Martin Taylor recently marked his one-year anniversary as Microsoft Corp.’s chief Linux strategist. Taylor, whose official title is general manager of platform strategy, recently spoke with Computerworld about his first year in that job. This is Part 2 of the interview. Part 1 is also available online.
Q&A: Microsoft’s Linux strategist Martin Taylor, Part 2
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Just so we’re clear, you are aware that he’s a Microsoft employee, right? That certainly doesn’t give any more credibility to his argument, but you talk as if Computerworld just interviewed some random Windows fanatic.
microsoft employee toes microsoft party line on the subject of Linux.
I spent two days getting deep on every single Linux distribution on the desktop.
Uhuh. The übergeek.
ha ha ha.
i’m calling him out, there’s no way he spent two days “getting deep” on every single Linux distribution on the desktop. that either means a) he spent two days to cover all distributions which means he didn’t “get deep” or b) he spent two days per distribution, which would have taken him close to a year or more (i mean, look at how many debian-based distributions there are).
he could have at least said on twenty or so most popular distributions (or an estimate of how every many has did actually thoughtfully looked at).
he could have at least said on twenty or so most popular distributions (or an estimate of how every many has did actually thoughtfully looked at).
I guess it was the usual stuff: He logged into SuSE and Red Hat, maybe even Mandrake and Xandros.
looked for Internet Explorer – absent.
looked for Windows Media Player – absent.
looked for Solitaire – feels unfamiliar.
double-clicked “kurnikova_nude_pics.exe” – “Run with…” dialog appeared.
Not hard to see Desktop Linux is not ready, isn’t it?
I spent two days getting deep on every single Linux distribution on the desktop.
Gosh! Is that possible? I thought with a new Desktop Linux distro ever half-a-day, this claim is near impossible 🙂
Looks like Microsoft is really naive on the topic of Linux and what open-source, in general, is.
How can a company who get 50-80% revenue on their products claim to have a better TCO? It’s so sickening to keep reading this talk about “M$-facts” without mentioning any real facts. What do they tell these Unix guys who agree to switch to Windows?
Linux might not be ready for the home desktop, but *nix/BSD is more than ready for corporate use. It must be the worldwide poplution of the environment and the deterioration of the Ozone layer that a lot people can’t think clearly anymore…
Aside from the PR spin-doctor drivel, which no doubt will appeal to many CEO’s, he says little of substance.
The problem with Microsoft’s version of TCO is that it does not address vendor lockin. Anyone who’s been through an enterprise platform migration knows the deferred costs you encounter when you want to get out of an entrenched proprietary solution.
So, here’s a couple of new acronyms:
TFC = Total Forfeiture of Choice
TLF = Total Loss of Freedom
Microsoft wins big on both these measures.
from part one:
“they’re (Novell) going to need to do stuff to differentiate themselves from Red Hat, which then means that they need to find ways to basically almost have a customized distribution. And you can end up with Linux not being Linux, but Red Hat Linux being different than Novell SUSE Linux, Debian Linux and Mandrake, or whatever the case is.”
“IBM’s going to be even more beholden to Red Hat and to Novell to do things in that [distribution] for their application stack to work effectively. …”
He has this mindset of Linux as a commercial product, and ppl being held hostage to some commercial vendor. He thinks that Linux ceases to be Linux when it goes from one distro to the other?
part two:
” I spent two days getting deep on every single Linux distribution on the desktop. “
The unintentional humor of that last quote was already mentioned, but I might add that while there are many hundreds of distributions, they are not all distinctive, since many of them that I know of are based on Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, etc. , and so a knowledge of those major distros could conceivably be applied to some extent to the descendant distros. Even then, spending a scant 2 days is insufficient, and Martin now has less credibility in my eyes than he had before (which wasn’t much). He is not qualified to be making authoritative comparisons.
I love Linux and Martin’s statements make me feel good.
“How can a company who get 50-80% revenue on their products claim to have a better TCO? It’s so sickening to keep reading this talk about “M$-facts” without mentioning any real facts. What do they tell these Unix guys who agree to switch to Windows?
Linux might not be ready for the home desktop, but *nix/BSD is more than ready for corporate use. It must be the worldwide poplution of the environment and the deterioration of the Ozone layer that a lot people can’t think clearly anymore…”
yes drizzle, small, mid, and large biz should rely on the postings of a few dozen os experts on os news for definitive insight on what it takes to run their enterprises most efficiently. the tens of millions of consumers and businesses worldwide that have chosen ms solutions are filled with bumbling idiots.
makes you wonder how the industrialized world has grown ever more productive as ms products slowly grew to take the lion share of both desktop and server oses.
must all be lies.
i smell a giant stinky conspiracy somewhere nearby.
This guy deserves a pie in the face. What a joke.
“He has this mindset of Linux as a commercial product, and ppl being held hostage to some commercial vendor.”
do you wonder why?
note that linux is only now starting to make real progress now that ibm, hp, sun, sgi, etc are starting to back it. those firms could care diddly about linux other than for two basic reasons: it is a vehicle for them to sell other products and services, and two, it may be a tool to blunt the power of their chief rival/partner ms.
you dont think business can feal a bit of fear over vendor lockin when buying enterprise linux/hardware/and support contracts from the twin $90 billion dollar behemoths, hp or ibm?….both about double the size of ms.
do you think ms has anything to seriously fear from hobbyists that download different versions of free software from the net?
fact: you have to buy a pc from some outlet. cant download the hardware. so linux to get on those boxes at the outset will need to come from some commercial entity….at least in any significant numbers.
fact: no appreciable number of businesses will end up relying on software without comprehensive support. the commercial arm of linux distribution comes into play when you start looking at support contracts.
