Brightness

I stumbled upon Mike Ermel’s blog and found this:

“What most North Amer­i­cans do not know is that this is the only geo­graphic loca­tion where it is still dif­fi­cult to find a Linux PC on a retailer’s shelves.  Dell has been sell­ing GNU/Linux PCs in over 1,000 retail stores in India and China.  Visit a Wal­Mart in Brazil and you will find Pos­i­tivo, a Brazilian-based com­pany, is sell­ing 21 dif­fer­ent PCs with Linux.  Dell is fac­ing the fact that they are going to have to start offer­ing GNU/Linux PCs, in order to take back some of the shelf space other com­puter man­u­fac­tur­ers have been tak­ing for them­selves.  As gov­ern­ments and schools around the world con­tinue to embrace Linux, Dell has to decide to either pro­vide Linux-based PCs and lap­tops, or to give that mar­ket share to their competitors.”

I agree. The future of IT clients is bright. People are loving small cheap computers, x86/amd64 PCs running GNU/Linux and, of course more servers than ever running GNU/Linux. I don’t see much possibility of this trend slowing in the near future, because fast and efficient is the right way to do IT. Any way you measure efficiency, GNU/Linux, Android/Linux and FLOSS are superior to that other OS. The world can make its own software and does not need to rely on a monopoly. The Wintel monopoly will have to change or die. A few units on ARM or smart phones won’t cut it when a better OS costs ~$0 per unit.

Mike has a lot of good posts but I have a little comment about one thing he wrote:“when I see Linux users talking about how Linux is going to end up at the top of the operating system heap, I have to chuckle. The incredible choice and flexibility of various Linux distros is exactly what will prevent Linux from ever becoming the number one operating system.”

The thing is */Linux is already the number one operating system on clients. Almost as many smart phones (237 million) than x86 PCs (360 million) shipped with Android/Linux in 2011. It’s no contest in 2012. In tablets, iOS still is doing well but that other OS is nowhere. Android/Linux takes up the slack. Then on x86/amd64, */Linux ships ~10%. The diversity of */Linux OS is an advantage in a clearly diversifying world of personal IT.

See Linux Future Is Getting Brighter.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Brightness

  1. Dr Loser says:

    Who says Oiaohm has sketchy knowledge of generics?

    That’s most unfair.

    He has no clue whatsoever in terms of the bytecode, but he might very well be a whizz when it comes to building his own Java compiler.

    I mean, seriously, let’s get real here. This is not a blog where ad hominems are welcome.

  2. Brillo says:

    What will big iron be handling. Huge data sets at times. You do not wish to transfer these back to the desktop just to generate reports so you generate mainframe side.

    The key purpose of mainframes is not to handle volumous batch processes – that’s the job of commodity machine clusters – but complex DBMS transactions:

    http://www-01.ibm.com/software/htp/cics/tserver/

    Of course, why use cheap, off-the-shelf machine clusters for batch processing documents when you can waste extra millions of dollars on big irons with no obvious benefits whatever? That doesn’t sound utterly absurd to anyone at all!

    Of course if the documents you are produced on the mainframe cannot be opened by where they are being sent you have wasted time.

    Given your sketchy knowledge in something as simple as generics, I am not surprised at all that you are displaying such feeble grasp in parallel computing.

    You stitch together your cluster, feed your documents to the server node and then let the server node return the results back to you or send them off to where they are supposed to go. That’s just one way of getting this done without needing anything more than commodity Xeon-based machines.

    Seriously, even an average CS student can easily figure out something this simple.

  3. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “I’m willing to bet there are far fewer who leverage this geek crap.”

    This your problem. There are quite a few that have no other option. Turns out Libreoffice UNO interface is the same as StarOffice 5.2. So is very well documented the interface as only been extended. So what you wrote for 5.2 works today.

    oldman no everyone is using vCenter or even big systems that contain windows. Its call the next best thing. If you could not have MS Office and it was not an option what would you use Oldman. I think you would find yourself using Libreoffice like everyone else.

    The reality not everyone has you option of even using MS Office to generate reports.

