Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer)
The Inquirer has posted a lengthy article
claiming that Linux is truly beginning to push Microsoft aside.
"High profile defections like cities, governments, and, gasp, IBM,
are just the tip of the iceberg, and almost everyone is looking at the
pioneers to see if the trail they are blazing is worth following.
If it turns out that these first few companies can make it, expect the
floodgates to open, and everyone to follow."
(Log in to post comments)
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 29, 2003 9:54 UTC (Mon) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] I am not being a pessimist (really I am not), but it really isnt over until the Fat Lady Sings. These defections and such could be a trend or a blip on the radar... I would say leave it to the historians and go back to coding, helping new users, etc etc.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 29, 2003 12:26 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] The fat lady will never sing this tune. As to whether or not these are"defections", well that's sematics. They had a system, looked at other systems, and went with Linux systems. Not a "defection" any more than driving a Ford and needing a new car, and buying a Subaru. Advocacy is important. It helps swell the ranks of users and developers.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 29, 2003 12:29 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I have no intention to show this to anyone outside "the choir." It's too abrasive.I"m far more likely to show people articles about what is being *done* with alternatives to Windows.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 29, 2003 18:40 UTC (Mon) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > .. no intention to show this to anyone outside> "the choir".. to abrasive. [Better to] show .. > what is being done with [MS] alternatives.. While indeed demonstrating the effectiveness of.. I don't like "MS alternatives" here.. not specific enough, as it includes even SCO's stuff, for instance, so I'll use the FLOSS acronym, qualified by "platform", to allow for proprietary applications for those that MUST.. on a FLOSS base.. as I was saying .. While indeed demonstrating the effectiveness of FLOSS platform solutions is going to be the more effective technique when addressing the CxO and other IT solution decision makers, I absolutely agree with you there, I believe you missed perhaps the most important point of the article, one I've wondered why it hasn't made BIGGER news. I think you also missed the larger audience aspect, which I'll address first.. Advocacy, which I do agree this article can be classified as, does have a place outside of "the choir" and the debating groups. A part of that place is in the general "pulse of the community" area that financial analysts are supposed to take into account, when predicting prospective customer purchasing behavior and thus value of a stock, and in invenstment community mood prediction as well, to an even GREATER extent, short term. That this is appearing in even "Enquirer" level articles demonstrates, if not necessarily the absolute factual validity of the material, two other important if related things. One, while such sources can't always be relied upon for factual validity, they DO indicate an area of interest to the audience, and therefore at least SOME mindshare. Two, this is no longer just in the FLOSS community press, it's leaking out into the IT press in general. Other articles, tho naturally more conservative in tone, hint that it's leaking into the financial press as well. So what is the BIG NEWS I alluded to? None other than the apparent trigger for the article.. the reason it was written now, rather than say a quarter ago, when MOST of the points made were pretty much EQUALLY valid. What one point changed in the last three months? Simple. MS, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RECENT FINANCIAL HISTORY, ** HAD* *FLAT* *NUMBERS!! ** That hasn't happened b4, as the article points out, altho it almost gets lost in what is to LWN readers now a familiar set of other points. It's common knowledge that MS has and does manipulate its numbers a bit, and in fact got a mild slap on the wrist from the feds for doing so at one point. With it's billions, a couple million shuffled from this pocket to that pocket to produce the nice steady curve the financial market likes can easily go unnoticed, and generally does, or if noticed, gets little more than a wink and a nod, or the mild slap just mentioned. The article restates this and it's nothing new. Thus, when that does NOT happen, when the holes in the numbers get to big or repeat for to long for even THAT to cover up, SOMETHING **HUGE** IS HAPPENING!! I was shocked when I saw the MS numbers myself, and left feeling sort of as I did watching CNN that eventful day as folks finally took sledgehammers to the Berlin wall -- it's a historic event I can't quite believe I'm watching. However, I don't have a convienient soap box to stand upon. Yes, the article may be abrasive, yes, it may be advocacy, but when something THIS HUGE begins to happen, that's what's called for. There have been a few fringe folks predicting the bottom will eventually fall out of MS stock for some time, and it HAS been performing comparatively poorly over the last six months to a year. However, the bottom hasn't fallen out yet. One point made by one of those fringe predictors has been the sort of house of cards that stock options as MS has used them actually are. Should the stock cease to go up, quarter after quarter, year after year, the value of those stock options suddenly plummets. Should the stock