Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Why open source is taking over the planet ...
smartbiz.com — Microsoft is scared. Here are the stats that show why...
clf99- 1121 diggs
- digg it
- black2back, on 10/12/2007, -30/+19A day when Microsoft doesn't control the world. I cannot wait.
- yoyoyoyo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41worst. charts. ever.
and where in the article does it go into why M$ is scared?
no digg.- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21YAWN!!
Seems like a story like this will appear every week.
We get it okay, open source good, MS bad.
Seriously, who gaves a damn. Open source (OS anyway) will never catch on with the general public till it can play games better than a closed system like windows. - blinks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@zybch -> perhaps you mean "until games are made for it like they are for Windows"?
- RoboPimp3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9 "The following graph shows how it has been taking market share from Microsoft's webserver (and others) since 1995."
How can that graph show anything when neither axis nor the lines are labeled? - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8All you had to do was read the article. To wit:
"Mistakenly released internal Microsoft emails provide obvious testimony of this concern: Open source software [OSS] "poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space," the email said. "Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long-term developer mindshare threat."
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21YAWN!!
- billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14How about an article that says why open source is not taking over the planet... cite how an open source version of directX has yet to have full compatibility.
- 0x20boy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Wow, gee, a proprietary API DirectX has yet to have fully compatibility open source version - wow amazing. Don't blame the game makers who could have just as easily written against OpenGL which is open source. No no, blame open source for not making an API that mimics an API that was written to screw up 3D graphics with proprietary crap.
Brilliant. - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I don't think the open source community is jumping to create a DirectX clone since OpenGL has been around for some time and in many cases works better.
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8More difficult to program for though, esp when most game developers have embraced DX and all the little shortcuts that make it faster to write for (but not neccessarily better).
- Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Someone needs to get working on SDL to make it better than DirectX.
Not gonna happen, but nice to think about. - Sargos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3SDL is not a graphics api such as DirectX.
In fact, SDL uses Direct3D to render its content on Windows. - billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Compare how easy it is to make a game for DirectX and a game for openGL, then compare hardware acceleration and only then will you understand why DirectX is better.
- 0x20boy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Wow, gee, a proprietary API DirectX has yet to have fully compatibility open source version - wow amazing. Don't blame the game makers who could have just as easily written against OpenGL which is open source. No no, blame open source for not making an API that mimics an API that was written to screw up 3D graphics with proprietary crap.
- Chiablo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+17I highly doubt that microsoft is even remotely "scared."
- badbox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Yeah, they are.
Microsoft profits not by selling rock-solid quality apps, but from trying to lock people into only ONE solution (ie windows, office, IE, etc), turning people into *consumers* who are more or less forced to upgrade when a "new" version comes out..
Given a choice, people will choose something that's free and works just as good.
Free and MS do not go together. MS does not exist to benefit anyone but itself.
When other organizations take that bread and butter, make it work just as good, if not BETTER, it scares them. It's evident from their declaration of never releasing another IE again, but once Firefox started gaining a massive user base... guess what? IE is back up again.
Entire offices no longer have a reason to buy Office as Open Office takes over just fine in most cases. That's a lot of money they're no longer getting.
Desktop OSes are another story mainly because of compatibility, however, the gap is narrowing very quickly as time goes on.
Look at how much Mozilla profits from Firefox, and it's 100% open source. It's completely possible and probable to make free programs, release the code, AND still profit and make a name for yourself.
It's just a matter of time before most people are aware that these free alternatives exist, and THAT is what scares MS. - 0x20boy, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12Microsoft is technologically irrelevant. The only reason they are still around is because they are huge and it'll take a bit longer for them to fade away - a la Commodore 64 or IBM before they revamped themselves.
Only people who are blind as hell at Microsoft are not scared. - longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6there are all the reasons in the world why open source SHOULD win out and why apple SHOULD have obliterated microsoft long ago. But apple still barely hangs on with its 5% marketshare, only by the thread of its hope that now since it can run windows people will want to buy it. And open source will never take over because it isn't innovative enough. The big companies come up with an idea, and the the open source people copy it, plus make it better. For an open source program to make it, it is going to have to be a completely new idea, not an improvement on something we already have.
- nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Free and MS do not go together. MS does not exist to benefit anyone but itself."
What about the Service Packs? - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah Microsoft doesn't give a ***** about Open Source. You can't compete with a nebelous "movement" anyway, even if they wanted to. They compete with companies like IBM and Novell who push OSS. Without some company backing it, OSS doesn't sell.
- badbox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Yeah, they are.
- CrumbleBeeHaHa, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19a day would not be complete on digg without some "open source is taking over the world and microsoft is going down" story. Not that I'm going to digg this *****.
- Bater, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11Lets see, you are tired of always seeing comments about microsoft going down on a site that has thousands + visitors each day. Maybe thats because a crap load of people (think different) than you.
- goat4, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12"Maybe thats because a crap load of people (think different) than you."
more like a crap load of people (think about dicks all day). mac fanboys are such *****.
digg is ***** terrible. and its you people that make it terrible. get a GOD DAMN clue that microsoft is here to stay for a LOOOOOOOONG time and i wake up and think god for it every day.
i know i can go out, buy ANY ***** SOFTWARE and have the piece of mind to KNOW for a FACT it will work flawlessly and get TONS of productivity done without a hitch, photoshop, office, 3d, flash, ANYTHING. AAAAAAAAAAAAND i can play games on it lightning fast. everything JUST WORKS. its FANTASTIC. - Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@goat4
very well said. i'm still waiting for someone to tell me what a mac can do that a pc cannot do/do better/faster. - 0x20boy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"more like a crap load of people (think about dicks all day). mac fanboys are such *****."
Actually man, you're the one that has an operating system that has ranbow flags all over it. The ranbow flag is the MS logo. That means that *you* are gay.
You are a gay homosexual.
- DrWho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14graphs with no key....
Apache is great, I use it and everything. But how does that scare MS and their sales of OSes?
I still need an OS to run Apache, and Windows uses it just fine.- jclstone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think they were comparing Apache to IIS, not Apache to Windows. In which case, Apache is the clear winner in terms of scalability and reliability. It also doesn't help Microsoft that Apache runs more efficiently on a unix based OS. For open source OS comparisons they provided FreeBSD and Linux against Windows. RTFA.
- skytomorrownow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2exactly. what's the point of an article with charts when there's no key to the chart. junk.
- guna, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Are you sure that is what is implied through this article?
-G
http://www.oozm.com - j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Microsoft has no reason to be scared. They should just release their source code. Everybody would still buy the CD's for support, etc. The only people who would download and compile the source code are the same kinds of people who pirate it now anyway. Releasing the code would only add extra value to using the OS.
- gabesword, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Microsoft can't just release their source code because if they did people would find it very easy to interoperate with products designed for Windows from another platform. I use Linux but I still boot into Windows once a week to play an MMORPG with some friends. If MS released their source code and I could implement DX9 on my Linux box I wouldn't need MS at all.
Given that Linux is free it would immediately become a great solution in more instances than it already is.
- gabesword, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Microsoft can't just release their source code because if they did people would find it very easy to interoperate with products designed for Windows from another platform. I use Linux but I still boot into Windows once a week to play an MMORPG with some friends. If MS released their source code and I could implement DX9 on my Linux box I wouldn't need MS at all.
- hammy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'm not going to be one of those "ZOMG no digg" idiots, but that was a rather poor article. What's up with the Netgraph chart without a key and no link to the original data? That's just sloppy.
- stubby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Soooooooo... apache is stealing ground that IIS has had for years huh?
I thought that apache was the leader all this time, silly me. (sarcasm) People need to stop going out of their way to try and flame MS or Bush. - lupinglade, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Open source is not taking over the world, relax. Do you really want to work for free? And how many open source projects actually are so excellent as to deserve a mention? I can count them on one hand.
- badbox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Open source != working for free. It's donation of your time.
The only people a massive open-source-takeover would hurt, in theory, would be those who work developing commerial applications.
If you develop solutions for other companies (ex: custom inventory systems) or run a company that's a service-based product (ex: google), it won't affect you.
