It’s hard to predict the future because we humans prefer to think in terms of familiar paradigms. Even the most brilliant of our species are subject to this flaw. Now, Microsoft faces its turn. The owner of the operating system that likely runs your personal computer, the company that achieved monopoly with Windows and ducked the Department of Justice’s scythe to keep it, faces a midlife crisis as the world goes gaga over portable consumer devices. This is the story of what’s happening to Microsoft in the handheld operating system markets — and how it parallels the earlier, similar journeys of IBM Corporation and Digital Equipment Corporation. Can Microsoft achieve dominance on mobile devices?
Small Devices Grab “The Buzz”
Handheld consumer computer devices are the computing story of the
decade. They are wildly popular.
For example, Gartner Group pegs last year’s smartphone
market growth
at 24% (1).
Netbooks only became
classified as such in 2007 and yet they already
account for perhaps 20% of the laptop market (2).
Apple Inc.’s tablet PC,
the
iPad,
sold
a
million
units
per
month
following
its
introduction
in April 2010 and is projected to sell 20
million
units in 2011 (3).
What trends are hidden inside this crazy pell-mell growth?
Here’s one. For the past two years, mobile PC sales have increased
greatly, while
desktop PC sales have gently declined. By “mobile PCs” we mean laptop,
notebook, netbook, and tablet PC’s.
Portable devices are gaining sales at the expense of stationary ones (4).
Here’s more. Smartphones are cannibalizing the mobile phone
market
to
the
extent
that
many
experts predict that they will
eventually replace today’s more common, but less capable, feature phones (5,
6).
In
2010,
over
45.5
million
people
in
the
United
States
owned
smartphones. They continue to be the fastest growing segment of the
mobile phone market (7).
Smartphones
have
already
all
but
killed
off
Personal
Digital
Assistants
and
other devices of their size that lack telephone functionality (8).
All this has led to speculation that smartphones may displace laptop
computers to some degree or another (9,
10).
A
Lifehacker
poll
found
that
roughly
19%
of
its
3,000
respondents
say smartphones have already replaced their laptop:
Here’s the history on how smartphones
are out-growing
laptops and taking over the mobile phone market:
(12)
While smartphones thrive, the technology phenomenon of the year is the
iPad. Within four
months of its introduction in April,
Apple sold over 3
million of the devices (13).
Tablet
PC’s
have
been
around
for
years.
Yet
the
iPad’s unprecedented
popularity has made it, overnight, into the public’s very definition of
the tablet.
This leads many analysts to state that
tablets have finally — after two decades — become a large,
identifiable, stable
market segment. Analysts believe tablets are undercuting the
market for personal
computers (14).
A CNet survey found that 32% of consumers say they no longer need
laptops and netbooks due to their iPads (15).
Here is Forrester Research’s take on this trend. They see shrinking
market share for desktops and laptops, a stable share for netbooks, and
growing a share for tablets:
(16)
What Does It All Mean?
We’re witnessing an historic shift in
computing.
The buzz of excitement, money
and innovation is focusing on a two new markets, that at long last are
becoming better defined after decades of trial and
niche sales and gestation. One market is the smartphone. It’s
the telephone
that’s also a computer. And a camera, browser, email
client, texter, tweeter, geolocator, and … whatever else fits in a
handset.
The other new market is the tablet. It’s bigger than a smartphone but
smaller than
a netbook. The key differentiator is
its interface. The iPad has no
stylus or keys or mouse. It’s a multi-touch touch screen, with
proximity and ambient light sensors, 3-axis accelerometer,
magnetometer, and headset controls.
By this measure, netbooks are nothing new. They are just small laptops.
Netbooks are traditional personal
computer technology with the
traditional PC
interface. The tablet is a radically different approach to
understanding how people use and interact with computers.
For years a small but vocal group has bemoaned the lack of innovation
in the PC interface. Well, now they have it. But it’s not in their
laptop or PC.
It’s the tablet.
Microsoft Missed the Boat
What’s interesting about handhelds from the operating system
perspective is that
the dominant personal computer OS supplier is a minor player. Microsoft
missed the boat.
Take smartphones, for example. Here is Gartner’s 2nd quarter 2010
estimate of world-wide OS market share (17, 18):
Windows is at 5%.
How about U.S. numbers? Here are the American market share
leaders, as of July 2010:
(19).
Source: comScore
Microsoft is in fourth place (20,
21).
In tablets, the story is the same. While the term “tablet PC” has
been around for years, it was, ironically, a Microsoft product
announcement in 2001 that first made the term popular (22). While
there are many opinions as to why Microsoft’s Tablet PC flopped in
2002, most agree the company’s
desire to impose Windows on it was key (23).
In contrast, Apple introduced its iPad tablet this April, with
explosive sales of millions of units in the months since. Apple and its
iOS clearly
define what the tablet has come to mean. Apple will sell 10 million
iPads this year and an estimated 20 million in 2011 (24).
Competitors are scrambling to catch up to this newly accepted
definition of what the public now considers to be a tablet. The first
group of iPad competitors are Android based systems, with Windows
following behind (25,
26).
So there it is. The company that monopolizes the operating system for
personal computers has lost that dominance when it
comes to
the smaller consumer devices that represent the future
of computing. Microsoft will be a part of the story to be sure, and a
tough competitor, but it’s already lost the chance to extend its OS
monopoly downwards, into the newest devices creating all the industry
buzz.
More on this, and possible outcomes, later. First, some useful
history.
We’ve Been Here Before
History? One normally does not look to history to predict computing
trends. Nevertheless, knowing history sometimes works wonders for
understanding the present. Several industry leaders once
faced the exact same dilemma Microsoft faces today. Their stories are
instructional.
First up: IBM. Back when
dinosaurs ruled the earth, the IBM Corporation gained a monopoly over
the sole segment of business computing in its heyday, mainframe
computers. In fact, IBM was so dominant that analysts
referred to the market place as “IBM and the seven dwarfs.” But the
dwarfs couldn’t stand up to IBM’s dominance for long. By the 1970’s
the dwarfs were dead and IBM’s
only competitors were the “plug compatible manufacturers” — companies
that made IBM mainframe clones. Alternative architectures had all but
disappeared.
IBM monopolized both mainframe hardware and the operating systems it
ran. As
a result, the United States Department of
Justice pursued IBM for monopoly violations in a famous case that
spanned the terms of four U.S. presidents — from 1969 to 1982. DOJ never
succeeded in even slowing IBM down (27).
(Believe
it
or
not,
DOJ
again
took
up
the
cudgel
against IBM over
mainframes last year, a full 27 years later! (28)).
The mainframe market was huge and all-important in its day. Then
technology
shifted. Minicomputers
arose. IBM failed to appreciate the new technology or see the
competitive threat, and as excitement shifted to this new market
segment, new leaders came to the fore. Digital Equipment Corporation
(DEC) led this booming new technology, trailed by its own collection of
minicomputer dwarfs (the “mini dwarfs” ?).
And IBM? It eventually entered the minicomputer fray, with the
System/7 in 1971 and the Series 1 in 1976. But it had forever
lost its chance to extend its mainframe monopoly down into the new
market segment.
Not until the early 1990’s did IBM
gain major market share in what was by then called the “midrange
market,” with its AS/400 and RS/6000 lines. By the 90’s IBM had fought
long
and hard enough
to earn its way into a three-way market share tie with Sun
Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard for Unix servers. But it never
extended its mainframe
monopoly down to the mid-range market.
Next up: DEC. The same
company that stung the mainframe giant during the rise of minicomputers
entirely missed the boat when it came to facing its own technology
shift. They were called “microcomputers” at first, though
today
everyone knows them as personal computers. Ken Olsen, DEC’s founder and
long-time CEO,
famously dissed PC’s in 1977 (29).
DEC’s eventual, belated
forrays into the PC arena were disastrous. (Remember the Rainbow?) The
company
gave up altogether on
the PC market by 1986 (30).
DEC’s minicomputer business was ultimately cannibalized by the personal
computer technology it disdained. Ken Olsen was ousted in 1992 and the
company was
defunct by 1998 (31).
And now: Microsoft. Who
benefited from DEC’s inability to adjust to the personal computer?
Initially there was a three-way alliance:
Microsoft eventually broke from the alliance with IBM, and emerged as
the clear winner in
the area of operating systems. The company attained the holy grail of
monopoly with its Windows OS
family. Microsoft also obtained monopoly status for its Microsoft
Office suite.
As it did IBM during the mainframe era, the U.S. Department of Justice
confronted Microsoft with charges of monopolistic behavior. First,
Microsoft signed a consent degree in 1994 (32). DOJ
did not believe that Microsoft held to that agreement.
Therefore, it sued in 1998 for anti-trust violations.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson rendered a two-part verdict in 1999 (33).
His
Findings of Fact were that
Microsoft had committed illegal
monopolistic activity. His Remedy
was that the company should be
broken apart.
Microsoft would be dissected just like the U.S. Supreme
Court dismantled Standard Oil in 1911.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Jackson’s
Findings of Fact but over-turned his Remedy. The court turned the
case over to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for a new Remedy. On
September 6,
2001, the Department of
Justice stated it was no longer seeking the breakup of Microsoft and
would accept a lesser antitrust penalty (34).
At this point, the terrorist attack of 9/11 occurred. From her comments
at the time, it seems clear that this
event greatly influenced Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s view of this court
case. Within
weeks she ruled that the two parties must now settle,
saying ‘‘The court cannot emphasize
too strongly the importance of making
these efforts to settle the case and resolve the parties’ differences
in this time of rapid national change.”
(35)
(Boldface
added
by
author).
Judge Kollar-Kotelly stampeded into a Remedy based on her reaction to
the events of 9/11. The Remedy
completely failed to address the reasons Microsoft obtained monopoly
and the
methods it employed to keep it.
Nine states’ Attorney
Generals refused to sign on
to the resulting agreement
between the
federal government and Microsoft. They believed that it was
insufficient to create competition in PC software
markets. They were correct. The inappropriate remedies failed in the slightest
to
affect
Microsoft’s monopoly position with Windows and Microsoft Office.
More importantly, Microsoft has not changed it business practices away
from monopolistic behavior. Its continuing losses in overseas
litigation since 2000 over its business practices — ranging from the
E.U. (twice) to Russia to South Korea to India — substantiate this
view (36,
37,
38,
39,
40).
If
you’re
interested
in the details of Microsoft’s anti-competitive actions, Dr.
Roy Schestowitz’s TechRights
web site chronicles many of them.
Today,
Microsoft still holds its personal computer OS monopoly, just as IBM
still holds its mainframe OS monopoly. But like IBM in the 1970’s and
DEC in the 1980’s, Microsoft now faces a threatening platform shift.
Will it meet the challenge?
Possible Outcomes
Thus far, this article has been factual with substantiating
references.
But in predicting the future we’re drifting into
the realms of opinion and informed speculation. Here
are some possible future scenarios:
Best Case for Microsoft: Dominance in
Handhelds — The argument for this scenario is that the very
definitions of these relatively new markets are
unstable. Microsoft (or any other big player) could potentially disrupt
and change the landscape very quickly. As proof of this — Apple just
did it in 2010, with its introduction of the iPad. Who’s to say
Microsoft won’t do the same?
Microsoft has earned experience in these market sectors going back a
decade.
And it has competitive product in the brand-new Windows Phone 7.
But
competition
on
a
level
playing
field
may
not
be
the point. If
Microsoft can leverage its huge
installed
base of personal computer software to mobile devices by glueing them
inseparably together, it can extend its OS dominance to the newer
platforms.
The goal for Microsoft is to exert its monopoly market force, as it
does on personal computers, and to negate or void consumer choice.
Another point in its favor: Microsoft has proved it can react very
quickly to a perceived threat.
When netbooks came out in 2007,early reports claimed top market
share for Linux. Microsoft
swiftly overturned this situation. It kept Windows XP in sales and
support longer than initially planned, and released its new Windows 7
operating system with a limited-resource Starter Edition (41).
Today Microsoft leads share in netbook operating systems (42,
43).
Arguing against the scenario of Microsoft dominance are several key
facts. First, let’s talk
about netbooks. Netbooks are nothing but smaller footprint laptops.
They
are
personal computers in their interface and design — not something
radically different, likeiPad tablets or smartphones.
Microsoft was able
to
extend its monopoly to netbooks because the same manufacturers and OEM
relationships are involved with netbooks as with laptops. These
unequal relationships with OEM’s are the basis for Microsoft’s personal
computer
OS
monopoly (44,
45,
46,
47, 48). Microsoft also works a win-win
with these partners
through its strategy of planned obsolescence (49).
Thus
Microsoft
easily
extended
its
OS
monopoly to netbooks.
If Microsoft could
have used monopoly power to extend its OS dominance into smaller
devices it would certainly have done so already. The companies you need to have
relationships with and cut deals with are completely
different in the smartphone space. Thus far, this applies
to the tablet space, too.
The competitors Microsoft
faces in these new markets are big enough to hold their own.
This is not a case of small
innovators beach-heading a new market now ripe for takeover by major
players. The major players are already in town… and beating Microsoft.