    By the way oldman you only need two basic command line.
    Network
    soffice “–accept=socket,host=localhost,port=8100;urp;StarOffice.ServiceManager” -nologo -headless
    Named pipe
    soffice “–accept=pipe,name=foo;urp;StarOffice.ServiceManager” -nologo -headless

    Fun part there is a –unaccept so you can close links 1 by 1.

    Something like that. To tell it to start in service mode after that you talk to it and control it by UNO.

    Those command lines is valid on StarOffice, Apache Open Office and Libreoffice.

    Reality here oldman what you do by COM is replaced by UNO operations. UNO is network aware so you can have many different computers in a cluster send results directly back to a single instance exposed on the internal network or by encrypted tunnels.

    I am sorry oldman when it comes doing some-things dcom with MS Office does out cut it.

    oldman the serous fact is LibreOffice and what it descended from are server products. Able to cope with editing from many sources at the same time.

    There are times that MS Office is trying to put a round peg into a square hole. Yes the square hole that libreoffice fits perfectly todo.

    Even more scary is the fact that you can have the Libreoffice interface open while its receiving data by the network interface updating in real time. The headless flag is so it does not render the interface.

    Oldman how do you debug yours when you have a error. I can simply remove a flag and watch mine.

    You will find yours does not exactly scale. But you have to admit at times excel documents or ods documents or other office documents are highly useful.

    Oldman the simple reality you are too stubborn to try out the other path. If you do you will find out there are some-things Libreoffice is particularly good for. As a desktop office suite still has a distance to go. As a server to generate documents is very powerful.

    Going by powershell is possible by the CLI-UNO interface. Really since that is windows only I mostly would not bother with the powershell route.

    vcenter python bindings plus python uno bindings is basically perfect. Of course in some cases throw in pyssh to allow port tunnelling.

    oldman you reach for powershell and MS Office I reach for python and libreoffice. Both generate the same results in the end other than the fact I can run mine on cloud servers or where ever I need without worrying about if MS Office is there or not. Heck I don’t even have to worry about Libreoffice being there since I can tunnel over network if required to where ever libreoffice is.

    Libreoffice as server is not that much different to a mysql server or some other server. 1 instance can service many servers at times.

    Powershell tunnelling is not particularly fun.

    There is some advantage to a network controllable office suite.

    Oldman sometime you need to step past Libreoffice GUI and just control the backend for a bit and start to understand how the beast fits in.

  4. Clarence Moon says:

    Forrester mostly talked to big companies. 3% is not none.

    There were 152 people responding to the survey, according to the cite, so 4.5 people said that at their company it was “supported”, apparently meaning that someone, somewhere was using it for business. I guess one person was not so sure or else there is a round off error.

    A couple of things come to mind here, one being that Star Office is on a par with both Lotus and Google’s SaaS efforts in terms of results, with is a sort of shameful condition for Lotus and Google. Another is that this is a rather abysmal showing for the FLOSS entries, particularly with the realization that the people surveyed were IT managers who could be expected to be much more amenable to using open source products.

    It is like your relying on W3Schools statistics wherein Linux shows marginally better than on other, less techie biased samples. You suggest that shows Linux is more common than the conventional thinking but I think that it only shows that it cannot show well even on its home ground.

  5. oiaohm says:

    Brillo
    “Still a batch process. Still a waste of a big iron. I am sorry but you just aren’t fit for the adjective “competent”.

    Drop your delusion of grandeur – if any at all, it makes you look even more stupid than you already are.”

    In fact Brillo this shows your lack of competence.

    What will big iron be handling. Huge data sets at times. You do not wish to transfer these back to the desktop just to generate reports so you generate mainframe side.

    Mainframes do a lot of batch processing mostly because it makes sense to. User interaction is highly lacking effectiveness.

    The reality here is neither of you have worked with Mainframes so you think the idea of a Office suite on a Mainframe is stupid. A graphical Office suite you are correct. A office suite that can be controlled for batch production of results so avoiding having to send the dataset out of the mainframe has many advantages.

    Of course if the documents you are produced on the mainframe cannot be opened by where they are being sent you have wasted time. This is why the means to have the same office suite on mainframe and desktop is so useful.

    Not every mainframe workload is going to use this. You have spent big money to have a mainframe you want it todo as much as possible.

