Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:54:28 -0500 From: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <d516fe142ff3451686112be68daadc27@chrononomicon.com> In-Reply-To: <1344929422.20050322102158@wanadoo.fr> References: <1457754528.20050321194129@wanadoo.fr> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEOBFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <1344929422.20050322102158@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 22, 2005, at 4:21 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > >> There is a third option. Microsoft can simply quite releasing new >> versions of it's established products and go to work creating new >> products that people would want to buy. > > That business model doesn't work, which is why no PC software company > is > using it. Isn't it contradictory to say that there's no reason to release new versions or change what's working then turn around to say that a company can't just not release "updated" versions of their software? > It costs a great deal of money to build completely new products, and > it can take a decade to recover the investment in development, even if > the product does well. Additionally, there is a huge risk of it _not_ > doing well, in which case the losses may be great enough to sink a > company. Overall, it's not nearly as safe or profitable as adding new > bells and whistles to existing products and releasing "upgrades." > Therefore all PC software companies emphasize upgrades, not new > products. So I guess you answered your own question of why new version supplant versions that are "already working just fine". Users like bells, whistles, and eye candy. >> Think of it. Instead of every 2 years yet another tired old bloated >> overengineered version of Windows, they could come out with a brand >> new operating system named something completely different. For >> example, 'doors' > > Even Microsoft can't afford to do that. They were already taking major > risks with Windows NT, but fortunately it worked out. Apple seemed to be able to do it. Twice. With a smaller market, it makes it an even bigger risk for them to alienate their userbase. > Nobody is going to rewrite 250,000 applications for a new operating > system today. Which is a wonderful reason given as to why NT has some braindead things done to it. Legacy support. > That's why practically no one writes new operating > systems. Um...actually, there are several kernels and OS's in use out there. Just because they're not popular for your desktop system doesn't mean they're irrelevant. > That's why Apple couldn't afford to develop a new OS. No, they based much of it on FreeBSD and Mach. But as far as their OS user base was concerned, it wasn't MacOS. It was a completely new OS for the Mac. >> Doors would be a completely 64 bit OS, would NOT run Windows binaries >> and not be backwards compatible at all. It would be written to be >> lickety-split fast. It would be voice-activated, no mouse. >> Applications would have to be recompiled for it. > > That's not going to happen. But if you think it's a good idea, nothing > prevents you from writing such an OS yourself. After all, Linus wrote > his own home-baked kernel. didn't you earlier ask what advantage there is to open source, and say that there isn't much going on with OS's out there in terms of new ones being developed, and now you're telling someone to just go out and write one themselves? >> Because of the lack of all the Windows baggage, Microsoft could use >> all of the good things they have learned writing Windows, to create >> their new OS "Doors" and not have to inherit any of the bad things and >> mistakes of Windows. > > Except that nobody would buy Doors, because everyone wants to use > applications that run only on Windows. I don't know...if you have a spare machine, or a specialized use for it...why else do people jump platforms? >> But of course, you won't ever see this kind of visionary product from >> Microsoft, because they are a company of mediocre programmers. > > No, you aren't likely to see this from Microsoft (or anyone else) > because the company doesn't want to dig its own grave. I think MS could afford a stumble or three (MS Bob, anyone?) Look up "Why I Hate Microsoft". Good read. Google for it. > They've done it in the past: Windows NT being the classic example. NT was a good foundation that was wrapped with compatibility layers to cripple it. >> That is why 50 years from now we will still be running Windows, and >> computers will not look anything whatsover like they do in Star Trek. > > FreeBSD is an implementation of an OS that existed nearly twenty years > before Windows. So, when you will start writing your replacement for > UNIX? If you want one-better UNIX, why not look into implementing Plan 9? EROS was also kind of interesting in theory. My guess would be he isn't writing his own OS because his itch is scratched with FreeBSD already. You're the one still looking for calamine lotion.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d516fe142ff3451686112be68daadc27>