fact: when you start pricing out ms server and desktop oses on commoditiy hardware versus the same solutions from ibm, sun, red hat, novell, etc using linux, you will see that ms is price competitive…..and in good faith they negotiate. munich ended up spending more than ms bid for the contract that linux won. munich is now dealing with training issues on top of it….and serious integration issues as well. munich made a political statement and their tax payers are paying for it.
whats the sun java desktop system and linux cost per user per year?
what does a red hat workstation os license cost with support?
ms doesnt fear linux, they want to protect their slice of the total IT landscape from sun, ibm, hp, dell, intel, novell, redhat, etc and it is a very tricky fight indeed….many of those companies of course help ms to make money and ms in turns helps them sell products as well.
its all about power and total revenues. hobbyist downloads of free distros on the net have a long way to go before they will exert any real clout.
so yes, ms is really only concerned with commercial linux.
That whole trying to be sarcastic about businesses listening to people on osnews comment is getting old, I have read it over and over when articles like this come up. It bores me. No one is trying to provide advice to businesses everywhere they are simply speaking THEIR opinion on the article in comment. They are well aware of who this site is targeted at and who will read there comments, and that isn’t some business contemplating switching OS software.
the point is that it is incredibly vain to think
“It’s so sickening to keep reading this talk about “M$-facts” without mentioning any real facts. What do they tell these Unix guys who agree to switch to Windows?”
that ms facts are nothing but outlandish lies that only nitwits and nimrods would fall for. the unix and novell and apple guys that have slowly dropped their platforms for ms products over the last 15 years are in many cases the brightest minds in tech.
ever wonder why motorola and ibm, both the hardware makers of the powerpc primarily run their businesses using ms software?
the people that were so hoodwinked by ms into buying their products are now (evidently) the same low IQ people that the linux folks are trying to convert to their platform.
should we respect them if they switch to linux, or should we put it off to them remaining somehow slower than the elites that are in the know?
the sarcasm is meant to shed light on how dumb the propostion is that drizzle makes. fact is the world is not 7 billion zombies walking about mesmerized by ms lies. consumers do a pretty good job buying just what they need and want…whether it be the single person or a giant biz like ibm with a couple hundred thousand desktop pcs.
True. Your points are well taken.
“do you think ms has anything to seriously fear from hobbyists that download different versions of free software from the net?”
No, but I’ll bet they’d get nervous if lots of corporate IT ppl were doing so. But that only happens rarely–in the mainstream corporate mindset, the concept of FOSS is completely alien. To them, software is only obtainable via retail, knowledge is only found in a book or a class, and a solution is bought rather than created. And Martin is very much part of the corporate mindset. He thinks like them, and talks their language. And he readily concedes this:
“The other scenario, which is very small, comes up with, like, pharmaceutical [companies] that are high engineering, mostly high R&D-type companies. I leave the room saying “I had nothing” when they say, “Hey, we want to rip the covers off. We don’t want a commercial [distribution]. We want to do it ourselves. We want to support it. We’ll take the risk.” If you want to take on all the internal cost to basically build your own system-level software, Godspeed, because that’s not the market that we’re in.”
and redhat, ibm, sun, novell, etc charge a lot for support. folks like to talk about how expensive ms is. but for instance xp for biz has 10 yrs of support commited to it. support ends in 2011!
key thing about the point about pharmaceuticals or edu clusters etc is “The other scenario, which is very small,”
“which is very small”
what is really big, is 150 million desktops and a couple of million server oses sold every year.
and the most frightful thing for all of those commercial linux folks…is ms has such nice margins, they always have the option of lowering prices.
we win as consumers.
” I spent two days getting deep on every single Linux distribution on the desktop. ”
obiviously gentoo wasnt one of them
Linux is never going to go away. Let’s just agree that that’s not going to happen. Linux will still exist in some form even if the open-source community continues to just keep it alive
Emmm is this guy a complete cockjockey or what ?
Linux was built up by the open-source community and will always continue to do so.
Microsoft must have some pretty stupid “yes men” that hang around Billy boy, I can imagine the comments they make….
“Yes Mr Gates, if we can put out some fud about Redhat,then Linux will be destroyed”
“Yes Mr Gates, If we can prove that OpenOffice is slower to open than MS Office, Linux uptake will die down.”
“Yes Mr Gates, If we offer huge cash amounts to SuSE, they will sell up and we can finally defeat Linux”
These Microsoft people need to accept that no matter what they try, they can never defeat Linux. They are surrounded on all sides, and will continue to be in the future.
and the most frightful thing for all of those commercial linux folks…is ms has such nice margins, they always have the option of lowering prices.
Those margins mean nothing: If M$ is to compete with Linux then they’ll need to commit to a zero margin…
“These Microsoft people need to accept that no matter what they try, they can never defeat Linux. They are surrounded on all sides, and will continue to be in the future.”
“Those margins mean nothing: If M$ is to compete with Linux then they’ll need to commit to a zero margin…”
did you skip your cereal this morning? i think you have it the other way around. linux has been out since 1991 right? 13 yrs later and it is still just a tiny fraction of the installed os base worldwide. does it need another 13 yrs to get somewhere? ms has already defeated linux, linux is now playing catch up.
ms has competed head to head with linux for 13 years and crushed it.
ms does not need a zero margin when competing with ibm, hp, sun, redhat, suse, xandros, linspire, etc. when competing against fedora core or suse personal edition they dont need a zero margin either as plenty of folks are still willing to pay for real service and support.
and funniest thing of all, even for those that insist on zero cost, ms still competes via piracy. take a look at china, a country that is firmly windows, though ms is just now starting to grow its revenue base there. chinas technology infrastructure has been built using pirated software and now ms will reap the rewards with a huge installed base of trained workers knowing windows. as china continues to move into the world economy and begins to adhere to trade laws, they will only grow as a revenue source for ms. see korea as a perfect example for how it has already played out.
and again, hobbyist downloads of free software ultimately poses no real threat to ms. there simply arent any numbers there.