Apple is wildly innovative and deeply groks consumer cool. With the
iPod, the
iPhone, and the now the iPad, Apple jujitsus Microsoft by introducing
new concepts and pioneering entirely new markets.
Google is
new to the small-device game but showing great product with Android
and Chrome OS.
Google supports their OS’s with Google Apps and a huge stable of
mobile apps, disrupting possible ties to
Microsoft Office and the personal computer software sector Microsoft
dominates.Google’s efforts will likely thwart Microsoft’s desire
to super-glue its personal computer software
to the new smaller device markets.
In the smartphone space, competitors like BlackBerry
OS and Symbian
live there.
It’s what they were designed for. And RIM has just come out with
its own tablet, the PlayBook,
running BlackBerry Tablet OS (based on QNX).
With
this kind of varied, muscular opposition in a relatively established
marketplace, it appears very unlikely that Microsoft could achieve
monopoly in handheld OS’s as they
did for personal computers.
Probability for this outcome: Low.
Worst Case for Microsoft:
Failure in Handhelds — In this scenario, Microsoft drops from
contention as a major player in the evolving world of small
consumer handhelds.
The argument here is that the Windows family of operating systems has
little organic applicability to handhelds. PC’s are
fundamentally different from consumer handheldsand
Microsoft doesn’t understand their differences. Microsoft shows its
lack of understanding by promoting its offering as “Windows,” a label
fatally
associated with the prior technology wave, personal computers. The
Windows brand is a negative, not a positive.
Those arguing this view cite the declining market share for Windows Mobile
and extrapolite this decline into an irreversible trend (50, 51).
For
the
last
year
various
analysts
in
the
computer industry trade press
and the popular press have voiced sentiments such as these (52)
—
- “For all practical purposes,
Windows Mobile is a dead platform” — ZDnet (53)
- “Windows Mobile has now been
relegated resolutely to has-been status” — CNet (54)
- “[Windows Mobile] is bleeding
market share in the space, and its future looks grim” — Washington Post (55)
Several facts argue against the worst-case failure scenario for
Microsoft.
Without getting into an evaluation of Windows Phone 7, the important
fact is
that this is a brand new offering, unrelated to Windows Mobile.
The comments above are history. They are not about Windows Phone 7 and
the future.
Microsoft is not retrenching or retreating from the smartphone market.
It’s
trying harder. It’s re-entering with new, completely re-engineered
product. This is a company that wants market and is fighting for it.
Small devices are still an evolving amorphous
category, with plenty of niche specialities and segmentation yet to be
finalized. It seems very unlikely that a company with Microsoft’s deep
pockets and highly skilled technologists can’t grab good chunks of
market when it
invests and fights
for it.
Lastly, Microsoft has shown
it can enter a market late, after years of flirtation and research,
then step in and do well. Witness Microsoft’ssuccess in the
gaming
market with the Xbox /
Xbox 360 line.
It seems very unlikely Microsoft would fail badly in handhelds unless
it backs away from these markets voluntarily — which Windows Phone 7
proves it has no intention of doing.
Probability for this outcome:
Low.
Most Likely Case for Microsoft: One of Several Giants Duking It Out
— The
most likely future scenario for Microsoft in the still-maturing world
of small devices is also the optimal case for consumers. This is the
scenario where
Microsoft is one of several large, well-financed and highly capable
companies slugging it out in a truly competitive marketplace.
In personal computers, Microsoft easily holds its monopoly in the face
of aggressive challenges from Apple and Linux. This is because
competitors can not
break a monopoly — even in the extreme case when they offer
free
product (witness Linux and its 10,000 applications). A monopolistic
market lacks competition.
Microsoft exercises its monopoly power through unequal relationships
with manufacturers and OEMs. Microsoft also works a win-win with these
partners
through its strategy of planned obsolescence (56).
These
positive
and
negative
inducements
explain
how
the
company so quickly overturned Linux’s early lead in netbook
share.
Substantiating this view is
Microsoft’s higher market share
in
the United States — where it has essentially achieved status as a
legally-accepted
monopoly —
versus overseas markets, where it is still regularly litigated and
constrained by
foreign governments.
The situation is completely different in the arena of small consumer
devices. Microsoft has been unable to
extend its monopoly power to devices
smaller than netbooks, as market share statistics prove.
Its OEM and manufacturer
relationships don’t apply to these
markets. Instead, the company must build new alliances,
distribution channels, and marketing strategies, competing
head-to-head with companies of its own throw-weight, like Google and
Apple.
During its American anti-trust trial, Microsoft executives repeatedly
stressed that all they wanted was fair competition. In these new
markets, they face
it.
Some predict Microsoft’s future in these markets based solely on their
personal evaluations of
Windows Phone 7. But to judge Windows Phone 7, one must wait
for the introductory hype to die down, and for real sales numbers to
emerge. Give
it six
to twelve months before pronouncing the product’s impact.
More importantly, Windows Phone 7
alone no more dictates Microsoft’s future
in small device OS’s than did Windows Mobile. By replacing
Windows
Mobile with Windows Phone 7 Microsoft signalled they are willing to
explore new directions and introduce new product to compete. The
company intends to tie its future to success — not
any one product.
In the big picture, the most likely outcome in the OS competition for
small devices is that Microsoft won’t
achieve monopoly or
market dominance in these new markets, but it will
always
be a major player.
I believe Microsoft will fight its way back
to be one of a small group of key players. The best historical analogy
is how IBM achieved
success in the
mid-range Unix server market by the 1990s. Very late to the game, they
fought back to a three-way tie with Sun and HP in the Unix server
market they initially undervalued.
This scenario
is a best-case outcome for consumers. They will enjoy the benefits of
fair and full competition that are still largely lacking in the OS
personal computer market.
Probability for this outcome: High.
Why This Matters
Why does all this matter? Competition benefits consumers.
If you’re a potential purchaser of
smartphones or tablets, the more you know about these markets before
you buy, the better decision you can make. You don’t want to bet
your dollars on a product that may be orphaned or a company that loses
out in the
market place. You want a product with the critical mass to attract tons
of apps.
If you’re employed in the fast-moving computer
professions, where the required skills rise and vanish many times over
the
course
of an individual’s career,
predicting how markets evolve is critical to your career health. Those who make poor judgements risk the
loss
of their livelihood.
In my career I’ve seen several major technologies rise to prominence
only to disappear some years later. Careers perished with them. The
first step in
keeping your career on track is to accurately identify market trends.
Whether you feel this article is insightful or off target, it has done
its
job if it
prompts
you to consider this subject and come up with your own analysis.
Please contribute by attaching a comment with your views. Thank you.
Next Month
As some readers know, I’ve been writing a monthly series of OS News
articles on how to keep mature computers useful and in service (listed
below). Next
month’s
article gets us back on track in the series. It addresses a valuable
technique for making older computers useful again — running multiple
operating systems. This couples all
the advantages of the existing Windows install with the
benefits of free and open source software. The article will describe
and compare different techniques for running multiple operating systems
on a single
computer.
<
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Howard Fosdick (President, FCI) is an independent consultant who
supports
databases and operating systems.He has occasionally consulted for
software vendors as an industry analyst (although never about
small devices!) You can
reach him
at contactfci at the domain
name of sbcglobal and the
domain extension of net.
Previous Articles on
Revitalizing Computers
| 1. | Smart Reuse with Open Source |
How refurbishing defeats planned obsolescence |
| 2. | Scandal: Most “Recycled” Computers Are Not Recycled |
What really happens to many “recycled” computers? |
| 3. | How to Revitalize Mature Computers |
Overview of how to refurbish mature computers |
| 4. | How to Secure Windows |
A step-by-step procedure to secureWindows |
| 5. | How to Tune Up Windows |
How to tune Windows (any version) |
| 6. | How to Run Multiple Operating Systems |
(upcoming) |
Biggest problem Linux has had is lack of strong foothold in the market end users have seen.
The current move on mobile started with Linux shock progress on netbooks. MS was able to slow this down by basically giving XP away for nothing. But it was already too late.
A few will say Linux Desktop is not ready that is why. True it still as not as ready as it should be. It takes time and resources tool up for particular market segments. That Linux had not been spending.
Current day Linux work is way more focused on the times to make a desktop work. Mostly in the process of being ready for mobile phones.
Basically Linux is appearing that it will get a strong foothold in mobile devices equal or stronger than MS foothold in desktop. A foothold it can use to slowly chip away at the desktop.
This kind-of assumes that the whole objective of every player should be to dominate the desktop.
Look at it perhaps another way:
Linux dominates in embedded devices, internet infrastructure and supercomputers, it has a significant slice (maybe even the main player) in servers, and it has a decent share in mobiles, handhelds and netbooks.
OSX has a modest share in desktops, no presence to speak of in servers, embedded devices or supercomputers, and the lions share in mobiles, handhelds and tablets.
Windows dominates the desktop, has a decent share of servers (maybe even the main player), and is not significant anywhere else.
Edited 2010-12-14 01:45 UTC
I agreed with most of what you said but to say that Microsift/Windows is the main player in the server market is just plain silly.
Edited 2010-12-14 08:06 UTC
I think i would have to agree with the sentiment of Microsoft being the main player in the Server market, i think the number of organisations without a windows server in their organisation somewhere is pretty slim. With many org’s using Windows Server as their primary server OS.
At one point there were a lot of “dormant domains” that Microsoft negotiated as being counted in statistics as served by Windows servers on the Internet. Suddenly Windows statistics approached those of Apache … but it was all really smoke and mirrors.
As for actual local LAN servers, there are a lot of “Windows shops” who are sold on running Windows exclusively, even though it means having to pay rent (via CALs). Incredible, but true.
The exact share of Windows servers is debatable, but even if there are really slightly more Linux servers one cannot lightly dismiss the numbers of Windows servers.
In Portugal is quite common that many small business run entirely with Microsoft software.
Actually for many development shops the annual licenses for MSDN are not that much expensive and you get full access to the complete Microsoft software, hence many small shops go 100% Microsoft.
I thought the MSDN bundled licenses where intended for lab or otherwise 10 or less installs. I’m not sure that I’d want an auditor knocking on my door before verifying if my use of MSDN for production systems was within the license.
That’s MSDN. If you’re a Microsoft Registered Partner, you can purchase the Microsoft Action Pack and get internal use licenses for a lot of their software (including 10 or so Windows 7 licenses, SBS, Office, and other stuff you might typically need to run a small business). They’ve actually now broken the product into two different MAPS packages: one for IT shops, and one for developers (that pack includes licenses for some of their development tools). It’s a decent deal for a small IT services company to set up and run on.
Yea,
I have been able to convince people at my company to supplement windows workstations with linux, but for infrastructure things (not just linux any OSS software) I cannot get anyone to budge (even if I did all the work and the total cost would be reduced). They would rather spend money than spend time even factoring the monetary worth of that time.
Edited 2010-12-14 15:13 UTC
This is not happening only in Portugal. Other countries have the same “effect”.
This is not true. You don’t get access to the COMPLETE Microsoft software (do you get games with the MSDN?).
Might I ask you what you mean with “…hence many small shops go 100% Microsoft”? Are you writing about development shops (companies producing software that is targeting Microsoft OS)? Or are you writing about SME?
Software development shops.
Okay. Not that I want to argue about your response but those software developer shops are not the ones that change the landscape regarding penetration of Linux vs Windows. It’s the business and the private sector that is doing that. Software development shops usually don’t set the trend. It’s their customers. So if whole business sector or a specialized market segment goes from Windows to Linux then the software development shops follow. And since most desktops out there in the wild are Windows desktops it is an absolute logical result that most software development shops go with the flow and use Windows. This is normal and logical.
With the Microsoft Action pack, you can run a small business on Microsoft products for less than $300 a year.
There’s nothing wrong with that.
You don’t know the server market. Your information is false. Microsoft is the dominate Server operating system. Linux dominates web services and that is even being threaten by MS.
Apple does have a server presence; though its niche. Walk into any media production datacenter and you will find a good portion of Mac OSX servers. To be fair you will find a good portion of Linux used for Rendering farms.
I agree that Linux strengths is the micro OS market; PLC controllers, setup, and any ROM based computer. Believe it or not WinCE also has a good strength in this market as well.
Regarding the stats Android is “linux”, so this should be mention when doing a honest statistic. Linux is becoming the dominate mobile platform for smart phones.
Did the Linux kernel developers allow Google’s customizations into the kernel tree again? Last I heard they’d rejected Google’s changes resulting in Google maintaining it’s own fork of Linux (the kernel) though they do use much of the GNU userland wrapped around it.
This has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing. If Google follows the style, quality, etc that is imposed by the Linux kernel developers then their code will get into the kernel (if it is useful for others).
You mix two things. GNU userland != kernel
Anyway… Google is trying to get their code into the Linux kernel ( http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/dibona-google-will-hire-two-a… ).
I mentioned Linux and userland separately as I’d read the first comment to suggest that “Android” was Linux in the general sense not Android = Linux the kernel.
Basically; though Linux based distributions and Android use some common userland components, the differences in kernel and project management call it’s classification as a Linux based distro into question.
