Coffeehouse Thread

62 posts

Microsoft has nowhere to run; Developers leaving Windows desktop

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    acohen167

    I cant believe I am playing along in a dev forum - but I FRIGGIN LOVE THIS!!

     

    Keep 'em comin' boys! Reality might just be a few more posts away for this guy.


    -ac

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    Microsoft has nowhere left to run because it is so enormous there is nowhere left to run.  Should software as product ever fold to software as a public utility, Microsoft won't vanish because of it.  Microsoft will become it.  You can't be a multi-billion a year organization and simply vanish if your ideal business model is antiquated, you reorganize to do what works.

    A free software advocate should be about evening the playing field through copyright and patent law reform, free protocols, free formats, free hardware specifications enabling free drivers, and most of all, protecting free software commons not attacking proprietary business.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    Microsoft has nowhere left to run because it is so enormous there is nowhere left to run.  Should software as product ever fold to software as a public utility, Microsoft won't vanish because of it.  Microsoft will become it.  You can't be a multi-billion a year organization and simply vanish if your ideal business model is antiquated, you reorganize to do what works.

    A free software advocate should be about evening the playing field through copyright and patent law reform, free protocols, free formats, free hardware specifications enabling free drivers, and most of all, protecting free software commons not attacking proprietary business.


    Amen and Kudos!

    this I totaly agree with....

    sometimes such junk gets posted it's easy to miss the gems.

  • User profile image
    SpongeBob​SquarePants

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    Microsoft has nowhere left to run because it is so enormous there is nowhere left to run.  Should software as product ever fold to software as a public utility, Microsoft won't vanish because of it.  Microsoft will become it.  You can't be a multi-billion a year organization and simply vanish if your ideal business model is antiquated, you reorganize to do what works.

    A free software advocate should be about evening the playing field through copyright and patent law reform, free protocols, free formats, free hardware specifications enabling free drivers, and most of all, protecting free software commons not attacking proprietary business.


    Agree 100%.  You taking stock of this Corona?

  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    Windows is being displaced, even on developers workstations.  Now general applications developers are leaving it.  believe it or not I agree with k2t0f12d somewhat.  Microsoft has gotten big and too big.   Because of that their software lacks quality.  Agree or disagree Vista was a complete failure.  Look at the missing features, the broken promises.  when have you seen a Linux distribution cut features, hardly ever.  Some were cut from Ubuntu 7.04 because of conflicts.  Some may not work right but notice even though they arent distributed you can work on those programs that arent exactly ready and get them working correctly. Look at WinFS, totally gone.  Nowhere to be found. Desktop search; Microsoft couldnt get that working right so they "borrowed" ideas from Beagle.  Microsoft could possibly be a leader in the industry but right now they are trailing far behind.  Look at the VS express disaster.  Am I the only one who thinks its wrong for Microsoft to attack its own partners?  If so where is this world going.  Free Software is more than just freedom as in cost or freedom as in speech, its about community.  Its about helping your neighbor.  Its about making the planet a better place and not have to get lawyers every turn around just to settle disputes.  More importantly its about sharing.  Sharing ideas sharing solutions to problems.  microsoft doesnt care, they want their buck and screw everyone.  Does Microsoft care about fixing its product flaws?  Not in any way, not when they have dozens of flaws unfixed and not planning to fix.

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    corona_coder wrote:
    Windows is being displaced, even on developers workstations.  Now general applications developers are leaving it.  believe it or not I agree with k2t0f12d somewhat.  Microsoft has gotten big and too big.   Because of that their software lacks quality.  Agree or disagree Vista was a complete failure.  Look at the missing features, the broken promises.  when have you seen a Linux distribution cut features, hardly ever.  Some were cut from Ubuntu 7.04 because of conflicts.  Some may not work right but notice even though they arent distributed you can work on those programs that arent exactly ready and get them working correctly. Look at WinFS, totally gone.  Nowhere to be found. Desktop search; Microsoft couldnt get that working right so they "borrowed" ideas from Beagle.  Microsoft could possibly be a leader in the industry but right now they are trailing far behind.  Look at the VS express disaster.  Am I the only one who thinks its wrong for Microsoft to attack its own partners?  If so where is this world going.  Free Software is more than just freedom as in cost or freedom as in speech, its about community.  Its about helping your neighbor.  Its about making the planet a better place and not have to get lawyers every turn around just to settle disputes.  More importantly its about sharing.  Sharing ideas sharing solutions to problems.  microsoft doesnt care, they want their buck and screw everyone.  Does Microsoft care about fixing its product flaws?  Not in any way, not when they have dozens of flaws unfixed and not planning to fix.