The Demise of Microsoft
=======================
In the long saga of the battle between the world and its detested adversary,
the Microsoft corporation, everybody is dying to see how the movie end.
Everybody also knows that in the movie the antagonist always dies at the end,
but the question is how? To most who detest Microsoft vehemently they would
like to see a quick and horrid death and those who detest even more so would
only find a sadistic pleasure in seeing nothing less than having Microsoft being
slowly skinned alive on a burning stake.
An IT Fairy Tale
=================
Once upon the time, there was a computer software company named Microsoft,
whose craftiness in marketing made it become one of the most popular software company
on the planet. However, once that company attained its dominant position
in the marketplace, greed and fear filled the unsettled soul of Microsoft.
The company then aggressively pursued and eliminated almost all of its contenders,
names that once were legends one by one fell to Microsoft’s sword, WordPerfect,
Borland, Novell, Netscape, Corel and more. Soon, people saw Microsoft for what
it was, a cunning roguish company that had no conscience to stop itself doing whatever
it needs to achieve its ambitions. All the other software companies
realized that there will be no end to Microsoft’s unquenchable thirst for power but
none dared to challenge Microsoft until one day a young knight developed an operating
system called Linux. Linux came with a license called Open Source, which represented
to all the other companies a platform from which they can rally together in a
silent treaty to overthrow the software tyrant. One day, Microsoft woke up
and saw a huge army amassed upon the hills, companies that once were shot, wounded,
cheated and humiliated now all carry the same banner, the flag of Linux. Amongst
the valiant warriors, were IBM, Novell, Sun, Oracle, Sony, Fujitsu, Red Hat and CA and
amongst the catapults and shields they used were forged from the power of Open Source,
Apache, OpenOffice, Mozilla, PosgreSQL, MySql, Python, PHP, Samba and much
more. What Microsoft saw shook its heart, however its power to control the market
is still immense and with 56 billion dollars in the vault, its going to put up a very
good fight. This is the year 2004 and the battle has just begun.
The Crystal Ball
================
So my young seer, you wish to see how this battle unfold? First, you have to understand
how unlike previous battles where the companies were easily and ruthlessly cut down
by Microsoft, this time the catapults and shields that the Allies formed from Open Source
were impenetrable, in fact, the more Microsoft attacked the slowly advancing catapults and shields,
the stronger the catapults and shields became. How can that be? The magic of Open Source.
All artifacts created from Open Source do not obey the laws of the jungle, first of all
artifacts are immortalized by having the source code freely distributed across the
earth, as Microsoft attacks one point more heads would sprout from different places.
Another power of Open Source is leverage, in the old times when a developer was to
write a software, he practically has to write most of the libraries himself/herself or
purchase or license expensive code sets from other companies like Microsoft. Nowadays,
these libraries are all available freely from Open Source, graphics libraries,
network libraries, XML libraries, parsers, compilers, were all there for all to share.
This is the leverage that hasn’t been available to developers before, now all the
Davids have slingshots.
Rebellion of the Serfs
======================
Back to that same once ancient period, almost all developers lived under the direction and
command of Microsoft. Their blind obedience contributed immensely to
the growth of Microsoft. They created applications of all sorts of shapes
and sizes which made the Microsoft platform very popular. All these times
while they toiled away using the Microsoft platform, the power of the source
code were hidden from them. They used APIs that had features
hidden from them. They used document formats but were never able to tell how they
worked internally. Year after year, their frustrations grow as they realized
they were handicapped less they pose a threat to the Microsoft Empire. Their
enslavement however seemed perpetual until one day, prophets came and revealed
to them their true destiny. For the first time they saw that they did not
have kowtow to the greedy Empire, they themselves were their own source of
power and wealth and in alliance they inherit all the power and wealth that they create
amongst themselves, this was the freedom offered by Open Source. It didn’t take long
for the word to spread and soon all the brave developers started to work with only
Open Source tools. The Microsoft Empire eventually found that their tools like
Visual Studio and ASP were no longer so popular and that everybody were escaping
towards strange platforms and tools like Linux, OpenOffice, PHP, Python, wxWidgets, GTK and
much more.
In retaliation, the Empire started to fight against the source from which these tools seemed to
be coming from, the Open Source movement. To many of these brave developers, this is
going to be the final straw for Microsoft, to them every line of code they contribute to
Open Source is another brick they get to throw at Microsoft. This is the year
2004 and the rebellion of the serfs has also just started.
The Final Days
==============
Like the wizard of OZ, Microsoft’s power comes from its illusion of its
overwhelming size and market dominance. In the final days of Microsoft
as it will be foretold from here, three horsemen of doom will declare the
the terminal fate of Microsoft. The first horseman with a sickle engraved
“Market Loss”, will strike at Microsoft mercilessly. In great fear and
horror Microsoft will find that all the slaves no longer buy its products as
there are better alternatives. All those nearby
will have to take shelter under rocks as Microsoft will reveal its demonic
form, it will sprout long-horns and spew forth vile lies about its enemies, and fight with every last
tooth and nail in the most enraged madness as one would expect from a demon.
The second horseman with arrows engraved “Profit Dive” carries a poison
that will eat away the flesh of Microsoft. The glorious billions of dollars raked
in every year will shrink to a shameful trickle, and losses will tally up
like mountains leaving a bleeding and shriveled shell that have no where to run.