It should give people more incentive to devote time to writing decent open-source apps. If you're innovative and creative enough, you'll write a quality app that will give you massive exposure as an individual or organization, and based on that, you can profit.. just like Mozilla. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16First of all, there are many paid OSS developers out there. Many companies support the development of various OSS projects now. It turns out it some cases it's cheaper to just hire programmers instead of paying commercial software license fees. If you do some research you will find many well known companies funding OSS develop in one way or another. You're ignorant if you think all OSS programmers work for free.
Second: The independent/unpaid work that goes into OSS projects is almost always done by people who want to enhance a project for their own use. You're very incorrect to think they're doing it for free -- they are getting an improved product they can use without restriction in the end. They ARE compensated for their work -- that's why OSS has grown so quickly around the world. - vyshane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I work for an open source company. I get paid and get to feel good about my job to boot. Open source works, both as a development model and as a business model.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I've said this again and again. The Open Source "business model" totally fails it because it makes money by selling support and not the actual product. So, it just encourages the creation of software that REQUIRES support. I've never seen anyone reasonably address this fact.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2badbox, Mozilla is a bad example of a quality OSS application. If it's as good as it is, it's because it was primarily developed by Netscape/AOL and then was "Open Sourced" much later on.
- badbox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Open source != working for free. It's donation of your time.
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13lupinglade: "Do you really want to work for free?"
I work on open source projects and use open source platforms, and every project I create is billed to a client. Like me, most developers get paid for their work... Open source does not change that at all. Sheesh. - finnif, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Horrible article.
"SalesForce.com, Taleo.com... these companies absolutely cannot afford downtime. These companies absolutely cannot afford downtime. They have plenty of money; they aren't choosing Linux because it's free."
Bulloney. No matter how much money a company has this is ALWAYS a reason to go with Linux. If Google bought Windows Server licenses for their servers it would cost them something like $200m.
"It's not that Microsoft hasn't tried to take over this market. Users have found Apache to be easier to implement".
Not it's not. ASP.NET on IIS is far easier to set up than LAMP, J2EE or any other solution out there. Cost and familiarity are the issues that put people on Linux, not ease of setup or development. Nothing beats Visual Studio 2005, SQLServer 2005, IIS 6 for integrated web development. Problem is it needs to be deployed on expensive Windows licenses when you're done :- boazg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Not it's not. ASP.NET on IIS is far easier to set up than LAMP, J2EE or any other solution out there. Cost and familiarity are the issues that put people on Linux, not ease of setup or development. Nothing beats Visual Studio 2005, SQLServer 2005, IIS 6 for integrated web development"
just 3 words: ruby on rails - finnif, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"just 3 words: ruby on rails"
Rails is no panacea. Have you tried deploying it using Apache and FastCGI on Windows? On Linux it's painful enough to have to download the 15 components to Rails to work, on Windows it's crazy. InstantRails is great, but can't help you with production.
Oh, and then try debugging low-level rails problems sometime. The stack gets so deep and complex that it's almost as much fun as C++ template errors. - thecwin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Easier to set up and easier to implement are different... I can get a Windows server up quicker than I can a BSD/Linux server, but guess which one's easier to code for and maintain after that...
If you want ASP.NET on Linux servers you can use mono inside Apache, but I personally didn't find it that exciting. I'd still prefer jsp or r-o-r. Perl/PHP for quick hacks or smaller applications. There's no reason to limit yourself to one language. Not sure why, but every Windows thing I've done just needed more general upkeep and shuffling.
Also about installing and that... if you choose a distro with nice package management it shouldn't be any hastle to get it installed. Configuration should take a while if you're intending to configure everything right down to your needs. - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Not it's not. ASP.NET on IIS is far easier to set up than LAMP, J2EE or any other solution out there."
WHAT?!? Seriously, you need to stop doing drugs. Either that or you're so used to the following, you equate it with "easy":
Run Windows installation (~10 reboots?)
Update Windows with latest patches (except you can't, because SQL server doesn't work with Windows 2003 SP1! So much for security...)
Install Anti-virus
Install ASP.NET
Install SQL Server
Configure SQL Server
Configure IIS to work with ASP.NET
Configure automatic updates for Windows/Anti-virus
Install various 3rd party tools since ASP.NET can't do everything you need by itself
Spend hours locking down/securing Windows and SQL server.
