that you do.Re:Problems with Stallman (Score:2)
This is shameless FUD. Stallman has made money from his own "work and trades" and I don't ever recall Stallman objecting to anyone else from doing so either. If you must cower behind anonymity at least have the decency to exemplify your assertions.
Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The revenue growth isn't particularly impressive," says Paul McEntire, portfolio manager of the Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund (TPFQX ), which has owned the stock in the past. Moreover, he says, Red Hat's financial results don't persuade him that it can be solidly profitable in the future. Mostly, he worries that it would take only a little price competition from Microsoft (MSFT ), which goes up against Linux in the operating-system market, to see the return of red ink. Notes McEntire: "Microsoft hasn't really responded to the Linux threat yet."
Should Microsoft ever truly respond to the Linux threat, say by slashing their prices of Windows XP/Windows 2003/Windows Whatever in half, and slash the prices of Microsoft Office in half (much as they have already done in a recent promotion for Apple Macintosh users), it's game over for Linux on the desktop. Xandros is $100. LindowsOS is $130. Hardly anyone would be willing to switch to Linux, when for just $20-$50 more, they can buy the latest and greatest version of Windows, and avoid that steep learning curve and lack of "critical applications" that Linux tends to bring.
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:2)
I think you're completely, 100% wrong.
The only way your logic works is if cost were discouraging people from buying Windows, giving rise to the assumption that the cost of Windows is what's pushing people to Linux. In response to this, I would point out that 99.95% of personal computers sold are done so *with Windows already bought, paid for and installed*.
Besides, pretty much everyone out there operates under the basic assumption that they'll have to pay some money for an OS or Office software. We don't really think about it anymore -- sure, we might bitch when it costs $100 to upgrade to the latest and greatest version, but for most people that's not a deal-breaker.
No, the real battlefield is functionality. Sooner or later, Linux is going to blow past MS in terms of user experience due simply to the fact that they can pick-and-choose which bits to emulate (fast-launching browser in, annoying Clippy and friends out). At that point, it won't matter if MS gives away Windows because nobody'll want it anyhow. The only way they'll survive is if they can consistantly innovate new, useful features at a reasonable price to stay ahead of the curve, something which MS has *never* been able to do.
So, MS will have to flee off the desktop to other things the OSS community doesn't do well -- game development, console systems, etc. There, they'll have to compete in a far more level playing environment and will in the long term probably get their monopolostic asses handed to them by smaller, faster companies.
How can I predict this? Because that's how things work with most industries which don't exist as regulatory monopolies. I don't see software being any different -- in fact, I predict the decline of MS on the desktop will come so quickly that if you blink you'll miss it.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well.... not really. One of the strongest desktops around is Redhat 8, which is free. You can't get cheaper than free. Also, remember the reason those distros are so expensive - proprietary NTFS resize code and CrossOver. As of about 4 days ago, we have stable open source NTFS resizing. That slashes quite a bit off the price. Xandros is already selling a version without CrossOver that comes in at a far more reasonable price.
Regardless, just because some companies charge a lot for Linux now, doesn't mean that this is what Linux costs. The fact is that Windows could be given away for free, and it wouldn't hurt Linux one bit in terms of development speed - how many free software hackers do you know who do it because they are too poor to buy Windows?
Ha! MS cannot really lower its prices. Here's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
McEntire doesn't get it.
Most of the Linux distro revenue comes from professional servers and technical workstation users who want paid support. These users couldn't care if MS gave away their products. They would consider switching to, say, IBM's AIX or Sun's Solaris if the price was right and the apps available. But not to Windows.
The fact that this guy is not aware of this simple market reality and yet manages a stock portfolio is really scary. Keep away from his Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund.
Now, on another hand, your argument about Linux on the desktop makes much more sense:
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
Now that's a valid argument. It would not hurt the server sales but it would certainly hurt the Linux desktop numbers.