The third horsemen will carry
a flaming sword that the mere sight will paralyze companies, engraved on it “Stock Plunge”
and he shall plunge it right into Microsoft’s heart and Microsoft will cry out so horribly
that markets all over the world will shake, Microsoft shareholders will
beat dust on their heads while throwing themselves off buildings.
The once overwhelming size and power of Microsoft will be no longer.
It will become like a small, feeble and detested rodent that everybody
will then have the privilege to spit on. And thus these shall be the prophecy
for the final days of Microsoft, but my brave warriors be prepared for the coming wars and
the final wars that have yet to arrive. This is the year 2004.
makes me realize that Microsoft has never understood open source. They see the whole open source movement as just a few companies like Novell and Redhat. The ignore the absolute diversity that GNU/Linux has assumed. That diversity is it’s secret strength. While MS fights with IBM, Novell, and Redhat in the foreground the power of open source will continue to grow in the background away from the unknowing eye of Microsoft. That is like a doctor treating the symptoms to a fatal disease while allowing the virus to spread unchecked throughout the patient’s body. While the doctor is worried with the patient’s snotty nose, the patient is quietly expiring from heart failure. This is a great time for Linux.
“As we continue to balance the playing field on TCO and security and reliability, if we’re at full parity, then the whole message would just be about value. ..”
So he is saying that Microsoft hasn’t reached parity yet on TCO or security or reliability, and I doubt they ever will because their software development methologies are procedurally flawed, but by his own admission anyone who cares about security, reliability or TCO should not be looking at Microsoft products right now.
Thanks Mr. Taylor for implicitly saying what we all know.
are you playing silly or are you genuinely retarded ?
did you skip your cereal this morning? i think you have it the other way around. linux has been out since 1991 right? 13 yrs later and it is still just a tiny fraction of the installed os base worldwide. does it need another 13 yrs to get somewhere? ms has already defeated linux, linux is now playing catch up.
ms has competed head to head with linux for 13 years and crushed it.
Linux has indeed been available since 1991. The kernel that is, the first distro was slackware in 1993. So that is really 11 years.
Windows has been around since 1984, hmm that is 20 years.
Microsoft has not defeated Linux in ANY markets.. Just look at all the FUD microsoft is putting out about Linux.. Microsoft is running scared.
ALSO…
ms still competes via piracy. take a look at china, a country that is firmly windows, though ms is just now starting to grow its revenue base there. chinas technology infrastructure has been built using pirated software and now ms will reap the rewards with a huge installed base of trained workers knowing windows
this looks like you are condoning piracy ? do YOU have fully legal copies of windows, office, photoshop on your pc ?
More and more governments in countries around the world are dumping windows and moving to linux. Read the news sites boy.
@ Samvo – excellent post
how is writing about what happens in china condoning piracy? your logic and ability to associate disparate pieces of information is still back at about a 5th grade level. are you a preteen?
how mature of you to insinuate that because someone writes about piracy that they must then use pirated software.
grow up.
“Microsoft has not defeated Linux in ANY markets”
i guess your 5th grade technology basics class hasn’t taught you that ms has over 90% of the desktop os market? and they have done it precisely over the same time frame that linux has existed.
at the pace that linux moves…2 years from kernel to first distro, 11 more years and folks are every year saying it is the year of linux (never materializes), it appears that linux has something like 11 more years to move to what 3% of the desktop os share?
ms also has more windows servers installed worldwide than any other os.
“More and more governments in countries around the world are dumping windows and moving to linux. Read the news sites boy.”
yes, some are moving. which impies most are already windows. i too have seen many high profile government decisions to stick with windows in recent weeks and months. and spend a little time researching munich and its linux migration and the headaches they are running into….and massive cost overruns. check on how many desktops they are leaving running windows because it “just works”.
with linux the good ole days are always tomorrow….
This interview makes me realize that Microsoft has never understood open source. They see the whole open source movement as just a few companies like Novell and Redhat. The ignore the absolute diversity that GNU/Linux has assumed. That diversity is it’s secret strength. While MS fights with IBM, Novell, and Redhat in the foreground the power of open source will continue to grow in the background away from the unknowing eye of Microsoft.
Of course Microsoft equals “open-source” to companies supporting it! Those companies will be the only threat to Microsoft– Microsoft has nothing to fear from non-commercially backed operating systems.
For companies, it’s support that matters. Providing support is the main deal. Only companies such as Red Hat and Sun can offer enterprise-grade support, your “open-source” cannot do that. Companies with hundreds of Linux systems won’t surf to http://www.linuxquestions.org/.com (forgot) to solve their problems, dude.
The only way for non-commercially backed Linux distro’s to become a real threat to MS is when companies such as HP/Compaq and Dell start selling machines with Linux pre-installed on a grand scale + offering customer-support. They won’t do that. They’d loose customers. Customers demand Windows+MS Office and the ability to use all the software they have from their previous PC.
First off… Thom. I agree. Customers at the minute demand Windows and Office… It is up to Linux to make up the differences and offer something better, and totally compatible.
Now..
Anonymous (IP: —.chvlva.adelphia.net)
Too scared to put up a name and email address ?
You said… and I quote….
“ms still competes via piracy. take a look at china, a country that is firmly windows, though ms is just now starting to grow its revenue base there. chinas technology infrastructure has been built using pirated software and now ms will reap the rewards with a huge installed base of trained workers knowing windows “
This paraphrase does indeed condone piracy, you state that Microsoft will indeed benefit in the future, from people using illegal copies.
BTW – You really are dim and behind the times.
China has dropped Windows and is using RedFlag Linux.