Spend thousands of dollars for all of the above in time AND licenses and later you'll spend thousands of dollars in TIME recovering from security problems.
Now here's how you get LAMP rolling:
Install, say, Red Hat Linux (might as well go with what's popular)... 1 reboot
Spend an hour or so configuring the machine (enable auto-updating, change MySQL root password, configure Apache the way you like, etc). All the software you need is pre-installed.
Install whatever Perl/PHP/Python software you want in your already-installed-and-configured Apache server.
Total time: ~2 hours from 0->fully working secure LAMP server
Now here's the Ruby on Rails way:
Install Red Hat (1 reboot)
Install any given ruby/rails app: "gem install whatever"
./webrick whatever
Total time: 10 friggin' minutes (assuming your CD ROM is fast enough)
Alternative: Boot off a Rails Linux live CD... total time: 1 minute
It doesn't get any "easier" than that!
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
- boazg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Not it's not. ASP.NET on IIS is far easier to set up than LAMP, J2EE or any other solution out there. Cost and familiarity are the issues that put people on Linux, not ease of setup or development. Nothing beats Visual Studio 2005, SQLServer 2005, IIS 6 for integrated web development"
- alexandreracine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Mirrors?
- JCPicache, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why are all these authors posting their own articles in Digg? That article was written by some "Curt Finch" and guess who posted it to Digg? I understand if it's something utterly groundbreaking, but the 'facts' presented in the article are rather poor, and the graphs are useless without a legend key.
And please, stop with the one-sided headlines..."Microsoft is scared. Here are the stats that show why..." show me some real facts first then I will make that conclusion. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Even if companies buy open source software they still subscribe to support or have to hire support (such as redhat). The thing is Microsoft offers support with their products so even if you are paying for it at first you get support with it so it all just about equals out pricewise in the end. The way to beat microsoft is come out with a superior product, currently OpenOffice is slower than Office although just as usefull - this gives bussinesses no reason to change. Linux is an awesome OS but it suffers from a lack of coordination, there are too many distros and a thing call "dependencys" which are a pain. Novell has YaST which is great but still lacks the center which windows has - everything is coordnated by microsoft so if you want to install somthing there it is, you just install it. No specific RPMs or anything and no KDE vs. Gnome.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3agreed who is to say what distro you need when you dont know anyone who has linux or used it before and not to mention much of the problems with laptops and such
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah I forgot to mention laptop compatability - it is still pretty buggy with linux (Ubuntu Laptop with Linksys wireless card)
- fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have you ever see the price tag for Microsoft Premium support? How about Per-incident support? Microsoft doesn't do anything for free.
- rvalles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4No digg since "Open Source" was used instead of Free Software.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html - Smoov, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Everyone on this thread will be dead and buried before Microsoft.
They have more money than most small countries. Open Source has yet to develop a consistent, scalable business model and Open Source software is fragmented and of limited appeal to non-geeks and non-IT people.
Not that Open Source is all bad. I admire the work that has gone into Linux and other projects. I use some OSS myself and have contributed code. My problem is mostly with the personalities of the people who associate with the OSS world. If they spent less time on bashing Microsoft and more on QAing their code then everyone would be better off.- FelixdaaHack, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Business 101: Companies that fail to innovate soon find themselves relegated to history. I agree with the TWIT#47 panel...if Vista doesn't bring more to the table than a pretty GUI M$ may be in for a rude awaking.
- Shazam999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Apple's stock price has risen because of the iPod, not because of OSS.
Most of the growth you see in the other charts are because the software market as a whole has become bigger, not because companies are switching over and replacing Windows servers.- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Remember that OSX is built off Darwin the OSS BSD OS and they turned it into a closed source piece of proprietary software. So much for the advancment of OSS.
- bristolz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Recently (yesterday, in fact) Apple's stock rose sharply not because of iPod or OSS/Free but because of Windows and the code to run Windows. (Wow. That felt weird to write)
- Euan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is the type of post I would expect to see on Slashdot. Idiot.
- koshak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8These articles REALY have to stop. It makes you all look bad. Microsoft is NOT scared. Enough already. Digg users are not normal. And I mean that in the worst possible sense. Just because YOU love open source does not mean that the averrge user does.
