Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




My tech crystall ball reveals 10 years into the fu

My tech crystall ball reveals 10 years into the future:

1.  People write books with "how did Microsoft fail to see this coming" and "how the biggest software developer on the face of the earth couldn't meet a deadline"  will be common place as MS has slipped to the number 4 largest developer.

2.  Their largest selling product is an extension to mono.

3.  More lintel is sold than wintel

4.  Nobody does a corporate desktop anymore.

5.  The home user desktop is no longer a monolithic white box, it is several dedicated small devices that are networked that can be upgraded and replaced ala cart.  (MS has very little to do with these)

That's it.  What do you guys think?

Mike
Friday, May 21, 2004

You shouldn't shake your crystal ball too much. It just agitates all that fake snow, and clouds the picture of the future.

AnMFCAndJavaProgrammer
Friday, May 21, 2004

"People tend to under-estimate the technology that will be available within three years, while they tend to over-estimate the technology that will be available in ten years."

-Bill Gates at a summer barbeque in 2001.

On this, I think he's largely right.

Elephant
Friday, May 21, 2004

Amen Mike Amen. With Longhorn slipping to 2006, there is a real chance. In China and India, Linux is becoming mainstream  !

Linux will offer equal support to **Windows Applications** in 2006. The WINE project is adding 200,000 lines of code every year. So for people who want to go to Linux, its a great idea. THat way, they can get a new OS without new hardware that Longhorn stipulates.

I suspect Microsoft will try to break Mono once they realize what is happening. But Mono or not, more number of people will embrace Linux. BEA has open sourced its framework. Eclipse is the most popular IDE. Open Office is slowly but steadily gaining ground.

The Penguin is the future.!

Karthik
Friday, May 21, 2004

What would the impact be if Apple ported OSX to the x86? Apple has shown that they are trusted, they have remained "cool" for decades, and they have excellent user interface abilities. Given the continually declining need for platform specificness (Mozilla, my browser of choice, runs on lots of platforms, as does Jabber. For many users Open Office is their app of choice, and again there are plenty of choice platforms where the app runs identically), I suspect that Apple would have tremendous success on the x86 platform.

Dennis Forbes
Friday, May 21, 2004

>THat way, they can get a new OS without new hardware that Longhorn stipulates.

Please slashdotters.  How many of you guys running linux right now as your home desktop machine (not your little firewall, fileserver, P200 laying around) have less than a 1Ghz machine? 

OSes do not drive us to buy hardware.  Applications do.  I have 1GB of RAM on my Pentium M 1.4ghz laptop.  Not because Windows 2003 requires that much (it runs quite happily on a machine with 256mb of ram at home) but because I run VS.NET 2003, IIS, Sharepoint, SQL Server 2000, iTunes, IE & Mozilla, Lotus Sametime, Winamp (for ripping my itunes back to mp3) & Trillian for IM, all at the same time - at this moment, all that is taking up about 700mb of RAM. 

GiorgioG
Friday, May 21, 2004

People have been saying for years that Linux is the wave of the future.  Just like they were saying Java would storm the desktop.  Both predictions stemmed from the same place:  The evangelists of those technologies *wanted* to see that happen.  They sure tried (or are trying) their hardest, but it's tough to shake the king from his throne.

Honestly, users don't care what OS their PC runs.  They just want it to work.  And they want a good selection of software available.  People in high-tech media use Macs, because that's where all the really high end professional software is.  Likewise, little Bobby runs Windows, because he likes to play Everquest with his friends (OK, that runs on Mac now too, but it didn't for a long time, and it's circling the drain now anyway).

Basically, normal humans just don't want to have to think about such things.  It's like listening to a car buff who goes on and on about why you should drive Car X, because it has this special type of engine, and these cool features.  But at the end of the day, you're just trying to get from point A to point B.

Microsoft gives the average consumer, and average business, exactly what they want.  And that would be easy to manage, relatively low cost, and well supported systems.  Sure, open source is free, but what happens when something goes wrong?  I can't really picture Mom hitting up the newsgroups and message boards just to get her birthday cards printed...