ALSO…
” i guess your 5th grade technology basics class hasn’t taught you that ms has over 90% of the desktop os market? and they have done it precisely over the same time frame that linux has existed. “
In 1993, Windows held between 94-96% of the worlds desktops. Now they are down to 90%. There has also been a steady decline in Solaris/Mac/UNIX machines…. Take a guess at what most of them have been replaced by.
So..
Anonymous (IP: —.chvlva.adelphia.net)
Go back into school tomorrow and ask you cs teacher to explain that one to you
“In 1993, Windows held between 94-96% of the worlds desktops. Now they are down to 90%. There has also been a steady decline in Solaris/Mac/UNIX machines…. Take a guess at what most of them have been replaced by.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/16/IPOD.TMP
your ignorance shows your age. first off in 1993, the majority of pcs in the world still ran DOS, not windows.
and as for your made up numbers, search the web next time and get some accurate data:
“By 1993, Apple was the No. 2 computer-maker in the world behind IBM, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the worldwide PC market share.”
your ignorance will get exposed every time you display it.
in 1993 the majority of PCs did run dos, I agree there, but they also had Windows 3.1 on them
that link you posted about Apples, read half way down it, it says that Apples themselves couldn’t see themselves being swamped with Windows machines in 1992 and 1993
You are showing your age in fact.
1990 Windows 3.0
1991 Windows 3.1
1992 Windows 3.11 (For Workgroups)
DOS not needed:
1994 Windows 95
1997 Windows 98
1998 Windows ME
1999 Windows 2000
2001 Windows XP
200? Windows Longhorn
Also in 1993 Apple “might” have been the 2nd biggest supplier of Pcs after IBM, so what ? that is “HARDWARE” they are talking about. Granted you can’t buy an Apple without an Apple OS, but them facts you quoted mean nothing when you are talking about the size of Windows market share.
I have a question for you sonny boy, what OS was on your first computer ?
Your dates are wrong (very wrong in some cases).
DOS-based Windows
1990 Windows 3.0
– The first version of Windows that could be described as ‘popular’, caused the (in)famous IBM-Microsoft split.
1992 Windows 3.1
– Cemented Windows’ hold on the market, first real death chimes for OS/2 start ringing.
1993 Windows 3.11
– Nearly 1994, a much, much bigger improvement than it’s 0.01 increment would suggest, should really have been something like Windows 3.2 or 3.5.
1995 Windows 95
– August ’95 – how could anyone who was there not remember that after the advertising blitz ? Windows 95 bundled OS/2’s body into the coffin.
1998 Windows 98
– Marginal/incremental upgrade of ’95. Much like Windows 3.1 was to 3.0.
2000 Windows ME
– The last squeeze of the Windows 9x teat.
Non-DOS-based Windows:
1993 Windows NT 3.1
– First released version. ‘3.1’ to share version numbers with DOS-based Windows for marketing purposes. Unpopular because of its immaturity, relatively high system requirements, relatively poor performance and the dominance of other platforms (OS/2, UNIX, Novell) in its target markets.
1994 Windows NT 3.5
– Incremental update over 3.1. Makes few inroads.
1995 Windows NT 3.51
– Another significant update hiding under a 0.01 version increment. Actually starts stealing some marketshare from competitors.
1996 Windows NT 4.0
– First really popular version of Windows NT. NT4 destroyed Netware and hammered the final nail into OS/2’s coffin. Became a cornerstone of the typical Enterprise desktop and a significant player in the ‘back office’ until well after the release of Windows 2000.
2000 Windows 2000
– Big improvement over NT4. Considered by many (although not me) to be the pinnacle of Windows [NT] development.
2001 Windows XP
– More consumer oriented version of Windows 2000. Has some good UI improvements over Windows 2000, but under-the-hood changes are relatively small.
Apple fans who like to criticise Microsoft for their slow release cycle might like to consider that back when Windows was a similarly immature platform in need of rapid improvements it also had a quick release cycle like OS X does now. As OS X matures and they run out of things that really need to be fixed (like interactive performance – it’s gotten markedly better but is still poor) you should expect it’s release cycle to slow, or move to “token releases” like Windows 98 SE and Windows ME were to the Windows world. Basically, they just run out of (significant) things that need improving.
Microsoft has not defeated Linux in ANY markets..
Um, so which markets do you think Linux has “defeated” Windows in ?
SME servers and desktops ? Nope.
Enterprise servers and desktops ? Nope.
Home desktops ? Nope.
The covers pretty much all the markets Microsoft participate in with real enthusiasm and Linux is barely even a blip on the radar in all of them.
Just look at all the FUD microsoft is putting out about Linux.. Microsoft is running scared.
You obviously lack historical perspective. Microsoft *always* play hard, even if the ‘threat’ is insignificant.
I’m not sure why you think they’re “running scared”. Linux is barely even a credible competitor in the core Microsoft markets of File/Print/Active Directory (or equivalent) servers, messaging solutions (Exchange), business software (Office, etc), business desktops and home desktops.
Linux excels in markets like clustered computing (Google-like environments, computing clusters, webserver farms), high density web hosting, infrastructure (core DNS-type services), unix workstations, embedded devices and customers who have the interest, expertise and requirements for heavy customisations. Of these, the only areas Microsoft could even be said to participating in are web clusters and embedded devices.
About the only market Linux could credibly have been said to have ‘defeated’ Microsoft is embedded devices. Even web serving is mostly a wash (there’s a lot more platforms running Apache out there than Linux)
hahahahaha yes I agree with you on that one. Last time I looked, redhat, suse or even debian never had a WINDOWS server
He means there are more Windows servers out there than any other OS (OS = specific linux distro, Solaris, Netware).
