On Jan 19, 11:54 am, Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Jan 19, 8:18 am, Terry Porter <linu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> DFS wrote:
> >> <snip wintroll nonsense>
> >> >http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9682258
>
> > It looks like some of this might have been the act of WinTrolls.
> > The television station pointed out that the user was unhappy with
> > Linux, and I would suspect that WinTrolls decided to paper this all
> > over all of the usenet newsgroups, and other discussion boards, as
> > well as blogs, just to start up a big backlash against the Television
> > station.
>
> > And rabid Linux "advocates" took the bait. Over 120,000 views, when
> > the "home page" usually gets only 15,000 hits.
>
> I have been saying this for ages. Stop the hate and CONCENTRATE on the
> GOOD aspects of Linux. Be honest about the bad OSS applications and
> advocate them being improved. Feedback to the developers. Enter beta
> programs or use a testing distro like Debian testing.
There are really two sides of this. One is the "marketing" type of
advocacy, the other is the "R&D" type of advocacy you reccomend. Each
has their place. I think everyone in the OSS community knows that
they can't rest on their laurels. Furthermore, we are beginning to
see more "comercialized OSS" - Open Software foundations with
commercial extensions, plug-ins, wizards, templates, and support.
Many of IBM's products have evolved into such a blend of a combination
of OSS like eclipse, apache, struts, with the support tools and
wizards to accelerate development that are combined into applications
like WebSphere, Lotus Symphony, Lotus Notes, and Rational toolkits.
Linux has had a number of "Killer Apps" that were ported to Windows.
Active-State PERL, IRC, GAIM and Pidgin, for example have been ported
to Windows using Linux emulation libraries. Other Linux/OSS
applications have been given Windows interfaces, such as Tortoise for
CVS and Subversion.
What would really be great if we could see Linux with a "Killer App" -
even a commercial one, that was ONLY available on Linux. At this
point, nearly all new applications are being written to be "Linux
Friendly" - either written in Java or written to a Linux/Unix API that
can be supported in Windows. Languages like PERL, RUBY, and PYTHON
have become popular for multiplatform applications - as an easy way to
put GUI interfaces onto platform independent applications.
In many ways, Windows is becoming more "Linux-Like" every week. There
is a tend away from the big monolithic applications of Windows, to
smaller, simpler, more modular applications. Mozilla was broken up
into Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird, breaking up Web Browser, E-
mail/News, and Calender functions. All in industry standard formats
that were published and fully documented, as well as being fully
implemented in Open Source.
Eclipse/Java has also created some interesting new applications as
plug-ins for eclipse. For example, there are some excellent project
management, business modeling, and business monitoring tools, that
compete quite favorably with tools like Microsoft project and Visio.
In many cases, these new applications also provide better support for
industry standard formats and support for industry standard databases
and data mining tools.
One of the biggest advantages of Linux is productivity. XP and Vista
were much more focused on entertainment and driving out strong
competitors in existing markets. As a result, compared to Windows
2000, XP and Vista are slower, more resource hungry, and more
disruptive to users. As a result, XP and Vista users have learned to
"put up with" annoyances, hangs, lock-ups, and crashing applications -
being grateful that they don't have to deal with the Blue Screen of
Death as often. Even Reboots or boot-up on XP and Vista has been
organized to give the user a "splash screen" that looks like a
desktop, without giving them a usable system, claiming that they have
"faster boot time".
Linux on the other hand, has been focused on productivity. Most Linux
workstations are used in corporate environments, such as help-desks,
call centers, cash registers, and other "high intensity" business
environments where having cool 3D graphics to play video games, having
flawless streaming media, and being able to view feature length movies
downloaded over DRM internet sights is less of a priority, and often
very much frowned upon.
Linux has also had the security and reliability built into the kernel,
libraries and file system rather than as some sort of a "tack on" or
"veneer" that tries to make systems "look" more secure. As a result,
viruses don't get installed as easily, because applications are
prevented from downloading files to the computer and executing them
with rights to access the "root" file systems. Since user home
directory configuration is almost entirely up to the user, it's pretty
easy to identify a virus when it shows up. Even if a virus does show
up, it only effects that user, which limits the ability of that user
to spread the virus to other computers.
Finally, Linus was fascinated with memory management when he first
started writing his new kernel. It's one of the things that makes his
kernel so unique. Because of this, he learned how to optimize memory
allocation and garbage collection, I/O buffering including network and
disk access optimizations. The result is that garbage collection is
smooth and transparent, so you don't see those long pauses as you're
typing or reading a web page. Even without an obscenely fast
processor and huge amounts of memory, Linux performance is usually
smooth and reliable.
Linus also encouraged the development of various file-systems.