This is what causes me questions though:
Android is licensed under MIT (or BSD) which does not include the “pass it forward” requirement of GPL and Linux licensed with it.
It is developed behind closed doors with source only becoming available after each major version release; not collaboratively developed in the open.
It is corrupted and locked down by hardware vendors in product development in most cases. Gaining root access is a circus act of hoops depending on the vendor/hardware/obsversion not simply, say.. logging in as Root or, as Maemo does, providing a single “opt-in” package that enables root on any Maemo/hardware combination.
Lesser related to the OS itself but still related to hardware manufacturers and Google’s management of the OS distribution; why can’t I simply take Google’s core distribution and drop it on any “Android” branded hardware? Give me a mini-bundle of device drivers from the vendor and let me flash both firmware images to the device.
Don’t get me wrong here. My grief is over what Android promised to be and still has the potential to become. it’ll probably be the first OS added to my N900 for dualboot (3rd being Meego for a look). Based on it’s one-off fork of the Linux source and Google’s management of it and hardware vendor’s outright user hostile delivery of it.. I don’t think it holds up in spirit if not also failing technical definitions.
Edited 2010-12-14 18:32 UTC
I actually follow these discussions, Google in the past made a fork of Linux and didn’t do anything with Linus’ tree for a long time, other then porting this back to their own tree. They would do an upgrade every a year or so. I think it was even more, but it was to much work to maintain a seperate fork.
The difference between the version Google makes for their own use and Linus’ version is getting smaller and smaller. They have a plan to setup some test servers at Google to follow mainline and do automated regression testing for Google’s own workloads.
Microsoft is loosing market share in the webserver business:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/
They tricked a few parked-domain sites to switch in the past (with a financial incentive) but they are loosing share.
Windows is far behind from being a main player in servers. I doubt it it would ever catch up on Unix/Linux in this regard.
What do you think mobiles, handhelds and tablets are? Embedded devices.
What I meant to indicate when I said “embedded devices” is products like digital TVs, PVRs, GPS devices and things like digital photo frames. Typically, anything with a screen and a menu that is not a computer.
Meego in particular is targetted at this type of product:
http://meego.com/devices
Mobile devises are a very large and very diverse market. No one player will be able to dominate in the same way that Windows dominated the Desktop world.
I greatly appreciate the level of detail and number of sources that you provided in the article. Its a welcome change of the usual procedure. However, some stats are better than others. I largely agree with the conclusions, but some of the arguments leading up to them are a bit off.
One example: Citing the many predictions that feature phones will be killed off as a possible sign that smart phones will also affect laptop sales. If you give a feature phone and a smart phone to an average joe,and ask them which is which, You might only get the right answer 60% of the time. Try that with laptop and a smart phone and I bet that figure would clime to close to 90%. There is a real, obvious difference between them that points towards a difference in use cases.
But if you were to survey actual users to determine their computing use cases, you might learn that the majority of users who’s use cases were being met with a laptop could be better met with a smart phone. I said might, because I haven’t done the research and don’t know of any reliable source that has. But, that would build a more convincing argument for the conclusion. As it is, I even find it a better argument than the very substantial and reputable statistic of feature phone replacement.
There are a bunch of similar spots of logic in there, don’t have time to list em all. But good job none the less, you’ve obviously put some serious thought and research into this and I think the conclusions are very valid: Microsoft missed the mobile boat.
You know the saying, “There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
While I mostly agree with the article, I was missing just one important graph:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-quarterly-200904-20…
Is that people overall don’t have much of an appreciation for it as a brand. Google and Apple are both loved by many many followers and have earned the respect of the public by creating excellent products.
Microsoft managed, with a lot of effort, to produce Windows 7, which isn’t really “loved” but mainly seen in a positive light after compared to Vista.
I mean, people does not use Windows / Office because they love them, but because it’s compatible with what everyone else uses, so it’s not a surprise if other Microsoft branded products don’t feel “attractive”… after all one does not associate them with “cool”, even if there is nothing wrong with them..
Edited 2010-12-14 00:25 UTC
Publicly traded corps put shareholders ahead of even the most devoted fans.
I think there is another issue entirely which has very little to do with the concept of “brand”.
This issue is perhaps best explained by Peruvian Congressman’s Dr Edgar David Villanueva Núñez rebuttal to Microsoft FUD in 2002.
http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.htm…
My bold.
The “battle” in mobiles at the moment is perhaps best framed as the battle between the closed iPhone/AppStore ecosystem versus the more open Android ecosystem. Which of these will win?
Certainly, in therms of the points raised by Dr Edgar David Villanueva Núñez, Android is preferable over the iPhone OS.
If Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 offers only another “iPhone OS” style closed ecosystem, it doesn’t really bring anything new to the table, does it?
Regardless of branding differences.
Edited 2010-12-14 02:24 UTC
lol, that kinda sounds that being shot in the kneecap seems awfully pleasant after possibility of being shot in the head
Google earned respect for trying “not being evil”. Apple and MS didn’t even try… So no respect in this regards.
Thats because microsoft is not a new company.
Everyone loves to see the new guy come along a make good. Its the american dream especially for the younger gerneration.
I think it’s a bit premature to count any of the big players out of “the next big thing.” The interesting dynamic in the mobile market is that there really is no single player with overwhelming market share — in the same way that Microsoft has dominated personal computers. The market is very healthy in terms of competition and innovation, and it’s still growing year-over-year; so, even if Microsoft only grows its market share to, say, 10 or 15% of the overall mobile market in the next few years, that’s still a very significant chunk of business. Furthermore, building a platform is the hardest part. Now that Microsoft has a pretty functional mobile OS in Windows Phone 7, evolutionary changes which make it more competitive become a lot easier to accomplish. The more players there are in the mobile market, the better off consumers will be.
10 or 15 percent would almost be MS record high numbers in Mobile phone market. Also when you look at makers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mobile_os.png MS is in a true head to head duke out for production with Android at moment.
For a possible achievable number if MS does pull out something good. Would be about 5 percent market share.
Meego has a better chance of getting the 10 to 15 percent. Reason it has hardware makers not in android production.
Next disadvantage for MS is that Linux and Apple does not split phone development and netbook/desktop development into completely independent OS’s like MS does. So cost of development is lower on the Apple and Linux side. Even RIM is using QNX OS as the base of there devices these days that they sell on for other users.
Symbian is going to cease to exist. So MS is the only one left truly making a OS targeted at the small devices with user interface alone.
Remember meego will not make it better for MS. It will become a 3 way duke out for the production. Sorry to say when it comes to production you don’t want to come third. OS 1 and 2 will make its way into devices number 3 will normally be left rot.
Nah I disagree, WP7 will have enterprise appeal which will make it more likely to get to 15%.
Meego is technically interesting but too late. Why should anyone buy a Meego phone over Android? By the time Meego comes out Android will be on version 3.
Un-supported assertion. There is no established lock-in to Windows Phone 7. Windows Phone 7 is not Windows 7. It isn’t the case that you can run Office 2010, Photoshop and Autocad on Windows Phone 7.
Blackberry, Symbian and iPhone OS have the lion’s share of enterprise appeal right now.
Android is currently higher than iphone or blackberry in enterprise. Symbian is the old timer that is kinda entrenched.
Has nothing to do with running Win32 programs. The enterprise appeal comes in the Office/Exchange support.
There are any number of alternatives to Windows Phone 7 that offer Office/Exchange support.
http://www.openchange.org/
http://www.nitrodesk.com/default.aspx
http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/#easy
In fact there are a number of good alternatives these days to Office/Exchange.
http://www.sogo.nu/english.html
http://www.documentfoundation.org/download/
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-GB/thunderbird/
It isn’t the case at all that one MUST run Windows Phone 7 even if one’s “enterprise” does happen to run Office/Exchange.
But Microsoft will offer a support contract which will be the important thing.
Doesn’t matter if some software can do it, there must be someone to go to for support, otherwise it is a no go.
More and more organizations at least here in Sweden, are switching from MS-Exchange to Google Apps due to the lower cost of maintainance. This makes good Google integration just as important as being able to talk to Exchange
ZzzZzzzzZZZ
CTO: We need a phone with good MS software compatibility.
Where do you think they will go?
Everyone here knows about MS Office alternatives. Everyone. You can spam a billion links but it won’t change the fact that MS Office has embedded itself within enterprise world. Your open source advocacy here is a wasted endeavorer. These forums aren’t frequented by enough people for it to matter and the people that do frequent them by nature explore software alternatives of all types.
Iphone, Android or Blackbery is where CTO go. Because they look cool. I do setup for CTO stuff. Last thing they bother about is if it integrates into the network. Instead they land it on IT Officers lap and says make it work don’t care how.
Simple fact here. nt_jerkface you don’t have arguments that hold water. MS Office is becoming less embeded all the time. Most of the issue way MS Office remains embeded is legacy and those legacy parts have a habit of breaking every time MS Office gets upgraded in a business. Reason why lot of businesses stayed on Office 2003 and did not go up to Office 2007 now being forced to go upto 2010 breakages are back. So TCO of MS Office is high. Bites every time you change version.
I don’t work in 1 to 2 year time frames with lots of businesses. I have 5 to 10 year plans.
Lot of cases removing the legacy MS Office dependent parts improves stability of business operations so TCO lower.
“wasted endeavorer” I think not. I am point my customers here to show that even people like you cannot put up any logic against open source that holds water. So the people I need to see this will.
Oh, puh-lease. Most large corporations use Exchange and Sharepoint, and will continue to do so for a long time. Game over.
Exchange/outlook combination yes Sharepoint no.
openchange.org is on the edge of breaking that. I am already using the proxy from openchange to improve network performance.
Notice openchange is working on drop in replacement in network to exchange. So other than the web interface change nothing else does.
Sharepoint is broken a lot by alfresco particularly alfresco business process management(BPM) That allows internal operations to be optimized quite effectively.
Due to Sharepoint lack of key features and unstablity when compared to alfresco its losing.
Also most large corporations don’t use Windows servers at core. You are talking small and midsize when you are talking Exchange and Sharepoint. Mind you they are the largest section of the market.
Large can afford there own programmers to build solutions that exactly match there operations and don’t have unstable solutions that don’t scale well.
Its hard to except but inside 5 years Exchange will be dead as a commercial sellable product.
Binding yourself into sharepoint instead of Alfresco is only setting your self to pay more over the 5 to 10 year plans. Alfresco does not bind you to a particular server OS. So even if you are a windows shop you can still run it.
Agreed.
On the server:
http://www.sogo.nu/english.html
brings lots of advantages:
http://www.sogo.nu/about/why_use_sogo.html
On the client:
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/lightning/
(once can still use Outlook on Windows clients)
One can of course run Linux servers. And one can have any mix of Windows, OSX and Linux clients.
NO CALS.
One can easily implement an equally capable network, and have zero CALs in fees. Add as many users and Linux servers as you like, for only the incremental cost of the server hardware. You can even add fully-functional client seats for effectively zero cost by re-purposing old XP machines you were going to throw away anyway … put Linux and LibreOffice on them and they are perfectly fine for most uses/users. Maybe buy a nice new LCD monitor from the savings.
It is like a free, bonus, at least $100,000 per-year profit increase to the company’s bottom line, for almost no effort.
As a bonus, you no longer need to religiously track licenses, and you have no fear of lawsuits.
Edited 2010-12-18 12:36 UTC
Well… WP7’s support for Office/Exchange is as good, or as bad(depending on your perspective), as iPhone or Android.
Thing is Meego has the possibility of running some Windows applications as well as a large section of already pre existing QT based applications. Even that android will be version 3 by then it still will not have the application support Meego will have. Of course with the current path Meego is on there is nothing stopping it running android applications inside it as well.
Android has just as much enterprise integration as WP7 including remote clearing of devices for secuirty reasons. And does not have the WP7 pitfalls like stuffing up removable media.
15% is higher than where Windows Mobile has been in over 5 years. Even claiming 10 percent you have not seen that in over 3 years. Windows Mobile at current numbers is drifting in the direction of 3 percent market share. I see nothing particularly special or different to the past version. And yes the current Windows Mobile usage include enterprise appeal factor behind it.
No reason you are giving is big enough to explain why WP7 will make it to 15%. 5 % is being kind even with the enterprise support behind it.
Biggest trick Meego has behind it is Nokia that already has more than 15 percent market share. So yes it has a foothold in the market to leap it to 15 percent market share without having todo much.
Meego can basically gain market share fast because it has the hardware maker to do it.
Also big bad thing here. Meego and Android are not 100 percent independent OS’s. Meego and Android share most of the same drivers and will support most of the same hardware. In fact Meego does not require any special buttons on anything else on the device compared to android.
Basically Meego wants a device configured the same as android in most cases. Only possible issue can be display driver. So keeping production costs down to a min with Meego and android devices. Even the possibility of duel boot android/meego devices or have user decide at purchase what OS they want. Reduced shipping costs.
Meego yes is late to market also the other thing one of the Meego side projects is to produce a generic Linux kernel/image for arm based devices. This is something that has never happened before on phones. 1 image many devices. Its bring something new and unique so it has a chance of large market share.