It seems a reasonable assertion, although I’d be interested to see some real numbers. Windows servers are *huge* in the SME market because of products like Windows SBS.
did you mean WEB servers ? if so, once again go back to your cs teacher and ask him to excuse you while you go to your maths teacher to ask him to explain the figures for you
Web *sites* != web *servers*. Netcraft counts web *sites*, not physical machines. Although I sincerely doubt there’s even as many – let alone more – Windows based webservers out there than even Linux ones, the difference is nowhere near as big as Netcraft would suggest.
How can a company who get 50-80% revenue on their products claim to have a better TCO?
Why do you think Microsoft’s profit margin (which is what I assume you mean by “revenue”) is at all related to the TCO of their solutions *to other businesses* ?
Which one of products A, B, C or D is cheaper for an arbitrary business to use is completely and utterly independent of the profit margins realised by the companies who sell those products.
It’s so sickening to keep reading this talk about “M$-facts” without mentioning any real facts. What do they tell these Unix guys who agree to switch to Windows?
How is that any different to “Linux facts” ?
Aside from the PR spin-doctor drivel, which no doubt will appeal to many CEO’s, he says little of substance.
Hardly surprising – did you read the questions ?
The problem with Microsoft’s version of TCO is that it does not address vendor lockin. Anyone who’s been through an enterprise platform migration knows the deferred costs you encounter when you want to get out of an entrenched proprietary solution.
Any non-trivial environment has “vendor lockin”, regardless of whether they’re running their business on Redhat Linux, IBM Linux, Suse Linux, Windows, OS X or a bunch of trained monkeys with abacuses.
You can’t just up and move 10,000 desktops and 500 servers from RHEL to Debian at the drop of hat, as some Linux zealots seem to believe.
No, but I’ll bet they’d get nervous if lots of corporate IT ppl were doing so. But that only happens rarely–in the mainstream corporate mindset, the concept of FOSS is completely alien. To them, software is only obtainable via retail, knowledge is only found in a book or a class, and a solution is bought rather than created. And Martin is very much part of the corporate mindset. He thinks like them, and talks their language. And he readily concedes this:
That’s because when a software breakage is costing some business tens of thousands of dollars a minute, they don’t want to have to rely on a 14 year old in some country they can’t even pronounce to fix the problem, if he can be bothered.
Businesses don’t buy “software”, they buy “solutions”. And those “solutions” usually come with support contracts, product lifecycle guarantees and a clear path of inquiry when something goes wrong.
Why do so few people understand the cost of *buying* software is practically inconsequential compared to the cost of *running* software ?
did you skip your cereal this morning? i think you have it the other way around. linux has been out since 1991 right? 13 yrs later and it is still just a tiny fraction of the installed os base worldwide. does it need another 13 yrs to get somewhere? ms has already defeated linux, linux is now playing catch up.
ms has competed head to head with linux for 13 years and crushed it.
No, it hasn’t. Microsoft has mainly been competing with Novell, IBM, Netscape and various others for the last 13 years. The core of Linux and Microsoft’s target markets barely even have any overlap.
About the only places Linux and Microsoft could really be said to be “competing” are embedded software and web serving.
and again, hobbyist downloads of free software ultimately poses no real threat to ms. there simply arent any numbers there.
More importantly, there isn’t any money there, so relevance to Microsoft is zero.
makes me realize that Microsoft has never understood open source. They see the whole open source movement as just a few companies like Novell and Redhat.
No, they understand it perfectly. They just *ignore* the parts that aren’t Redhat, IBM, etc because those parts are completely irrelevant to their objectives.
The ignore the absolute diversity that GNU/Linux has assumed. That diversity is it’s secret strength.
That fragmentation is equally it’s greatest weakness, if you’re looking at it from the perspective of ‘defeating Microsoft’.
While MS fights with IBM, Novell, and Redhat in the foreground the power of open source will continue to grow in the background away from the unknowing eye of Microsoft.
And do what ? Enterprises aren’t going to be running their business on software they download from sourceforge and have to rely on postings to newsgroups to support. Typical home users aren’t going to be building their own machines and then downloading Random Linux Distribution #37 to install on it, they’ll be buying a working computer from the store that they take home, plug in, turn on and use.
The portion of the marketplace you are referring to is simple not relevant to Microsoft. There is no business there. There is no money there.
“hahahahaha yes I agree with you on that one. Last time I looked, redhat, suse or even debian never had a WINDOWS server
did you mean WEB servers ? if so, once again go back to your cs teacher and ask him to excuse you while you go to your maths teacher to ask him to explain the figures for you”
again either ignorance or you are simply trying to pull people’s chains–
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
shows apache at 68%
ms is at 21%
now that is just for public facing web servers
apache of course runs on windows, linux, unix, mac os etc.
huge numbers of the linux web servers are actually a single os image on a single server with many web hosts being shared on that box, artificially raising the linux numbers.
and of course many millions of servers do not host web sites and are not publicly accessible at all so….
for real numbers you can look to hundreds of articles, reviews, and news postings about linux and windows over the last so many years but to give you a quick idea of recent numbers:
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3399871
August 25, 2004
–server revenue increased 8 percent in the last three months, surpassing the $11.5 billion mark, while shipments grew 24 percent to more than 1.6 million units over last year
–Linux represented 9.5 percent of the overall server OS revenue
–Windows continued to be the operating system of choice, accounting for 34.4 percent of worldwide OS revenues. That is a dip from earlier this year when Microsoft’s (Quote, Chart) operating system secured 35.1 percent of the total market share.