Joe
Friday, May 21, 2004

Oh, by the way, I do like your vision on that last part - about several smaller, application-specific devices.  In fact, we're already starting to see this in terms of MP3 players, bluetooth cellphones, and the like.  Individual devices which operate independently, but interconnect to share data.

I think we'll always have the big monolithic PC (where else will you store your 100GB of music and 3TB of ripped DVDs?), but we seem to be on a path towards making our daily lives more digital, and that means more convenience devices.

Joe
Friday, May 21, 2004

"Microsoft gives the average consumer, and average business, exactly what they want.  And that would be easy to manage, relatively low cost, and well supported systems."

If Microsoft stopped at Windows 2000 that would be true.  I'm not sure there is too much in Longhorn that the average consumer needs anymore.  Microsoft is now grasping and bloating their products to have something to sell. 

The man reason that Linux is making any in roads at the moment at all is that Windows is not "low cost".  In some cases, the Windows license can be 1/4 the cost of the entire PC. 

"Sure, open source is free, but what happens when something goes wrong?"

The only way that Linux will make on the desktop is through the support of some company.  The average joe is  not going to download a distribution and install it.

There is two ways this can go...  either companies like Redhat will sell the OS and provide support (like Microsoft).  Or, and this more likely for home users, that computer manufacturers will provide the OS and support (like Apple).

Linux is already include in low-cost PC's sold by Walmart.  As the price of PC's drops lower the need for cheap OS grows greater.

Almost Anonymous
Friday, May 21, 2004

You forgot one :

6. UNIVAC will make a comeback in 2006 (ahead of longhorn).  Plans in the making for a JVM and CLR  for the UNIVAC and it's the new UNIVAC OS: UNIVIX.
Millions around the world will dump linux and microsoft and embrace this technology behemoth (literally and physically speaking).

Steve-O
Friday, May 21, 2004

> What would the impact be if Apple ported OSX to x86?

It would cure insomnia worldwide.

old_timer
Friday, May 21, 2004

To the original poster:

"People write books with "how did Microsoft fail to see this coming"

Doubtful.  The reason is simple: .NET.  Everyone thinks that .NET is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  The next major wave of development will occur when .NET has fully matured -- in about the time frame you're discussing. 

"Their largest selling product is an extension to mono."

Highly doubtful for the above reason.

"More lintel is sold than wintel"

This is possible -- it really depends on how polished the Linux desktop can get for corporate and newbie home users.

"Nobody does a corporate desktop anymore."

Wrong.  There will be more players in the corporate desktop space.  MS isn't going away.  Then you'll have Sun desktop.  IBM desktop.  Redhat desktop.  And a few other minor players...  everyone will be doing the corporate desktop.

"The home user desktop is no longer a monolithic white box, it is several dedicated small devices that are networked that can be upgraded and replaced ala cart."

Everyone wants to break the PC apart!  Hasn't the idea of the thin client died yet.  Nobody wants a bunch of dedicated small devices!  The PC is the most versitile appliance ever created -- that's it's value.  It's really impossible to create a bunch of smaller appliances that will be cost effective against a bundled-together PC.  And since there isn't any value-added, it ain't gonna happen.

We will, however, see more computers everywhere.  And they'll all be networked.  The set-top box thing will actually happen -- entirely because of PVR capability.  It'll be dedicated recording and playing media files and it'll rarely be used for surfing the web.  Cell phones will get smarter and will range from more PDA-like devices to more phone-like devices.  But the PC will remain.




That's it.  What do you guys think?

Almost Anonymous
Friday, May 21, 2004

I "love" small devices.

A year or so ago, I got myself a small cute cell phone. Everyone liked it. But I soon discovered that my palm was probably too big for the phone (I'm not a tall guy, not at all) and while receiving a call, I couldn't hold it for longer than a few seconds. I got rid of it.