Have you not figured out that everythoing you like is WAYYY behind the others? Not becuase you are smarter than the average user. You just want to THINK you are, so you don't want to seem mainstream.
Microsoft is not going anywhere. And if your whole life is waiting for the day it does, you may as well stop living your life not. becuase itis NOT going to happen in your lifetime.- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Alot of valid points in your comment. +digg for your post
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Actually most Linux users don't care about Microsoft -- they just want to see their platform of choice continue to grow so they can get better hardware/software support. Nothing wrong with that. Yet you seem very defensive.. Hm...
- bailey3003, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7yeah horrible post! That first graph shows me nothing. There are no labels just colors, yet they claim--"The following graph shows how it[Apache] has been taking market share from Microsoft's webserver (and others) since 1995." I guess maybe they thought the colors would confuse you enough. NO DIGG
- gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oh ya guys - I get it - open source is ALWAYS better. Find a good open source NLE then I'll agree.
- dhmlco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Even the stats it has are misleading. Take the "Apache on the warpath" section, which states "Users have found Apache to be easier to implement, more secure, and more reliable than its competitors", with the implication that all of these "users" have made a choice and switched en mass to Apache.
When in actuality the percentage of web sites running Apache is misleading because ISPs use Apache to host most of the personal and mom-and-pop pages and sites on shared servers. So the "users" made no such choice, they're simply using whatever their cheap web hosting provider provides.
Eliminate all of the "vanity" sites and personal home pages and you'll see a different set of numbers. Look at, say, business intranets, and you'll see results skewed dramatically in the other direction.
Just another example of how one can use statistics to "prove" whatever point they're embellishing at the moment. - rmayes, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Netcraft confirms it, Microsoft is dying.
- zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It has M$ worried not not scared.
In the next few years as M$ turns the screws on features like required and payed OS upgrades and making product activation that's hard to crack. Think vista people.
It will drive more people to look at Open source fixes for the closed source operations.
Only about 8 years ago if you said. I would like to use an open source solution for this project.
You'd been run out of the company on a rail.
Now's a days all I hear; is there a free or low cost way to do this. Open source is that way.
Closed Source = Closed Minds - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The following graph shows how Microsoft is more certainly in the hole:
/
_____/
_/- GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Cut him some slack. He probably used "KGraph" or "GGraph" to make the graphs.
- gearwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Articles like this undermine the value of digg.com. I might as well just stick to reading slashdot, arstechnica and etc...
- mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Microsoft has basically bet their farm on Vista. As the way things are headed, there is a good chance Vista is going to flop like a dead toad. Having said that I'm not sure what the direct impact that will have on Microsoft. Will they spend a big pile of money marketing trying to convince Vista is actually what you need? Will they go nuts and start suing anybody and everybody to keep their erroding monopoly market position? Will there be a big shake up in upper management? Will Steve Ballmer throw more chairs? As they say, animals are most dangerious when they are cornered and have no other options.
About a year from now and it's going to be quite interesting. By this time around Apple would have rolled out Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" to public probably loaded with nifty features not in Vista. Of course Sony and Nintendo have rolled out their next generation console and XBOX 360 would look like a last year's console quite literally. If things look bleak for Microsoft now, just wait until next year. In the meantime, sit back with a bowl of popcorn and read the http://minimsft.blogspot.com blog. It's like watching a titanic running head on into an iceberg from a safe distance away. My money is on the iceberg.- joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If they make it secure they will have no problems. Right now their #1 problem would be spyware and viruses. If it wasn't for this a vast majority of people would never switch. There will be some that will enjoy the Linux or Apple experience more, but a lot of them simply don't want the hassle of learning something new, but it is less than the hassle of reinstalling.
If they can secure down their computer with Vista they can take the time to actually produce something interesting and perhaps even inovative. - mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2joshwehatetech - do you actually believe that MS will produce something that's secure? They've been selling that brooklyn bridge for the last decade and haven't delivered. I have to say, if you seriously believe and put any kind of trust in MS's marketing, then you're in a very small minority of customers that purchased their product in the past.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060330-6491.html
As for me, I think Phillip Morris will come out with a cigarette that's good for your health before Microsoft comes out with an operating system that's actually secure.
- joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If they make it secure they will have no problems. Right now their #1 problem would be spyware and viruses. If it wasn't for this a vast majority of people would never switch. There will be some that will enjoy the Linux or Apple experience more, but a lot of them simply don't want the hassle of learning something new, but it is less than the hassle of reinstalling.
- pcheaven2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Where Microsoft has gone wrong and how to fix it!"
I am a very objective computer user. I like Mac OS, Linux, Windows - each has its strengths and weaknesses and in the grand view each has a user base that loves the OS they use and hates everything else. I personally use all three, on a regular basis. I have a TVR box running Windows, an iMac running Ubuntu and soon will be building a new TVR box with Linux on it so I can use Windows as my desktop ALL THE TIME and not share it with the TVR. Now that I have clarified my objectivity I will get down to the point of this post.
Like it or not Microsoft is THE REASON computers are so popular, so cheap and so powerful. Before Microsoft computers where extremely slow, wouldn't due much and cost Thousands to Millions of dollars. There was no major push to make those computers better either. Yes there were other companies that came out with CHEAP computers before Microsoft stormed onto the scene (Atari, Adam, Coleco, Apple, etc.) but none of them possessed the necessary skill and diligence to bring computing to the main stream it is today. So while I have and admit to there being numerous flaws with Microsoft, the truth is if Microsoft had never been we would be just now be getting 486 DX25's with 8MB Ram and 40MB Hard drives and they would cost $25,000.....and there would be NO INTERNET, we would still be on a TEXT-BASED BBS style network and paying $100 a month for a 9600 baud connection to it.
My point is that we (computer users, geeks, hackers, IT pro's, etc.) owe a lot to Microsoft. BUT BUT BUT
Microsoft has forgotten that it is US that BOUGHT INTO THEIR VISION and gave them the POWER to BRING US to where we are today. They have lost sight of the fact that WE are WHY they RULE the COMPUTER WORLD. That is the FIRST and GREATEST MISTAKE.
There second mistake is their lack of diversification. By that I mean they have continuosly been piling all their eggs into ever fewer baskets. 10 years ago you could buy DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, then you could buy Microsoft Works or Office (at that time you could also buy all the office programs seperately). IIS was sold seperately, now it is integrated. They have continuously consolidated their holdings in an attempt to force us to spend more on Microsoft Products while giving us LESS OPTIONS for stuff to spend our money on. This has empowered the Open-Source and Linux communities greater than any other event in the last 10 years.
There third mistake is their unwillingness to release a NEW, STABLE OS that is not built onto old code. When they went from Dos to Windows it still used some of the same code base as dos and was dependent on Dos. Then they came out with NT 4 which was a WHOLE NEW CODE BASE. But since then everything has been built off the same code base as NT4. Including Windows 98/98/ME/XP/2003/Vista. There is a lot of newer code in each newer version of windows since NT4. But there is a lot of the OLD code there too. They have done this to ensure REVERSE COMPATABILITY, but it also ensures there OS is slower and buggier than it should be. It doesn't have to be that way, just look at Apple. They finally got the hint and released OSX with an entirely new code base (based on Open-Source at that). Best of all Apple was able to bring an all new code base to market and still allow you to run MOST (90%) of older MAC OS software on it. If Apple can do that, why the hell can't Microsoft? Linux is following the same path as Microsoft in that respect. The Linux Kernel has not been RE-WRITTEN from scratch in a long time. It is just constantly UPGRADED with NEW CODE and as a result it is becoming (NOTE I SAID BECOMING) just as BLOATED and BUGGY as Microsoft's OS.
With Apple's recent changes, acceptance of Open-Source, release of lots of its code, switching its software to use a Universal Binary, plans to release the API's that enable those Universal Binaries to work, switching to Industry Standard Intel Processors, etc. they are rapidly positioning themselves to kick Microsoft's ASS if the Gate's and Balmer's don't pull their heads out of them soon and WAKE UP.