    Cool.  Free pizza and beer - on Beer.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    corona_coder wrote:
    Windows is being displaced, even on developers workstations.  Now general applications developers are leaving it.  believe it or not I agree with k2t0f12d somewhat.  Microsoft has gotten big and too big.   Because of that their software lacks quality.  Agree or disagree Vista was a complete failure.  Look at the missing features, the broken promises.  when have you seen a Linux distribution cut features, hardly ever.  Some were cut from Ubuntu 7.04 because of conflicts.  Some may not work right but notice even though they arent distributed you can work on those programs that arent exactly ready and get them working correctly. Look at WinFS, totally gone.  Nowhere to be found. Desktop search; Microsoft couldnt get that working right so they "borrowed" ideas from Beagle.  Microsoft could possibly be a leader in the industry but right now they are trailing far behind.  Look at the VS express disaster.  Am I the only one who thinks its wrong for Microsoft to attack its own partners?  If so where is this world going.  Free Software is more than just freedom as in cost or freedom as in speech, its about community.  Its about helping your neighbor.  Its about making the planet a better place and not have to get lawyers every turn around just to settle disputes.  More importantly its about sharing.  Sharing ideas sharing solutions to problems.  microsoft doesnt care, they want their buck and screw everyone.  Does Microsoft care about fixing its product flaws?  Not in any way, not when they have dozens of flaws unfixed and not planning to fix.


    stop preaching and start doing....

    build some really great software for your selected os...
    show us by writing code that's really great.

    we do not need you to tell us the news of the day.

    we can read that news on our own.

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    I don't like the direction Microsoft is taking with their software generally, that is, in function or license.  I don't think software as a product is as beneficial as software as a public utility can be for the progress of Science and the Useful Arts.  I think it is a mistake for the leaders of Microsoft to criticize free software by identifying it or its methods as something they are not, and most people who have read my recent posts in Channel 9 will recognize why I think this is so.

    But I also feel that in order to effectively promote any goodwill to the technological communities of the world that I should be about the business of building or helping to build something rather then trying to tear something else down.  And it isn't that I think that Microsoft is beyond criticism, quite the opposite, many things their leadership says and does are quite questionable and it surprises me that those statements and actions are not examined more fully.

    If Microsoft has grown "too big", meaning that it holds the most interest in the world and the concerns of its industry, what the rest of the world must examine, and in particular these United States of America, is where anti-trust law should be applied.  It is in the interests of society as a whole that power not consolidate in the hands of those who must never have it.  So the question isn't about money specifically, although the accumulation of large quantities of wealth can aid in the accumulation of illegitimate power and provide a shining light to the rest of us as to where some examination can and should be made.

    Microsoft is a corporation whose interest is to continue to encourage other people to lend them their money to perform their business.  While many people in the company are concerned with the development of its software, Microsoft has to be about getting "their" buck because they are using other people's money to do it and those people are going to have monetary expectations.  This is why the argument in quantity of wealth is almost totally irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of a business, because it is the people of a society in which the business exists that will legitimize its existence by offering their money in investments.  It is true that that is not solely what must be used to measure the validity of a business, and an excess of wealth can be the first sign that something isn't on the up and up.  And while Microsoft has been, and should continue to be, examined under the statues of anti-trust, it is not anti-trust law that will put the software industry where it belongs in respect to the 18th century ideal for the progress of Science and the Useful Arts.  Other laws will need careful examination, most notably that of copyright and patent law, which have all but ceased to support the diffusion of knowledge that they were supposed to encourage.