WP7 requires a custom device with custom buttons so if maker gets stuck with a model that don’t sell they are stuck with it. Ie batching Meego is less risk than WP7 so more makers will try Meego since if it fails they just flash them and send them out the other door as android. Nice bit flashing changing OS does not require device returned to factory. So there should be no reason for meego default installed devices to remain on shelves not being sold due to the OS suxing compared to android.
Yes android and Meego is not either or for people producing devices. That fact alone gives Meego far better chance of getting market share.
I said more likely to get to 15%.
This is why:
WP7 handsets will sync with Exchange Server 2007, Exchange Server 2010 and the current version of Exchange Online; later, syncing with Exchange Online 2010 and SharePoint Online 2010 will be added.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/microsoft_wp7/
Worthless statement all that is a zero advantage. Android due to MS deal with google has that complete list as well. That is nothing more than keeping up with competition. In fact android has Sharepoint 2010 syncing many ways already. http://www.sharepointreviews.com/component/jreviews/tag/workswith/A…
My 5 percent statement still stands as best possible outcome. There is no special feature advantage to give WP7 even that. Your 15 percent idea has nothing behind it and its basically dreaming in the current highly competitive market.
Try again. When you can come up with a feature that android cannot offer now that WP7 has or will have maybe 10 percent stands a chance.
If the first version of MeeGo is better than Android v3, why not? Version number does not mean Android will be a better platform – operating systems are not “accumulated”, they are iterated.
(So far, I don’t consider app market of Android to be too strong an asset, as most of it is low quality stuff).
You’re joking, right? RIM ate Microsoft’s lunch there a long time ago, and MS was never able to catch up through 6.5 versions of WinMobile. Why will WP7 be different, particularly since MS has made it clear that consumers are the immediate focus for WP7?
Enterprise appeal comes from security and manageability. Pretty much every smartphone on the market has Exchange compatibility and MSO file capability. It’s going to take more than that alone.
Glad Maemo/Meego got mentioned; all the “open” promised by Android without all the “closed” it’s delivered with.
so it shouldn’t be a surprise that smartphones are outselling laptops.
MS was late to smartphones but they still make plenty selling Office and Windows. If you really want to hurt MS then you need to go after one of their moo cows. They don’t even care about making money from WP7. What they don’t like is how Apple has drawn in consumers to the Mac with their idevices. MS would be much happier if Android dominated instead of the iphone.
So that customers could be drawn into Google Apps and possibly Chrome OS?
You may be right, but don’t forget that Google and Microsoft are likely to have an upcoming war in the cloud.
Don’t even care” is a bit strong. Sure, they wouldn’t mind driving some Win7/Office collateral sales from their mobile offerings, but I think they are in the mobile space to compete, and make some money, at least in their own minds.
Most corporate types I’ve seen use Blackberries (the company I work for does), primarily I think because they can be locked down by the IT department. (I don’t care for them as smartphones; I’ll take my Incredible any day.) I think MS is going to have to go some to significantly displace Blackberry in this space, because of inertia if nothing else.
On the consumer side, since MS is trying to be an Apple without the hardware manufacturing headaches, I think they will end up limiting themselves. Consumers are either going to like WP7 phones, or not. Customers switching to another manufacturer to get a different look and feel, or different hardware specs, while still buying a copy of WP7, is not an option. Apple gets away with that primarily because they were first to market, and secondarily due to generally good design (a few issues notwithstanding). Android offered an alternative (many alternatives, actually), so they are doing alright. I don’t think Microsoft, as a me-too, one-trick pony, will find the market so lucrative.
Bravo! Can we have more of these well-written and extensive articles on OSNews please?
So smartphones should be replacing notebooks and desktops on a large scale, eh ?
And what will be people working or playing complex games with ? Are you telling me that big spreadsheet users will be happy with an iPhone’s or iPad’s screen ? Or that heavy FPS/RTS players will be happy with an iPhone port ?
Smartphones probably will outsell laptops, but not by replacing them. They will just be the new way phones, DAPs, and portable consoles will work, a new incarnation of the light entertainment market. Putting the sales of smartphones and computers for work and heavy games in the same basket is just like comparing app… Hum… Pears and oranges. If you want to include smartphones in such a comparison, you must add the sales of feature phones, DAPs, and portable consoles before even remotely having a point
Edited 2010-12-14 07:00 UTC
Sales of shorts have increased, are pants makers totally fucked? More news at 11.
Well, apparently it’s not obvious to everyone, looking at the number of people who seem to think that the rise of smartphones and tablets, along with that of better web technologies like HTML5, is marking the end of Microsoft’s monopoly on the desktop/laptop market.
It’ll take a bit more than that, I think. Currently, Microsoft is crushed in an area where they never became dominant in the first place, the entertainment market. But I don’t think that things like Office or Windows are threatened yet.
Edited 2010-12-14 08:46 UTC
It will take some time before people generally come to realise that they don’t need to run Office or Windows these days in order to be perfectly compatible with those who do.
At the moment, some government contracts are still being let which stipulate that Microsoft software must be offered as the solution. In most cases, this is actually against the governments own rules, and this practice is being challenged now. As soon as freedom software is allowed to compete for contracts on a level playing field, which is most likely to begin with government departments, it should start displacing Office and Windows in large deployments.
This is already policy in some countries.
http://www.opensource.org/node/551
http://www.opensource.org/node/528
http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/open-source/1676/open-sourc…
OpenOffice installed base is currently between 10% and 20% depending on geographic location.
Edited 2010-12-14 09:29 UTC
OpenOffice has the best compatibility with Office which the open-source world has to offer, but it’s not perfect. Complex documents may or may not work. For a home user or a student like me it’s okay, but on a larger scale it’s really not okay.
Apart from that, there’s also a problem of intrinsic software qualities. Oo’s UI is obscure in places, they cloned office 2000 and it was not the best UI microsoft has ever done to say the least. Impress is okay for light use, but Writer makes some simple things very complicated (ex : OO formulas vs MathType, paragraph numbering…), and let’s not even talk about Calc vs Excel.
Finally, there’s plug-in compatibility. Office has some very interesting add-ons like XLSTAT, which are obviously not compatible with OpenOffice.
Windows is yet another issue. There are two problems here : hardware and software.
Since there are no standard interfaces to hardware anymore, modern hardware requires drivers. Drivers are made by the manufacturer and OS-specific, which means that Linux is often doomed to using either crappy proprietary drivers (as they don’t matter in terms of market share, the HW manufacturer does not pay attention to what it codes) or second-class community drivers made from reverse engineering, which are often coming late at the party, unstable, or poor in some areas (3D acceleration, power management).
And then, there’s software. Where are AutoCAD, Photoshop, After Effect for Linux ? There are sometimes (not always) equivalents, but they don’t have the same UI, and often do not offer exactly the same functionality – which results in a productivity loss.
Edited 2010-12-14 09:58 UTC
Always been wrong Go-oo fork off openoffice has always been higher in compatibility. These days libreoffice has taken over that location. This is basically someone trolling because they don’t really know what is out there.
Again it comes down to what you are doing with XLSTAT. There are a lot of cases same result as XLSTAT can be got with alfresco extensions and other solutions. Most of the extensions for Excel are not unique there are other ways of getting the same result.
Play the hardware card. Funny Linux has drivers for ATI cards that are not even released yet. No way those drivers could have come from reversing.
This is not uncommon these days. To see specs being released to Linux first. Some of the arm hardware out there only has Linux drivers that is the end of it. Hardware card only applies if you are playing x86 and even then it reducing.
Reverse is also true. Linux has access to some software that is either not provide for windows or fails to run at speed under windows.
This is nothing more than a OS change issue. This is basically a nil issue. After Effects is really not the best tool out there.
Best tool in After Effects class out there is called Lightworks. That is currently being ported to Linux as well as becoming open source. Sorry Lightworks out features After Effects in everyway.
Autocad also has its equal and better replacements for Linux. Photoshop is really the only tricky one you listed without a replacement that can kick it but in every way. Big thing here is how many of your desktop users really would need Photoshop,
Basically get your information upto date before keeping on talking.
I consider that go-oo and libreoffice are nothing more than a bunch of patch to OO at the moment and thus that these three products do not deserve to be considered as separate entities. When I say open office, it includes OO, go-oo, libreoffice, staroffice, and whatever else uses nearly the same codebase, as opposed to completely separate software like koffice or abiword. Sorry for the annoyance.
Okay, we agree there.
And on OpenOffice, it’s something whose English name I don’t know which keeps screwing up.
Called in French “renvoi”, the feature works this way : somewhere in your document, there is a list indexed by numbers. Somewhere else in your document, you want to refer to an item in that list. So you do insert->”renvoi”, and then you can invoke the number associated to that item. If you modify the list later, the number is modified accordingly.
Believe it or not, saving the document, closing OO, and re-opening it is sometimes sufficient to mess this up.
Yeah, and as far as I know they provide 2D acceleration only when they do work… Also, how are the drivers for actually released products for AMD going ?
Of course. No need for a spec on windows, the drivers provided by the manufacturer of the hardware and the operating system generally do work. Nowadays, releasing specs mostly occur when a manufacturer realizes how crappy his linux drivers are and asks the community to do better if it can.
No question, I’m talking about the desktop here. I know that Linux is much, much more powerful on anything embedded, but my original point was that Windows, the desktop/laptop OS, was here to stay for some time.
Indeed, but for desktop use, the best of linux software tends to have okay to good windows ports. On the other hand, it’s generally not true the other way.
Do you really think it’s that simple ? I’m a heavy GIMP user, and the Photoshop interface horrifies me so much that I wouldn’t touch it with a 10-feet pole. It works just as well the other way. But both software essentially do the same thing.
Switching to new software which you’re not used to is really hard, and the harder it was to get used to your current software the harder it will be to switch to another one. This is a real problem, not something you can easily flag as a nil issue and just put under the carpet. Having to use other software makes the barrier to entry of alternative OSs a lot higher than if every software was cross-platform.
Some say that photoshop beats gimp in every way. Yet anytime I use the path tool in photoshop it makes me want to run away screaming and anytime I use photoshop on a low-powered computer I have the feeling that said computer going to die when I just stroke a line with a 200px brush. I’m sure that a heavy AE user could explain how After Effect is better than Lightworks, based on his own experience of the softs…
In the future, desktop computers will become tools for work and heavy gaming, imo. Only professional software users and hardcore gamers would then remain heavy PC users.
100 percent believe you. That would be OO from over 1 year ago. If its the particular bug I am thinking of that started in OO 3.0. Could be avoided by manually refreshing list before saving by stupidly doing a print view. Bug that I was glad to see the back off. No where near as bad as others MS Office has had. Ie insert too many pictures word locks up.
If fact what you just said is myth in most cases outside x86. Even intel processor are developed for Linux first since they are designed on Linux.
The good chip design software does not run on windows for most devices. For testing and compare that software basically requires the drivers first written for Linux to reduce on number of terminals the hardware developers need. Once the device works then it goes to general driver production is becoming more and more the pattern. So yes the hardware makers are providing more and more of the drivers directly. This also explains where about 60 percent of the 80 percent full time coders on Linux come from. Hardware developing companies.
And the starting topic is about mobile phones. But arm wants desktop/laptop market share. We are going to see arm in desktop and laptop form factors. Force against the desktop/laptop form factor will keep on increasing.
I am sorry to say at this stage photoshop has particular features gimp lacks. My replacement for AfterEffects has all its features plus more.
Sorry to say professional Software there is a lot that does not run on Windows. Photoshop is a small subset of professional users. And the software to complete with it is coming up.
And lightworks is porting from Windows to Linux.
Basically it does happen. Both ways. People like to say good applications on windows don’t get ported to Linux. It happens way more than people want to admit.
Sometimes it happens in the nasty way. Maker of application pays codeweavers to make the windows binary work under wine and keep it working. Really wine has reduced number of companies bothing doing a full port.
Totally agree, and the same goes for Wi-Fi and any other piece of driver-requiring hardware you may think of. HW support is an unfair world !
I can even think of an explanation about why it is so : people don’t like to play casino when it comes to knowing if their computer will run Linux or not. Years of windows being bundled with computers have taught them that computer should work out of the box, no matter what’s inside. They often don’t realize the importance of the fact that Microsoft has a deal with HW manufacturers.
OT : Cool ! I plan to work on computer hardware later, maybe I’ll meet some other alternative OS geeks !
Please, don’t make me dream too much about something like that happening.
(Though if desktop ARM platforms are as full of standards as the mobile ones, it seems that I’d have to port my OS on a per-computer basis, which is not a very rejoicing though)
More competition ? Nice ! I hope this will start a price and UI war and stir up the current statu quo in this area…
So … just buy a machine which comes pre-installed with Linux. Compare apples with apples. Run each one on a machine which is designed to run it.
When you do that, you realise that hardware support on Linux is not an issue at all.
In the area of mobiles, which is actually on topic, there are no shortage of devices which come pre-installed with Linux. Not an issue. Hardware drivers is not an issue.
