| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Read more carefully
Read more carefully
Posted Sep 12, 2006 14:40 UTC (Tue) by dthurston (subscriber, #4603)In reply to: I think they don't *quite* get it by xoddam
Parent article: Windows will beat Linux threat, say academics (TechWorld)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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) ...