It's fun to imagine a world with several smaller devices. But I don't see desktops being completely eliminated or even getting replaced by a bunch of smaller devices. We would always continue to prefer larger screens, smaller CPUs, better keyboards and pointing devices. Lets see how well are they integrated? Probably future computers would be more like tablet PCs - but thinner and with larger screens. I dont see screens getting buried in some smaller boring boxes.

I don't see software getting subdued by consumer devices. Probably because of ease of deployment. It would be harder to have separate devices for instant messaging, email, word processing, worksheets and software development, etc. If you want a software to do X task at the middle of the night, you can probably go on to the Internet and find and download such a software. What about those small disparate devices? If a device gets general purpose, it would eventually turn in to a computer - for which Tablet PC (or a better) would be more suitable. If a device is not general purpose, you would still need a general purpose device. I don't see desktops going anywhere - just changing their sizes and shapes.

Green Pajamas
Friday, May 21, 2004

What I don't understand is that many people instinctively think Microsoft == insecure. DCOM == insecure. RPC == insecure.

Honestly, does your average open source person religiously test his software for security, *always* use strncpy() instead of strcpy(), think of every possible break-in scenario?

Alex
Friday, May 21, 2004

I've never been terribly impressed by sliced bread.

name withheld out of cowardice
Friday, May 21, 2004

"Nobody does a corporate desktop anymore."

Not a fat one at least

"The PC is the most versitile appliance ever created -- that's it's value.  "

Jack of all trades, master of non.

SNT the evolution of RMS
Friday, May 21, 2004

> What would the impact be if Apple ported OSX to x86?

Already there. At least getting there.

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/about.html

KayJay
Friday, May 21, 2004

Hehe, I'm not sure if 1/40th to 1/500th the speed is really acceptable...

Really, though, Apple has been rumoured to have a cross-platform version available for some time (I mean they derived a lot of the system from FreeBSD, which is primarily an x86 system), but they face the classic Apple dilemma: They know that people love their software, and it gets them to pay big premiums on the hardware. If the same advantages were available on a vanilla box it would cut into their hardware sales.

Dennis Forbes
Friday, May 21, 2004

- more on osnews & /. -

It is more a proof of concept than anything else now, at v0.1.2.  It may not be 100% equivalent even with a fully mature code base, but certainly better than this one.

KayJay
Friday, May 21, 2004

Almost Anonymous,

I agree that companies (especially MS) often add features to their products just because the marketing people thought it would be a good idea...  This practice generally isn't driven by consumers wanting something new, but rather by competition in the marketplace forcing change.  Sometimes change is good, sometimes its bad, and sometimes its just for the sake of change. 

But anybody selling a product will be guilty of this at one time or another, especially whoever happens to be at the top of the market...just think how many different Gillette Mach Whatever razors there are! 

For better or worse, software is driven by business and profit, so some things just become par for the course.

If linux is going to make it on the desktop, it won't be because of companies like RedHat.  It's much more likely that a manufacturer, like Dell for instance, could popularize the product.  Just like Apple has managed to sneak BSD into homes across the country without sacrificing ease of use.

However, the key to dominance is coupling both software *and* OS...why is Word so popular?  because it runs on Windows...why is Windows so popular?  because it runs Word...  Most people don't care that they can get Linux/OpenOffice for free, or at least WordPerfect for half the price -- all they know is that Word lets them get their work done.  When it comes to things they don't understand very well, people like sticking with well-known name brands...

Joe
Friday, May 21, 2004

"Most people don't care that they can get Linux/OpenOffice for free, or at least WordPerfect for half the price -- all they know is that Word lets them get their work done."

You give Word too much credit -- at least with home users.  In the corporate environment, you need Word because everyone else has Word (network effects).  Home users just need to word process.  And if the OS and Word processor come free with their $300 computer -- it's all good.  If OpenOffice has trouble opening a specific word document from Aunt Tilly -- it's not really a big deal.

A very large chunk of people only need email, word processor, web browser, instant messanger, and a few solitare-type games.  All those things are standard in most Linux distributions.