Personally, I hope Apple rattles there cage and stills alot of their market share. It would really be nice if the Open-Source community could write a NEW LINUX from the KERNEL UP from SCRATCH and could also steal even more of Microsoft's market share. The way I see it is having THREE MAJOR COMPETITORS would only serve to FURTHER THE MARKET for those of us that CARE.
Now how can Microsoft fix there screw ups and ensure continued domination of the computer industry?
1.) Write an entirely NEW operating system with NO CODE carried over from previous software or operating systems. Design the OS using a Linux style schema that has a miniscule kernel that has limited functionality. The kernel would ONLY translate code from (hexadecimal to binary and back) and support 'kernel plugins' for easily adding/removing functionality for hardware, software, etc. These 'kernel plugins' would act as DRIVERS for all the hardware in the system, they would also enable virtualization so that multiple graphical user interfaces (Windows/Gnome/KDE type environments) could run on top of that kernel simultaneously. This new OS would have only a very basic ability to boot the computer to a black screen with a command prompt. However, thru the use of 'kernel plugins' the system could be upgraded and modified easily. Microsoft could then simultaneously release a GUI (Windows Interface) 'kernel plugin', Virtualization 'kernel plugin' and API's and Programming Tips for creating additional 'kernel plugins'. They could package the new OS (kernel) with the Virtualization and GUI 'kernel plugins' and sell it as "Windows 2008 Modular". They could then make the kernel Open-Source and work with the Open-Source community to develop numerous, powerful and extremely fast 'kernel plugins' that enhanced the functionality and usability of the new OS. They could still make money on it by limiting the Open-Source licenses to 'kernel plugins' and retain SOLE RIGHTS on the KERNEL itself. They could release UPDATED/NEW kernels and new GUI 'kernel plugin' on a yearly basis with ease to generate revenue. They could also continue to sell their own software Office, IIS, SQL, etc. that either ONLY RAN inside their GUI or directly as a 'kernel plugin' that would run SIMULTANEOUSLY to their GUI using VIRTUALIZATION.
This would allow for Microsoft to CONTROL THE MARKET while SHARING THE MARKET (without loss of sales or profit) with the rest of the world. This is basically what Apple is doing RIGHT NOW and it is the reason APPLE is poised to KICK MICROSOFTS ASS and bring the Open-Source community along for the ride. If Microsoft doesn't change their practices to something along the lines of what I have outlined or at least along the lines of what Apple is doing they are TOAST inside of 5 years.- joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Being a bit of a Windows guy I enjoy seeing posts like that. It was very detailed and I agree for most part (you need to add getting rid of the registry as a big giant sign from the gods too).
Microsoft is very threatened and losing in parts of the server market. Apache has been and will continue to dominate the Web market. I would imagine IIS's number are a lot better on intranet though because of the ability for it to tie together everything in an enterprise (I wouldn't be surprised if their share is much higher in that reguard). If you have seen or used IIS 6, it is a different, secure beast compared to the past and there really hasn't been any major screw ups in that product since it came out. I think Microsoft right now is on a security swing that will end with Vista and they will start working on developing new ideas and hopefully a designed from scratch OS as a secondary product for the time being. As much ***** as people give Microsoft, it is really from 2-5 years ago and they are heading in the right direction they still have a few things to iron out however.
Apple, is doing everything right, but I hightly doubt they will dominate because they target the home market. Their share will increase there, but it will never be substancial because their corporate push is close to nil.
Linux I just don't know. The only knock on Linux is that it is seen as "the cheap alternative". If an IT swing goes back in where spending is not an issue, this could really hurt Linux if they are not providing superior solutions, just free ones. There are plenty of products out there that are free and superior to the compitition, but there are a lot of hack jobs that do enough to warrant the use, but are definetely not better. - tonyspencer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, since MS never made any hardware, it's idiotic to say they brought down the price of computers.
And as for Apple not having the skill or diligence... where do you think MS got its ideas from? It licensed the Mac OS to produce Windows in the first place... - mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3On the contrary, Microsoft has managed to increase the price of the computers. Right now Microsoft's OS is the most expensive component in low end computers even more than the CPU. The price of the operating system has gone from $89 for Windows 95 to $200 for Windows XP Home. Price of the operating system has more than doubled in five years while hardware prices have consistantly gone down.
- joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Being a bit of a Windows guy I enjoy seeing posts like that. It was very detailed and I agree for most part (you need to add getting rid of the registry as a big giant sign from the gods too).
- bristolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can still buy MS Office apps separately. At least I can and do.
- Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Did you notice the guy who wrote the article is the CEO of a company that was pimped as a successful SaaS provider. Totally weak! Layer a chart of MS growth over the Red Hat chart and then post to digg. No digg.
- foohookups311, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yeah linux still has a ways to go before it can conquer a microsoft os.
- TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why do people confisue server vs desktop stats so much? These numbers are for server deployments. Even the staunchest of MS supports recognise that Linux as a server OS is powerful, and reliable. Apache is the leader in web servers - no argument. Opensource database servers? Umm - not really ... not in ost mission critical environments. They will be running Oracle or UDB/DB2 - quite possibly on Linux.
BS article drumming up hype for yet another acronym - SaaS (Software as a Service) - as a means of saving your company $$$. - jond, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4To make good inovative software(not just copying microsoft), requires teams of people. Long hours by skilled people who spent a lot of money on their education.
Why the F&@# does anyone expect these people to work for free. Pay for good software for F%$# sake. - mrKhoa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Open source is a good concept, but in real life can't truely exist I think. After all, nothing is free. Development costs money. It takes time. It may be free for consumers, but not the developers. We all know that nothing is really free. Another thing I was wonderng about is that don't most open source programmers work for software companies? If all software were free, there would be no commercial software and open source supporters would have no jobs and no money to do what they do. The concept of "all software should be free" is obsurd. But hey, some open source is always good.
And by the way, I don't know why MS should be really scared, and the article/graphs are kind of lame. - kymudder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hardly think so. Nice try. Open source has it's place. It's certainly not in the business establishments that depend on reliable software for daily business. Open source is for the hobbist who have no value of their own time.
- fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. My employer with 14million customers for their satellite television service uses quite a bit of OSS for its day to day business. No digg for your post.
- macintosh99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Open source will not take over the operating system market or the software market. There is just no way because of how hard open source is to use and limited support for it. I will stick with mac, and windows, I will never go to Linux again. I think Linux is way too complicated for normal users. I think open source is very good for business's and running servers, that is it. I really like open source software though, It is very reliable and the majority of it is free.
- cantoral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Pinky and the Brain are taking over the WORLD. No mouse here, it is a penguin!
Thanks clf99 for sharing this with us. - Feej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I think open source will be used within organizations with a large user base as a way to avoid license fees."
But pay essentially the same for "services". - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry but this article is really bad and given that they can't even label their graphs I'm not going to bother to read the damn thing. You really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find this one.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article was mediocre, and so is this discussion.
For starters, don't write, just read if:
you don't know the difference between Open Source and Freeware. There are free progs & uts around that are not open source. µTorrent is one example. It's given away free, but it is not open source.
Open source means the code under the hood has been compiled from a source that is open to examination, not an "industrial or trade secret." Then there is Free Software, which is philosophically a little different from OSS, but similar enough in most senses. Read Richard Stallman: the difference matters to him.
But in several ways [that both supporters and scoffers at OSS will point out] open source does NOT always equal no monetary cost. - FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My other point is that there are a lot of people who make good money, and make other people happy, by providing *services*, not "products."
As far as I know, my automobile mechanic [Ralph] has never built or sold a car in his life. But I am happy to pay him a few times a year for support service that has made my life a lot easier, and has made the vehicles I have owned last long and run reliably. And he's pretty busy; a lot of other people must agree with me about him.
The service and support you could get from someone who can set you up with open source software MIGHT be much better than the service and support you could get [most likely over the phone] from Microsoft, or any other 800 pound gorilla. I know I've always been happier with Ralph's work than my experiences at a Ford or Honda dealer's garage.
Perhaps it's different with an enterprise that buys 5,000 software licenses from MS. Maybe they get regular visits from MS tech support in New Delhi [and a fresh plate of samozas, too!] to help them out when they need it.
The small businesses I'm familiar with get nothing much for their money from MS but the "right" to use the product the way MS wants them to use it. - clf99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The world is ready for open source.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by