| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Challenges Linux On The Bottom-Line | |
|
||
| Time: 11:18 EST/16:18 GMT | News Source: CMP | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Instead of arguing that Windows is better than Linux, Microsoft has begun trying to show that open-source software is more expensive to support and maintain. Ironically, Microsoft hopes to beat back a basically free open-source operating system by showing that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership. A recent Microsoft-commissioned study performed by IDC found that to be the case. And there seems to be some support for the notion: Open-source advocate Bruce Perens, for one, notes that the study points out legitimate issues with Linux. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 226 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:16:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/9/2003 11:55:46 AM |
|
This is linked off the page:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030102S0003?ls=TW_010703_fea&fb=20030107_software "Just over a quarter of the 300 business-technology managers polled in InformationWeek Research's Outlook 2003 survey say Linux servers are a priority this year, compared with 39% last year. Windows servers, against which Linux boxes compete, were cited by 80%, up from 67% last year. Unix servers also dipped, with 46% of respondents citing them this year. " Interesting. "Windows XP is on the priority lists of just over half of business-technology managers, up from barely a third at the beginning of last year. " That pretty much settles it. 2000 was the end of the gravy train for Linux. They've tried hard through 2001 and 2002 with the FUD, but going into 2003 it seems clear that their arguments are failing and people just aren't listening. That doesn't mean Linux is going away, but it's become relegated back to the tasks where it actually makes sense. A small niche, rather than this overwhelming plague that some advocates want to see. This is good news for the IT industry. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/9/2003 1:49:15 PM |
|
dupe - "I can't understand why people want to see Microsoft control 99.999% of the desktop AND server market. "
Why? I certainly don't want that. "Every day you and the other MS zealots wish death to all Microsoft's competitors and denounce non-Microsoft products. " I don't wish death, but I do denounce ridiculous claims. "IIRC, BobSmith once said he will never use or tryout any GPL or even any open source product because it "threatens his job" and makes his skills "cheap". " Well it does. That's the whole point behind the GPL... to devalue the programmer. "But he's like the GPL advocates, except they only use GPL software nothing that's closed-source. " Why do you think open source only means GPL? Do you see where this is going? I have nothing against fair competition, in fact I think it's needed. But what I want to see is better products. I'm not going to use Java just because it's not Microsoft... I'm going to use Java because it's better.[if that is actually the case] I just really dislike this Anything But Microsoft attitude. Any argument that you come up with that is based off an emotional need to not give business to Microsoft is going to fail. That's pretty much what we're seeing happen here. Yeah, you get a lot of press and everybody feels warm and fuzzy. But when push comes to shove people just want to get the job done. |
| #3 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 1/9/2003 2:06:32 PM |
|
#2 - "I can't understand why people want to see Microsoft control 99.999% of the desktop AND server market."
Well, I want the best product to control the market... and if this is Microsoft, then sobeit. One good thing about a dominant platform is that it becomes a defacto standard (as Windows already has), and, as we all know, standards are good because they make computing easier, development easier, and compatibility common. "Every day you and the other MS zealots wish death to all Microsoft's competitors and denounce non-Microsoft products." I don't believe I've ever wished anything to death... and I only denounce that which is untrue. I would never knowingly mislead somebody about what technology is better. If I say Linux sucks (which I don't), it would be because I really think that. In my opinion, Microsoft is the leader in nearly every software market out there, and that's why I like their products. It's also why I get mad when people spread FUD about them. #3 - sodablue - "That's the whole point behind the GPL... to devalue the programmer. " Well, I don't think that is the point of the GPL (since most GPL adovates are programmers), but it certainly is the effect. |
| #4 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 1/9/2003 2:06:47 PM |
|
duplicate post... sorry This post was edited by RMD on Thursday, January 09, 2003 at 14:07. |
| #5 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 1/9/2003 2:19:05 PM |
|
#4 - "But I still don't see how GPL devalues a programmers skills. Please explain?"