    You need to produce documents people can open of results from processing on mainframes. Sending that data back to the client machines not a good option. Particularly when that data is quite a few G in size.

    ODF and MS formats do have an advantage over html. They are single files even when containing images.

    Office suite on mainframe that can batch process producing new documents and convert documents to multi format for sent out can be useful. Ie convert result to PDF and email auto to client send ODF source document internal to staff.

    The mainframe does not have to send data back to desktop to email, im or place on web results.

    Limiting office suite to desktop adds extra step in process.

    Brillo the common mistake is we can run a windows machine todo this. Big datasets equals large amounts of ram. So now you end up having to use a middle ground format. Every extra step is a extra risk something will screw up.

    Brillo and Clarence Moon you would have stayed well clear. Oldman knows this topic as well. He is not going to jump in here because he knows the reality. Since he does some of it. Reports have to be generated this is part of business. Don’t break the network moving around data to make reports.

  6. Clarence Moon says:

    it makes you look even more stupid than you already are.

    Mr. O doesn’t know the meaning of “stupid”. Try “bogan” instead. According to Google, that would be in his claimed native language.

  7. oldman says:

    ” Basically Libreoffice can be used the same way Oldman does with MS Office to auto-create operational reports.”

    Nope. I use COM object automation and Powershell/PowerCLI to drive excel to create personal ad-hoc reports out of vCenter.

    What The Hamster has described is a set of esoteric IMHO poorly documented command line switches that apparently allow libermanoffice to batch process files.

    There are plenty of vCenter administrators who use my technique.

    I’m willing to bet there are far fewer who leverage this geek crap.

  8. Brillo says:

    You can create complex documents from basically nothing as part of back-end.

    Still a batch process. Still a waste of a big iron. I am sorry but you just aren’t fit for the adjective “competent”.

    Drop your delusion of grandeur – if any at all, it makes you look even more stupid than you already are.

  9. oldman says:

    “I did not say bedrock runs Android yet. But it is treating other distributions the same kind of way. Run them contained. There will become a point when you will be able to run Android contained no problems. Each kernel.org release brings that closer.”

    There is ZERO guarantee that this particular but of alpha code will go anywhere. Assuming the project survives infant mortality(more debugging), it then has to be deemed useful enough to be picked and fully supported by one of the major distributions(mode debugging), THEN it has to make it into one for the commercial distributions(more debugging), AND THEN it has to be vetted by individual business. SO what we have here Mr. Hamster, is another of your flights of idle speculation expressed as if it were a certainty.

    Which it most certainly is not.

    “In fact you have failed todo your homework on what the server mode of Libreoffice allows.”

    It seems to me that there is not homework to do here Hamster. Once again you point to some bit of badly documented (it is referred to in one of the references as a “hidden feature”) geek esoterica. How many people use this feature sir? Few if any (beyond possibly yourself) I’ll bet!

    Regardless, the presence of so called batch processing functions does not even begin to make up for the missing standard function and feature in LiebermanOffice, functions that people are more likely to use than they are this.

  10. oiaohm says:

    Brillo
    “LOL. Batch PDF conversion on a mainframe? I did do my homework, in case you are wondering.”
    Incompetent at doing homework. In my prior comment I told you it does more than that. Apparently you cannot read.

    In fact using the UNO interface can do more than batch conversion. You can create complex documents from basically nothing as part of back-end.

    In fact you have failed todo your homework on what the server mode of Libreoffice allows. Batch conversion is only one part. Creating of excel word powerpoint straight from data sets. The list goes on. So all the charting of Libreoffice can be exploited by UNO interface in fact. Yes you can have it drop a chart as a image.

    Read what I said more carefully Brillo.
    “documentation conversion and production”

    Documentation conversion is batch conversion.

    Production is creating a document from nothing other than template, data, scripts. You do not need a GUI to create documents. Basically Libreoffice can be used the same way Oldman does with MS Office to auto-create operational reports.

    Having an office suite on the mainframe allows you it spit out conventional desktop formats. Even better have the same office suite on the desktop to read them.

  11. Brillo says:

    A little fact checking would not hurt you either StarOffice and it descendants have a server mode for documentation conversion and production without firing up the GUI.

    LOL. Batch PDF conversion on a mainframe? I did do my homework, in case you are wondering.