However, keep in mind that Microsoft depends on the value of its stock in order to retain employees with stock options. Now take a look at MS'S SEC filing [sec.gov], especially Note 9, "Segment information". Their operating systems and applications account for more than 86% of their sales income (financial activities excluded). The other divisions, entertainment and consumer electronics, are barely showing up on the radar screen. Even if they were profitable, they really couldn't scale up to the Office+Windows income. A sustained price cut on Windows and Office would hurt MS's income very badly, send their stock price down, and bring down their option-based financial Ponzi scheme. So they just cannot afford to do it.
See Bill Parish's report [billparish.com] for an overview of MS's financial pyramid. Recommended reading to understand what makes the Redmond Beat tick.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the parent post rated so high?
I think the parent poster does not understand linux. Linux will not just disappear because of competitive pricing. Linux would not disappear even if someone purchases every Linux distribution out there.
Linux is the result of people interested in creating and sharing information, regardless of the prices or costs of alternative operating systems.
I think, if Linux or free software some how relied on money/market share/stocks/etc it obviously would have failed so far.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Should Microsoft ever truly respond to the Linux threat, say by slashing their prices of Windows XP/Windows 2003/Windows Whatever in half, and slash the prices of Microsoft Office in half (much as they have already done in a recent promotion for Apple Macintosh users), it's game over for Linux on the desktop.,/P>
That's ridiculous. If Microsoft slashes Office and Windows prices in half you wouldn't believe how quickly Wall Street would abandon their stock. Reducing prices to compete is a loser's strategy and bound to fail in the long run. Let's presume that Red Hat and Xandros go out of business (despite the fact that Red Hat has a big service revenue business). IBM and Sun, tasting the blood in the water, would buy them and match Microsoft's price drops dollar for dollar. Who do you think can go on without making much profit longer, the open source world or Microsoft? IBM could sell Red Hat software at a loss for decades as long as they kept pulling in the big bucks in service revenue. Microsoft has no such luxury. Once they slash the prices of their major products they will be hastening their own demise.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So was google (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the "Red Flags for RedHat" article was actually pretty good--after all, investors are cautious now, and for good reason; also, Linux distributions haven't been making money, especially when compared to sales of other server operating systems, and a lot of people are looking at the bottom line now, after getting burned.
So, yeah, RedHat is a great company with a solid product... but always, always do your research first. I think that's a very responsible position to take. If you believe in RedHat, buy some stock--but don't bet the farm on it, especially if you might need that farm someday.
Pretty weak... (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that a company which went from a $2m loss to a $300,000 profit, which has a clear majority in terms of install base and which is the only company making money in its segment is headed for trouble seems like seriously flawed thinking to me.
It seems pretty clear to me that Red Hat has the rare gift of competent management. Maybe RH isn't going to see a big pop in the next quarter, but it's hard to see how the "next five years" view isn't looking pretty rosy. I don't see the fact that it's not back to it's stupidly high .com-era stock price as any sort of a reasonable warning sign.
Anyhow, I own a couple thousand dollars worth of RH shares, so maybe I'm just believing what I want to.
Re:Pretty weak... (Score:2)
Why don't things evolve? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't things evolve?
I keep thinking about the space shuttle, and open-source, and Microsoft; also of tiny winged dinosaurs recently found in the Mongolian Highlands. All these controversies and discoveries start me thinking -- but mostly the dinosaurs. Why did those little dinosaurs sprout wings? What was the point? Don't they know that was a greater wind resistance drag, making it even harder to escape predators? Why did the space shuttle, built in 80's never upgrade? One could talk of the government and the fact that they never, ever, upgrade unless it's tanks or grenades. But the space shuttle, with it's aging tape-to-tape flight computers, and it's spray on foam insulation, and it's glued on tiles -- why evolve to serve this niche, then never evolve? Was it laziness, stupidity, or some perceived fecundity that we've reached the promised land?