Almost Anonymous
Friday, May 21, 2004

"Really, though, Apple has been rumoured to have a cross-platform version available for some time (I mean they derived a lot of the system from FreeBSD, which is primarily an x86 system)"

OS X is just the latest version of OpenStep..  which ran on a number of platforms including x86.  So I believe the rumours.  I here they routinely build it for x86 in order to ensure that it remains cross-platform -- even if they don't intend on using it that way.

"They know that people love their software, and it gets them to pay big premiums on the hardware."

Apple will never release a PC version of OS X.  They are a hardware company.  They might release an x86 version if the PowerPC line ever dries up -- but it'll still be available only for Apple hardware.

Almost Anonymous
Friday, May 21, 2004

I was just using MS-Word as an example.  In the case of the home user, they are probably using Outlook Express and the MS-Words suite that comes bundled with almost every new PC these days.  The odds that Aunt Tilly is even sending Word documents is probably pretty slim (she'd probably just send an email, unless she's asking you to review her resume or something like that).  But still, most people start their computing lives on either Mac or Windows, using whatever software happens to be around, and once they get comfortable with it, they really don't like to change.  I think the only piece of software average people ever felt strongly passionate about was their web browser, back in the IE vs Netscape days. 

But it's still all about popularity, which comes down to strong marketing.  If you're not too good at computers, you're going to use whatever your friends are using, because if you have a question, they are the people you're going to call.  If you got some cheapy PC from Walmart running Lindows, and your new printer doesn't work, good luck getting your buddies to help you out if they aren't hardcore geeks...

Joe
Friday, May 21, 2004

I don't think the cost-effectiveness of the PC over smaller dedicated devices is much of an argument.

A hundred years ago many homes had one of the most flexible multi-function devices ever. It was called the electric motor, and once you had one of those you could hook it up to all kinds of peripherals, such as a washing machine, dryer, food mixer, fan and giant dildo (well I made that last one up). After all who on earth wanted to pay big money for a separate electric motor on perpherals they only used once or twice a week (or a night in the case of the giant dildo).

Long time since I've seen one.

Look at the computer; first IBM reckoned that we only needed one per country, then it was one per company, then one per house, and then one per user, and now we're seeing one per device.

Stephen Jones
Friday, May 21, 2004

"But still, most people start their computing lives on either Mac or Windows, using whatever software happens to be around, and once they get comfortable with it, they really don't like to change."

When you start getting into the sub $300 computers then that is what most people start their computing lives on.  People familar with computers are more likely to go with Mac or Windows.  Newbies who don't want to spend $1000 on something they don't understand.

Lindows is designed for complete newbies, even more than Windows.  That's their market.  I think it's pretty smart -- they can only break into the market from the bottom.

Almost Anonymous
Friday, May 21, 2004

"It was called the electric motor, and once you had one of those you could hook it up to all kinds of peripherals, such as a washing machine, dryer, food mixer, fan and giant dildo (well I made that last one up)."

That's interesting, beause now rather than having an electic motor per house, we have a great big one up North and everyone is hooked into it.  Which is pretty much the opposite that you are trying to demonstrate!

"Look at the computer; first IBM reckoned that we only needed one per country, then it was one per company, then one per house, and then one per user, and now we're seeing one per device."

And yet at the same time we're seeing lots of convergence...  PDA's and cell phones, TV's and computers, etc.

I'm just saying fundamentally what makes a personal computer cannot be partioned out into smaller devices.  I don't want a device just for email, just for word processing, just for gaming, etc (all these products DO exist).  People will still want one dedicated box that does it all.

Almost Anonymous
Friday, May 21, 2004

"The Penguin is the future.!"

Karthik, get back on your meds. [grin]

Philo

Philo
Friday, May 21, 2004

No anonymous, I didn't say a generator I said an eletcric motor.

A generator turns kinetic energy into electric energy - an electric motor does it the other way round.

Stephen Jones
Friday, May 21, 2004

Woops!

Mechanical energy - not kinetic. Past my bedtime.

