Microsoft's New Hurdles 336
gnuadam writes "The New York Times (free reg. required) is now running a
piece about how the recently accepted
settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ will affect the ever-so-loving relationship between them and the "worldwide community of volunteer programmers" who work on Linux and associated programs. Of interest, one interviewee quipped, "My prediction is that within three years time, Microsoft will `give away' its operating system to preserve its revenue in the applications business." Would Microsoft give away Windows to sell Office? Stay tuned." Update: 11/04 19:33 GMT by T : In related news, an anonymous reader writes "In an interview with Linux and Main Free Software Foundation General Counsel Eben Moglen reacts to Friday's U.S. v. Microsoft ruling and describes how it and 'trusted computing' will figure in formulating the next version of the GPL, expected in the next few months."
I would not use Windows even if it's FREE! (Score:1, Interesting)
programming and application platform for me.
That OS is Linux of course, and I will NEVER go back to any Microsoft OS! Even if it's FREE!
Never (Score:5, Interesting)
If they were foolish enough to open their Windows source, all the links and hooks for Office would be out for everyone to integrate into Open Office. That would kill their app business within a couple of years.
No, they will depend on:
1) DMCA
2) Palladium
3) Congressional lobbying
4) DRM
5) FUD
to maintain their lead.
Just my 2 cents.
This decision was bad news for MS in the long run (Score:-1, Interesting)
Microsoft has always been one to cost-optimize their revenue side financials. Under the new agreement, however, they will need to inflate their income-stream differentials which is a well-known death rattle for a large corporation.
I'd actually like that (Score:5, Interesting)
First, let me say I am an avid fan of Linux. I only use it for light desktop work, but I see that it is great for servers and such.
Now, let me also say that Windows is a good OS. While many people (most of which on this site) flame Windows XP... I think it's a great OS. The only thing that sucks is the draconian Activation scheme they used with it. Other than that, it's been even more stable than my Win2K box.
Now, while this would be great for the average consumner, I'm afraid Linux would take a big hit. I mean, sure... Linux would be more powerful and not have all the GUI fluff of windows for server stuff. But a lot of people will look at the situation and say "Well, Linux was cool 'cause it was free, but now I can get Windows for free too. Who needs linux?"
This might actually be the biggest step MS could take to squash Linux in the home.
I think so, (Score:5, Interesting)
So now they've got office software, game software, mouse hardware, keyboard hardware, xbox hardware...
They need to decide what is the best way to keep making money. Competing against OS which they cannot compete against, (and have already gotten the most market share they will ever get). Or giving the OS away, to keep the monopoly of other areas viable.
It's a no brainer folks.
Never (Score:3, Interesting)
Wishful thinking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that MS was virtually non-existant in the applications space till the Windows OS (with its secret apis) became a desktop standard - think of Lotus, WordPerfect and the millions of other applications that have been squashed over the last decade.
Hmmm, remember when . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
How about asking this, can MS afford NOT to give away their OS in a few years? Wine is making good strides in fucntionality, besides that a LOT of people are already skipping the next Office upgrade(s). I know our fortune 500 company is, we're bowing out of the OS XP and Office XP all together.
Re:.Net Runtime negates the need for this (Score:3, Interesting)
In The Beginning... (Score:5, Interesting)
Stephenson hints around this concept in 'In the Beginning was the Command Line' [cryptonomicon.com]. I don't remember the exact wording, but the concept was that the operating system is basically a commodity when compared to application software. The only thing that makes an OS necessary is that you'll use it to accomplish tasks necessary to run an application.
We've seen this kind of commoditization in browser software. I know I'm not the only who remembers walking into an EB and seeing a boxed copy of Netscape on the wall. What Netscape realized and MS copied was that the browser was merely a commodity necessary for individuals to access the internet. There were already freeware browsers. Netscape essentially gave away its browser so that it's compliment, Netscape Web Server-- later iPlanet server-- would sell better.
OS's are going the same way. Where does MS make its money? Windows revenue accounts for precisely *dick* when measured up against a million OEM MSOffice licenses, per-seat DB licenses, multiprocessor Exchange licenses, etc. (My company recently dropped $15k for MSSQL on a 2 processor box.) If Windows was more important in terms of revenue than Office, why is Microsoft still making Office for Mac? Why not force those users to switch to Windows to use Office?