actually go down... The stock indeed HAS gone down some, but it leveled off and is still priced at a premium based on this smooth curve thing MS has maintained. With the smooth curve flat-lining.. the stock could go down further, and without the MS billions, would probably impode, just as the whole internet balloon did, due to the feedback effects of all those stock options imploding at the same time. The MS billions WILL create a floor, short-medium term (immediate term is annother question, once the news sinks in, and long term, even the MS billions eventually run out if they don't diversify into other markets and cut their loss leaders), but the full significance of the fall from premium to dependable flat performer could be BAD. There's a potential it could cause another recession, as the financial industry adjusts to the significance of the fall of MS, and what that means for the ultimate performance of other proprietary software firms as well. Perhaps that's why the flatening of the MS results curve hasn't made bigger news than it has -- because some of the big boys pulling the strings on the financial analysts are pulling out b4 the big one hits, or possibly in an attempt to put off the results until after the election. That's the flip side to the open source thing that proprietary-ware supporters are so fond of pointing out -- how much money is spent on proprietary-ware in the current economy and what that means to it. However, while I agree that there's a not-insignificant potential for a bumpy ride short term as FLOSS asserts dominance over proprietary-ware, as a FLOSS supporter and advocate, I realize that revolutions are NEVER comfortable events for the former top dogs and their beneficiaries, and believe history will judge it to be worthwhile, once the change has occurred and a new stability emerged.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 30, 2003 15:18 UTC (Tue) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] http://www.billparish.comRead and be amazed. Also keep in mind that MSFT is part of the Dow and S&P 500 indices. Scary stuff.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Jan 8, 2004 15:46 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > http://www.billparish.comThat's one of the "fringe" sources I had in mind, yes, thanks. I didn't have the URL at hand, but had read his site with interest a year or two ago. While he's seemed a wolf howling in the wilderness, if MS continues to flatline its numbers, he may end up the next Wall Street guru, no longer on the fringe. Duncan
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 30, 2003 7:48 UTC (Tue) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link] I wouldn't say the article is "abrasive", but it lacks specifics (by that I mean links and clear examples) to back up its arguments. Just because a city here and there decides not to use Microsuck products, it doesn't mean that the remaining 99% are thinking about doing the same.Microsuck is still the proverbial 350 kg gorilla (~800 pounds for the old school folks) and it is going to take a lot more to beat it than wishful thinking and arguments based on shaky ground.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 29, 2003 18:04 UTC (Mon) by robotralph (guest, #2570) [Link] I think the point is, that IT departments are expanding on their unix base of operations. especially now that major suppliers are setting up the former and new unix systems to run Linux nativly, now they are simply expanding the user base to a Linux desk top, which in turn will expand the home market as well.It is just too easy for employees to add programs to the windows by microsoft desk and not be productive, the Linux base can prevent a part of this and that makes corporate heads happy, less play more work.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 29, 2003 20:53 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > I think the point is, that IT departments are expanding on their unix base of operations.This is a truly interesting observation. Personally, I've seen quite a few IT departments move away from Unix and into NT (at the top of the hype). This was, of course, followed by purchase of a whole heap of boxes that would normally replace a single (or maybe two - one for backup) Unix boxes. Some of those Unix boxes were PC servers running UnixWare or SCO OpenServer 5, so they were not some million dollar monstrosities. And yet, they were capable of delivering the goods, mostly because the apps were written to solve business problems at hand, not to be all-doing-all-knowing bloatware. Of course, the stability of the platform and good performance didn't go astray either. So, some of those people are now seeing that they have made a mistake and they want to go back. Unfortunately for SCO and furtunately for Red Hat, SuSE and others, it seems that nowadays there is only one really interesting Unix on PC servers - Linux. I'm guessing that's why Darl is so upset :-) As for Microsoft, they really do have bigger problems to solve. Linux on the server is a given, Linux on the desktop is coming. I'm not expecting home user to feel that push any time soon, but corprate desktop could start changing little by little. Even the most pessimistic of IT managers can see that regular Joe User can do nicely with free software. Just like life, IT is not clean-cut, so mix a match will ultimately save people money. And to round it all up, Microsoft is reluctant (for now) to get into the patent battle with Linux, simply because IBM seem to be on our side. And nobody matches their patent portfolio. As someone said here at LWN, it's nice to have a nuclear superpower on our side ;-) The future is going to be interesting...
