On Jul 11, 11:03 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Routing around the desktop
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The nature of the enterprise desktop is changing, and the emphasis now is on
> | instant accessibility, mobility and flexibility - attributes which Linux, on
> | the server, desktop, netbook or mobile device, is well placed to provide
> `----
The key here is that Linux and Unix are doing more and more of the
heavy lifting, but Windows or Vista continues to get the credit.
Ironically Windows 7 will probably come with a hypervisor that lets
you run Windows 7 and Linux concurrently on the same system at the
same time, probably using Xen. Even when you are using Linux windows,
users will probably thing that it's Windows doing the work.
> http://www.h-online.com/open/Routing-around-the-desktop--/features/11...
> Related:
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "I love technology. Love Windows, Mac, and Linux and I remember the bad/good
> | old days of DOS/C-64, etc. I hear a lot about how Windows is best because it
> | has all the software... Guess what? There hasn't been any innovative new
> | software for years worth mentioning.
Actually, the only true Microsoft innovation was the help system.
When Microsoft released Windows 3.0, Microsoft let users call a toll
free help desk with any questions they had. The most frequently asked
questions were programmed directly into the Windows 3.1 help systems,
including pop-ups, context sensitive helps accessed by pressing the
<F1> key, and manual accessed using the help option in the main text
menu bar.
Microsoft tried to improve this help system by adding the dancing
paper clip which many users found annoying, and Bob, which was so
annoying that Microsoft dropped it during the beta testing.
Nearly all of the other technology was obtained from competitors
through third parties. It's a strategy Microsoft knows well. IBM
wanted CP/M, but they wanted it on their terms. Microsoft was able to
give them a knock-off by obtaining legal ownership rights to
previously published source code which was already admitted to be
based on CP/M but written in Z-80 memnonics.
Word came from WordPerfect. Excel was a knock-off of Visicalc.
Windows explorer was a knock-off of Sun's File Manager, WinSock was
based on BSD Sockets, probably based loosely on Trumpet Winsock, which
was share-ware. Internet Explorer came from NCSA Mosaic, lead by Marc
Andreeson, co-founder of Netscape. MSN Instant Messenger - based on
IRC and OpenLDAP. DCOM - based on CORBA. COM+ based on CORBA and MQ
Series, .NET based added XML, SOAP, Schema files, and SOA. Microsoft
Project was a cheap knock-off incorporating features from MacProject,
SunProject, and CA-SuperProject. Even MS-Office OLE and COM objects
were based on models used in Motif, Frame-Maker, and HP Open-View.
Microsoft even licensed the technology from HP.
In many cases, the implementation was actually a poor knock-off based
on a much earlier version of the competitor's technology, or in some
cases, a cheap knock-off developed by the third party company. So
long as the third-party company claimed that the code was their
original code, and Microsoft was able to obtain such statements in
writing, they could avoid any claims of intellectual property theft.
Even when Microsoft lost such lawsuits, they were usually able to
appeal, Win at least a partial dismissal, and/or negotiate a
settlement for a fraction of the profits being made on the products.
In many cases, the settlement was accepted because the plaintiff
understood that Microsoft was the one who had exclusive control of the
distribution chain, had exclusive control of the pre-installed
desktop, and had the power to include or exclude the technology.
Often, the settlements were not substantially less than the amount
that would have been paid in a negotiated royalty rights agreement
prior to Microsoft making it a part of their share-ware.
There were other issues as well. UNIX and Linux had very fast process-
to-process context switching. Windows context switching on NT was 100
times slower, and even Windows 2000, XP, and Vista was 10 times
slower. To compensate, Microsoft made extensive use of threads,
forcing application programmers to write code to prevent race-
conditions and deadlocks. XP and Vista code made much more extensive
use of Apartment threads which were similar to the Unix Fork() without
the exec.
> | It's all coming off the Internet and all
> | OS's handle these just fine. Sure, a bunch of speciality business software
> | exists for Windows desktops but the masses just need a nice OS to run a
> | browser, office applications, and a few other typical things in a nice
> | environment.
Microsoft advocates normally try to argue that they have to have
Windows to run MS-Office and other applications. More often, their
real issue is that Windows has more gaming applications. Ironically,
Linux does a better job with real-time 3D animation, as demonstrated
by applications such as Second Life.
> | Under these conditions, Windows hassling, spyware,
> | commericalized environment feels shoddy compared to the Mac (or Linux)
> | experience. One example, these clowns at Adobe, ATI, and Real put this
> | ridiculous automatic update crap on my XP workstation. Is their software
> | really so horrible and dangerous that I need to spend $$$ in processing
> | cycles and electricity consistantly checking for the up to the minute update?
Actually, Linux also does similar checks for updates, but through a
distributor's update service. This is one of the ways that
distributors track usage of their distributions. The key is that you
make one call to one update site or mirror, and then get a list of all
of the updates available. Application vendors usually want the
distributors to provide the updates because it lowers their costs, and
in exchange, the distributors try to provide accurate feedback to the
vendors about how many users are asking for updates.
Microsoft normally only updates their own software, and often
deliberately does not support competitor or even current partner
technology, because Microsoft is usually looking for ways to subvert
or undermine these software vendors once they start offering
competitor products or knock-offs.
Often commercial software still requires direct updates from the
software vendor, because they want to maintain control of distribution
and support of both the binary and the source.
[snip]
> | It seems like the really innovative stuff is
> | coming out for the Mac and Linux from the University/Open Source community.
Open Source, government funded, university. But keep in mind that
more and more big computer companies are new seeding and funding open
source projects. Many have carefully structured programs for
allowing, or even helping, their employees contribute to Open Source
Software. Many of these commercial software vendors also offer plug-
ins, hooks, or other software that can be called by the framework.
For example, dozens of software vendors are now offering tools for
Eclipse. This includes WebSphere Studio, WebSphere Integration
Developer, Rational Application Developer, and Rational Software
Architect. Many other vendors are also offering commercial software
based on Eclipse. This is especially nice for vendors who want to
write software that runs as well on Linux or Mac as it does on Windows
(maybe even better).
> | And they let their tools operate as is, without requiring
> | constant "phoning-home".
> | Here's an idea..somebody write an application which
> | counts processor cycles stolen by automatic update software and calculate,
> | versus electric rates, how much money these companies are stealing from us by
> | month/year/etc."
Actually, Microsoft would forbid publication of the results, since
this would be a "benchmark" and would require Microsoft's prior
written consent before publication. The exception is Germany, where
such restrictions are considered fraud, but the benchmark can only be
published in German.
> http://news.cnet.com/8601-13505_3-10013231.html?communityId=2016&targ...
|
|