Microsoft wants to charge for Windows and bust people for using pirated copies simply because they still can get away with it at this point. When they can't-- such as currently is the case in the PRChina-- they'll start turning a blind eye to OS piracy and may even tacitly circulate a few copies themselves to increase 'market penetration'. Eventually, they'll start offering ridiculously low-priced 'Student Discount' copies of Windows, like they have in the past, with both OS's and development tools. Eventually, as OpenOffice, AbiWord, and other Office competitors mature, You'll start being able to get more and more Windows feature for free while MS continues to extract flesh for licenses for Office, MSSQL, Exchange, and other servers and apps.
Bootable MSN is what will probably follow. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised if the MSN client actually updated an INSTALLED MS Windows OS so that it is disabled if you stop using MSN. Of course this could only happen legally if you installed SP3 on w2k or wxp( via new EULA ).
This would not surprise me at all. Opening up the source to MS Windows will not happen. IMHO.
LoB
Bah. (Score:2, Interesting)
They'll keep selling it _because_ they can. IS budgets have been set for years now to accommodate it. In if, like most budgets, you loose it if you don't use it, they spend it on MS Windows.
Besides, think of cell phones. Either you get a cheap free phone, and pay higher service charges, or you buy expensive phones, and choose your plan.
Do you think any corporations sign up for the free phone deals, even if it _is_ from Verizon?
Re:Crossover Office their biggest threat (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how long before MS uses the EULA hammer and the DMCA anvil to crush things like Crossover Office and WINE? Not long now that CKK has given Ballmer and Co. a mild tap on the wrist (not even a slap) despite their being CONVICTED of a corporate felony.
Reading the CKK ruling, MS is going to be "monitored" by a comitte that will be made up of... MS board members. Not likely to see any evil.
Frankly, I see one great silver lining in the stupid ruling of yet another federal judgetrix: MS will not be saved from ITSELF by the government.
MS's greatest enemy isn't Linux, but itself. Management that thinks it's shit doesn't stink. Management that thinks that they can REALLY foist anything on the public, charge ANY price, and they will buy it.
If you think what MS has done with XP, product activation, Office XP, and Licensing 6.0 are bad, just you WAIT until their strategy gets emboldened by their "win" in CKK's court.
Every time you read about them sending the BSA after a school, threatening to block a merger (Bluelight), or price increases to the point where Windows/Office is by far the single most expensive part of a PC, Microsoft is marketing Linux.
A billion dollars spent on Linux marketing couldn't do as good a job as MS's own actions.
Ashcroft and CKK saved MS from breakup. But who will save MS from themselves?
Free? With that license, who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, their OS is on virtually every new PC sold in the last 20 years, so why bother to give it away? The only people who would benefit from that would be Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc.
It's how I got NT4.0 (Score:2, Interesting)
Giving away the OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nowadays, of course, this point is somewhat diluted, since you *can* buy a blank-slate PC with no OS pre-installed, but even today 99% of your average computer users will want to buy a computer that comes with an OS installed on it, as it will be fairly useless until one can be installed.
But during the crucial period when MS was building its monopoly on the strength of its control of the desktop OS, you really couldn't buy an OEM built PC that didn't have an OS already installed on it.
Re:Here's the article without registration (Score:2, Interesting)
Kinda makes me wonder why the editors don't just go through and add that little phrase to the end of any NYT link (it'd be fairly easy to code, methinks). Because every stinking article refering to NYT on here has at least 30 responses of people yelling about the registration.
Prediction: Microsoft Buys AOL (Score:3, Interesting)
If this sounds crazy, go to the AOLTW corporate site and look at their financials [aoltw.com] for the last couple of years. There is already talk about undoing the merger (see the recent article [businessweek.com] in Businesweek, for instance), and although some of the issues in re-splitting the company are tricky (in particular, how to split debt between the two companies) someone coming along with a giant pile of cash would solve may of those problems quite nicely.
Now that you know, try to act surprised when it happens.
Wrong, wrong, wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
And why in gods name would MS care about drumming up interest in hardware upgrades? Last I checked they didn't market any of the parts that actually need to be upgraded regularly. Intel, Seagate, and the Dramurai owe their businesses to MS pushing upgrades. But MS doesn't get squat from that side of things.
MS couldn't care less... (Score:1, Interesting)
Mind you, I think Linux rules, but I'm in the minority.
BBC Article (Score:4, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2399857.stm [bbc.co.uk]
is pretty hopeful. At one point they say, "By contrast Linux is free and much more secure than Windows in any of its incarnations." Its nice to see that in print.
Re:Windows is dead now. (Score:2, Interesting)
But...I thought Microsoft wrote OS/2 for IBM, at the same time they were working on Windows? Did this come in later on in OS/2's life, after MS was out of that picture?
Microsoft Windows, as a platform, is insanely difficult to develop for (unless you are using VB).