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 29, 2003 16:01 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "Trusted ComputingThe problem is that Microsoft just isn't trusted, questionable surveys aside. That knowledge is spreading up the executive ranks..." But Microsoft knows that!... I mean the trusted computing(NGSCB/Paladium), IMO wasent a PR campaign of some sort, but the real "Empire strikes back" method... they have no concern about users trust, because if they can achieve to completly lock-in a great deal of those user, then it makes no difference if there is trust or not...because M$ is about to try to lock away any other OS from the general PC type platform. Its about a do or die thing... "they" cant beat Linux&GPL on price and control, so they are going to try to kill Linux&GPL the only way possible: Prevent Linux from running... And since the hardware support on Linux has to much things to wish for, is not cristal clear that they, M$, cannot succeed.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 30, 2003 10:19 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] "Trusted computing" was never about the users' trust, at least not directly. It's always been about mutual trust between vendors, whether software vendors or content vendors. If every electronic device was a TPC, then music publishers could release albums on next-generation CDs that have to interact with the trusted CPU. Users wouldn't be able to copy the CDs because no application that allowed copying would be certified as "trustworthy", hence running it would put the PC into the "untrusted" state, where the CD is inaccessible.There *are* good reasons for this sort of arrangement. For one, malware would have to be certified in order to do any real harm (depending on what you lock up behind the "trust" barrier). Once malware starts running, your sensitive data is locked up, and even good apps can't access it. "Trusted" apps could still access the data and do bad thing with it, of course, and that's where the user is forced to "trust" someone like MS. That's certainly not ideal, but it's also not necessarily a step backwards from where we are now. Users could still decide to run their PCs in an untrusted state, and just not protect their data with the TPC functionality. On the other hand, if you're running RHEL and only updating your PC with their RPMs, you'll probably be using certified code. Ditto for SUSE or Mandrake, and possibly non-commercial distros if the community or some benefactor ponies up the cash for the certification process. It's really unfortunate that they chose the word "trust" for this sort of thing, since it's misleading. This was probably intentional, of course, since the public is more likely to accept something that sounds like it makes their PCs more trustworthy to *them*. I don't know what the current status is of any of the various trusted computing initiatives (TCPA, Palladium, whatever), but I'd hope that there's some way for a user to declare certain trust granting operations invalid, so that running trusted Linux wouldn't mean that I have to accept MS's trust decisions, even when passing my data off to someone using MS.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 30, 2003 11:35 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "There *are* good reasons for this sort of arrangement. For one, malware would have to be certified in order to do any real harm (depending on what you lock up behind the "trust" barrier)."
...but who is holding all the keys ?,... and who would do the certification, that guaranties that "all TRUSTED" (vendors not users) hardware manufactors stay in line ?... And by the way, since the new MS GUI IDL , XAML is positioned to "embrace & extend" the XMl and HTML, and by its nature control the all WWW,... is not far the prospect for a lot of web pages, just to display, to have to pass trough a TPC CPU that coincidently sit on Mobos with a Paladium BIOS from origin, and guess what??,... the only "really" certified OS is "Longhorn"... "This is all very much convenient to the users and necessary to maintain security(of who?), and prevent piracy",..., so says it the Marketing hipe. IMHO, that wouldn't be a step back, that could prove to be the complete disaster for everyone non Microsoft... a MILLION TIMES WORST than do a specific API/ABI for drivers in Linux Kernel and allow Binary Only Proprietary driver modules.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Dec 30, 2003 17:45 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] " ...but who is holding all the keys ?,... and who would do the certification, that guaranties that "all TRUSTED" (vendors not users) hardware manufactors stay in line ?... Isnt that right that a certified platform is going to be a major marketing point?,... if nothing else only by Microsoft push of it,... at Microsoft terms of course, because there isnt a hardware manufactor that is willing to lose money ?"That's why I said not *necessarily* bad. It's always possible to do things in a bad way, and I certainly expect that any TPC implementation *will* be done in a way that's ultimately detrimental to the general public. The fact remains that if only certified apps can run on a PC, there will be a greatly reduced problem from malware. I, for one, wouldn't want to lose the ability to recompile my kernel, however. It's also good to remember that only some malware comes in a form that can be blocked. If Outlook is in the trusted base, then it's still a potential threat if it will run uncertified scripts. My prediction? A TPC implementation (a full implementation, that is--BIOS to browser) will come out. MS and others will push it heavily. Lots of content will be provided for it. Less than one percent of the public will use it, and the whole idea will tank.