I can feel there is a tipping-point here, some wisdom I'm about to understand, and yet it eludes me. Back to Microsoft. Why couldn't Novell evolve? Did they think that a different password for everything was better than one password to rule them all? Why continue to chew the prehistoric cud whilst the meteor streaks across the sky - moocow!. Now it's Microsoft, you might argue, that is starting to run a little slower, a little more gamely, who sees the big game cats bearing down in their proverbial rear view mirrors. Will they evolve? Can they evolve? What will they become?
And so open-source sits too at the precipice, but its penultimate creative spark blew apart at its evolution, splitting into various organisms wading the primordial ooze. Fascinating stuff: evolve now or later, but why not right at the beginning? Evolve on the starting line! It's a pretty awesome strain of thinking. Keep trying to get it right on the starting line -- holding back some DNA -- shooting off ideas that might work. Hyper, hyper-parasitosis. I believe it's the way of informational beings. Even WOPR decided [sciflicks.com] that there might be a better way.
So why can't Microsoft evolve? I believe they can, but it must happen while, and before, the energy required to evolve is still greater than the remaining energy it has to sustain life. Can they evolve a hybrid, become open-source (you heard it here first!), jump from the abyss, sprout wings, and fly?
Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
It is amazing that with such astounding real world examples of the cost benefits of open source (not counting all of the other benefits), Microsoft and Sun can still find ways to convince suits that the cost of Linux/open office/etc training outweigh the license and support savings made by dropping Microsoft or Sun. Reports and estimations of rapidly gaining Linux market share always bolster my hopes, but sometimes I just can't see it.
Quality before credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok that's it... people use things cause they're good, and cause they work. MAYBE the reason Linux works is because PEOPLE made it work... and PEOPLE use it.... and corporations are coming in now that it DOES work.... and not back when the kernel would segfault every 5 minutes.....
People hopping on the bandwagon now, are behind the curve. And some device they use is probably already running it, and they don't know it.
Now maybe that all these companies are recognizing linux I can get some drivers for my USB camera......
Yet another ignorant but nice story about Linux (Score:2)
My favorite bogus line: Companies invest to create software, sell it, and pour a good part of the proceeds into building more. Pure drivel. As ESR has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of software is never intended for commercial distribution. Companies invest to create software and use it, not sell it. Their investment is much cheaper if they go the open source route.
What bothers me about this topic posting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you serious? IMO, this looks like FUD. Yeah, they talk about the "Linux Uprising" in the first article, and Tux looks like he's been living under powerlines in the top banner. Yeah, it's a bit of horse puckey how romanticized and incorrect they were in the first article (see: comments on Intel making "chips for Linux", "resentment for Microsoft", and "rotten economy" as reasons for Linux becoming a favored OS). No, they didn't address server benchmark testing or overall gains in stability and performance, but it's excusable....
Read McNealy's article. Read "Before Linux is on Every Desktop". Touching on embedded Linux? Sun support for Linux for the sake of a *nix OS, and the primary pros that come with such a styled system? From McNealy: "The operating system is still the underlying plumbing on top of which you build the real value-add -- the applications and services to run your business....Linux impacts everyone <in the OS industry>." Coming from a CEO of a very influential company in the tech market, this isn't something to thumb your nose at.
Yeah, there's FUD in the first article, but you really need to read all the articles before you recommend everyone to do the same with bad expectations.
its all about the media (Score:3, Interesting)
in this case, who cares? as little as two years ago the media saw linux as some fly buzzing around bothering the big horses microsoft and sun. now its seen as a more significant player as a viable alternative to the giant expensive software companies.
