Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:14:42 -0800 From: "Rick Gresham" <rickgresham@qwest.net> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, <mindshare@netbsd.org> Subject: Open Source Questions Message-ID: <001d01c057ee$11890800$9757e1cf@qwest.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] I confess, I've always been a bit of a Windows bigot. For various reasons, I'm now trying to learn more about open source. I see three major "providers" in the open source movement: Linux, BSD and Apple, which incorporates a lot of Mach and BSD into their Darwin OS. There seems to be several sources for Linux, Red Hat being the leader by market share. BSD claims some technical advantages but Microsoft has long demonstrated technology loses to marketing. I understand and agree with the reasons that are spurring growth in the open source movement. My concern is along different lines than those I see discussed in the trade rags, however. Microsoft may (ok, does) engage in inappropriate behavior in the market place. But for all their improprieties, and without getting into debates about algorithms and mechanisms, they have built a comprehensive and consistent software architecture that extends from handhelds to clustered multi-processor behemoths. In addition, they pour more into R&D than the GDP of a lot of small countries. They have a vision, whether original or appropriated, of how the world should work and they are driving fanatically in that direction. Most of the rest of the industry, more or less reluctantly aids them or competes with them, spurring development. But what if? Supposing some marketing miracle were to occur and Microsoft had the economic slats kicked out from under them. Its easy to rally the troops against a common enemy. If Microsoft were to suddenly lose the impetus, would we continue to see the evolution in software architectures that we've seen the past twenty years? Microsoft made about $10B last year on applications, about $10B on OS products and a few billion on MSN and other stuff. What would likely be the impact of them making their OS products open source? How much would that cost them? Would they be able to sustain their momentum on non-OS products without the monopoly money they get from the OS stuff? Used to be, if IBM sneezed, the industry caught a cold. Suppose Microsoft came down with pneumonia? What would happen in the rest of the industry? Is NASDAQ going to lose another 30%? Suppose Microsoft were motivated to make a future version of Windows, Whistler for example, open source. What would happen? Would we see a normalization of the all the best features in Linux, BSD, Darwin and Whistler or would we see the open source community fracture along lines drawn between the Unix derivatives and the Windows camp? What about all the application folk, would they be forced to maintain two versions of their applications, one for Linux, one for Windows? Ninety percent or more of the world's microcomputers run Windows, but ninety percent or more of the world's inhabitants don't use a microcomputer. Suppose that were to change dramatically and rapidly. Is the open source community ready to accommodate that level of adoption? How long would it take for sufficient applications to appear to make Linux as functional and full featured, application wise, as Windows? I would appreciate any input you could offer along these lines. Pass this along to anyone else you think might have the time and inclination to respond. Point me to sources of information along these lines if you can. I'm less concerned with the technical merits of the two camps as I am with the industry's and the market's response to a sudden and dramatic change from Windows to Linux. [-- Attachment #2 --] <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I confess, I've always been a bit of a Windows bigot. For various reasons, I'm now trying to learn more about open source. I see three major "providers" in the open source movement: Linux, BSD and Apple, which incorporates a lot of Mach and BSD into their Darwin OS. There seems to be several sources for Linux, Red Hat being the leader by market share. BSD claims some technical advantages but Microsoft has long demonstrated technology loses to marketing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I understand and agree with the reasons that are spurring growth in the open source movement. My concern is along different lines than those I see discussed in the trade rags, however. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Microsoft may (ok, does) engage in inappropriate behavior in the market place. But for all their improprieties, and without getting into debates about algorithms and mechanisms, they have built a comprehensive and consistent software architecture that extends from handhelds to clustered multi-processor behemoths. In addition, they pour more into R&D than the GDP of a lot of small countries. They have a vision, whether original or appropriated, of how the world should work and they are driving fanatically in that direction. Most of the rest of the industry, more or less reluctantly aids them or competes with them, spurring development.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But what if? Supposing some marketing miracle were to occur and Microsoft had the economic slats kicked out from under them. Its easy to rally the troops against a common enemy. If Microsoft were to suddenly lose the impetus, would we continue to see the evolution in software architectures that we've seen the past twenty years? Microsoft made about $10B last year on applications, about $10B on OS products and a few billion on MSN and other stuff. What would likely be the impact of them making their OS products open source? How much would that cost them? Would they be able to sustain their momentum on non-OS products without the monopoly money they get from the OS stuff? Used to be, if IBM sneezed, the industry caught a cold. Suppose Microsoft came down with pneumonia? What would happen in the rest of the industry? Is NASDAQ going to lose another 30%?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Suppose Microsoft were motivated to make a future version of Windows, Whistler for example, open source. What would happen? Would we see a normalization of the all the best features in Linux, BSD, Darwin and Whistler or would we see the open source community fracture along lines drawn between the Unix derivatives and the Windows camp? What about all the application folk, would they be forced to maintain two versions of their applications, one for Linux, one for Windows? </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ninety percent or more of the world's microcomputers run Windows, but ninety percent or more of the world's inhabitants don't use a microcomputer. Suppose that were to change dramatically and rapidly. Is the open source community ready to accommodate that level of adoption? How long would it take for sufficient applications to appear to make Linux as functional and full featured, application wise, as Windows?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would appreciate any input you could offer along these lines. Pass this along to anyone else you think might have the time and inclination to respond. Point me to sources of information along these lines if you can. I'm less concerned with the technical merits of the two camps as I am with the industry's and the market's response to a sudden and dramatic change from Windows to Linux.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001d01c057ee$11890800$9757e1cf>