The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft (Inquirer) Posted Jan 8, 2004 10:16 UTC (Thu) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] "For one, malware would have to be certified in order to do any real harm (depending on what you lock up behind the "trust" barrier)."Nah, malware will simply exploit security holes in the kernel--Windows is *full* of these holes, and Linux has had two in the past couple of months. "Trusted" Computing is like door locks; it only stops the honest folk. And if all you care about was simple anti-malware security, you could use the OS to verify signed code without relying on a full "trusted" execution environment. "Trusted" computing has exactly two real uses: research papers, and allowing software vendors to write private laws about how computers may be used (i.e., all SMB servers must come from Microsoft, and you can't save, print or archive your boss's illegal e-mails). Count me out; it's not a future I want anything to do with.
An Old dog . . . can it learn a new Trick. Posted Dec 29, 2003 20:00 UTC (Mon) by nectyr (guest, #18298) [Link] Well, most of us full understand the situation. Linux is "Free" yet makes money (see RedHat and Novell / SuSE) and a highly superior product compared to microsoft.Microsoft has gobs of cash, thousands of developers and all the exposure it needs. Everything it seems except a superior product. What would happen if Microsoft LEARNED SOMETHING and decided to put out a 100% windows software compatible LINUX DISTRO? This is fully realizable within a year for microsoft (see the succuss of wine, crossover office and transgaming). Not that I want to see them survive.... but just imagine!
An Old dog . . . can it learn a new Trick. Posted Dec 29, 2003 22:55 UTC (Mon) by virtex (subscriber, #3019) [Link] This sounds a lot like a theory I've been peddling for the last couple years. Here's the idea: Microsoft comes out with a branded version of Linux -- Microsoft Linux. Like other distros, it runs Linux software. However, MS Linux also includes a number of proprietary system libraries which provide a Windows compatible API, as well as a new GUI to replace X11. In addition, they also supply a number of binary-only kernel modules to facilitate the GUI and various other bits and pieces. Once this is ready, they port all their popular apps like Office, MS SQL, all the Visual Studio stuff, .NET, etc, to it. Now they have a platform that can attract users wanting to switch to Linux, while simultaneously allowing them to run other MS software. And since MS Linux is the only distro that will run their software, it would be the logical choice for businesses and users alike.Will Microsoft do something like this? Not as long as their Windows platform is performing well. There's just too much risk involved in promoting Linux right now. But I believe they have something like this on the back burner just in case Windows profits take a dive.
An Old dog . . . can it learn a new Trick. Posted Dec 30, 2003 8:08 UTC (Tue) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] The problem lies in that Windows compatible API. That's the big, wide open door with the sign saying "Malware enter here".The other problem, of course, is that it'll still be proprietary and cost more than FLOSS, so it'll essentially be Windows with a Linux label on it. And if it doesn't cost more than FLOSS, what's the point?
An Old dog . . . can it learn a new Trick. Posted Dec 30, 2003 8:41 UTC (Tue) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] You make it sound like Microsoft just needs to add a Win32 ABI emulation layer to a Linux system and get a system running all Windows applications. Reality is that Microsoft also needs to support a lot of third party device drivers, so they'll also need to provide emulation of their kernel interfaces.I have no doubt that when Microsoft focusses on the task, they'll be able to deliver a 1.0 version within a year or so. They'll have to divert attention from other projects (mobile phones, tablet's, Longhorn) to get there. Are Bill Gates and Steve Balmer willing to take the bet. And there's the issue of quality assurance. Several beta quality releases will be distributed to paying customers (with MS, version 3 becomes usable). How long are the customers willing to pay "the Monopoly" for crappy software? Microsoft could just be two years to late with starting this program. MS Office could have had a big slice of the Linux office market if Microsoft was willing to port it to Linux.