Well, let's see. The goal of the GPL is two fold: 1.) Share code. 2.) Force all those that use that code to also share their code in the same manner. The result of this is a steadily growing library of completely free code... not just code that was originally written for the purpose of sharing, but also all code that utilizes that free code. In other words, GPL code begets more GPL code. As GPL licensed code spreads, it will likely enter nearly every software market imaginable. Since there will be a massive amount of free code with which to build applications, the need for highly skilled developers will start to decrease. (Thanks to the fact that most of the complicated problems in computing have been solved at least one by somebody, somewhere.) Only marginally skilled developers will be needed to create complex applications, since most of the work is done for them. Since there are far more marginally skilled programmers than there are highly skilled ones, the average salary for developers will steadily decrease. In fact, this has already happened to some extent with the advent of simpler programming tools and languages, such as VB and PowerBuilder. The GPL will dramatically increase this problem because, unlike VB or PowerBuilder, the GPL can spread into very complex applications via developers working on those applications, thereby forcing those applications to become GPL as well. (As so on, and so forth.) In addition, the GPL spreads to any language, not just VB and PowerBuilder, which aren't considering industrial strength platforms, and therefore preserve a large part of the market segment for more serious languages like C#, Java, C++, etc. One might say that all a developer has to do is refuse to use GPL code in their projects, and the virus will be stopped. There are two problems with this assumption: 1.) It is not always a developer's choice to use a code library. If a manager realizes that there is code out there that does exactly what they need, and they don't mind the fact their application will become open and basically worthless (like if they are selling it to clients who don't care), the manager will almost certainly force the developer to use the library. 2.) If the GPL spreads enough, it will be nearly impossible to find developers who have not been exposed to code written under it. Since a developer simply can't "forget" the code they've seen, they will be likely to use similar code in their applications, even if they didn't copy/paste it. This presents the situation where the holder of the GPL license could file a suite against companies whose code looks similar. It would be very difficult to defend against this. A good example of a similar thing happening is when IBM published the design of their BIOS, and Compaq had to be absolutely sure it only hired "virgin" programmers to reverse engineer it so they could product the first IBM PC clone. So... that is how it devalues the programmer. This post was edited by RMD on Thursday, January 09, 2003 at 14:21. |
| #6 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/9/2003 2:28:08 PM |
|
Wow, blue and RMD quite well stated my position on the matters.
To RMD's devaluing explanation, I might add... The rate at which GPL'ed code spreads is not as important in explaining devaluation as the fact that it spreads. Every line of code that is given away doesn't have to be paid for. Stated another way - every line of code that is given away, is a $x that I or some other developer didn't earn. If x% of needed code for a given application is free, then that is x% of the development budget that I or another programmer won't earn. It's a simple supply and demand issue. Free code existing isn't good for the professional developer. A rapidly increasing amount of free code is even worse. |
| #7 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 1/9/2003 2:39:04 PM |
|
"Well, let's see. The goal of the GPL is two fold:
1.) Share code. 2.) Force all those that use that code to also share their code in the same manner. Ya know, it just hit me. Linux people often refer to MS as "The Borg," but with the above two points being true it seems to me that OSS/GPL stuff is more innately "Borg-like" than anything MS has ever tried. The Borg assimilate other beings into itself enhancing their own nature and bringing the reluctant (or perhaps even hostile) along with them into "perfection." Anything the Borg touch becomes assimilated and part of the Borg, and it is a major pain-in-the-you-know-what to "un-Borg" someone (just look at poor old Locutus!). The same for OSS/GPL: once in, always in. Once assimilated, always Borg. That's the way it goes, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't someone who writes code for the Windows API do what he pleases with the code, wheras the OSS/GPLed code is "free" (as in Assimilated)? Someone needs to make a Tux-Borg icon so I can use it. ;) |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/9/2003 4:08:05 PM |
|
linuxhippie - No, again, you miss the point. Visual Tools increase your efficiency. Using Open Source does to some extent as well, but with the GPL it comes at a cost.