Stephen Jones
Friday, May 21, 2004

Philo said

<<Karthik, get back on your meds. [grin]>>

Do you want to keep a friendly bet ?. 

" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" --  The Mahatma Gandhi.

Karthik
Friday, May 21, 2004

I think the world has always, and will always, go back and forth between centralizing and decentralizing.  It's just hard to strike a lasting balance in that area unless you live in a technology vacuum where nothing ever changes.

Yes, we will always have a do-it-all machine, but we'll also see more individual devices too.  I mean, sure, you could use your desktop or laptop computer to make phone calls, but we haven't thrown away our home phones and cell phones yet, have we?

It's power vs. portability/convenience, really...  Smaller, more specialized devices may just end up being add-ons to our PC's, while the PC itself becomes more transparent and integrated into our homes and lives, but each has its place.

Joe
Friday, May 21, 2004

>>> How many of you guys running linux right now as your home desktop machine (not your little firewall, fileserver, P200 laying around) have less than a 1Ghz machine?

Me. I run debian on a (different box than this) 450 MHz P2 with  256Mb RAM. Flies along. I'll probably upgrade soon, but I'm hesitating because I can't see a major gain. Apps? Fluxbox, OO.o, FireFox, a scatter of xterms, KDevelop, Konq, usually.

>>> Slashdotters.

Don't confuse /. with the open source/free software community. Different things altogether. There are metric shitloads of clueless MS weenies out there too, but I don't deliberately confuse them with the smart people who get things done using MS software.

The 'way of the penguin' works for me. It also works (fantastically well, in fact) for a few SME level desktop and server setups I know of. It doesn't work for gamers, nor for people who need apps that don't exist on *nix yet. Such as it is. It isn't an either/or proposition.

.conf
Friday, May 21, 2004

Kill Bill

"We've got 50 more deals like Munich going right now."

http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2004/0607/086.html?_requestid=11712

Karthik
Friday, May 21, 2004

<<Kill Bill>>--

That was the title of the "Forbes" magazine article, incase someone missed it.

thanks

Karthik
Friday, May 21, 2004

The crystal ball is not as reliable as the magic 8 ball.

Grover
Friday, May 21, 2004

"how did Microsoft fail to see this coming"

Dude, don't you know that Microsoft police -- Philo -- checks out this forum every 10 seconds?

[Disclaimer I don't work for Microsoft, Philo does]

Jason
Friday, May 21, 2004

" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" --  The Mahatma Gandhi.

Who is the "you" in that sentence? I could argue it happens to fit the OSS supporters more than it fits MS.

Something that's been bugging me for a while - why do the Linux advocates care? I mean, for MS it's a competitive and revenue issue, but why does the open source movement have to "defeat" Microsoft? What's in it for them? Why do they care if Linux is used by one person or six billion?

It's been alluded to a number of times in these MS/Linux debates - I would think the best road for open source advocates would be that - simple advocacy. Not competition, not defining themselves in contrast to MS, but simply building open source software and making it available.

Consider that worrying about what operating system other people use when it doesn't affect you is not a healthy psychology.

[the opinions stated above are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of Microsoft Corp]
Philo

Philo
Friday, May 21, 2004

Some open source advocates want to defeat MS because they feel that MS often charges exhorbitant prices for software products, which people end up paying because of a lack of viable alternatives, and then abuse their power to shut out competitors when they do appear. 

So it can be about competition for them too - in a David vs Goliath sort of way.

Joe
Friday, May 21, 2004

Joe, what could Microsoft possibly do to "stop" Linux? According to the open source advocates, there's no commercial model behind linux, so whether it's being used by all the Fortune 500 or just by Linus himself you get the same platform.

Prior competition issues have been about companies being able to maintain commercial viability - in other words, if you can't maintain a critical mass of sales, you go out of business. That doesn't apply here. There's no "survival" model for Linux, other than having enough DEVELOPERS to work on the source. So long as you have that, why care if another living soul is using it?