An Old dog . . . can it learn a new Trick. Posted Dec 30, 2003 9:41 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] All their "new" software base is positioned to run on a JIT(just in time) compiler, though i belive that the majority of that base is going to be natively compiled.So a streamed down version of Linux to run just C# and CLI code is almost a given, if not from Microsoft, then from Novell,..., that is what MONO is about, isnt it ? And there is no real danger about it, because if M$ cant control it, then they will lose, because they cant do business spending "billions" to have better products and then sell them at a competitive price with a linux distro, be it natively compiled or JIT,..., and worst, Java is very much intrenched in the web services, so... IMO, they are going for a hardware platform lock-up, undercover of Digital Rights, "Security", "trust", and with the anti-piracy slogan, and with the always present political aid or the lock the other way of authoritys,..., is going to be a tough fight.
Wil. E. Coyote Posted Dec 30, 2003 5:32 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] We've all known that MS is in trouble for quite a while. But the Stock Market works quite well (for a while at least) on momentum. If MS shares are going up, they keep on going up, etc etc and so on ...As an impartial or hostile observer, we can see that MS. E. Coyote ran off the edge of the cliff some while ago. It's just that gravity, aka the Stock Market, hasn't noticed yet. When it does, the effect on the share price will be very similar. I gather that MS actually only has Net Asset Backing of about $5/share, so those shares have a long way to crash. And could easily bury themselves in the floor to the tune of $3 or even $2. At which point, if they have any sense, MS will start frantically buying back its shares to stave off a hostile takeover. That $40Bn is a liability! It looks like that in the near future MS has a simple, stark choice. Post a drop in cash reserves, or indulge in cost cutting big-time, or pull out of a loss-making venture. Any one of these will shock the Street, at which point MS as we know it today will cease to exist. Gravity will have realised MS. E. Coyote no longer has its feet on the ground ... Cheers,
Wil. E. Coyote Posted Dec 30, 2003 9:53 UTC (Tue) by penguinroar (guest, #14460) [Link] I have been thinking along those lines myself since the early 90īs. I believe that the dotcom bubble fueled MS a bit furter than i thought possible. Microsoft has never been a company devoted to R&D in the real sense but rather good at stealing/buying others inventions and marketed them as their own. As such they havent really got any real assets in the longer perspective. Windows Longhorn and net isnt anything revolutionary that is going to send people/businesses into a buying spree. No other product is known to become the next-big-thing. Add to this that MS has been inflating their stock price for years by giving them to employees. MS has saturated the market for OS and Office and they havent succeded in any other market than those.The only way MS has to expand really is to get people to pay higher MSFT tax or to sell something else. Since they have proven themselves totally incapable of R&D anything novel by themselves the only way up is to increase the MSFT tax as we saw with their new license scheme. Come to think of it, was this known to be coming down the tube at redmond a long time ago? If so it all makes perfect sence, the license 6 and the sudden payment of dividends. They are getting desperate and we can now predict they will put much work into upgrade frency. Since longhorn is due 2005 at the best they will have to put out more fake-upgrades like windows 98 and Me.
Wil. E. Coyote Posted Dec 30, 2003 10:03 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] Actually, MS *does* have a strong R&D arm. Anyone in the academic CS community, especially in systems, is familiar with Microsoft Research. It's almost frightening some of the big names they have on their payroll (Leslie Lamport and the late Roger Needham, to name just two). They do really good work, too, and not just from their "big gun" researchers. Now, MSR isn't directly affiliated with the programming groups, but there's definitely communication between them, and when a potentially marketable product is produced by MSR it's transferred over to a program group, and researchers are expected to lend their expertise to program groups when appropriate.Granted, not everything done at MSR directly impacts, or even uses, Windows. A number of people there use *BSD machines, since they're easy to configure and you can muck with the internals. I think using Linux is still frowned upon, though. One friend of mine who works there does everything on a Mac. He doesn't even use MS products on his Mac. This does not seem to be a problem for anyone.
