| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
I think they don't *quite* get it
I think they don't *quite* get it
Posted Sep 12, 2006 7:04 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)In reply to: more information by stevenj
Parent article: Windows will beat Linux threat, say academics (TechWorld)
From the author interview:
Consider SCO, a small Swiss-based "vulture" firm...
That sympathetic but fundamentally incorrect factoid, and the business of "demand learning" -- something the authors think the "Open Source" development model can somehow do faster than a large proprietary software company that has intimate relationships with its large customers and buckets of money to spend on usability testing -- lead me to think these guys, while not entirely *wrong*, don't quite "get it".
The single advantage they posit for Open Source is in no way inherent to free software -- and when comparing to a responsive and well-heeled proprietary business, doesn't even actually exist. They *do* surmise about "strategic" reasons for users to make a platform switch, but they don't seem to consider what the reasons actually are from the user's point of view (as opposed to Stallman and Torvalds, whose motivations they do briefly ponder). Short-term prices simply don't enter into these decisions -- while long-term data dependency on an untrustworthy vendor *does*.
I also have serious misgivings about what their definition of social welfare might be.
Finally, the social welfare result that a Windows monopoly is not always worse than a Linux-Windows monopoly was also unexpected. This questions the social desirability of policies aimed at guaranteeing Linux's survival.
Ah, shills. The rest of the interview doesn't suggest it, but that's a dead giveaway. Nothing more to see here...
(Log in to post comments)
Read more carefully
Posted Sep 12, 2006 14:40 UTC (Tue) by dthurston (subscriber, #4603) [Link]
They *do* surmise about "strategic" reasons for users to make a platform switch, but they don't seem to consider what the reasons actually are from the user's point of view...In the interview, they do consider the user's motivations for switching; they mention governments' desire to see the source code to verify security and IBM's desire to lower Microsoft's share. From the point of view of the model, the exact reasons some users might prefer Linux is probably irrelevant. They also explicitly say that a Linux monopoly is always preferable to a Windows monopoly. I don't think your "shills" comment is fair.
Maybe I should *write* more carefully?
Posted Sep 13, 2006 2:13 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
> From the point of view of the model, the exact reasons some users> might prefer Linux is probably irrelevant.
This is exactly what I meant by not considering the reasons. They've
made their model incapable of predicting anyone's platform change without
the network effects of an already growing market share. It has to be
told that change is happening despite its basic assumptions.
Not that it wasn't an interesting intellectual exercise, but trying to
model an actual phenomenon without modelling the factors which bring that
phenomenon about seems pretty absurd to me.
> I don't think your "shills" comment is fair.
That was just a bit of flamebait, but whatever the variable is that their
model labels "social welfare" (I suppose it's some estimate of the
general utility of the software people happen to be using at the time), I
certainly wouldn't call by that name.
As far as I'm aware the biggest reasons for the continued dominance of
the proprietary share of the market are abuse of the Microsoft monopoly
to ensure that no significant vendor retails PCs with GNU/Linux
pre-installed, and patents keeping free software from implementing
certain popular multimedia applications. If either of these factors are
modelled, Casadesus-Masanell and Ghemawat only mention it in passing:
> A few actions that the model suggests Microsoft could do to
> remain competitive are:
> ...
> e. Decrease Linux's demand-side learning. Because the way
> to do this involves some questionable (from a legal point
> of view) actions, we will refrain from suggesting specifics.
Hmmm. Both market factors above can be seen to reduce free software's
"demand-side learning" (which is *NOT* an advantage Linux has over a keen
competitor which does its market research, as Microsoft clearly does):
by abusing the monopoly to keep that 'demand side' from encompassing the
general public, and by abusing patents to keep free software from
satisfying some of the demand.
OK, the patent side of it is not 'questionably legal' as long as software
patents are legal ... but what else could they possibly be referring to?
Read more carefully
Posted Sep 13, 2006 4:53 UTC (Wed) by se8ohThi (guest, #40470) [Link]
> They also explicitly say that a Linux monopoly is always preferable to a> Windows monopoly.
... which actually doesn't make much sense. A "linux monopoly" as such cannot
exist by definition. A monopoly is when something is and can be sold by
a single entity only - which is rather unlikely to happen with linux.
A linux _monopoly_ probably wouldn't be any better - basically the whole
point why a linux _monoculture_ probably would be better is the fact that
it can't be turned into a monopoly easily (if at all) ...
I think they don't *quite* get it
Posted Sep 13, 2006 8:40 UTC (Wed) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]
Consider SCO, a small Swiss-based "vulture" firm...Swiss? Not at all. Utah is definitly not in Switzerland.
I think they don't *quite* get it
Posted Sep 15, 2006 17:38 UTC (Fri) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link]
The SCO Group or its parent company the Canopy Group may be incorporated in Switzerland as a tax shelter?