Whoa...hold on there. Lemme preface this by saying that I'm no MS serf. I've been running Linux for years, and I'm a Solaris admin by trade. But I also write a lot of code, and here's my guilty little secret: I much prefer to do my development on Windows if I have a choice. I can't disagree with your statement that MS's IDE's are expensive, but you don't have to have them. If you are lucky enough to have them, they're wonderful. VC++'s integrated debugger alone is nearly worth the price of admission.
The first time I ever had to write anything remotely serious for Win32, I was terrified. I had to write an app that had the ability to walk through NT's process table (this was NT4), pick out a particular process by it's name, and inspect the memory the process was using, amongst other things. I had no idea how to even start. So I went to MSDN, and started searching. Very quickly I had explanations on how to do everything I needed to do, along with plenty of sample code in a couple of different languages (I was using C++). I can't help but wonder how a developer new to Linux would have accomplished the same thing. Man? Man what? I'm sure it's possible, but I doubt it's nearly as easy as MSDN made it for me.
The learning curve to get started with C or C++ is insane
Maybe, but that's hardly the platform's fault. C and C++ are complicated languages (one more complicated than the other, obviously). Are you saying it's easy to program in C or C++ if you just do it on Linux?
Linux, on the other hand, is easy to develop for. The tools are free, the compiler is free, and getting your code up and running is as simple as make, make install.
Getting your code up and running? It's only as simple as "make, make install" if you've taken the time to write the make files. That makes it easier for your users, not you (and I'm leaving out the part right now about library and package dependencies, which we all know can make any "make; make install" turn into a nightmare very quickly). You could just as easily say that under Win32, "getting your code up and running is as simple as double-clicking setup.exe". That may be true for the users, but neither case applies to the developer.
Bottom line, I work in Unix all day long, and have been doing so for years. I love it. But when I go to do my C++ homework at night (back in school, like many others right now) I have my choice of any platform and compiler I want to use. I invariably launch Visual C++.
Backwards into the Future! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, this reminds me of the "old days" of Windows. Versions of Windows prior to version 3.0 were pretty limited and most copies of Windows were shipped packaged with a handful of applications like Pagemaker that depended on Windows for its GUI and printing functions. Windows was still in its infancy and most software was still being coded to run under MS/PC DOS. There was little acceptance of Windows at that time as it was very taxing on the Intel processors that were popular at that time (mostly 8088s and 80286s) and didn't yet offer enough advantages to convince developers to code to it.
As a result only a handful of programs were written to use the Windows APIs and very few copies were sold to end users. To boost use of Windows, Microsoft provided Windows app developers a slimmed-down version of Windows that they would package with their applications. This "runtime" version of Windows would be installed first, followed by the application which would run under it. Digital Research's GEM interface was another GUI/shell that took the same approach; it was primarily known as the GUI for the original versions of the Ventura Publisher desktop publishing software.
Then Microsoft released Windows 3.0, beating IBM's OS/2 to the market and providing the end user with a decent GUI OS shell that had support for the advanced features of the new 80386 processor. This was also the death knell for Digital Research's GEM product as developers migrated their apps from GEM to Windows. Windows 3.0 was an instant hit with the users (simultaneously making the lives of IS professionals used to simpler server-hosted DOS apps a headache) and it quickly became a popular product.
From that time forward Windows has been a money maker for Microsoft, making "runtime" Windows a thing of the past.
Re:Never (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with you there only as with regard to power users and raw newbies. OOo is already quite usable by the ordinary user, and will continue to catch up with M$.
Eventually, a couple of major corporations are going to realize that they would benefit by allocating some resources to OOo development thus saving many Million$ in licensing fees to Microsoft. There are a lot of worker bees out there with $300 installs of M$ Office who use about $3.00 worth of features.
If a few of the Fortune 500 companies who each year send $Millions to Redmond would get together and donate human resources or a little financial capital to OOo development, OOo could soon be ready to replace M$ Office in many many businesses.
Also, it wouldn't hurt if the OEM's would show some brass and ship OOo pre-installed. Don't count on that, though, since Judge K-K rolled over and played dead for M$.
Re:XP Free? Not.. Office on Linux? Maybe. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say Microsoft makes a KDE port of Microsoft Office; now they're at the mercy of the KDE development roadmap. Or they make their own Linux GUI, but with MS-proprietary widgets to prevent other apps from fully using it; now they have to fight for mindshare in an entrenched battlefield.
No, it is unreasonable to hope for Microsoft to migrate to a platform they don't control. The Mac ports survive due to special reasons, mainly the hardware factor. Porting to a Linux GUI would cost them a big chunk of control they have now.