–Unix continued its slow decline, as its revenue decreased 4.3 percent in the second quarter, and it lost more than 4 points of market share.
and
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=24227#story-start
–Microsoft continues to lead the field — installed on 1,088,851 servers sold in the quarter — Linux shipments were second at 230,070 units, a jump of 69.7 percent.
nearly 500% larger in server shipments and this is the year of linux huh?
I spent two days getting deep on every single Linux distribution on the desktop.
When I set up someone on Linux for the first time – I have them use it for 30 days before doing anything else because I have observed the following
First week – I hate this – How could you do this to me – It too different – Take me back to Windows —
Second Week – I guess I might be able to live with this a little longer – It is not what I am use to.
Third Week – Hay this Linux isn’t so bad – Did you know… (insert any of several places that Linux does something better than Windows).
Fourth Week – This Linux is really great! – Why didn’t you get me to convert sooner!
Now Mr. Numbskull tried all flavors of Linux Desktops in just two days!
Hay – He never got out of Week one!
making some good points but i disagree here:
“and again, hobbyist downloads of free software ultimately poses no real threat to ms. there simply arent any numbers there.
More importantly, there isn’t any money there, so relevance to Microsoft is zero.”
free downloads of linux do impact ms financially if they do not get any revenue from a missed windows sale.
so “More importantly, there isn’t any money there, so relevance to Microsoft is zero.”
there is money there. if 50 million people per yr downloaded free linux and ms noted a drop in windows licenses of 50 million they would certainly be affected financially.
so what i said remains true, there is no threat yet because the numbers arent there. its relevant, but wont have any strong relevance until/if the numbers grow.
free downloads of linux do impact ms financially if they do not get any revenue from a missed windows sale.
This reasoning is specious and nonsensical – like media corporations claiming all music/movie/whatever downloads are losses. “Loss” implied there was something there in the first place to ‘lose’.
Most people buy a computer with an OEM copy of Windows and use it – Microsoft have a sale.
Some people buy a computer with an OEM copy of Windows and later replace it with Linux – Microsoft have a sale.
Some people buy a computer with an OEM copy of Windows and immediately replace it with Linux – Microsoft have a “bonus” sale.
Some people buy a computer without an OS or build it themselves and install Windows – Microsoft have a sale.
Some people buy a computer without an OS or build it themselves and install Linux – Microsoft would never have had a sale.
The only scenario in which Microsoft _ever_ ‘loses’ a Windows sale is in the case of deliberate usage of an illegal copy – either by the OEM or the customer themselves – which happens regardless of Linux.
there is money there. if 50 million people per yr downloaded free linux and ms noted a drop in windows licenses of 50 million they would certainly be affected financially.
That’s a honkin’ great big ‘if’. Moreover, it’s a completely different (not to mention unlikely) scenario to “hobbyist downloads”.
so what i said remains true, there is no threat yet because the numbers arent there. its relevant, but wont have any strong relevance until/if the numbers grow.
It is highly unlikely Windows will _ever_ be threatened by “hobbyist downloads”. It might start giving up some market share to commercial Linux distributions (even if said distributions are being ‘rolled’ by the hardware OEMs themselves), but not “hobbyist” distros.
so what i said remains true, there is no threat yet because the numbers arent there. its relevant, but wont have any strong relevance until/if the numbers grow.
“The numbers” aren’t likely to ever be there. Utilising “hobbyist downloads” requires interest (and skills, although that may change over time) the end user typically doesnt have and isn’t ever likely to.
As I said, “hobbyist downloads” aren’t a threat because there isn’t any money there. There isn’t any money there because the people who do “hobbyist downloads” aren’t ever likely to buy a copy of Windows – so there is no lost sale.
“Also in 1993 Apple “might” have been the 2nd biggest supplier of Pcs after IBM, so what ? that is “HARDWARE” they are talking about. Granted you can’t buy an Apple without an Apple OS, but them facts you quoted mean nothing when you are talking about the size of Windows market share.
I have a question for you sonny boy, what OS was on your first computer ?”
my first computer was an apple II+ in 1980.
your comments about apple mac hardware and your earlier statements about windows having “In 1993, Windows held between 94-96% of the worlds desktops.” simply make no sense whatsoever.
bottom line is you are wrong.
in 1993 most pcs still ran dos.
in 1993 apple shipped 10% of all pcs (that means 10% of pcs shipped that year ran mac os) in the world so that leaves 90% for windows right there….but that doesnt factor in every other os available at the time which would knock off a few more percentage points from ms share.
you toss out figures without any attributions.
get your data right. or at a minimum quit wasting our time unless you can show us some data to back up your wild claims.
in 1993 apple shipped 10% of all pcs (that means 10% of pcs shipped that year ran mac os) in the world so that leaves 90% for windows right there….but that doesnt factor in every other os available at the time which would knock off a few more percentage points from ms share.
I feel compelled to point out that 10% of the computers shipped in 1993 is a very, very different thing than 10% of the entire market. It would be quite possible for Macs to be 10% of all the computers shipped in 1993 while still only holding a marketshare of, say, 4%.
Also, while Windows wouldn’t have been on 90%+ of the desktops in the world in 1993, it would have been on a damn lot of them, possibly even a majority. The explosion in Windows usage after 3.0 (1990) was huge, and uptake increased even more after the release of 3.1 (1992).
Remember those per-CPU licensing deals that got Microsoft into so much trouble ? Many of them required a *Windows* installation on all machines sold, not just DOS. And, while there were more competitive alternatives back then than there are now, I’d be willing to bet most computers sold from mid-1990 onwards came with some version of Windows.
wow, you had some time replying to all them posts
anyway. I stand by the dates I gave. Up until XP, I got OEM copies of Windows for all the PCs I was building, and those years are the years in which the OEM versions arrived at my door.
