A point that I believe was missed... [LWN.net]

A point that I believe was missed...

Posted Sep 11, 2006 21:56 UTC (Mon) by filker0 (subscriber, #31278)
Parent article: Windows will beat Linux threat, say academics (TechWorld)

As MS moves on to Vista and Linux (and other Open Source solutions) improves, a vast number of existing systems will be orphaned by Microsoft, yet Linux will continue to run on those systems with a higher efficiency than MS-Windows did. This will start with a few people who are currently in the MS camp deciding to try Linux on their otherwise retired systems, discovering that it runs faster and better than Vista on their new hardware, and some of those will move over into the Linux camp. This will be somewhat corrosive to the Microsoft mindshare.

This, of course, assumes that the progress on the ease of use (as perceived by the non-Linux/Unix savy) continues and that desktop solutions that don't ever require the user to directly log in as root are developed. Looking at how MacOS X handles this, I'm pretty sure it can be done on the Linux side.

One way we in the Open Source community can do is to encourage commercial software developers to port their applications to Linux, and that will involve getting a sufficiently common installation scheme across distributions that a single installer can install on Debian, Fedora, RHEL, SuSE, Ubantu, etc. We also have to convince them that hosting software on a GPL system automatically forces them to make their code GPL. Even if there are free software analogs, people (in general) don't want to have to learn new interfaces all at once, and if the commercial products are available, it will lower the barrier that is inhibiting a larger migration to the Linux desktop.

All of this would alter the numbers from the original article.

(Log in to post comments)

No convincing required.

Posted Sep 12, 2006 3:58 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

We also have to convince them that hosting software on a GPL system automatically forces them to make their code GPL.

Please! Even assuming that you meant to write "doesn't force", no-one who has been paying attention thinks so. No further convincing needs to be done; the factors which keep much commercial software Windows-only are market forecasts (there is no sign that the Windows market will cease to grow, even if its share of the total installed desktop base is gradually shrinking) and the perceived costs of porting.

At some point (though not just yet) a further factor will be that the free software desktop has incumbent free-beer competitors for most of these Windows-only apps. But this can only be considered a temporary effect, as if there is ever any significant demand for a free software application on Windows, it will be ported sooner or later.

That the platform has a particular license is *not* an issue. Anyone who thinks that free software still 'needs' to convince proprietary vendors to jump ship from the Microsoft platform is still living in 1998.

No convincing required, except where it still is...

Posted Sep 12, 2006 14:04 UTC (Tue) by filker0 (subscriber, #31278) [Link]

Yes, I mean't "doesn't force", and the reason that I wrote (or at least meant to write) what I did was
that I've recently attended a presentation given by a .NET evangelist (not a Microsoft employee) who
was implying that the risks of offering your product on Linux was that you'd be forced to open-
source your intellectual property, thus destroying your competitive advantage.

Several people at the seminar took him to task on this, but he wouldn't back down, and some of the
"suits" at the presentation remained convinced of the correctness of his assertions. The
misconception is still out there, being promulgated by people who have a vested interest in keeping
the MS monopoly in place.

I believe that, unless there are radical changes in the way MS does things, their own software will be
their downfall, not pressure from Linux or other open source alternatives. I was just pointing out
that I feel that the article doesn't take into account the mindshare shift as the weight of MS Vista
and upcoming versions of MS applications obsoletes systems that will continue to run Linux very
well for many years into the future. I got off onto a tangent about commercial applications...

No convincing required, except where it still is...

Posted Sep 12, 2006 16:29 UTC (Tue) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"Several people at the seminar took him to task on this, but he wouldn't back down, and some of the "suits" at the presentation remained convinced of the correctness of his assertions. The misconception is still out there, being promulgated by people who have a vested interest in keeping the MS monopoly in place."

I would ask someone who maintained such a position where I could get my hands on all of Oracle's* code since they have ported their stuff to linux and thus, according to the view that running code on GPL OSes forces you to GPL your code, then the Oracle code should be GPL licensed by now. Surely?

This should clue in anyone with half a brain that is interested in the truth. What can you do with those who aren't interested?

* Substitute as needed.

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145