Even for a desktop or laptop machine … I can buy one of theose pre-installed with Linux no problem. Hardware drivers are not an issue … it works out of the box. In the US, you would need to go to ZaReason or some supplier like that, and hardware support for Linux will not be a problem.
As for running Linux on machines designed in the first place for another OS … Linux does this too far better than Windows. In fact it is impossible to run Windows on a machine that is not designed for Windows.
Edited 2010-12-14 23:18 UTC
Sadly, when you decide to buy a machine specifically designed to run linux, this heavily limits your choice. Which well-known laptop manufacturer does provide linux pre-installed on a laptop which is not a netbook ? I only know about DELL myself, and am not putting €700 in something made by an unknown guy.
On the desktop, Linux is the outsider which has to adapt itself.
And I’ll say exactly the same in this situation : if Windows Phone 7 wants a share of the ARM market, it has to get drivers for hardware designed for Linux. When you’re the minority, the market won’t adapt itself to you.
Yeah, but how many laptops and desktops are not designed for Windows ? Basically any x86 hardware manufacturer provides Windows drivers.
Other funny word “feature” : on a machine running Windows XP SP1 with 512 MB of RAM, PDF export of a 20-pages DOC full of pictures from WordXP would BSOD the computer after having it straining for a bit less than a minute. In 10 seconds, OO 2.2 was done.
Edited 2010-12-14 22:19 UTC
MS Office has very poor compatibility with other Office suites. In that aspect it is way worse than OpenOffice in every way.
Where two parties are interchanging documents and they use different Office suites, in general it will be the party which uses Microsoft Office which has the most problem. Using Microsoft Office is even a problem with your own organisation’s older archived documents.
The need to exchange exceedingly complex MS Office documents (that may not work) is very small. Even when the other party has a different version of Office, such an exchange may not work. Choose any format OTHER THAN MS Office formats in order to have a more successful document interchange.
Yet OpenOffice still has 10% to 20% installed base, and growing. It is by far and away the best solution for document interchange and archival purposes. It amply meets the needs of well over 90% of uses cases for an Office suite … perhaps more.
Then XLSTAT is clearly not a technology that one should be using for information interchange or archival. This remark probably applies even better to MS Office itself.
There are alternative sources of open source drivers which you ignore.
The first source is where open source developers are given the programming specifications, from which they can write a good open source driver without reverse engineering.
http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/
Another source is when the OEM targets Linux first and Windows is a latecomer afterthought:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODc5Mw
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/node/4641
http://meego.com/developers/hardware-enabling-process
The mobile and handheld space is, after all, more about ARM than it is about x86.
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/index.jsp
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/02/hands-on-new-sin…
http://darktable.sourceforge.net/features.shtml
After Effect: well, not every use case is covered by Linux. Where is a decent-performing Blender for Windows?
Why would you assume that the productivity had to be higher on a Windows desktop? There are a number of features of a Linux desktop, such as clipboard history and virtual desktops, that could well mean better productivity.
Edited 2010-12-14 12:11 UTC
http://piestar.net/2010/06/29/the-argument-against-multiple-desktop…
I absolutely hate Virtual Desktops, I find I spend more time trying to organise it into Virtual Desktops than actually being organised. I turn them off when I am XFCE on my OpenBSD machine.
Clipboard History is also overrated … I basically use just “recut” the bit I need rather than searching through the history. It is quicker IMO.
What you is arguing is the “defacto” vs “dejure” standards.
Microsoft Office is the defacto standard so it doesn’t matter whether it has poor compatibility with other office suites, because those are usually in the minority.
Until there is an dejure i.e. enforced standard, everything must be compatible with Microsoft Office.
Edited 2010-12-14 17:23 UTC
The point you miss is this … OpenOffice and derivatives do have excellent compatibility with Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office has very poor compatibility with OpenOffice and derivatives.
OK, so you have one office suite which has very good compatibility with office file formats across the board, and another office suite which utterly chokes over the file format of an office suite with 10% to 20% installed base.
If you are going to be doing document interchange (such as might a government), which Office Suite do you use? The only sane answer is to use the office suite with the good, broad compatibility. That is NOT Microsoft Office.
As someone else said, it does not matter. MS Office is currently the de facto standard, therefore everyone uses doc/docx for exchanging re-writable documents. It’s a sad fact of life, and open-source office suites just have to cope with it. If people were reasonable, everybody would be using PDF anyway.
Because it’s free and because most office suites users are casual users which would already be satisfied with abiword anyway.
No, no, and no ! If you want a document which looks exactly the same way on all computers and printers you can think of, PDF is simply the only way to go. A missing font is generally all it takes for ODT/DOC documents to get their formatting completely messed up (when it’s not worse).
Moreover, on the average guy’s computer, you’re much more likely to find a decent PDF reader than the exact same version of the office suite you’re using. The core PDF standard is much more stable, and readers are more mature.
That’s the reason why office might fall someday… But looking at the arguments a friend gave me when he told me that he was going to buy Word instead of using OpenOffice, I somehow doubt it.
Again, this also applies to nearly anything but PDFs, 7-bit ASCII text files, PCM, and similarly primitive formats. The problem is, when you want something a bit more powerful, you have to look somewhere else. Ardour, Audacity, and Cubase don’t use standard file formats either, that doesn’t make them less interesting as long as everyone in your team is using them.
Wake me up when it actually starts to give more interesting results than 2D acceleration and GPU fans blowing hot air at full speed.
Again, I don’t deny that, but I’m talking about the desktop here, which is exclusively x86 since Apple realized that PowerPC was a dead end on this category of computers.
If you put an AutoCAD user in front of it, will he master it in 10 minutes ?
Photoshop users have their gripes with GIMP, and single window mode is only one of them.
They will tell you about the extensive use of contextual menus in photoshop for faster use when you’re experienced (at the cost of much harder learning), non-destructive editing features, CMYK (though I heard that GEGL was going to bring that someday), GPU acceleration (ditto)…
Interesting… Though I don’t use it, I suppose that this is something like Adobe Lightroom. Didn’t know that the open source world went this far.
Since you seem to have some deep knowledge of open-source software, may I ask you if you know about a good data plotting and analysis software (something in the spirit of Origin or IGOR Pro) which runs on both Windows and Linux ? I’m on Windows since I moved to a laptop, as the power management of current desktop Linux distros made me want to smash my head on my desk, but I consider getting back in the open-source OS world once that is fixed, so I would like to keep using software which works everywhere.
Well, the current betas didn’t shocked me by their awful performance, although they have their quirks in other domains (dammit, where is my multicut gone ?).
I can also argue that Windows has a number of professional 3D apps of the level of Blender : 3DS Max, Lightwave…
I don’t assume that. I assume that people always perform better with the tools they’re used to. Switching to something else means a decrease in productivity during the time they get to learn their new tools.
So Linux and open source tools don’t only have to be as good as the Windows ones before people decide that the aforementioned loss is worth making the switch : they also have to get much better in some way.
Arguable. I spent more than 5 years solely running Linux, and I never managed to find an everyday use to virtual desktop. When I have so much applications running that the taskbar gets filled up, I always find some mess which I don’t use anymore and should close. The fact that my computer only had 512 MB of RAM until recently may have helped this.
Same for clipboard history : never got to really use it. The sole interest of Klipper, in my opinion, was that it addressed the broken way copy and paste works on some linux desktops :
-Copy something
-Close the app
-Paste… Paste… Crap, the copied content was not actually copied, it’s gone with the app !
Edited 2010-12-14 22:09 UTC
When poeple are reasonable, PDF is not a problem at all on a Linux desktop. My desktop uses Okular as the PDF viewer, and LibrOffice can write PDF files from any application, as can Calligra Office, and there is a “print to PDF” utility installed by default so that applications which do not support PDF output directly can support it indirectly.
Whatever the reason, OpenOffice and derivatives still have 10% to 20% of installed base, and growing. This was the level of installed base at which Firefox began to cause problems for “IE only” websites, BTW, and users began to demand support for Firefox in significant enough numbers.
ODT meets all of the requirements for document interchange and archival that PDF does, with the advantage that the file is still editable if need be, so that it also meets requirements for archival.
But, like MS Office, Ardour, Audacity, and Cubase are no good for document interchange and archival purposes. OpenOffice is.
Wakey wakey.
So you are talking off topic then?
That is the idea, yes. AutoCAD is a complex application, and to use it properly requires significant training. Once a computer user has mastered AutoCAD, they are pretty much able to master all kinds of UIs.
However, your original question … “where is AutoCAD for Linux” is answered, and your question is out of date.
GEGL is supposed to address all of the claimed deficiencies of inner workings of GIMP just as single–window-UI-mode address in the UI. GIMP is powerful but slow to improve. Krita is catching it up. Whatever, there is no need to run Photoshop these days, especially when you consider the price. OMG!
Not my field, but here are some things to check out:
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/qtiplot-a-data-analysis-a…
http://soft.proindependent.com/qtiplot.html
http://www.gle-graphics.org/
http://labplot.sourceforge.net/
(the KDE4 version is still only at alpha 2 stage)
This one isn’t ready yet, but I believe they are working to get it integrated with GNU Octave, which would give it more grunt.
http://edu.kde.org/cantor/
Agreed. The question however is not “does Windows have applications” but rather “does Linux also”. The answer to the latter question, for by far the majority of users and use cases, is emphatically “yes it does”.
Amazing. You go out of your way to try to claim that there are no aplications for Linux desktop in some areas, when in fact there are, and then when areas of the Linux desktop that are not implemented in Windows are pointed out, you simply dismiss them.
Biased much?
Edited 2010-12-14 23:08 UTC
I don’t said that PDF did not work on linux, but rather that it’s guaranteed to work everywhere and that therefore people would use it whenever possible if they were reasonable (and willing to save themselves some headaches).
We’ll see if it works the same way for OO and its derivatives. I must admit that seeing a lot of schools switch to it in my country made me a bit more optimistic than usual.
In my opinion, one of the requirements would be not to require the recipient to install anything. If I save an ODT file today with OpenOffice 3.2, and my recipient has OpenOffice 2.0, will he be able to open it without upgrading ?
You see, the beauty of PDF is that most of the core features are frozen. Even if my recipient is on one of these locked-down corporate machines with only the core MS fonts and a prehistoric Acrobat 4, there are still chances that opening a freshly-made PDF will work, with flawless rendering. Things which would fail are the new funky features, like translucency, forms, or video inclusion, but the “PDF export” function of office suites don’t use them.
Why would archival require documents to be editable ? If I’m taking this document deep into the basement, it’s probably that I only need it for future reference purposes and that I don’t need it to be writable anymore, isn’t it ?
There we agree. That’s why XLSTAT’s main mode of operation is to auto-generate spreadsheets and store its results in it. You use it for work, because it’s convenient, but your recipient don’t need to have it in order to see the results.
Mmmm ? Nouveau can run Nexuiz flawlessly and smoothly on a 7800GT now ?
No. The initial post was about the Windows+Office monopoly. Windows and Office are desktop software. I don’t care if Microsoft want to call their mobile OS Windows Mobile or Windows Phone, I consider it as being a different product than Windows.
Okay. I admit you have a point there.
I thought Krita was more targeted at painting and not at general image creation and editing like GIMP ? Btw, hasn’t the name changed with the move to Calligra ?
I’ve tried to argue this with some diehard photoshop fans. It failed. They always manage to find something nifty which they use a lot and which isn’t present in GIMP.
Wonderful ! Seems to be exactly what I want. They even were kind enough to mimick Origin’s interface to a great extent, which makes getting to know their software much easier… Well, those guys have got my money there
I wonder how you manage to find these gems sometimes.
No, not exactly… In experimental physics, typical workflow of Origin works this way :
-Measure a pack of data using some proprietary software, get it in the form of an ASCII array
-Load that array in an Origin project associated to your current experiment (allows you to organize your files more easily)
-Try to plot it, check if export worked properly
-Convert the data you measured to other units using some simple formulas
-Fit the data with the theoretical formula, using either one of the numerous predefined fits or a nonlinear fit.
-Make a nice-looking plot of what you’ve done
-Print or export in PNG for use in office suites and LaTeX
This seems to only take care of the “nice-looking plot” part.
I prefer to stick with stable software for work, thanks
The idea of making a better frontend to Maxima is interesting, but doesn’t work on Windows and as you said is probably not ready yet.
You have a point.
Oh, if that’s the problem, I can go looking for video editing which doesn’t suck as a whole… Though I heard that this is finally getting fixed.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881.aspx (among many others)
http://clipdiary.com/
I can find some links too
Everyone is to some extent. Try to defend H.264 and Adobe Flash for a while.
Well, this is a reasonable response, so thanks for reading.
One point:
When I said “wakey wakey”, I was talking about the open source drivers which have been written to satisfy these programming specifications released by one OEM:
http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/
Remember? That has absolutely nothing to do with Nouveau. That OEM released no such information. Nouveau is reverse-engineered.
Anyway, what I was talking about would be this driver:
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/radeon
At this time, this driver has these features:
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature
There is quite a bit of green (and still some yellow, lets be honest), under the section: Mesa 3D features
It is pretty much all green under the section: Power Saving
So … buy a system with a AMD/ATI graphics chip, or get one which is being disposed of by a company, and … wakey wakey.