Several different offerings have competed and many have adopted the
best ideas of the other offerings. EXT3 for example, automatically
defragments disk space as it is freed up, rather than having to
dedicate a special process to defragmenting the hard drive. Even when
very large files and databases are broken into fragments, the
fragments are typically the size of an I-node, typically chunks up to
1/4 gigabyte, even larger when adjacent i-nodes are available.
Many raise their concerns about the X11 display. This is the most
frequent cause of problems on a Linux system, but this is often
because minimal effort has been been put into the X11 drivers by the
Video chipset maker. More modern computers now use video chips which
support "binary only" XGL servers that provide outstanding performance
and reliability. One of the nicest features of X11 is that the
application does not have to be synchronized to the display horizontal
trace. As a result, applications don't have to synchronize and wait
for disk, network, and video - all of which can slow down a system
regardless of the processor speed. On Windows, when your computer
seems slow, it's usually because the application has to wait for the
disk, then wait for the net, then wait for the video. Delays on the
disk drive can be 9 milliseconds, delays on the network can be 20
milliseconds or more, and video sync can be as much 16 milliseconds.
When all three play together, that could be as much as 100
milliseconds, and if you have to pull "chunks" of 1k at a time
(network) or 4 k at a time (NTFS), then simple applications can only
process as little as 60 kbytes/second. Because of the Linux memory
managed buffering, drive caching, and unpaced video, Linux can appear
to be 10-30 times faster. More importantly, Linux remains
consistently fast.
Another legitimate complaint with X11 was the substantial delay
between the launch of the application and the actual visualization of
the X11 window. Linux now optimizes the xdefaults accesses, as well
as the X resource database (like Windows registry) so that
applications start much faster. Many applications now put up splash
screens as their "first screen" while the real application is being
started. Even then, the "real" application often starts within 2-3
seconds - as opposed to the 8-10 seconds of days gone by.
The good news is that once the application is started and the window
does appear, you won't be delayed again for much of any good reason.
This is one of the reasons why Linux desktop users typically don't
reboot their workstations as frequently. It's not unusual for a Linux
desktop user to keep his PC running "hot" for as long as a month
before rebooting, usually because a kernel update has come in. No
rush, it's just a bug fix for a theoretical vulnerability - but just
moving the targets avery month or so makes it harder for someone to
craft a "root kit" using frame overrun messages. More often, the
upgrades are just to prevent simple denial of services attacks.
Microsoft doesn't have the resources to keep up with the Linux/OSS
movement, so they have tried to "join' the movement. Their shared
source initiative is an attempt to divert some of those "free
resources" to Windows, and often the licenses to view the source code
also place restrictions on the licensees ability to support Linux and
Unix. Perhaps Microsoft is hoping that a licensee will sign the
agreement, invent something revolutionary for Linux, and Microsoft can
claim "ownership" based on the license agreement.
Of course, the big problem with this is that Linux encourages
competition. Even Linus "sacred code" has given way to competitve
offerings from IBM, Red Hat, and government employees working for the
NSA, FBI, CIA, and DOD.
Microsoft knows that it's only a matter of time before Linux and OSS
start taking huge bites out of their revenue stream. They have
already had to deal with smaller bites by creating new revenue sources
ranging from X-box to media to new forms of entertainment. In fact,
Microsoft's entire corporate emphasis in terms of R&D seems to have
shifted away from Business toward Amusements. Goodyear doesn't make
rubber tires and Greyhound doesn't drive the bus anymore. Microsoft
may end up being more like Sony and less and less dependent on license
revenue from PCs. Perhaps we'll se more consumer electronics similar
to the X-box, Zune, and cell phones. We'll see more media focus
similar to MSNBC, possibly even expanding to new partners such as Fox
and Time-Warner or Disney.
Microsoft has already lost revenue to Linux "appliances" such as WiFi
hub and SAN controllers and print controllers that have replaced
entire PCs, often at 1/4 to 1/10th the price of a typical PC. Most
households in North America and Europe now use Linux powered Routers
to help protect themselves from intruders, and to share broadband
connections. In other countries Linux wireless and cellular devices
are connected to range extending amplifiers and repeaters to provide
high speed internet access to remote areas. In Asia, remote areas
have better high-speed internet than rural areas of the United
States. Many of these internet routers also provide VoIP telephone
service as well.
Microsoft has also lost to the "technology divide". Low-income
families around the world have often been unable to afford Windows
PCs, and were able to get much less expensive Linux machines, many of
them previously used by North American and European corporations until
new Windows releases made them "obsolete". Vista doesn't seem to be
an exception. The problem this time is that corporations have been
much more reluctant to junk perfectly functional PCs to switch to
Vista just to get better "Gaming Graphics". The security seems to be
more effective at protecting corporate employees from non-Microsoft
software than it is at protecting them from viruses, spyware, and
malware. The few corporations who have adopted Vista simply because
the OEM included it as shovel-ware, have had to disable the Microsoft
"security" and purchase third-party security just like what they
needed for Windows 2000 and XP.
