On Jan 29, 12:27 pm, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:39:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> > How Vista's total failure hurt Linux
>
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| Once I got a good look at Vista,
> >I knew desktop Linux was in for good times.
> >| Vista was, and still is, a disaster of an
> >| operating system. I was right too.
> >| When netbooks started coming out,
> >| it was Linux, not Vista, that ruled.
> > `----
Keep in mind that the Linux community spend $billions worth of
volunteer time to help develop the OLPC, and the technology was, as
usual, "aquired" by Microsoft and it's exclusive licensing agreements.
> >http://blogs.computerworld.com/how_vistas_total_failure_hurt_linux
>
> > The Munckins/marketers used to say
> > that Vista would hit a nail on Linux'
> > coffin. What happened??
Rubber Nail?
Vista was ill-conceived and ill-marketed - even possibly criminal and
fraudulent. Dozens of features were promised, very few were
delivered, and most of the features that were delivered were inferior
to technology available for Windows 2000 and Windows XP, or not even
functional on many so-called Vista Ready machines - even machines that
were sold with Vista pre-installed couldn't run Aero, because
Microsoft blew off the whole concept of backward compatibility.
It was very much reminding me of IBM, back in 1992, when they were
telling MVS Mainframe owners that they would have to spend $5 million
for hardware and software upgrades to a machine they purchased for $5
million less than 2 years earlier in order to run MVS 4.0. The new OS
offered some much-wanted features, but at absurd costs.
Many companies with 2 or more mainframes opted NOT to upgrade all of
their machines, and to see how much of the work previously done on
those mainframes could be done with UNIX based servers from Sun,
Pyramid, and even HP. Until Linux on Z-series and ZVM triggered a
whole new demand for mainframes, there were many who figured that the
mainframe was on it's last legs as a "legacy" system.
IBM's stock price crashed over 60% in less than a month when the 10Q
filings showed that MVS sales were way below expectations.
Microsoft's stock has dropped from $33 when Vista was released to $17
a share, dropping from 19.50 to $17.20 a share when the 10Q filings
showed that Microsoft could no longer bury their revenue short-falls
by self-financing their customers.
> I notice you didn't quote these parts of the article:
> "In the meantime, though, Linux has
> gone from owning the netbook niche to
> no longer even holding a majority
> stake in it. What happened?"
Let's see. When the Linux notebooks were first released, the Linux
version was on display right there next to all those Windows machines,
and shoppers could make side-by-side comparisons, then decide whether
to buy the $1200 VAIO Vista laptop with the 12 inch screen, or the
$299 ASUS EEE Vista netbook with the 7 inch screen.
These days, it's almost impossible to get a "hands-on" experience with
either the ASUS EEE or the Acer Aspire. Both are outstanding
performers and have far more functionality available for the
capabilities of similar computers running XP. Unfortunately, when you
go to Target or K-mart and all you see is each of the computers in a
locked sealed class case, the Linux machine for $299 and the XP
machine for $349, and the XP machine comes with more memory and a hard
drive, much easier to just go with the "Safe Bet". By the way, you
can still download the Linux install image from the Internet, and
install the Linux image, with or without using the hard drive.
Microsoft may have also been putting a lot of pressure on the OEMs as
well, threatening to sue them for every pirated copy of Windows XP
installed on any netbook. With the "snitch-ware" built into Vista and
XP, it's a risk the computer companies probably didn't want to take,
especially if Microsoft was awarded $400 per copy based on the fantasy
MSRP and they could buy copies for $20 each if they pre-installed it.
What they should do just put disks for both operating systems in the
box, let the user install whichever one he wants, pay the license fee,
and have Linux installations report themselves to the OEM so they can
get the REAL story on what people are actually installing.
Alternatively, they should just install Linux in Flash, much like a
BIOS, and let Linux run Windows as an application. Now you get the
best of both worlds, and you can have a laptop that works well on very
low power, and effeciently uses the display - AND you can run Windows.
Ironically, the little net-books are also one of the few ways a
consumer can still get a current XP image - even though it's XP home
edition. If you don't like Vista, you can pay $359 for a netbook, use
VMWare converter or back-up software to create an image for
virtualization, and then use that image in any PC licensed for Vista
or XP.
I think Microsoft might even find a market for Windows 2000
installation media. I would MUCH rather be using Windows 2000 than
XP, especially for virtualized Windows.
> "According to Gary Marshall on Tech Radar
What exactly is Tech Radar?
http://www.techradar.com/
What are it's sampling methods?
Is Gary a staff writer or just a blogger?
What are his credentials?
> it's because users are being
> presented with a choice between "Windows XP
> versus a whole bunch of
> different distributions." "
That's probably a bigger problem. None of the Linux netbooks are
based on a major distribution, they are just debian variants. As a
result it's a bit more of a trick to get software installed. You
can't just plop in a Ubuntu DVD and install your choice of
applications to your flash drive.
> oh.. and this.
> "Desktop Linux has gone about as far
> as it can without the support of the
> broader, non-technical market."
Linux needs to make it to the retailer pre-installed on PCs or
whatever you want to call them.
OEMs should probably focus on scalability. Netbooks for the "low end"
and full HDTV 1080P resolution dispays on the "high end". Also,
because of the lower storage requirements, Linux laptops should use
SSD (Solid State Drives). Desktops could probably use SAS drives
instead of SATA drives, so that it can take advantage of the higher
performance **REAL** SCSI command set (not the stripped-down pseudo-
SCSI virtual device offered in Windows.desktop OS versions.