Other point:
Desktop & laptop systems with Linux pre-installed:
In my country, get them from here:
http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/
or here:
http://www.vgcomputing.com.au/
The latter list has a helpful list of contemporary laptops:
http://www.vgcomputing.com.au/notebookcompare.html
Look in the right-hand column (under the heading “Linux compatibility”) and select a model which has an “excellent” rating (there are many to choose from at all levels of cost and performance, Lenovo seems to be the best bet). Buy that same model in any country, get a LiveCD, boot from that without ever booting Windows, wipe Windows, install Linux … you are set! Perhpas you might be able to get a refund for the unused copy of Windows.
If your country is the US, you might opt to buy your laptop from here:
http://www.system76.com/index.php?cPath=28
or here:
http://zareason.com/shop/Laptops/
If I want a tablet rather than a laptop or netbook, I could choose this:
http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/info.asp?c1=183&c2=185&…
or one of these (with Android or Ubuntu):
http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/products.asp?c1=183&c2=…
NOTE: When it says “Ready for Microsoft Windows® 7 / Android” it means you must choose one or the other, or you may choose Ubuntu instead.
Edited 2010-12-15 09:36 UTC
Are you trying to make a idiot out of yourself.
* (1993) – PDF 1.0 / Acrobat 1.0
* (1994) – PDF 1.1 / Acrobat 2.0
* (1996) – PDF 1.2 / Acrobat 3.0
* (1999) – PDF 1.3 / Acrobat 4.0
* (2001) – PDF 1.4 / Acrobat 5.0
* (2003) – PDF 1.5 / Acrobat 6.0
* (2005) – PDF 1.6 / Acrobat 7.0
* (2006) – PDF 1.7 / Acrobat 8.0
* (2008) – PDF 1.7, Adobe Extension Level 3 / Acrobat 9.0
* (2009) – PDF 1.7, Adobe Extension Level 5 / Acrobat 9.1
On top of that there is a PDF/A format. That is a special sub form that is compatible. Saving in PDF 1.7 it is possible that it will not open in PDF 1.0. To be correct PDF 1.0 readers from 1993 cannot read PDF/A files.
If you are sending to someone with OpenOffice 2.0 from OpenOffice 3.2 you would save as ODF 1.1. But since Openoffice is free it costs a person nothing to upgrade to read ODF 1.2. Simple fact here not even PDF has perfect support for out of date reader programs. You would know this if you knew the PDF format. Does ODF open forwards without problems yes it does. Does doc files open forwards without problems answer no they don’t.
Does openoffice cost a lot to update to support the newer formats no it don’t either. So stupid and poor point to try to use against openoffice. This is the same rule as early Acrobat. Since Adobe gave away Acrobat reader for free.
ODF has not got to the point yet where it would be sane to tag from here is the archive format that will be used for now on. One day it will.
And I use a lot of report generation tools working from databases todo the same stuff. I don’t see XLSTAT as anything special. Like Jasperreports and other report pulling tools.
Then you are a off topic thread. The topic discussions has to relate of this is set by. How Microsoft Missed The Next Big Thing. Yes I have strenched the topic but you are talking about breaking it. Thinking Microsoft Missed The Next Big Thing is about Windows Mobile/Phone.
Krita is still called Krita under the rename Koffice to Calligra. Karbon also has not changed it name. This is what I am complaining about be upto date please before posting stupid comments. It pure annoying to have to be correcting stuff like this.
Krita core engine targets new picture create but is share parts with http://www.digikam.org/ that focus on what I would call post production correction of images.
digikam is another program you most likely have never see on windows. Its only been around for over 10 years in the Linux worlds so its quite mature. The share of parts in the KDE world makers some of there applications by the targeted descriptions appear a lot weaker than what they really are.
So is it a case that the Linux world should start planing to buy Adobe? This is a serous question. Last few years Linux companies have been getting more and more cashed up. At this rate one of the may be large enough to buy Adobe in 3 years.
This is the problem about holding up just apps from one company a lot. Like what happened with Lightworks and Netflix DRM provider. Google bought Netflix DRM providers that since Netflix said they would not support andriod. Money talks and open source has it at the moment.
So its different to other times in Open source history spending way out of problems is a possibility if they cannot be solved through cloning.
There are nice detailed index sites of open source software if you know where to look.
Again how people show they don’t know the open source way. Even if you are not going to use the software yet it pays to trail run it like any other windows demo. Report back what they have wrong before its get built into there design in a way that is hard to remove. This is how we who use open source all the time end up getting exactly what we want.
H.264 decoding is planed for on video cards. So Linux will not need a license of that.
I am sorry I don’t call you bias. I have something way more insulting. Under researched and on the edge of being a moron on the subject.
This is why I was talking about “core features”.
Since at least Acrobat 5, new releases of the PDF spec only bring minor features on the table. The big picture is done, there’s nothing left to add. So again, unless you want to play with forms or translucency, PDF can be considered a stable format. And experimentally, Acrobat 5 indeed proves to be sufficient to open most of today’s PDF files which are created by document processors.
So you must know which version of OpenOffice your recipient has in order to decide which version of ODF you should use ?
Ho ho ho… Meet the corporate world, its lockdown frenzy, and its shyness towards installing *anything* on the clients, out of fear it might somehow crash the whole network. It’s not for nothing that some companies in this world are still running Windows 98.
There is a cost. Namely hours of discussions with the sysadmin until he accepts that this is 2010 (soon 2011) and that computers should be kept up to date accordingly.
Well, I’ve had much less problems with opening PDF files from the wild world outside than with opening OpenOffice and Office files. Granted, OO already performs much, much better than Office in this regard.
In short : PDF >> ODT >> DOC 97 >> DOCX
There we agree. In, say, 10 years, it’ll probably be safe to say that anyone can open an ODT created by oowrite, if it does still exist. Now is a bit early in my opinion.
Microsoft missed tablet/phones => People claiming that this is the end of the Windows/Office monopoly since everything is moving to the tablet/phone world => Me being very skeptical about this.
If I was to decide, Adobe should just fail to adapt itself to some change and die miserably by doing so. They have done great things in the past but now they just look like a remaining dinosaur which has a hard time accepting that its time has come.
But I’m not the one deciding here.
Yes, and I can do that for software which I use for entertainment or light work, where losing some hours of work is acceptable. But if I want to use something more extensively, and as part of a job, failure is not an option anymore, open-source way or not.
This is not what I was talking about…
Good. Insulting people is certainly the best way of proving your point. It’s probably because of behaviors of this kind that the open-source has stagnated for so long, before the corporate world started to have some interest in it and fund it.
Same with sending advanced PDF files(1.6,1.7) you need to know what is on the end. OpenOffice 1.0 2.0 will open ODF 1.2 that openoffice 3.2 will prdouce but if you have used any newer features they will not be rendered so document will be displayed damaged just like viewing PDF 1.6 or PDF 1.7 in PDF 1.5. I said would if you respected them to see it. There is the PDF/A option as a hybred as well. Ie PDF/A with the ODF file tacked inside. Printable and viewable perfect. Edit may have damage.
And the main reason for sending a ODF file would be the idea that the person at the other end would edit it and send it back. This treatment is no different that you have todo with MS Office.
All the features of ODF spec 1.0 and 1.1 are in 1.2 unchanged.
I have had the same issues fighting for updated acrobat reader because government forms would not open and submit because they required PDF 1.7.
Same issue with PDF. Yes less common but PDF has more age on it. The stability of ODF is a pure age issue. Maturity takes time. There is no way to avoid this process. But ODF is not far off maturity stage.
It is the fracture of the MS monopoly. You want to forget in 2000 that lot of businesses were using Windows Mobiles to integrate with exchange and other MS servers. This is the fail of 1 of MS 4 pillers.
1) Windows Server
2) Windows Desktop
3) MS Office
4) Mobile
Number 4 mobile is basically gone.
Problem now is Mobile devices have to be allowed to work quite well with Windows Server that also means allowing MS Office server side integration.
What stops Mobile device integration features from being used by Linux Desktops. Answer nothing. Basically there are cracks caused by the mobile phone gain. The question is can linux push them open. This is why I call it a foothold.
Also if you look less where. OpenOffice is digging foot holds in governments for desktop usage. So even without Mobile phones loss MS location was weaken. More users more development that simple.
Even on the server side Footholds are being dug. Question how many are required before MS starts being ripped appart by them.
Failure not a option. Nice laugh. So you depend on some key bit of commercial software that goes by by over night and you have no suitable replacement then failure is for sure an option. This is what the open source way is about avoiding. The Open source way is making sure you have options have competition and have replacements if you require them.
What you are after is like pretrained employees. One day there is a sort fall and since no one is training any you find yourself stuffed. The open source way of checking out the up and coming is about training your future software options and sometimes you find gems that with a little more time and right path will be brilliant.
And the shocking thing about open source is some of the ALPHA’s are more stable than the closed source comerical software out there.
All forms of future insurance has a price. And the price here is sometime trying items you many not bring into production for 3 to 5 years.
Problem is my insult was a true statement on the quality of answers you were providing. At least this time you were a little better quality. Still under researched but not moron.
Also this style of assessment is used in the corporate world to work out if experts are what they claim they are. So no my insult had nothing todo with open-source. Either you know the subject you are talking about or you don’t. If you don’t expect to be called under researched. If answers to questions you ask are a simple google search away or visiting product web site or reading product description. Expect moron status. The Krita question got you moron status.
Your question was:
Your observation:
It wasn’t hard.
I typed the following series of words into the google search bar on Firefox:
data plotting analysis linux
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=data+plotting+analysis+linux&ie=u…
qtiplot was the second hit.
Labplot was the third hit.
elettrolinux.com was the ninth hit.
Although this is strictly a desktop question, and it is therefore getting a little off topic, nevertheless I had a look into this question:
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/documentation.jsp
So, most decidedly, your question has been addressed, in detail.
So, is it difficult to make a transition?
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/top10.jsp
Apparently not.
Not knowing exactly what you wanted here, I went to a good resource for scientific computing:
http://elettrolinux.com/
and I found therein some other alternatives that might fill your need:
http://elettrolinux.com/Scientific-computation/octave.html
http://qtoctave.wordpress.com/what-is-qtoctave/
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/scidavis-a-scientific-dat…
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/paraview-scientific-visua…
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/mayavi-the-3d-data-visual…
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/opendx-visualization-data…
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/kst-display-scientific-da…
http://elettrolinux.com/Authoring/veusz-a-scientific-plotting-packa…
I hope this helps.
Edited 2010-12-15 03:08 UTC
Sounds interesting indeed, I’ll keep that in a bookmark for the day where I’m tired enough of Windows again to see if Linux has improved on its side.
Edited 2010-12-15 08:09 UTC
The reason I say this is that nearly the exact thing was predicted regarding Microsoft and the Internet around 1994-1995.
This prompted the famous, 1995, “Internet Tidal Wave Memorandum,” from Bill Gates to MS Executives. He outlined (basically) that MS had totally missed the boat when it came to the importance of the Internet and its bearing on the future of Microsoft itself.
Here’s a link to a photocopy of the memo:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/881657/The-Internet-Tidal-Wave
Gates directed a massive shift of resources in order to play catch-up. And I believe they caught up quite quickly.
As memory serves, much of the same was being stated regarding the Internet as is being currently said regarding MS and mobile devices.
I wouldn’t be shocked at all to learn the Microsoft is quickly [and quietly] attempting to reestablish itself as a future dominant player.
While many, including myself, loathe and question their ethics & practices, Microsoft is an incredibly successful corporation and has the assets and money to pull itself out of any slump or missed opportunity.
The difference there is that:
1. most people still didn’t have internet access, where as most people now do have mobile phones
2. even though MS were lagging behind re the internet, people still bought into their core businesses (ie Windows and Office). If people buy Android or iOS handsets, MS lose business.
3. and because those people were already tied into Windows, it was relatively easy to switch them to MS’s own web-products. Where as if people are using iPhones or Android, it’s harder to convince them to switch to a new and unfamiliar platform.
4. and finally, I’d argue that MS haven’t really caught up in regards to the internet:
4a. ok, they did gain a monopoly with IE, but that’s gone again now.
4b. They’ve had numerous failed search engines and only now gaining any kind of presence there with Bing (and that’s largely due to their deal with Yahoo),
4c. Google (et al) have eaten away their cloud-email market share,
4d. MS still don’t have much of anything in the social networking.
4e. And even sharepoint seems to be struggling in the private sector – though governments have adopted it. Though I will concede that this is based purely on the jobs I’ve applied for in the last year so my anecdotal evidence might be misleading.
In short – I can see the logic in your comparison, but I don’t really think it’s a fair one.
At the entry level, sharepoint is free, but it doesn’t take long before it attracts rent (via CALs).
There are a number of very decent alternatives that do not attract rent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfresco_%28software%29
One can save a fortune by not using sharepoint (even if one does use Windows).
Edited 2010-12-14 09:41 UTC
The problem is finding support contracts for Alfresco.