It's not so much that having the library of free code lessons the work available for programmers... Otherwise one would also be against books, magazines and all the free demo code that Microsoft gives, but that increases your learning. The problem with Open Source is really the mentality of good enough is good enough. It's the death of innovation that hurts programmers. There's no incentive to make something better. If widget A works, and it's free... Why develop widget B? At least with a market based economy where widget A costs $39.95, I'm going to develop widget B and make it better so that people will be willing to pay me the $39.95. Right now Open Source is going down this direction of spite, where they release Widget B and give it away for free just to spite the widget A manufacturer. This was Stallman's mad dream as he sat in the basement of the MIT labs screaming about all the evil companies hiring away the AI developers. The problem is, spite isn't a good long term strategy. Any and all benefits that you can attribute to the GPL, are just as easily gained through other methods which do not have the same disadvantages. This is the point you fail to grasp upon. |
| #9 By 11888 (64.230.27.154) at 1/9/2003 5:06:47 PM |
| http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/freeculture/free.html |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 5:35:54 PM |
|
"There's no incentive to make something better. If widget A works, and it's free... Why develop widget B? At least with a market based economy where widget A costs $39.95, I'm going to develop widget B and make it better so that people will be willing to pay me the $39.95."
So wait--people don't want better software? Widget A is free and people use it. Someone makes Widget B which is better and cost $4.95--hell, let's say $29.95!! It's better and is more productive than Widget A, but no one wants to buy it? Doesn't this entirely fly in the face of your argument that people do not want free software because they can buy higher quality software that has gains on tco in the long term? |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 6:38:34 PM |
|
chozsun, so, in other words, these ridiculous claims that free software removes any incentive to produce proprietary software are a joke--as long as the value of the software tool is greater to the user (home or office), there is incentive is use and produce it. Yes, I agree.
To take it further, Widget A is free. People use it and it does its job. I still want a better widget--I develop Widget B. It too is free, but people migrate to it because it is better. Next I develop Widget C which is even more robust so I charge for it... Some still use Widget A, many use Widget B, many pay for Widget C... Whatever.... The argument that GPL devalues the product or the engineering is ridiculous. These softies are too tied to this notion that the value of the software is the price you charge for it. Whereas most users see the value of software as the product or productivity derived from the product. This can always be improved so there is always incentive to do so. |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/9/2003 9:05:56 PM |
|
sodajerk - "Doesn't this entirely fly in the face of your argument that people do not want free software because they can buy higher quality software that has gains on tco in the long term? "
How so? Both points are correct. In post #12 I was addressing the arguments of the Software Communists. I was pointing out the flaws in their argument and why moving that direction was undesirable. However in the second point you note, we are dealing with the reality of the circumstances, as evidenced by the article linked to here. Basically what you're trying to get me to admit to is "Don't worry, be happy." because reality dictates that nobody listens to the Software Communists no matter how much they whine. Ok, there I just admitted to it! |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/9/2003 9:14:07 PM |
|
sodajerk - "These softies are too tied to this notion that the value of the software is the price you charge for it. Whereas most users see the value of software as the product or productivity derived from the product. This can always be improved so there is always incentive to do so. "
Wait a minute? Why on earth do you think I don't agree with that? The value of software is solely derived from the productivity derived from the product. However this value intersects with the price of the product, in so much as the buyer chooses to purchase the product only when the value derived is greater than the purchase price. I don't use Photoshop... never bought a copy of it. Just think it's too darned expensive at $600. Heck, I even have a hard time justifying $75 for Paintshop pro. But that's because I'm not an artist and I find MS Paint works fine for me. Should I be running around saying "Photoshop is overpriced! People only use 10% of the features in it anyway, so it should only cost $60!!!"? Then I would no longer be ridiculous? Somehow I don't think so... |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/10/2003 1:11:00 PM |
|
"In most cases, there will be more incentive to develop software if one is compensated for that money."
And what was MS's incentive with IE, WMP, and other apps its putting out there for free? It seems like a huge portion of MS's incentive has gone towards producing free software. And has that software remained stagnant since being produced? No, because there are a million ways to recoup value from the production of free software. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/10/2003 1:54:53 PM |
|
"And what was MS's incentive with IE, WMP, and other apps its putting out there for free? "
IE and WMP are value-add pieces of the Operating System. They aren't seperate products, per se. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 226 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:16:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