Wil. E. Coyote Posted Dec 30, 2003 12:26 UTC (Tue) by penguinroar (guest, #14460) [Link] If MS has a viable R&D facility then where are the products and the impact it should have on Windows etc? Do they research and just toss the research into a black hole or what? Where are the nifty new interfaces to windows, the new things you can do with your computer? All i can see is mass producing of "fetures" with no goal or direction. Either their R&D sucks and produces things not usable IRL or Microsoft just dont gives a shit what the R&D department produces.To me as a customer whatever goes on internally in redmond doesnt matter one bit. To me, the end customer, very little seams to come out of MS R&D and into usable products. All i have seen so far is mimicing others inventions or bought companies.
Wil. E. Coyote Posted Dec 30, 2003 18:04 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] You have to give things time. MSR has only really been around for a few years. Like I said, in systems research they've definitely made an impact, but it can take quite awhile to go from a research-quality product to a market-ready one. And there have, in fact, been successful cross-overs from research to products. They're just not all going to be visible to the end-user. For instance, there's a lot of work on code testing of various sorts, and apparently this has had an enormous impact on the quality of the code that MS is now producing. A world where MS releases code without buffer overrun vulnerabilities is good for everyone.Results from MSR aren't necessarily going to relate to the actual interface. I know this is something that MS is interested in (for obvious reasons), but I don't know how much is done in-house and how much is done by funding research at universities, which MS also does a fair amount of. What you see as a (potential) customer is at the end of a long development process. Think about how long it takes to go from one stable release of a FLOSS product to another, and that's without any corporate bureaucracy. There will always be a certain amount of feature-creep, mainly because that's what works. The majority of MS's customers aren't going to buy an upgrade because it crashes less often--they get used to that. Rather, they're attracted by shiny new bells and whistles. That's not even necessarily bad. If your Linux box runs just fine from your perspective, how likely are you to upgrade to the next release of your chosen distro (as long as security patches are still made available)? Of course, what benefit MS products get from MSR might be too little, too late. They've lost quite a few customers on reliability, some more on security, and still more on their bullying tactics. Then there are those of us, like myself, who just never liked the Windows way of doing things and so were never their customers to begin with. I doubt any of the people they lost will go back to MS, and they're not likely to win new converts. At some point "non-Microsoft" will reach critical mass, and the cost differential will push increasing numbers away from MS and to free or nearly-free alternatives.
Wil. E. Coyote Posted Jan 15, 2004 12:38 UTC (Thu) by dmag (subscriber, #17775) [Link] > You have to give things time. MSR has only really been around for a few years.MSR has been around since 1991. MS has been pouring billions into it (current budget is around $7B/year). I give MSR credit for being fairly open. I give MSR credit for doing serious research. I give MSR credit for a few items trickling into real software. But I don't respect them very much. MSR was born out of pure "we want to own key ideas for the future" greed. Most MSR research is either a waste of time (MS Comic Chat, anyone?) or pure research (Voice Recognition -- 'almost working' for the past 15 years) that won't bear fruit anytime soon. The only reason they exist is that MS wants to OWN these things when they come out. MS just happens to have the money to try. penguinroar's point was this: Compared to other labs, MSR has done less than places with 1/1000th of their budget. MSR will not go down in history like Xerox PARC as "the place" where ideas happened. Unless MSR gets lucky and actually hits on an "own the future" idea, MSR won't help MS in the battle with Linux.
Wil. E. Coyote Posted Dec 31, 2003 10:48 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I'm not sure about "too little, too late."What if Microsoft came out with a reliable, secure, very-low-maintenance set of products? We have a Windows 98 system at home, that runs software that we don't have on Linux. We don't want to go to XP because of all the rigamarole with the licensing, and because we'd have to get a more powerful computer to support it at the same level of performance we have now. But what if they came out with something that didn't blow up every other day, and still let us use the other proprietary software we need and paid for?
|
|||||||||||