| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
That's how OS/2 was killed...That's how OS/2 was killed...Posted Jan 26, 2009 16:59 UTC (Mon) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048)In reply to: That's how OS/2 was killed... by khim Parent article: Obama Inauguration shines on Linux too with Moonlight (ars technica)
Your comment is insightful, however IMHO the analogy is flawed, like comparing apples and oranges.
The first mistake is comparing OS/2 with both Mono and Moonlight. Mono and Moonlight, while sharing pieces of technologies (the .NET runtime in the case of Silverlight 2), are very different "products" with very different targets, so the idea of "success" and "failure" is different for each of them.
Let's compare OS/2 and Mono first: the analogy makes sense as long as you look at them as two development platforms. A development platform is healthy as long as there are people writing software for it, so that you have applications available for the platform.
The situation with Mono is completely different: Mono was born as "a better development platform for Free Software", in the sense of "better than C and GObjects", "better than Java", "better than Python and GTK bindings"... we can debate if it's truly technically better, but it is gaining a user base (among developers) that has nothing to do with Windows. It is used for Linux desktop software, it is used for server software, it is used in embedded systems... it is also ending up being a wonderful platform for programming the logic of videogames, used also on the iPhone and the Wii console. This has nothing to do with Windows.
And yes, Mono also offers a "Windows compatibility story", but nobody has ever said that it is complete or that it will ever be. In certain areas it is complete, and it will be kept up to date as long as it seems useful, and there are people benefiting from this.
Then, let's compare OS/2 and Moonlight: Moonlight's goal is mainly to be a Silverlight replacement for Linux/Unix, but in this sense it is not "competing" with Silverlight (while OS/2 was competing with Windows). Actually, it is maybe helping Silverlight making it really cross platform, so the scenario "Silverlight kills Moonlight" does not really make sense, certainly not in the same sense that "Windows killed OS/2". If you think about it, Moonlight is the official Silverlight implementation for Linux, and it is Linux that competes with Windows, not Moonlight that competes with Silverlight. In the case of OS/2 its windows compatibility was so important that killing it was enough to kill the whole OS, but this scenario does not apply to Linux. Up to now Moonlight is likely helping Microsoft in raising Silverlight adoption: Linux has a desktop share similar to that of the Mac, so Microsoft cannot go against Moonlight: it would harm Silverlight. And if (or when!) we will get to the point that Linux has gained a desktop share so large that Microsoft gets scared, and thinks of eliminating Moonlight to try to harm Linux, this will again make no sense: what harm will it do to Silverlight? In other words: nobody has a crystal ball, and nobody knows what exactly will happen in the next years. But the situation is definitely not the same as the one of OS/2 vs. Windows in 1994. On the other hand, whether we like it or not Silverlight is a "web technology" that, being backed by Microsoft, is here to stay, and will be used on the web. With Moonlight we have a Free implementation which makes it "more free than Flash", and that IMHO is a good thing for desktop Linux. Again, IMHO, this is much better than having no Moonlight at all and ending up in a situation worse that what we have with Flash...
(Log in to post comments)
That's how OS/2 was killed... Posted Jan 27, 2009 7:00 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Of course a lot of details differ, but I think the analogy is still significant. There is one party helping a group of developers to ensure compatibility, as long as it is in that party's interest. Afterwards the help is retracted and the developers cannot stay compatible for long.And of course the party is the same: Microsoft. Maybe their interests stay constant, but a slight change in their priorities and feature parity (even now a major release behind) would soon be lost. The advantage of Flash in this respect is that it is a mature platform and has a huge installed base. Once something starts working it is not very likely to change. And now with a public specification the situation should be even better, since implementors do not rely on Adobe. The spec could also be retracted, but that is not how Adobe has behaved in the past (e.g. with PDF).
I've chosen wrong victim of Microsoft Posted Jan 27, 2009 14:49 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] OS/2 situation was indeed different: Moonlingh's game look like CIFS's game. Microsoft uses many plays to leverage it's monopoly and kill the competition, plays are slightly different...
I've chosen wrong victim of Microsoft Posted Jan 27, 2009 18:07 UTC (Tue) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link] OS/2 situation was indeed different: Moonlingh's game look like CIFS's game. Microsoft uses many plays to leverage it's monopoly and kill the competition, plays are slightly different...
Oh, well, as I said I have no crystal ball.
For start, Silverlight is competing with Flash. Now, for several years Flash had no competition at all: it squashed Java applets easily, and now there's Silverlight, but in the middle it has been the king of the hill (and it still is).