The computer realm may never be the same. Imagine the havoc in the energy business if some newcomer started giving away gasoline. Linux is bringing on a convulsion of that magnitude in tech.
sure, *i* think linux is the greatest thing, and *you* think linux is the greatest thing, but that isnt going to make our boss think linux is a greatest thing. it takes zealous writers who like to think theyre on the cutting edge to write stories which put linux in all its glory. we can then go to our boss and say "look at this.. BUSINESS WEEK even thinks so!".
two years ago, the business world saw linux as a toy. rehat and ibm have invested alot of money into linux, giving it exposure to more mature audiences than slashdot. now that linux has been out and about for businesses to play with, they realise that "this linux thing is really great". the industry finally sees linux as a threat and is willing to give it the attention it deserves
Desktops are going the way of the dinosaur (Score:2)
FUD FUD FUD and more FUD. (Score:2)
Linus doesn't rhyme with cynics, even when pronounced in the North American version....
Do people even research their articles anymore? Linux has about 3 different pronounciations that I know of, none of which are "wrong".
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
Linux has about 3 different pronounciations that I know of, none of which are "wrong".
This has been settled by fiat: Linus, original creator of the kernel pronounces it so that it rhymes with cynics. That's as close as you'll come to an official pronunciation for something that is maintained and owned by 10,000 different people, most of whom have never met.
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
Which is the original pronounciation, considering you pronounce Linus Torvald's name Lee-nus. It's how he pronounces it...
Re:FUD FUD FUD and more FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
If you're running certain distros, you can hear Linus himself pronounce the word, "Linux".
Now, let's have no more of this Line-ucks business!No money for free/open software? (Score:3, Interesting)
I also didn't know Redhat isn't allowed to sell Linux. Does that mean I can get my $40 back from that copy of 6.0 I bought in '99?
I guess business week will hire fact checkers as soon as cnn.com hires proofreaders...and MS hires QA analysts (call me flamebait, but I couldn't resist the urge).
Factual errors, bigtime (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when did Intel start "making chips for linux" (Well, I guess technically ever since the 386, in a way.)
Since when did the GPL become synonymous with all of open source? (Not that they got the GPL all that accurate in the first place.)
read the sun parts for a response to cringely (Score:3, Interesting)
if you want to get a pretty decent picture of what Sun is going to do for their long term strategy regarding linux and the potential downfall of big-iron mainframe UNIX (think GNU/Linux on Polyserve), I think they're looking at sidestepping it altogether.
They're going straight for Linux on the desktop with the Mad Hatter project -- McNealy makes a lot of sense on this, although it might just be the kool-aide.
mike
Pretty Pictures (Score:3, Insightful)
But this is pretty typical BusinessWeek - the stories are consistently of a quick glance-over quality, rather than any sort of accurate and/or compelling analysis. If you pick up the print edition you will also notice LOTS of pretty pictures, which is true to the light-on-content feel of most of BW's articles.
Most businesspeople just read it for a quick glance at emerging issues - so the very existence of the article is a pretty important step, and exactly how accurate the content is is in comparison, for now, somewhat irrelevant.
It now seems appropriate to mention.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. I mean, this is a story in business week
predicting their demise basically. How can you stop
a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or
debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was
sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking
advantage of strong political ties to make Linux
essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter
anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies
are in. I used to flat out laugh at the
"world domination" types on here because it just
sounded so silly. My argument was always, who
cares about the rest of the world. How can they
stop something free? It's turning out to be their
achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out.
Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something
that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune
on trying to market their way out of this
inevitable approaching death, and people just
don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that
Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just
not realistic. But they will have to give up the
childish name calling and get onboard at some
point. The sooner they realize they need to give
up the server market and embrace Linux as much
as they can, the less money they'll bleed down
the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server
market within a short time, then they'll slowly
lose the desktop market. It's all right there in
that article. It's what I see. I can't be the only
one. Imagine all the PHB's reading that going
"wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years
ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even
feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago.
Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes.
It's only a matter of time now.
OS delenda est (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a cute spectacle, watching the powers of industry as they debate and decide, negotiate and counter-attack. But the outcome of this particular technological battle was decided the day that Linux was ported to its second CPU after the 80x86. An ecosystem can support one species in a particular niche, and in the OS niche, that is Linux.