Some companies, like IBM are now telling clients that they have to
procure any licenses for any software they think that their
consultants need. In other words, if the client thinks they have to
use Vista and Office 2007, then they have to provide licenses for the
consultant laptops. Since the Microsoft licenses only cover full-time
permanent employees and permanently installed stationary desktops that
don't leave the buildings, the client has to purchase retail versions
of Vista for the consultants. The alternative is that they can "save
as" Windows 2000 format, or use OpenOffice or Lotus Symphony and
exchange ODF documents. The same goes for other "big ticket" software
that the client might be tempted to pirate - using evaluation or
training licenses for commercial use. The contracts also protect the
vendor from any piracy claims, since the client also has to agree to
cover any liability related to the use of the software required by the
client.
Simply put, corporate vendors and clients alike are cracking down on
piracy as well as frivolous upgrades. Using the now-illegal MSDN
evaluation software because it's "cool" and trying to convince others
to accept forced upgrades - could put the employee pirate and his
employer directly behind the cross-hairs of the various anti-piracy
efforts, and make that employer liable for copies used by it's
consultants, vendors, and suppliers.
The customer is always right, but if the customer absolutely insists
on forced upgrades by the vendors, then the customer is also liable
for all of the costs related to those forced upgrades - and downgrades
if the software has to be removed later.
In effect, corporate lawyers are not officially taking a "No Vista" or
"No OOXML" policy, they are just making it obscenely expensive for a
client or customer to attempt to impose those upgrades.
Fundamentally, there isn't a CEO or CFO who is willing to lay off
employees, cut dividends, and/or raise prices, just so that they can
pay Microsoft 1/4 to 1/2 their bottom-line GAAP profits.
With the economy and credit situation being the way it is, Microsoft
is one of those "luxuries" that corporate leaders just can't afford.
Government needs to get more bang for the buck as well. If that means
cutting PC purchases entirely, or installing corporate XP images
before giving them to employees, or installing Linux and a virtual XP
"Appliance", that's what they will do.
OEMs are acutely aware that machines that aren't both XP and Linux
compatible - don't sell. Those "Vista Only" PCs have been rotting on
retailer shelves, and the "Vista Only" video cards are rotting in the
warehouse. Nvidia, ATI, and Intel have all made sure that even their
"DirectX-10" video cards are also Linux and XP compatible.
It may even be that the availability of XP home edition is driving
some of the demand for the XP sub-notebooks. At the latest MarketPro
computer show in Edison NJ, the hot software wasn't Vista, it was XP
Professional and XP Home Edition. The Vista products weren't even on
display in many kiosks. Ironically, these kiosks were also offering
quad-core desktop machines and sub-notebooks as well. Essentially, XP
is finding a new market as an "Appliance" running under Linux using
Xen, VMWare Player, Parallels, or one of the other good desktop
virtualization providers. It may be that a "Windows VM" that will run
under all or most of these providers could become Microsoft's hottest
new product. Remember, XP won't run under quad-core processors in
native mode. It violates the license. On the other hand, the
virtualization providers can easily make their VM look like a single
processor PC.
The days of "Microsoft Only" desktop and laptop machines could be
ending much sooner than anyone expects, but that doesn't mean that
Microsoft is "out of the game". It just means that Microsoft might
have to offer XP VMs which can be run on the OEMs choice of host
desktop platform.
Another problem for Microsoft is that they may have to lift their
restrictions on desktop access. If Linux is used to host VM platforms
on desktop machines, users can log into remote machines from Linux
desktops and laptops. This reduces the amount of effort required to
back-up and manage a large user base of PCs. Rather than having one
PC per person running Windows 7, they might prefer to have quad-core
desktop, server, or blade, machiens that can start a user's specific
image. The user would have a Microsoft license, but would be
accessing the machine from a Linux notebook or laptop. Blades and
servers could handle 2-3 servers per core.
Microsoft needs to make Windows 7 something more like "Windows Lite".
The other possibility is that they could offer a WINE compatible
library to OEMs. Microsoft could actually make some serious $$$ from
OEMS who are selling Linux enabled PCs. Microsoft can either decide
to "play nice with Linux" or risk an all-out revolt. There a few
companies, not many, who have completely banned Windows and stopped
all payments to Microsoft. There are others who opted to pay what
would have been a year of support for outright ownership of their
existing licenses including the right to install it any way they want
on the number of PCs licensed. Others have simply cancelled all
support contracts and have opted to take what the OEMs provided - and
then manually downgrade the OEM license to Windows 2000 (which comes
on a single CD that can be passed as an ISO image.
Ironically, Linux may actually end up being a boon to Microsoft
because they can avoid the excessive costs of supporting the most
unglamorous part of the system, yet they can still collect a nice
revenue stream for selling "compatibility" as well as new
functionality.
|
|