    Obviously you are still not back on earth yet.

  12. oiaohm says:

    Brillo
    “The Lotus collaboration suite, unlike StarOffice, has mainframe components with good reasons to be on a mainframe
    Again, a little fact-checking (as opposed to trusting Oiaohm) won’t hurt.”

    A little fact checking would not hurt you either StarOffice and it descendants have a server mode for documentation conversion and production without firing up the GUI.

    Those lotus mainframe components also installs OpenOffice core inside Lotus.

    So yes OpenOffice Libreoffice and StarOffice are server products just as much desktop applications. This is also why they are 1 application that pretends to be many. Ie Calc Writer…. of Staroffice based products are all soffice binary. The soffice binary is also how you start the server mode.

    Brillo that is the problem it is a server office suite just as much as it is desktop.

  13. oiaohm says:

    http://linuxonandroid.blogspot.com/
    “Linux on Android” is a name of a program. Yes some people naming there programs make life hard. GNU on android or Ubuntu on Android kind would not be confusing. That this program exists is the problem saying Android and desktop Linux are different markets. The integration between the two is not brilliant yet. Wayland will make the integration more transparent. Basically Linux distribution reduced to being a highly complex android application. With the means to install as many different Linux Distributions as you need. So getting on top of the age old Linux problem of that is not build for my Linux distribution. So in time Linux Distributions will be targeting android to run inside.

    I did not say bedrock runs Android yet. But it is treating other distributions the same kind of way. Run them contained. There will become a point when you will be able to run Android contained no problems. Each kernel.org release brings that closer.

    “2) Sun supported both Linux and Solaris on their hardware.”

    No my facts are correct. x86 and Linux. Both as a combined unit caused Sun problems. Lot of business did not pay extra to have sparc chip when a x86 chip would do it. Sun did try release a line of cheaper x86 based systems. Did not help the problem.

    In fact the x86 and Linux combination is still causing IBM and others trouble for there own CPU types. But IBM is managing to make enough income out of x86 stuff. Next level of trouble could be Arm based servers.

    Brillo
    –“Give up enough to outside developers”? Like there was anyone interested in developing OpenOffice aside those who were paid to do so? Are you on the moon or something?–

    Outside developers like in Sun case IBM developer working on Lotus that has a OpenOffice base under it. Reason why they could not give there alterations upstream is Sun wanted copyright assignment signed. Now think you are one of the IBM developer staff you take a copyright assignment to the IBM legal department for approval to give code for nothing to your competitor SUN to use how ever they see fit. Sun was a competitor to IBM. Of course legal departments next thing is sign that you fired. Now it changes to Oracle you walk up to the legal department and get the same no way in hell response.

    Brillo seriously outside developer to sun working for a company is there way that SUN copyright assignment could fly?? Its just was not workable.

    SUN has not giving up enough. Holding the control that you can release a closed source binary and alter the given source code without giving back causes a lot of full time paid developers working at other companies to be locked out of giving you code by their legal departments. This is the reality. Half open source does not work other than on a section by section base.

    A section must either be fully open source or fully closed. Trying to go in the middle like OpenOffice did will just cause your code base to be forked. gooo by Novel, lotus by ibm, broffice and the list of openoffice forks caused by that half way go on and on. Since the release of libreoffice lot of those forks have ceased to exist. The companies are still providing developers except now it goes into unified work. Apache OpenOffice vs LibreOffice will keep on going. Most of the others are gone. All because these two don’t require copyright assignment.

    OpenOffice slow progress directly links to this. Remember there are 200+ developers working on Libreoffice work were working on Office suite forks of OpenOffice who could not give a single line of code to SUN and Oracle Star/OpenOffice due to copyright assignment requirement.

    That is 10 times the amount of staff SUN had working on Star/OpenOffice at their peak.

    So sun being a step too far restrictive cost them. Long term its made no difference the project has end up licensed without copyright assignment even against the will of Oracle.

    Yes Oracle still provides developers to Apache OpenOffice and some of that code still ends up in Libreoffice. For the simple reason Oracle like everyone else needs a Office suite to move their server products.

    Brillo
    “Solaris does not have a Office suite of any form.
    And it didn’t need one. Period.”