We looked at using Alfresco and/or Umbraco and we couldn’t find many companies to provide support. When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream … which obviously wasn’t acceptable. Also Umbraco (especially) has very little functionality without any 3rd party components. The problem is that we won’t be able to support for these 3rd party components.
Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren’t acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.
However there were plenty of companies which supported sharepoint, and there was more functionality out of the box.
Edited 2010-12-14 11:42 UTC
There is a difference here in the way the two worlds operation. Yes I can understand why its hard to get at first when you don’t compare fairly.
http://www.alfresco.com/services/subscription/ Alfresco sells support directly with even requirements for rapid responce..
Now can you buy support for Microsoft Sharepoint from Microsoft answer no you cannot. So you must use third parties.
RedHat also provides global support contracts that cover Alfresco. Both Redhat and Alfresco will do patches on Alfresco without waiting for upstream merging if it will address client issues.
Redhat is a support specialist also the Redhat path integrates in JBoss as well http://www.jboss.org/.
umbraco support is basically nothing so I can understand you not touching that.
Now please be truthful. Who is going to be able to fix up Sharepoint bugs for you and not have to wait for upstream to fix. Answer no one.
So please explain why this is a problem.
When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream … which obviously wasn’t
Since this is exactly what you have to put up with using sharepoint. So comparing equally Sharepoint is not suitable for your business either.
List of what Sharepoint lacks compare to Alfresco.
1)There is no direct support contract option. So requiring rapid response to software issues. Yes you can pay Alfresco for 24 hour support and bug fixes ASP.
2)There is no option to higher your own coders if a problem is 100 percent critical to be fix ASP.
3)There is no options to use specialists like Redhat to provide 24 hour coder assistance.
So what is your problem.
There are plenty of Microsoft Gold Partners in the uk, for Alfresco there is only alfresco. Lets face it Microsoft are not going anywhere tomorrow. Who knows about Alfresco.
Any software defects that are that critical to Sharepoint or ASP.NET will be so big that pretty much every customer will be affected, not just us. So a patch will be out pretty quick.
Also any problem that big should/would be caught before deploy, because we would have to extensively test Sharepoint before initial deploy and before any upgrades are made.
This is an interesting claim. What aspect of the GPL could possibly be bad for your business in any way, compared to what proprietary rentware such as Sharepoint is guaranteed to cost you?
If you are not a software company yourself … then your company’s use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Run it as much as you want for as many users on as many machines as you like. Fill your boots.
If your company does write and distribute software as its core business … then simply write your own software. Don’t ship GPL code to your customers. Once again your company’s use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Fill your boots.
You are going to have to explain what on earth you think it is about the GPL that could possibly be bad for your company. Without such an explanation, your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.
Edited 2010-12-14 12:20 UTC
Sharepoint we can get support for, we cannot get adequate support for OpenSource alternatives.
There are plenty of Microsoft Certified Partners which we can find support contracts with … so we have plenty of choice.
Also because we are a charity, Microsoft and Google give us a significant discount (90%+) on their software (and in google’s case Hardware).
Again, we must have a support contract. We cannot find anyone to support us.
We do not have the resources in house to support it.
For example we use Oracle, SQL Server 2005/2008, Windows Server 2003 R2 and IIS, our current Admins do not have any know say PostgresSQL (MySQL does not have any GIS capabilities), Apache and Linux.
Using LAPP stack will be most likely be more costly since we have to migrate our current software and skillset over. This cost is minute compared to the licensing costs from Microsoft.
[sarcasm]Yes we can just write our own, because writing software is so simple.[/sarcasm]
When I did work for a software house, MIT/BSD licenses were acceptable and any license where we didn’t have to “give the code back”.
This is because if we did make any modifications e.g. bug fixes, and deployed to a live site we are required by the GPL to give the code back. This is of course simply unacceptable, to our management thus no GPL software.
GPL isn’t a one size fits all solution. I wish you would stop pretending it is.
You should hire a lawyer, or at least ask the lawyer that explained how Microsoft’s licensing works, to explain what GPL requires of you.
Because you seem to think that GPL requires giving back. Because it does not require anything like it. GPL does require you provide the source code with the compiled code to the person/company you distribute it to under GPL. And under GPL(v1, v2 and v3) you providing services based on the modified code is not classified as distribution of object code.
I see the likes of Sleepycat and MySQL marketing department had a lot of success in making people believe that GPL is “da evil, virral and horrible” license.
How is that massively different? GPL code effectively owns itself so what is stopping them from releasing it once they have it. The code can end up legally in the public domain.
Edited 2010-12-14 14:30 UTC
Because you are not “required to give it back”(quoting you). And the people that have your code are also not required to give it back. You however can’t force them to keep it to themselves…
Technically all and any code will become part of public domain after a certain amount of time.
GPLed code is still copyrighted and is not in public domain.
You should make it clear that you represent a COTS ISV, so there is a clear bias against GPL in your sector. It’s not baseless and something I can agree with. But it’s not a reason to spread FUD about GPL (like Sleepycat did)
IP law education – it’s very beneficial in our world.
Fair enough, maybe “giving it away” is more accurate, I am giving my rights to keep the code mine away. This statement is accurate enough for my purposes, or am I missing something.
I don’t have a bias against the GPL, I think it works well for some projects, but for others it suitable.
What I am biased against is it being touted as the be all and the end all of Licenses and Closed Source stuff as being “Evil”. Like certain members say that Linux will magically solve people’s problems.
as being someone who lives out of writing gpl/lgpl/+some other OSS licenses code for my daily bread, i think i can give you little insight. i actually make more money than i did when i wrote closed source.
1. when you give source code you also give away your rights… true, but this is more expensive for customer. customer gets guarantee that your software won’t die with you stopping to support it and you get more money. it is kinda like selling exclusive rights to any other thing, exclusive is always expensive
2. customer will not pursue (never in my case) screwing you over for a few bucks unless your support really, really sucked major. that would be way more expensive than paying you to support them
3. solutions usually tend to get tailored to customers specific needs and with that not really usable to anyone else
4. even if customer doesn’t have money i usually put clause that doesn’t grant them modification access to source if i am available (those other licenses). but in case i get struck by lightning, they get assurance they won’t be screwed over like in most cases as they can continue working on software.
you probably mistake open source and GPL. most OSS is not GPL. but open source really is solution to all problems. i was screwed at least 5 times (when companies or products went visiting dodo land) by commercial software. until i finally went with OSS 100%. just ask people who used Visual Basic, Borland Pascal, Freehand… where is their so called wonderful commercial support? if those would be OSS, people using them could simply either fund or code continuation of their tools.
Nice how you talk like it is a all or nothing. All or nothing is how you hurt yourself and have it way more costly so you can return to window crying that hurt.
“Apache tomcat” Postgresql and Alfresco can all be run on your getting old 2003 server. Note “apache tomcat” is not the httpd apache. Its the java engine apache that Alfresco requires. So yes its possible to run Alfresco inside IIS.
Oracle is also another one that provides patches to programs like Alfresco on customer demand.
I have never asked google if they provide support contracts on third party software like Alfresco and pre dropped and configured hardware with it. Really should check.
So you could simply apply a policy restricting use of closed source solutions in time your own Internal IT staff will get to know the new system. Costs are quite min this way.
Support contract exist for open source mostly from large companies who operate global. Might be a bit hard to find a backyarder. Yes support contracts where they will fly in staff to where ever if required.
By someone needs a licensing course. GPLv2 does not have the requirement you are talking about.
Live website provide by GPLv2 code no requirement to give out source code even with something like alfresco. Now if alfresco was AGPL that would be a different matter. GPLv2 only kicks in when the program has a whole is shipped. Ie like setting up a server you are going to sell off.
Google did this for years with there own custom versions of the Linux kernel and other parts they use to run the google search engine and other business 100 percent legally.
Why did google stop doing this. Not sending patches up stream end up costing them more and more until it was no longer tolerable to there bottom line ie they could not afford to maintain there own patch sets any more. I don’t think your company would have the resources of google and you are talking about not sending fixes up stream. Basically are you nuts? or have you failed study what the costs would be.
Yes MIT and BSD not giving back is setting yourself up for a future problem. And yes houses using MIT and BSD internally did develop secuirty flaws and the like from it.
Most people who so called make a case against open source software deployments simply don’t know what they are talking about. You have been no different. A stack of claims that are invalid.
My misunderstanding of the GPL fair enough.
However just gloss over the points about we have no internal experience with any of the tech and we are given a lot of the software (including sharepoint) at a significant discount).
Edited 2010-12-14 17:53 UTC
May seam that way. Remember what I said about you not being use to the other model. Charity and school is the the rare location of not having to pay full price.
But you just said something critical. We have no internal experience. This means you cannot stand on your own two feet. You are paying support contracts people should support what you want. Yet due to the fact you don’t have the means to stand on your own feet you have to take trash since that is what the support people will support not what you need.
Simple fact if you cannot afford to have 1 skilled person without bias on staff you are likely to be ripped off in IT deals. Yes a person who truly does correct assessments. I know from the sad fact of having to work as a support contracted tech and being gaged from being able to tell the business everything I know. Ie tell them I am fired. So I see ill fitting systems go on with on going high maintenance costs. You might be getting the software cheep but you have nothing to be sure you are not paying out more over time.
There are plenty of Microsoft Gold Partners in the uk, for Alfresco there is only alfresco. Lets face it Microsoft are not going anywhere tomorrow. Who knows about Alfresco.
This shows me that you are not the person. Take OpenOffice Orcale at lead went where the developers supporting it did not agree so now we have libreoffice.
Do you not have your own web developer with java skills? That person has the basic skills to be part of the group Maintaining Alfresco. I guess when you were looking for Local support you did not go looking through your local web developers.
Alfresco does not need as many signed off people as MS. Since its Open Source and anyone basically can look. If you have a perminate web site you really should have a web developer anyhow.
Open Source stuff when you want ASP support more often than not you go looking for coders who will work with the open source communities.
What if Alfresco went by by as a company as long as there are users with there own support coders who are prepared to work in a community the need of the central company is reduced. Ie it does have some advantages but is not required for the project to stay alive on the open source world equal to life support. Until either a better replacement appears or another company picks it up.
Who cares what redistribution license is used for internal stuff like this? Since you never redistribute the code to anyone the GPL is simply irrelevant.
Edited 2010-12-14 13:31 UTC
If you are a user of the product, you have nothing to worry about when dealing with GPL. Even if you might want to sell the whole product to someone else.
This is an honest question; why was GPL not acceptable for your business? What industry are you in and what restrictions or management issues arose around GPL? Was it only GPL or all FOSS licenses (I could see GPL being an issue where MIT or BSD was not).
Only the insane use Sharepoint voluntarily. It is pure poison.
Edited 2010-12-14 13:28 UTC
I fscking hope not.
I love the choice that consumers have at the moment and I love the fact that consumers can make this choice without still havign to pay a “Mircosoft tax”.
What’s important is to ditch the previous paradigm’s way of analysing the success or failure of any technology strategy or product. Even if Microsoft were to take, for example, half the mobile phone market the emergence of the mobile computing market will still be a disaster for them as a company. Why?
During the epoch of Microsoft’s desktop monopoly the company could (and for the time being continues to) make very high profits on its core software products such as Windows and Office. These products could be sold with a high mark up because precisely because of Microsoft’s monopoly, there were no effective competitors, and the revenue and profits from just these core desktop software monopolies still remain the overwhelming pillars of Microsoft’s business.
In the new mobile markets the business model is entirely different. For a start it is highly unlikely that any one company’s software will become a monopoly standard for the mobile world so the mark up on software (which is after all Microsoft’s core business) will remain far below the rates historically enjoyed by Microsoft in the desktop segment. In fact the situation is worse for Microsoft in the world of mobile software and OS’s because it’s key competitor (i.e. the other major player with a major offering for OEMs) is offering its products for free.
Secondly it appears that in the new world of mobile devices that the makers of hardware (actually integrated hardware and software i.e. Apple) are the ones making almost all the profits. And Microsoft has no history at all of making even remotely substantial profits from hardware.
So as the technological and economic weight of the desktop fades so will the margins for Microsoft’s core business and at the same time even if Microsoft were to achieve substantial market share in mobile OSs and software it will not generate the profits to replace those lost in the desktop market.
There is not any market were MS is not under pressure by someone. This pressure is going to keep on increasing from now on.
There will be no more simple ride. EU basically forbids lot of MS hidden protocol stunts. Stating the old status quo will more often than not make a fool out of you. Please do as a favor before commenting be upto date.
In the future everyone will carry a smart phone around with them. When they approach a computer terminal, which will be a stationary mouse, keyboard and monitor, the phone will sync using high bandwidth low-distance wireless protocols. While at the terminal you simply set your phone on the desk/table, or even leave it in your pocket; you might plug it in to the power jack and possibly into an ethernet jack for faster net access (these might be one cable). All of your computing always takes place on your own device, possibly farming out intensive computation to external servers via partially-web/cloud/net-based apps. Storage is local to your phone with a sync service which mirrors to redundant, encrypted storage on a remote service provider silently and in the background, or on demand. Some files may not really existing locally but will be transferred on-demand if they are not in the local disk cache.