Then, another observation: since Silverlight sort of "needs" a Linux presence... IMHO, it's much better having Moonlight (with soource code, and a team paid to develop it as Free Software) than a binary only plugin. I really hope that now that we have the specs Gnash will leap forward, but the truth is, Moonlight has the specs and a sponsor, so it's still in a better position. And this, regardless of what the future will bring, is still a good thing now.
Parallels? You want parallels? Posted Jan 27, 2009 22:58 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Even in this dominant position Flash has been sort of forced to pay attention to Linux. After all we do have a binary only Flash player from Adobe... this means that Linux cannot be ignored even by the strongest player in that field. And Netware had support for DOS, Mac, OS/2 and few versions of UNIX (eventually including Linux via Caldera). So, Silverlight wants to displace Flash... is it possible doing that, then killing Moonlight, and still staying ahead of Flash? It's a gamble. The biggest problem for Microsoft is the fact that Flash is supported relatively well on many platforms. There are even planned port of "full-size Flash" for mobile platforms! This is the biggest problem for Microsoft. But Silverlight can not solve this problem while Flash is the king. So they are playing "we are open" card - just like they did with COM/DCOM (remeber press-releases like this one or this one?), OpenGL (reme ber how it was?) and other "open" technologies... When market will be captured - phase two begins. This is tried and true approach and it was documented many times and even explained in details in mails from Microsoft itself (revealed by court)! I really hope that now that we have the specs Gnash will leap forward, but the truth is, Moonlight has the specs and a sponsor, so it's still in a better position Of course! Microsoft needs to kill Flash fast - or it'll have no real features to introduce in phase two, when Windows will go forward and all other systems will be left in dust! The fact is: for Adobe Flash Player is not a central product. And the fact that it's crossplatform is pure plus - the only question is "does money spent developing Linux version are worth it or not". Gnash does not endanger it's cash cows. For Microsoft Moonlight is real threat directed to the heart of the empire. It makes Windows less relevant. Thus they MUST kill it at some point - or else the whole empire is in danger. To think that they'll support this gamble till the bitter end is the height of folly! The only real question is: how long will they continue with this charade. If Silverlight will be unable to capture market fast enough then Microsoft will just abandon the whole technology and introduce something new, but you can be pretty sure good crossplatform support is not something they want to have in the end...
You need more examples? Posted Jan 27, 2009 23:11 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] The "portable" NT operating system (x86, Alpha, a host of other architectures coming soon) comes to mind. Or the Mac OS port of Office -- discontinued at the loss of substantial revenue, though later revived by a Microsoft held hostage by Apple patents.You want to keep thinking Microsoft will not discourage (discontinue?) the Linux port of an emerging technology once it is not "strategic"? Be our guest.
Ok, may be I was wrong Posted Jan 27, 2009 14:47 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Your comment is insightful, however IMHO the analogy is flawed, like comparing apples and oranges. You are right: situation with Mono is not quite like situation with OS/2 and Moonlight's situation is totally different. It's more like Netware situation: Netware was "king of LAN" in 80th. And Microsoft knew it's be hard to compete with the leader alone so it proposed new standard (CIFS) in 1996, even submitted it to IETF (thankfully it was rejected), etc. Few years later... standards are no longer needed as Windows NT is firmly established as the "LAN server". It's time to kill other competitors! And now we have this mess with Active Directory and such. Thus tes question regarding moonlight is not "will Novell be screwed agaian?" but "when will Novell be screwed?". And looks like the answer is: pretty soon. Looks like Microsoft planned to do it this year but somehow Silverlight was not as successfull in killing Flash as Windows NT was in killing Netware server thus we have article which praises Microsoft for postponing this massacre. It's sad, really: looks like people never learn... Up to now Moonlight is likely helping Microsoft in raising Silverlight adoption: Linux has a desktop share similar to that of the Mac, so Microsoft cannot go against Moonlight: it would harm Silverlight. And if (or when!) we will get to the point that Linux has gained a desktop share so large that Microsoft gets scared, and thinks of eliminating Moonlight to try to harm Linux, this will again make no sense: what harm will it do to Silverlight? Yes, that's one possibility. If Linux will gain popularity faster than Silverlight then it'll be the outcome. If Linux will not gain popularity as fast (and it looks like it will not) then Microsoft will have time to kill Flash first and then return back to Linux. In other words: nobody has a crystal ball, and nobody knows what exactly will happen in the next years. But the situation is definitely not the same as the one of OS/2 vs. Windows in 1994. You are right, of course. It's closer to Netware Server vs Windows NT Server in 1995... Not a big difference IMO...
|
|
||||||||||||