    The sad part is you need one. If your servers are being document archives you need to tools to convert one document format to another. The best set of those tools for particular types of documents is inside Office suites. So you don’t have office suites you don’t have the software you need for storage mainframes

    When it comes to mainframes IBM ships with native Office suite include for AIX. HP-UX what is hp mainframe os has a copy of openoffice maintained for it by HP staff. Before openoffice HP-UX shipped with something really horrid siag.nu.

    So every other mainframe OS has an Official Office suite of some form. HP-UX one was the worst. Lotus on IBM’s was about the best.

    Yes I know Unix + Office suite don’t seam to match up. Its just the reality you need to conversion tools in a office suite. Heck even OpenVMS has a Office suite horrible but it has one.

    Brillo
    “Word processing software on a mainframe? ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME?”
    I said Office suite. Not Word Processing. You don’t understand everything a Office Suite does.

    I want a doc file as a pdf file or I want a cvs turned to a spreadsheet. You want this done well. Some third party conversion library normally will not cut it. Office suite contains a very key feature means to convert documents from one format to another that has been reasonably well tested.

    Yes if MS Office was release for Linux it could possibly sell like hot cakes and never see the desktop. Yes the reason why you want an Office suite on a Mainframe is different to that of what you want on the Desktop. The big thing is that the documents the Mainframe converts better display perfectly on the Desktop.

  14. Brillo says:

    IBM and Fujitsu have wealthy customers who do everything on mainframes including Lotus Suite.

    The Lotus collaboration suite, unlike StarOffice, has mainframe components with good reasons to be on a mainframe:

    http://dancingdinosaur.wordpress.com/tag/lotus/

    Again, a little fact-checking (as opposed to trusting Oiaohm) won’t hurt.

  15. Brillo, being so anxious to negate wrote a bunch of things like, “Word processing software on a mainframe? ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME?”

    IBM and Fujitsu have wealthy customers who do everything on mainframes including Lotus Suite.

  16. Brillo says:

    Go back and listen to the Sun speeches from the acquirements these were there last hopes to turn there business around.

    You mean like how Netscape hoped to turn their business around by release the source code for their browser. Underpants gnomes ahoy!

    x86 and Linux kicked Sun main profit department around badly.

    LOL.

    1) Their main profit was in selling hardware.
    2) Sun supported both Linux and Solaris on their hardware.

    Check your facts.

    Sun also did not have the cash to keep on developing StarOffice internally yet was not willing to give up enough to outside developers.

    “Give up enough to outside developers”? Like there was anyone interested in developing OpenOffice aside those who were paid to do so? Are you on the moon or something?

    Solaris does not have a Office suite of any form.

    And it didn’t need one. Period.

  17. Brillo says:

    Same is true for Android. Linux on Android allows android to run traditional Linux.

    Linux on Android… On Linux? I am confused. This stuff is even more interesting than Oiaohm riding on a space probe to the moon, I tell ya.

    Bedrock Linux supporting Android apps? Never heard of that. In your head, maybe, but certainly not IRL.

    This statement is completely Wrong. Solaris Suns mainframe OS having no Office Suite was harming their Mainframe OS

    LOL.

    1) “Solaris mainframe OS” is the most preposterous thing I have heard today. As a guest OS? Maybe, but I think that plan went stagnant when Sun got sold to Oracle.

    2) Word processing software on a mainframe? ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME?

    That the thing Sun really could not afford to buy MS Office when they acquired StarOffice.

    Like MS was interested in selling.

  18. Clarence wrote, “There were no other companies, Mr. O. Sun was the only big company ever to use Star Office and look what happened to them in the process! “

    See Microsoft Office still owns the desktop, future of StarOffice unclear (2009)

    Forrester mostly talked to big companies. 3% is not none.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “Sun was the only big company ever to use Star Office and look what happened to them in the process!”
    Clarence Moon there are still quite a few companies in the EU still using StarOffice descendents. Sun was not the only one. They were using StarOffice before Sun acquired it.

    Clarence Moon
    “Are they still using that ersatz office product? Then that is probably the reason.”

    List the office suites for Solaris you don’t have much in choice.