You are right on one though, Windows 95 was indeed released in 1995 – my bad. The other dates are correct.
Also, you seem to be underestimating the effect “hobbyist downloads” would have. Anonymous gave a figure of 50m downloads of Linux. That is not that implausible.
Imagine the effect of Linspire or Xandros offering their distro as a free download. 50m or more would snap it up.
50m is still a drop in the ocean however, but it would be a decent size userbase for either of those distros.
I don’t know if Mandrake has any figures for the number of people on 10.0, I think they should try and tally up the numbers from downloads and sales, so we can see the userbase for this distro.
Granted, the vast majority of people who download distros will be using it in a dual boot setup, so the figures would really mean nothing.
I never said web sites = web servers…. I was simply pulling Anonymous’ chain about his post about MS having more Windows servers than any other OS.
See that is the problem with this site. No-one has a sense of humour any longer. If there is a post about how good Linux does something, then the Windows fanboys start spouting off. Then if another post says MS can do something better than Linux, then the Linux guys, (me included) start to spout off. They, (we), all need to chill out a little.
One thing though… Why is it that the most vocal Windows fanboys are the ones who will not even try a dual boot setup ?
I’ve spent my whole life trying to get deep. John Lennon was naturally deep, bue he got shot. The Church of the Subgenius is deep. Chess is deep.
If you go far enough off the west coast of Washington, the water is deep, too. Maybe he should try…
…I’d better not go there….
anyway. I stand by the dates I gave. Up until XP, I got OEM copies of Windows for all the PCs I was building, and those years are the years in which the OEM versions arrived at my door.
I’m sceptical. In particularly, your dates for Windows 3.1, 3.11, 98 and ME differ from the retail releases by anywhere from 6 months to over 2.5 *years*. Now, I’m well aware that OEM and Select customers get copies of software before they appear in the retail channels, but not by that much lead time.
Also, you seem to be underestimating the effect “hobbyist downloads” would have. Anonymous gave a figure of 50m downloads of Linux. That is not that implausible.
Firstly, that figure was completely made up. Secondly, it’s extremely implausible. 50 million is a massive number of users. Personally, I’d be surprised if there were even 50 million users in the world who knew what an OS was, let alone wanting to download, install and learn an alternative one (along with a new applications for everything they do).
Imagine the effect of Linspire or Xandros offering their distro as a free download. 50m or more would snap it up.
On what evidence – or even reasoning – do you base that ? It’s not like there’s any shortage of Linux distros available for download now and there sure as hell aren’t 50 million people “snapping them up” every day.
50m is still a drop in the ocean however, but it would be a decent size userbase for either of those distros.
50 million new “downloads” would represent in the ballpark of a *threefold* increase in Linux users. That’s a massive change.
I don’t disagree that 50 million “downloads” would be a significant amount, I question the idea that 50 million “downloads” is a remotely rational number. Moreover, for the same reasons I outlined above, most “downloads” are of little concern to Microsoft because they largely don’t represent customers that Microsoft had a chance with.
I don’t know if Mandrake has any figures for the number of people on 10.0, I think they should try and tally up the numbers from downloads and sales, so we can see the userbase for this distro.
Somehow I doubt it would even tally up to an order of magnitude less than the floated “50 million” figure.
I never said web sites = web servers…. I was simply pulling Anonymous’ chain about his post about MS having more Windows servers than any other OS.
By deliberately misinterpreting his comment ? It was pretty clear he meant there were more Windows servers than servers running any other OS.
One thing though… Why is it that the most vocal Windows fanboys are the ones who will not even try a dual boot setup ?
What makes you think they don’t ?
The 50m figure was pulled out of the sky by Anonymous. I simply took that nice round ballpark figure and used it to clarify my point.
You seem to think 50m is too high ? Remember, the internet made this world a smaller place, it is not only people in the Uk where I am, and the US where you probably are.
There are countries where Linux is the favoured operating system, like Brazil, China is following suit, as is the Indonesian islands, and African countries.
So 50m Chinese and Brazilian users does not seem to be too high a number.
Also, the most vocal Windows fanboys, (btw, I was not talking about you), are the ones who will not try a dual-boot setup. They come on and say “Linux is shit”, “Linux can’t do this/that” etc etc
I have respect for Windows fanboys who DO have a dual boot setup, because at least they have tried it. They might not LIKE Linux, but since they have tried things in it, I will value their opinion.
I picked Mandrake as an example. I have no idea if even 5 or 6 million people use it. My point was this.. That Mandrake themselves have no idea. They know how many boxed sets they will have sold, they know how many Enterprise Editions they have sold to French government, but they will not know how many casual users have downloaded Mandrake and use it. Either as a stand alone, or a dual boot.
And a word to dual-booters…. If you do have a problem with your distro of choice, as well as coming on here and moaning about it, follow things up and report the faults with the distro makers. At least that way, you will have done you part to make Linux a little bit better… even if you personally never use it again.
to check the dates of any version of windows. look at the setup screen when installing them
Win2k = 1999
WinME=1999
Win98=1997
etc
If it takes 4 weeks for people to aclimatize themselves to Linux from Windows, you can bet your bottom dollar that Microsoft Corp. knows this and is using the information at every turn.
That guy knows it, too.
Let’s suppose you decided to become a gourmet cook, as a hobby, and you had a little trouble with a roaster, or couldn’t figure out how to use potholders right with meat, or maybe how to match 2 spices to the other ingredients in some sauce, and then some dorkus came along and said:
Hey—why bother? Why not just go to the local market and buy *my* jarred stuff?
Wouldn’t you maybe feel like hitting him over the head with a pot full of onion soup?
That’s kind of the way I feel about these FUDmeisters.