Incidentally, for those monopolists out there, you might want to study the history of such technological movements. Not once has a technology survived that was the exclusive property of one group. Only when the technology was shared so that anyone with the desire could reproduce it, would it become a standard. Make money from proprietary systems while you can, but remember that the moment you stop herding the market your way, you will lose your grip on it.
Re:Date of the article? (Score:2)
And what would you like to tell your ($ageInDays + 13)-year-old self?
Re:Date of the article? (Score:2, Funny)
($ageInDays + 13)-year-old =
( 12156 + 13 )-year-old =
12169-year-old
I'd like to tell my 12169-year-old self:
"Hey, good job on staying alive so long! I'll bet that 666th year was a killer!"
Oh, to be alive in AD14172. Can you imagine my Slashdot Karma by then? Of course, the conversion to IPv32 was a real pain...
Re:Hrmph. (Score:2)
The whole point about Linux is the ability to choose. Which is better, being able to decide between XP and Linux or being forced to use XP because all competition is gone?
Re:Hrmph. (Score:2)
But yes, I understand your point. Currently I dual boot Windows XP and BeOS. Tears my heart out that Microsoft squashed Be
(Admitedly, Microsoft isn't the only thing to blame.)
Re:Hrmph. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hrmph. (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Linux/X11/KDE|GNome on my desktop because that's where all the apps I use are. If all your favorite apps live on WinXP, you should probably be using that instead, naturally. And, if/when everybody's favorite apps are on Linux/X11/KDE|GNome, that's when people will put it on their desktops.
It's all about the apps.
Re:Hrmph. (Score:2)
If I ever fully switch to the Eclipse platform for PHP coding, then I might install FreeBSD on my desktop. But that's a ways off in the future. Until then, my LAN consists of 1 GUI-Less FreeBSD Server, 1 Windows XP Pro workstation, 1 Windows 2000 Pro workstation.
Re:Hrmph. (Score:2)
Score: 5, "Ha-Ha" Funny.
Re:Hrmph. (Score:2)
> It rocks for servers, though. It just doesn't float my boat
> Linux/X11/KDE|GNome as my desktop, when I can just use Windows XP?)
With Windows 2000 or XP on my 800MHz computer, I would not be able to simultaneously write a Mode-2 SVCD to CD-R while watching a Mode-2 SVCD on my DVD/CD-ROM while mass downloading from usenet while printing stuff while web browsing while unraring the next movie to burn. Heck, I can compile code while doing all that, and I'll read some usenet posts while I'm at it, and the chance of buffer underrun is still refreshingly low. On my NT5 box, I have to close *everything*, except maybe a browser window or my newgroup client, and I have to run the burner at half the speed (compared to how fast I burn it in Linux).
Considering that I'm continually burning my favourite television programs and such, I would be in pretty sad shape if I were running Microsoft more often than I currently do. As it is, I go into Windows typically only to play Civilization III.
I'm sure that many people have a lot of ease with Windows 2000/XP. YMMV, as they say. I just happen to be one of the quirky folk in those situations where [Mandrake] Linux installs happen straightforward without incident, setting up the proper drivers and including really flexible software and interfaces automatically, and Windows just gives me driver and application problems (I had to hunt forever for win32 drivers for my 5.1 sound card, my AIW RADEON 8500 is crashy if I try to close the TV app, etc..).
Windows does have two big advantages over Linux, at least in my house: Eudora, and easy compatibility with the Gyration mouse.
Like I said, YMMW. I don't complain if you made your OS decision based on your personal preferences. I only get miffy if your choices are based on ignorance ("I can't run this lennox thing because it's missing the internet explorer button"). So hah!
Oh, and I have no qualms with FreeBSD. My company's web server runs on it, and the daemon dude is cute. Any group whose mascot is Satan gets my vote. Plus, it's POSIX, so I can compile most of the useful apps for it. POSIX is my new best friend.
-JC
Re:Hrmph. (Score:2)
(Just be thankful I resisted the urge to bold "xp" in "experience"
Re:next article ..... (Score:4, Funny)