    Libreoffice does not do Solaris neither did any of the other historic OpenOffice forks since these forks are for Linux, OS X and Windows. Yes even forget BSD.

    If you want something other current version of Apache OpenOffice provided by some third party forget it. This makes selling Solaris harder. Linux is hard due to Lack of MS Office. Under Linux you do have some choice in Office suit. Quite a few closed source vendors for Linux. Solaris you are completely up the creek 1 choice and its not even officially supported by the main project it comes from.

    Clarence Moon Microsoft will not release on Solaris. Sun acquired StarOffice just after being told that by Microsoft.

    “Sun lost their direction and turned inward to cost cutting rather than revenue building and that was what did them in.”

    No vendor lockout did Sun in. Mysql aquire was when Oracle DB did not ship on Solaris quickly. Its very hard to build revenue when you are getting the cold shoulder.

    Clarence Moon yes Oracle pushed Sun under then acquired them. Sun was in a very desperate way. Every path sun had for making revenue came under attack.

    Sun staying MS Office would have seen them fail sooner. Staroffice slowed there decline did not stop it as Sun had hoped.

    Clarence Moon from an official product office suite. Solaris does not have a Office suite of any form. Solaris would not have a unofficial one without the past Sun acquirement StarOffice.

    People talk about Linux suxing but there is worse. Worse that you boss could have paid for.

  20. Clarence Moon says:

    The businesses that have stayed with StarOffice all the way threw are mostly still in business today as well

    There were no other companies, Mr. O. Sun was the only big company ever to use Star Office and look what happened to them in the process! Sun lost their direction and turned inward to cost cutting rather than revenue building and that was what did them in.

    Clarence Moon even today Oracle is having trouble making profit out the Sun hardware departments and Solaris.

    Are they still using that ersatz office product? Then that is probably the reason.

  21. oiaohm says:

    Chris Weig
    “Get it into your head that Android is not a replacement for a traditional (Linux) operating system. Therefore the comparison is entirely meaningless.”

    Get this in your head we don’t know where Android will end up. Its like saying Q-Dos was not a replacement for CP/M . Remember Q-Dos becomes PC-Dos and MS-Dos and basically takes out that market. Why because it could run some cp/m programs.

    Same is true for Android. Linux on Android allows android to run traditional Linux.

    http://opensource.osu.edu/~paradigm/bedrock/
    bedrock is one of the newer distributions its goal is to treat the other distributions like application stores.

    Clarence Moon
    “it was the move to Open Office that put Sun’s business on the skids, I think.”
    This statement is completely Wrong. Solaris Suns mainframe OS having no Office Suite was harming their Mainframe OS and the means to sell Sun Sparc chips. Without acquiring StarOffice Sun would have failed sooner.

    That the thing Sun really could not afford to buy MS Office when they acquired StarOffice. Then MS Office would not be on the OS they sold with there Sparc processor chips. The very chip Sun made to make profit. Sun also did not have the cash to keep on developing StarOffice internally yet was not willing to give up enough to outside developers.

    Clarence Moon the reality Sun was not in a good way when it acquired Mysql or StarOffice. x86 and Linux kicked Sun main profit department around badly. Go back and listen to the Sun speeches from the acquirements these were there last hopes to turn there business around. They are not speeches of a company in good place.

    “Most other companies that stayed with MS Office are still in business today.”
    The businesses that have stayed with StarOffice all the way threw are mostly still in business today as well. So that metric is worthless.

    Clarence Moon even today Oracle is having trouble making profit out the Sun hardware departments and Solaris.

    Clarence Moon extracting money by Patents still brings MS way less income than selling the OS. Motorola also wants to license android as a whole. Not a case of MS come and debate with this company that company….

  22. Clarence Moon says:

    It was less expensive to buy StarOffice than another upgrade of Wintel and M$’s office suite.

    I don’t know that was ever proven, Mr. Pogson, but regardless, it was the move to Open Office that put Sun’s business on the skids, I think. A few years after adopting FLOSS office automation, Sun was no longer an independent business and was gobbled up by Oracle from profits made from their proprietary database system. Most other companies that stayed with MS Office are still in business today.

