Gradually replacing the Windows cash cow?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Jan 03, 2008 8:57 PM EDT |
After reading this article I've been getting some tickling thoughts.. If Microsoft is really making millions off of only this one deal with Novell, in theory, if it continues finding ways of cashing in on GNU/Linux it may eventually be able to make their Windows revenues irrelevant. After the Vista crash and the declining public reputation of Windows in general (which has been going on for years) compared to Mac OS X and GNU/Linux, the future of Windows doesn't seem all too bright anyway and perhaps Microsoft people already realize that it's just gonna be a darn expensive chore to keep maintaining it. Perhaps some people at Microsoft believe that in the long term they should think off seizing their opportunity with GNU/Linux as the replacement of Windows as their cash cow. And if there is not enough opportunity they are trying to create it, by trying to exert as much control as possible over the GNU/Linux world to squeeze as much cash off it as they possibly can - hence the patent dimension to those deals and the resulting FUD that brainwashes some people into believing that GNU/Linux developers and distributors owe something to Microsoft. On one hand this is a morbid idea.. simply because of the way most of our communities feel about Microsoft and the fact that they still seize their opportunities in both fair and unfair ways. We don't want them to be imposing their control and forcing everyone to play by their rules. On the other hand, should the patent saber rattling and this attempt of iron-fisting the GNU/Linux world into submission to their best interests fail, they might as well learn that the best remaining way to use GNU/Linux as a replacement for Windows is to actually play by the rules everyone else is playing with - at which point we might even start welcoming Microsoft to the "family" and declaring GNU/Linux as the obvious winner of the OS wars... for the time being. ;) What do you think? Edit: Fixed "cease" -> "seize" (sorry) |
| techiem2 Jan 03, 2008 10:26 PM EDT |
s/cease/seize cease = to stop seize = to take hold of :) But yeah, interesting thoughts... One interesting thought would be if they turned Windows into basically a proprietary X server/Desktop Environment that has all the "features" (i.e. windows apis, directx, etc.) of Windows now, but runs on *nix. That would be quite fascinating I think. Imagine firing up your box, and then logging into normal X on one console and MS-X on another to use all your Windows games, apps, etc. that can't run in something like wine. I doubt it'll ever happen, but it's kinda fun to think of the possibilities. I suspect they'd be more likely to create their own locked down system on top of a *nix like Apple did with OSX. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 03, 2008 10:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:I suspect they'd be more likely to create their own locked down system on top of a *nix like Apple did with OSX. You only have to take a look at Windows Server 2008 to see what MS is attempting. They're going to build an OS that pretty much copies everything that Unix and Linux have done for years, implement it in typical MS fashion and sprinkle it with ".Net" dust. Just look at Server 2008: * It's fully commandline driven. The GUI is optional. It goes so far that when you use the GUI and click something, you get a popup telling you what CLI command the GUI is going to execute to make it happen. * You can install it without a GUI at all * All configuration sits in text files * A powerfull shell (powershell) as opposed to a highly inadequate and neutered MSDOS-like shell. * They're building "Emacs.net". Seriously. Just keep an eye on the newswire. They're trying to build an OS that they think Linux/Unix sysadmins will like working with. I say "think" because MS assumes that sysadmins prefer CLI over GUI and prefer text files all over the place. They think *that's* the edge that Linux has over Windows. Of course, they never stop to realize that what we really like about Linux is it's open nature, open standards, open source code, the diversity, stability, ease of implementation and no hassling with licenses and low cost. After all, if MS was right and a CLI and text file configuration were all we cared about, we'd all be happy on proprietary Unix platforms like HP-UX, Solaris and AIX. |
| tbuitenh Jan 04, 2008 12:18 AM EDT |
Powershell, emacs.net, text based configuration... The funny thing is that even if they added "GPL" to that list, I still wouldn't see any reason to switch to windows. Why switch and need to learn again, if you have an OS that works? powershell: I don't know it, and bash is good enough for me emacs.net: I don't use emacs, and creating a .net clone of every geeky text editor out there is too much work even for microsoft text based configuration: I don't know how the ms config files work, and those on gnu/linux are good enough for me So, I don't think it's going to make anyone switch from *nix to windows. On the other hand, it might keep some windows users from switching to *nix. Oh wait, it won't, because these are exactly the features that current windows users are scared of having to learn when switching to *nix. Freedom is the killer feature. It would be nice if windows could have it too, although it wouldn't matter much for me personally. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!