We might even see PCs that don't look like PCs. Several HDTV sets
already have Linux "built-in" and might be capable of running as X-
Terminals with simple firmware changes.
The OEMs need to FORCE Microsoft to remove contract terms that give
Microsoft control over the configuration. Furthermore, they should
make Linux the "BIOS" - running a virtual machine that will allow
users to run both Linux and Windows concurrently as VMs. This will
also allow OEMs more hardware flexibility - since the real hardware
would be invisible to either OS.
Several of these PC divisions are such money losers that corporate
management might even shut down some, or even all, of the
"Traditional" PC operation. The hope that a new version of Windows
will bring back the days of 2-3 years of double-digit margins, even on
discounted machines, has pretty much been shattered by Vista.
Ironically, one of the few PCs that is actually profitable, is the
Linux netbooks. They have fewer resource requirements, no Microsoft
licenses, and are thus, less expensive to make. As a result they are
more profitable. The XP netbooks need a $90 hard drive, $30 worth of
Windows and $50 worth of Works - for a price increase of $50.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Steve Ballmer used the
same marketing strategy for selling Microsoft software, that drug
dealers use to sell heroin, cocaine, and meth-amphetimine. Make it
really "cool" by throwing really great parties, generating lots of
hype, and giving away free samples. Once they are "hooked" start
demanding "favors" - to get even more people hooked. The drug dealer
forces girls to be prostitutes, and guys to be pimps and debt
collectors. Expand the market and maintain iron-fisted control by
"killing" (bankrupting) those who attempt to compete or support
alternate suppliers.
CEOs, CFOs, banks, and holding companies are demanding an
"Intervention". They are trying a variety of detox methods, including
substitution, tapering down, and "cold turkey" but just like any
addict, Microsoft addicts can be very persuasive and dishonest.
> And this:
>
> "Windows 7, unlike Vista, will run on netbooks.
> Once, Windows 7 is out,
Current predictions are 2010? Maybe longer?
How many features will be cut?
How many "competition killers" will be added?
How many new legal restriction will be added?
Microsoft's biggest problem getting Vista into corporate markets is
that corporate lawyers have refused to accept the license terms of
Vista. Many corporations even have official "No Vista" policies. In
a few companies, employees who install Vista without board level
approval can be terminated for cause.
> Microsoft will go back to the business of killing off XP."
Put lipstick on a pig...
Think Ford will come out with a big Hummer sized vehicle?
> He's all but saying Linux's opportunity
> in this market is shrinking and
> that once 7 comes out, it will be even worse.
Ironically, Linux usually surges when new versions of Windows get
released. Microsoft often has to take draconian and malevolent
actions to force OEMs, Corporations, and End Users to accept the new
releases. Remember, when Vista came out, there WAS a surge in PC
sales, to customers who wanted to order PCs with XP while they could
still get it (Like me).
> This is SJVN mind you, the
> guy who claims every major OEM
> is shipping Linux, yet ignores most of the
> major OEM's that aren't (You know, Gateway, Toshiba, etc..)
Gateway went bankrupt - it's now Acer. The label still says Gateway.
Acer may have wanted the retail outlets.
> so it's not
> like he's some kind of Microsoft mouthpiece.
They were quoting a Microsoft mounthpiece.
Often even public statements by OEMs don't tell the whole story.
Remember, IBM had to kill OS/2 WARP 4.0 because Microsoft had told the
stores that they would have to remove all Microsoft trademarks and
shut down all Windows computers if they displayed a PC actually
running OS/2 in their store. The Bush administration has ignored
thousands of complaints, including complaints by OEMs, often acting
more like Microsoft's advocate - deliberately obstructing even
mandatory compliance with terms of the settlement. Many of the states
want the Obama Administration to extend the restrictions, and fully
enforce them through 2012. Will Microsoft delay Windows 7 until after
that?
Keep in mind that Microsoft has "Bet the Farm" on NT 3.1, ME, XP, and
Vista, and lost the bets, then just simply welshed on the bet. In
effect, they promised that if sales were poor, they would be more
flexible with the OEMs. Instead, they get even more malevolent and
draconian, even forcing corporations to accept licenses they don't
want, and forcing OEMs to ship products configured with software the
customer doesn't want.
What next? Microsoft will forbid downgrades?
Remember that when Microsoft tried to "pull the plug" on Windows NT
4.0 servers, they lost about 1/3 to 1/2 those servers to Linux rather
than having those servers upgraded to the more expensive Windows 2000,
Windows 2003, and even Windows 2008.
When Microsoft started trying to "force feed" Vista, and threatened to
stop permitting downgrades, the market for PCs dropped sharply,
prompting OEMs like Dell and HP to remind customers that although the
OEMs couldn't ship the machines with XP, customers could purchase XP
"downgrade" media for about $20 a copy.
Many corporate customers still use Windows 2000, and have already
resolved that any attempt to "force" an upgrade will probably trigger
a very rapid and sudden upgrade to Linux on the desktop.
Most CIOs and CTOs were told as far back as 2001 to have a plan to
migrate to a "Windows free" environment if Microsoft attempted to
force the companies to take product they didn't want, especially if
they tried to raise the price of support fees. Many companies have
simply purchased permanent transferable Windows 2000 or Windows XP
licenses with downgrade options - which can be installed on any
computer used by an employee, in any manner deemed by the corporation
to be appropriate.
Simply put, if a company like IBM wants to install Linux Client for E-
Business and run Windows 2000 as a VM, they've paid for the licenses,
and they have the right to use them as they see fit.
|
|