Philo

Philo
Friday, May 21, 2004

"what could Microsoft possibly do to "stop" Linux?"

<g. I get the feeling microsoft is asking themselves exactly that question right now, albeit with a slightly different emphasis.

isn't that true Philo?

"According to the open source advocates, there's no commercial model behind linux"

which open source advocates exactly?  In case you are unaware there are a number of different 'open source advocates' and they have a number of differing opinions on things.

Certainly the commercial model that companies like IBM, Redhat etc are using is one based on support instead of direct purchase, are you unaware of this model or just ignoring it?

"So long as you have that, why care if another living soul is using it?"

Im not an opensource user or developer, so I clearly cannot speak for them.  But personally I like knowing that people are using something Ive created. 

I suspect that many developers feel much the same.

Just FYI, the phrases "will be common place as MS has slipped to the number 4 largest developer." and "More lintel is sold than wintel"
are hardly an attack on MS, its perfectly possible for Mocrosoft to go from strength to strength in its customer base and market share, and still lose overall dominance.

That will _not_ mean the end of Microsoft, just an increase in choice for the rest of us...choice being the most important part of a capitalist market :)

Besides, despite having no particular use for open source software at this point, and having made money from developing for windows for a while now, the current marketing tactics of Microsoft pretty much fill me with disgust.

not written by Linus indeed.  pah.

FullNameRequired
Friday, May 21, 2004

I think there are two overriding trends.

First, many new software markets will be created in non-desktop devices, and Microsoft will not own all of those markets. Thus the future software landscape will become more diverse.

Second, the pace of change will increase, and this mitigates against amateurs who give their work away. Instead, the new market diversity will place a premium on smart developers. This will leave open source farting around trying to improve their desktop, which it will never do.

Also, the smarter developers will not be so interested in giving their work away as the present generation of young students.

So I think the history books of the future will discuss open source the way we discuss OS/2. There will still be free software, but there will no longer be media groupies seriously predicting that amateurs will take over from the professionals.

Mr 2020
Friday, May 21, 2004

"and this mitigates against amateurs who give their work away"

incredible.  do people still really believe this myth? 
The vast majority of serious contributors to useful products in the open source community are paid for their work.

<g> the earning ability of the vast majority of serious contributors to crap products, and lightweight contributors to usful products  in the open source community is unknown and almost entirely irrelevant :)

take any decent open source app or IDE and its contributors are overwhelmingly being paid for their work.

From Mono to php, to mysql to mozilla, from open office to BSD to Linux, all the important contributors are being paid.

which means that open source programmers are not 'amateurs', and which therefore pretty much invalidates your point.

...unless you were attacking the programming ability of the 2 contributors to minor projects on sourceforge, in which case I agree wholeheartedly :)

FullNameRequired
Saturday, May 22, 2004

"Those who know no history are doomed to repeat it"

This is an approximate (from memory) quotation of a famous saying of Santayana's.

The simple fact is that Microsoft WILL fall from its position of number one in the software industry. There is no stopping it. It WILL happen. The only question is when will it happen.

All empires have fallen. One day the US will no longer be the most powerful country on the planet (although I would argue that the US is the most powerful country that never pursued an empire). Some may find this unacceptable, but I am merely pointing out the lessons of history.

The whole Microcrap vs. Open "holier-than-thou" Source debate is ultimately pointless, even though I have done my share of MS-bashing, just for fun.

Data Miner
Saturday, May 22, 2004

>> "and this mitigates against amateurs who give their work away"

> incredible.  do people still really believe this myth? 

Red Hat claims to have 500,000 developers contributing to its products, yet according to one source, has about 200 developers on staff.

Anyway, my point is that developers earning their reward directly from their innovation wil be much more focussed on the market and likely to succeed in these new markets, than will people paid by IBM or others trying to follow in someone else's footsteps.