  23. Mats Hagglund says:

    Sale figures of 2012:

    -smartphone 640 million (some 60% Android Linux)
    -tablets some 115 million (some 30-35% Android/Linux)
    -non mobile pc’s some 360 million (some 3-4% Linux)

    Surely more than 400 million new Linux devices this year but less than 350 million Windows devices. Windows will be near in future minority OS.

  24. Chris Weig says:

    he thing is */Linux is already the number one operating system on clients. Almost as many smart phones (237 million) than x86 PCs (360 million) shipped with Android/Linux in 2011.

    Get it into your head that Android is not a replacement for a traditional (Linux) operating system. Therefore the comparison is entirely meaningless.

  25. Clarence Moon wrote, “You might look to how and why that changed to see the folly in your claim. Some people were much better at writing programs than others and it became apparent that having your own staff to write programs was much like keeping a cow to provide your daily milk when milk was available on demand by the quart in affordable units.”

    You make some valid points but you ignore scale. With billions of people on Earth there are more than enough great programmers to compete with programmers working for the likes of M$, Adobe, etc. One example where we know the numbers, SUN buying StarOffice. It was less expensive to buy StarOffice than another upgrade of Wintel and M$’s office suite. That shows the scale of the problem of having M$ as the bottleneck of software development. For M$ to break even on software development probably takes a few million licences. The world does not need to pay many times over for what it can produce more cheaply. Your comments may have been valid in the early days of PCs but we know M$ produced crapware in those days so I doubt it was true then either.

    About 2000 I first used GNU/Linux clients and the software was definitely superior and cost less than that other OS. That cost/benefit analysis has not changed. That’s why M$ is stagnant and */Linux is growing rapidly. It’s just a better way to do IT.

  26. Clarence Moon says:

    The world can make its own software and does not need to rely on a monopoly.

    Easy to say, but the very clear history of software development has been to the contrary, Mr. Pogson. At the beginning of time, computer-wise, everyone did make their own software, toting around decks of punch cards of assembler or FORTRAN language program source interspersed with control cards to make it flow through the card reader and produce the desired print-outs.

    You might look to how and why that changed to see the folly in your claim. Some people were much better at writing programs than others and it became apparent that having your own staff to write programs was much like keeping a cow to provide your daily milk when milk was available on demand by the quart in affordable units. You could eliminate a lot of overhead that was not pertinent to your main line of business and simply license some software from others rather than roll your own.

    That didn’t sit well with some people who liked to program things and be paid for their services and didn’t want to be hired on by the software companies, but most companies were more interested in results than in swimming upstream. So the ISV business was created and accounts for the bulk of the money spent today.

    I would argue that you, yourself, Mr. Pogson, could not in a year of Sundays ever “make your own software”. Certainly you can use Linux effectively, but you, yourself, have never made a meaningful change to the source and used that change to your benefit. You rely on some nameless others to do that for you and you await the next release of Debian or Ubuntu or whatever just as most people await the next release of Windows.

    The Wintel monopoly will have to change or die.

    You apparently have not bothered to research product life cycle theories or product positioning grid information, Mr. Pogson. Else, you would not make such an unenlightened statement.

    If you look to the notion of “cash cows” in the literature, you would quickly see that Windows desktop OS is in that quadrant of the grid. Of course a simple view of MSFT financials would tell you the same story, but perhaps you need to understand the meaning of it all, not just the magnitude.

    Over its 20 year history, Windows has generated hundreds of billions of dollars in direct sales and is still contributing tens of billions per year. In anyone’s book that is a real achievement.

    It is possible and even likely that Microsoft has missed the boat on phones and tablets, although they are not totally dead and periodically they make some sort of splash that gets industry notice.

    Also, they are managing to tap the cash flow in these markets still and a recent announcement tells that Honeywell has agreed to license the Microsoft patents infringed by Android, making them the second-last holdout to Motorola among the principal manufacturers using Android. Motorola has offered a settlement far below the amount obtained from the others and is demanding some counter suit royalties for Xbox. Microsoft said “No dice!” to that, so there is still some uncertainty remaining.

    Given the extreme distortion of the profits in the cell phone market trending towards Apple, it is questionable as to whether or not Microsoft could make any more money actually selling an OS for a license fee than they get in royalties that come in the mail.

Leave a Reply