Thus, wherever you go you have your own computer and your own data, all of which is secure. None of this requires any technology that isn’t present now.
This paradigm may work to replace a home PC but likely won’t work for public terminals (disease and security…atms aren’t even that secure).
Edited 2010-12-14 14:25 UTC
What “Public terminals”? These don’t exist now and won’t exist in the future. The glorified kiosk systems you see here and there are not real computers, even if they happen to be implemented as real computers today, and will be something else in the future.
Where this will happen is home and some school and work environments.
We are still to see, if a real Linux would get a boost on mobile market. With the release of Meego handsets and Nokia’s resources behind it it very well might happen.
I’m a second hopeful for Meego. Having used Maemo through N800 to N900, the only WTF I’ve run into with Maemo5 was the lack of Samba client which existed in maemo4 if not Maemo3. (Booo.. why does my N900 file manager not just simply list my open shares at home like my N810 does)
(Ruby should also be fixed or updated to match other systems. There’s no excuse why Metasploit and other Ruby apps should fail with an error against Ruby just because it’s on Maemo.)
Of the mobile platforms out there though, Maemo/Meego is actually “open” not just marketed as such.
It is actually shocking to me to read some of these comments. If I took Open Office to *any* of our clients and said, “Hey it’s free,” and suggested a migration, we’d probably be fired. Is MSOffice perfect – heck no. Does it beat the pants off of open source competitors – by far. People miss the point that just b/c it’s expensive, a LOT of people will gladly pay for it because it works so well. It’s hard to explain that to people who brag about how many movies they’ve downloaded or how the day their favorite artist releases a new cd, they download it for free..without even thinking there’s anything wrong with it. This is not directed at anyone in particular, just the /. mindset permeating to a much nicer and friendlier forum.
We don’t have a single client, in 8 states, that could work without Win/Office. Yes, they can use Google Apps for email. What I find interesting is when people say it’s lower maintenance – it’s NOT. People’s Internet Connections go out all the time; certainly much more often than their well managed Exchange Server. Again we see the paradigm of if the broadband is out, our clients can still use Sharepoint, Exchange/etc and all of it.
Linux is a blast to mess around with. Open Office and all variants will let you produce a somewhat decent document. They all suck in comparison to MSFT’s product lines and they’re going to for a long time. Why? The same reason artists are giving up on producing products; no one wants to pay for anything anymore.
In what sense MS Office is better than OpenOffice? I find it neither more convenient, nor more functional for me. Most users utilize a common subset of functions of the office suite, and they are pretty the same between these two. If something, I found that OpenOffice has much better support for multilingual fonts rendering, and more options for language support in general.
Edited 2010-12-14 16:59 UTC
My Excel just crashed out again taking down my IE with it..
ok.. I’m back.. what where you saying?
Me too and still I have migrated some SMEs from pure Microsoft OS + MS Office to Linux. Why? Well… the customer demanded it. Look. Just because something is free it does not mean that it is wise to MIGRATE to it. It always has to make sense. If the cost to migrate from MS Office to an open source office suite is high and it does not justify to migrate and it does absolutely make no business sense to migrate, then why migrate?
If it works well for you AND you make your money with using MS Office then stay. Don’t migrate. b/c Openoffice.org is not expensive does not mean you have to move to it. Most of my customers don’t make their money by using any office suite. Usually they make their money with other things and they have specialized applications for that. Using an office suite is just something they use for writing an letter or making a quick spreadsheet. So using MS Office, OpenOffice.org, Libre Office, Google Docs, whatever…. all of them are good enough for them. Or to say it the other way around: None of them will gain or loose an business by using MS Office or Openoffice.org. What office suite they use is absolutely secondary.
/. mindset is not something you typically find in the business world.
I don’t doubt that statement, but let me ask you something: What would happen if (for what ever reason) Win/Office would be prohibited worldwide? Would your clients all go into bankruptcy? Maybe. If you ask me then I would guess that some of them will indeed and that a bigger part will adapt and find alternatives. The business world is not so stiffy as you tend to describe it.
Really? In an business environment? Maybe the states are differed then Switzerland (where I am from), but here I have yet to see one of my customers having significant internet connection issues.
What kind of business is so ultra giga dependent on how decent the document looks? I am not going to change my bank or my insurance if they are sending me a document that does not look so ultra super duper decent. At the end the decentness of the document is not important to me and to most business customers. Or are you one of the customers that will choose some crappy transportation company (as an example) just because their billing documents look decent? No way!
Steve,
Some good insights. As you can see, I’m very new here, so I haven’t figured out the code to list individual quotes.
You make good points, although here in the US, Ohio specifically, it’s not uncommon for our clients to have Internet Issues 2 times a month or so.
I am yet to be asked about Linux by a single client. Furthermore, I’ve brought it up to a couple for simple F&P or what have you, and most of them said something along the lines of “We’re a professional organization, we use professional software.” I am paraphrasing for a couple clients, however I’m sure you get the gist.
Actually the majority of our clientele is *very* regimented and specific about their documents, especially those which are sent to their clients. Might be a locale thing as you noted, but where we work and consult, those Word templates are as important as the text they contain. Your comments suggest a mindset that differs from not only how we practice business, but how our clients do so. We primarily work in the financial services vertical and executives in that arena WILL drop a vendor/etc based on aesthetics. Perhaps someone more retail based might not. I also can confirm that we have won contracts/agreements based solely on our presentation materials “Looking the best.” If you have 4 excellent consultant firms in the room, who all sold the same products at the same price, however only ones word doc looks “Right” on your computer, who’s going to get the bid?
And lastly, your point about the /. mindset was spot on; thank God.
Well… 2 times a month is a lot and it is as well nothing. It all depends what those issues are and how long they are. Here in Switzerland you usually don’t have issues. Even private users with ADSL or with cable don’t have issues. Off course I can not speak for the whole market in Switzerland but I would say that having issues with your high-speed internet connection is considered as something uncommon.
I don’t know what F&P is or for what it stands. Can you tell me what this acronym is standing for?
This is a funny statement. What do they consider as “professional”? I don’t want to attack you or your client but there is no universal “professional” in that regard. One might find something LaTeX/TeX for writing documents. Someone other might tell you that only the big commercial DTP software is professional for writing anything. And yet other will tell you that Microsoft Office is professional because MS is a commercial company and their product must be therefore professional because so many people us the software. And yet some one else will tell you that only Adobe InDesign is the best tool for writing documents. And the same kind of arguments can be made for spreadsheet and any other product. My end point is that there is no one universal valid “professional” in relation to using professional tools.
Oh… and something other: In German we have an expression saying that … “good/professional tools don’t make automatically an sculptor”.
Our primary sector is financial services too. But in that sector NONE of them uses Linux. Okay, okay… some of them have plans to go with Linux in the future but Linux will be only used on thin clients and then the end user works on Citrix or with Windows Terminal Services. So IMHO that Linux there does not count as an Linux desktop.
Word doc? You hand Word documents? We do consulting too and all our bid documents and stuff that we have give are PDFs. Word documents (actually other formats too) have the tendency to look different from computer to computer (depending on the used printer) and if you use professional fonts (not that stuff included in Windows) then you are pretty much lost when exchanging Word documents. PDFs are way better for that. And on top of that if we really want to impress the customer then we use (professional) layout software to make a super duper sexy document and then we export that to PDF.
btw: I personally would be surprised if you would be capable to distinguish what software was used to create a specific document by only looking at the document (either printed or in something like PDF). You will be amazed what is all possible with the various office tools. Regardless which suite you use. Off course if you are an long time MS Office user and switch to an other suite you will struggle and find that other suite to be unusable. But trust me. Everything is usable.
A few of mine are looking at Chrome OS style for the thinclients. Ie Chrome OS altered not to tell Google anything but all the other secuirty of Chrome OS used to prevent tampering. So the machines are not complete paper weights if server dies and that they cannot afford to have a virus from webbrower infecting data store.
It comes down to the define of what is a Desktop machine. Some people would say Chrome OS is some people would say is not. I am on the side that Chrome OS is a advanced thin client.
Financial services it depends on the country. The country tax department normally dominates the OS used here. Currently here you cannot submit to the tax office without windows or OS X. Yes I deal with Financial Services companies as well.
But other members of the group I am with work in other countries where you can submit to there tax departments from Linux and they do have Linux desktops in the Financial Services they support. Horrid form of desktop in my eyes Ubuntu. But each there own.
Here in Switzerland you can pretty much use Windows, Mac or Linux if you want to fill in your tax in a digital format. Take for example the Canton Zurich: http://www.steueramt.zh.ch/html/steuererklaerung/software.htm
Data is data. If the format is uniform then the system producing that data is not important. Or are you telling me that your tax office has a different data structure depending what OS is used? Really? Why?
From the OSNews article:
Let’s not exaggerate here. The tablet is not a radically different approach. The only thing that changes is the interaction device, i.e. instead of a mouse we use our fingers. Other than that, it’s still about icons and clicks.
True, but by Apple’s definition, the tablet is a scaled up smartphone, not a scaled down laptop. This could change very repidly, but currently the iPad pretty much defines the tablet market.
Impressive article. I like the way it snatches overall trends out of the confusion of statistics out there. I agree with its conclusions overall, but not with all its specifics. For example I question the absolute projection of sales trends when we know how quickly a technological curve ball can change everything. I also think market comparisons between the different device types it mentions are VERY difficult to make with any authority. Nonetheless I appreciate the article and would like to read more like this.
…and will sink with the island.
Microsoft isn’t really capable of doing a good phone or supporting the kind of devices that the market is moving to. Sales of WinPhone7 are dismal despite $500 million in marketing – so not even those susceptible to marketing are buying it. And this is already Microsoft’s third or fourth attempt to gain in the mobile market over the last decade – a market that is very quickly leaving them behind.
Now, I’ve got a Google Nexus One (which you can actually still buy as a development phone as a registered Android Developer – $25 charge for registration). The only reason it has not fully replaced my laptop (running Gentoo Linux nonetheless) is because I can’t hook a larger monitor and keyboard to it and the disk space (512 MB flash) is abysmal. Now they fixed the disk space issue with the Nexus S (16 GB flash); but there’s still no way to add a monitor/keyboard.
Yes – having a little mobile phone that I could drop in a small dock and add a monitor and keyboard would be perfect – or even be able to set it down on a surface and roll out a keyboard while it displays the screen in the air – something bigger that is easier to use for document editing and coding.
Yes, we’re almost there – the technology has been around for a while (re: heliodisplay and various forms of holographics) but it still has a while to mature to the point where it can be packed into something that small.
Why can’t you add a monitor and keyboard? My n900 supports external USB devices and bluetooth devices, so there’s keyboard and mouse, plus it does video out and will connect with an LCD.
Yes, I could connect a Bluetooth keyboard; possibly a USB keyboard/mouse too – but no, there’s no connection for a monitor. Might have to jail break it for some of those devices – haven’t quite tried – but there’s nothing available to connect it to a monitor with. If there was – I’d be picking up the keyboard/mouse without question. Perhaps an Android Tablet will do the job though…
I’d say it would depend on the handset. Android must certainly support video out in general, but not for every model.
Lets simply except the fact. At this point of history. Linux is in most ready state it ever been to take the desktop market.
A few have claimed Linux desktop is dead but they have not started looking at the applications Linux now has. Results is not something dead. But something so insanely alive its not funny.
This prep work is not reducing. So the current state of readiness is only the tip of a very large and growing iceberg in MS path.
OpenOffice and libreoffice are not only used as Office Suite but as conversion engines and document production engines. When was the last time you saw a Desktop running AIX? Yes there is a actively maintained port of libreoffice and openoffice to AIX for server usage.
I hear windows people say MS windows gets the cream. Sorry I still have many KDE applications like basket that have not managed to be ported in a practical usable way to windows. 400+ meg install is on windows is kinda insane for what basket is.
Lot of the road blocks people try to raise now are Historic truths and are completely untrue now.
Lightworks is a case path changing in a big way. A Linux hardware builder aquired Lightworks out right because they wanted a good video editor for there Linux Product line. Google did the same thing with Webm. Just like MS has sucked up other companies to get features the Linux hardware makers and supporting companies are now getting rich enough start doing the same thing. Tide is now changing direction. Question is how fast can the tide move in Linux direction. This does effect if MS will remain alive.
Wifi card support for Linux is currently at almost 100 percent and will be at 100 percent support before the end of next year. This is better than Windows 7 in fact some early versions of Wifi cards have not had there drivers updated for Windows 7. This is also happening in more classes of hardware where Linux has current and old all working perfectly.
ARM requirement for Unique per device kernel is being worked on being solved. This will make Linux able to operate like Windows does kinda on White box hardware with arm devices. Note kinda bundled with all drivers required no driver installing required.
These things are not dreams. Arm x86 hybred laptops can be bought today.
The changes going on in the Linux world are having direct effects on the market.
Question how much would it cost to buy adobe out right? Since they appear to have so many key products it worth while considering.
Your optimism while wildly unfounded, is appreciated.
Merry christmas, linux!
Morglum