Mr 2020
Saturday, May 22, 2004

"my point is that developers earning their reward directly from their innovation wil be much more focussed on the market and likely to succeed in these new markets, than will people paid by IBM or others trying to follow in someone else's footsteps."

why exactly?  whats the difference between a programmer on salary at IBM working on an operating system and a programmer at Mocrosoft working on an operating system?

seems to me that the programmer _most_ likely to innovate is the one driven by their muse, and _that_ condition is rarely fulfilled by being "focused on the market".

frankly your post sounds like a load of old codswallop wrapped in pseudo-capitalist sounding words.

FullNameRequired
Saturday, May 22, 2004

>>> why do the Linux advocates care? (Philo)

We care because the largest software producer on the planet has us in its' sights and isn't known for taking prisoners. It calls us communist and anti-capitalist (ha!), un-American (I don't mind that, I'm not American, but I do mind the inference that I'm against freedom and the American way - the idolised version at least), and other slurs, and wants the public to believe that all OSS developers are amateurs who write crap code.

Otherwise, we generally keep ourselves to ourselves. Most OSS devs just want to write good code. Except the FSF types, who want _all_ software to be free as in GPL.

The assertion that proprietary code is somehow 'professional' and open code is 'amateur' is outrightly silly.

.conf
Saturday, May 22, 2004

"Red Hat claims to have 500,000 developers contributing to its products, yet according to one source, has about 200 developers on staff.
"

interesting.  where did you find those two statistics?  can you give me a link to them both?

FullNameRequired
Saturday, May 22, 2004

"All empires have fallen"

While there are some eerie parallels and history often repeats itself, be wary of believing that it *must* repeat itself. Chaos theory reigns supreme. [grin]

Philo

Philo
Saturday, May 22, 2004

"Consider that worrying about what operating system other people use when it doesn't affect you is not a healthy psychology. "

Philo, isn't the Brown article about the origins of Linux on Microsoft's intranet homepage? (According to Alyosha'.)

Scot
Saturday, May 22, 2004

Dude, *Microsoft* cares about what other people are using because it's a revenue issue - I said that. But "the linux community" shouldn't care, I would think, just as you shouldn't care what brand mattresses your neighbor buys.

Again, I'm excepting those who make money from linux - IBM, Novell & Co, consultants, system integrators, and so on. I'm talking the general user community and those linux developers that, in theory, are contributing to the builds for free.

Philo

Philo
Saturday, May 22, 2004

Dear Philo,
                Living in the Beltway must be getting to you (i'm told that the Mean Time Before Burnout there is two years), because your arguments have been particularly weak lately.

                  Of course Open Source People care how many people use Linux. The more there are the more apps there will be wriitten for it. It's called the network effect.

Stephen Jones
Saturday, May 22, 2004

I'll bet you can't go a month without posting an ad hominem. :-)

Philo

Philo
Saturday, May 22, 2004

"gain, I'm excepting those who make money from linux - IBM, Novell & Co, consultants, system integrators, and so on."


but they are a part of the general linux community, surely?

FullNameRequired
Saturday, May 22, 2004

......and if not, then surely we should equally except the people who make money from Microsoft....why do the microsoft users care whether Linux users exists?


<g> and dont tell me that they do not, because Ive seen enough threads in various forums to know that the attacks are very much going two ways.

FullNameRequired
Saturday, May 22, 2004

>>> why do the Linux advocates care? (Philo)

Mainly because they believe that Microsoft's business behaviour is unethical and has been hurting software industry and the consumer.

>>> Also, the smarter developers will not be so interested in giving their work away... (Mr 2020)

Care to explain why exactly is that? My impressions were always quite the opposite.

Egor
Sunday, May 23, 2004

One more comment, I also believe it is time for large corporations to really revist the idea of rapid application development.  I know software development is hard, but good gravy, when is the next release after longhorn going to come out, 2030.  Take for example PERL-6?.  And not to mention the fact that MS has thousands of engineers working on their products.

It sure would be nice if we could write massive systems in a half-year to a year timeframe.

In the example of PERL-6, I hope it comes out soon or people will have already converted to PHP,Java,Python solutions.

Berlin Brown
Sunday, May 23, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home