    In order to do that we are going to need more and not less lawyers to protect the commons.  Skilled lawyers to flatten the field in which enterprise may freely build its business without squeezing out or frightening away the garage inventor who can change their life and the world with a single bright idea.  The misguided voices like to complain about the laws and lawyers in Channel 9, but it is those same laws that are protecting their ideas and their software and it is lawyers who are maintaining the commons that make certain they are free to exercise their right to invention.  While it can be said that those laws need a top level review to make certain they are square with the 18th century ideas written in the Constitution of the United States Article 1 Section 8 for the progress of Science and the Useful arts, we are going to need more and not less attention to that if we are going to make certain that the future still holds that promise for everyone.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    

    In order to do that we are going to need more and not less lawyers to protect the commons.  Skilled lawyers to flatten the field in which enterprise may freely build its business without squeezing out or frightening away the garage inventor who can change their life and the world with a single bright idea.  The misguided voices like to complain about the laws and lawyers in Channel 9, but it is those same laws that are protecting their ideas and their software and it is lawyers who are maintaining the commons that make certain they are free to exercise their right to invention.  While it can be said that those laws need a top level review to make certain they are square with the 18th century ideas written in the Constitution of the United States Article 1 Section 8 for the progress of Science and the Useful arts, we are going to need more and not less attention to that if we are going to make certain that the future still holds that promise for everyone.


    the only issue I have  with lawyers is that they generaly come up with more and more terms and conditions to deal with...

    most of the time they are paid to make things more difficult for "the other guy"  -- who that is depends on who pays them.

    I'd much rather see a fundimental re-working of patent and copyright that address fairness and issues like the "Bad patent"

    the last few years of music / media and Digital copyright have been very bad stuff in so many ways.

    if we just keep piling more layers of crud on top of crud we will have a real nightmare of laws that do not work.

    simple machines tend to outlast overly complex ones.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    ixdatul wrote:
    
    Ray6 wrote:
    
    cornelius wrote:
    what is this wondrous open source you all speak of?


    It's the dominant religion of a small country called Ubuntu.

    It's followers worship a god called StawlMarn, who, it is said, will deliver the world from the evil church of M$c$o$o$t (for that is how it is written).

    Upon that most joyous of days, the worshippers of OpenSauce (praise be upon it) will rejoice and give thanks, by taking a bath and then moving out of their parent's house.

    Don't you know anything?





    I laughed so hard people are staring at me.

    Ix



    I heard a co-worker laughing today at work and asked why, he pointed to this too. Funny.

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger

    corona_coder wrote:
        Great article and I agree 100% with the author.  Microsoft cannot and willnotl survive open source. we are winning.  We are dwindling their marketshare, the OSS projects put out better software.  This comes from Government officials as well.  I predict in 2015 there will be no Microsoft, in 2009 OS/2 will have more marketshare than Windows.


    Death of MS means death for you, OSS.
    What you will copy/clone then? Tongue Out

    You're out of ideas much more than MS.

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    cgarre

    I am confused ! Whom should i support !
    I think its high time each person thinks about writing his/her own operating system.

    Atleast kids should be trained right from the time they were born to understand the big divide and live with it .. and embrace it ...

    After all everybody wants a father and mother and a set of relatives ... Microsoft is arguably the "father" (since usually fathers are richer Wink) , Linux is mother and all others are relatives ...

    I am sure if i get angry I will write my own kernel .... Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    At this point in technology, writing an operating system kernel program that can support even one architecture of general purpose machine would be such an enormous undertaking that it is really very unlikely that a single person could do so.  Even if one were to try, it would probably involve mining existing code such as Linux or BSD for ideas anyway, since Microsoft's code is not distributed.  As that is the case, it is arguably better to contribute your new ideas to existing projects instead.

    The only case where I think writing entirely new software would be universally beneficial for all of society would be if a new operating system kernel program was written with a more advanced design in mind then is currently available.  Object-oriented micro-kernel technology pushes as much functionality from kernel space to user space as possible.  Most of the operating system's kernel functions are contained in object modules that can crash or be replaced and modified with low system impact.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    GPLv3 logo buttonnice gpl3 logo.

    regardless of OS politics (communist/proprietary etc) MS is in serious denial.

    OSS will get better. The business model is services and hardware - and specialized tweaking for business.

    That logo should scare the pants off MS

    Should all software be free.. probably not

    but should an OS cost 500$ cdn?  Force you validate and activate multiple times, add DRM, etc

    Why can Apple sell 5 home OS's for 129 - with everything?

    oh ya - hardware... and a salesguy with TASTE

  • User profile image
    JChung2006

    OSS would be a lot farther along if people like corona_coder wasted less time writing OSS propaganda BS and actually... oh I don't know... wrote some damn OSS code for a change.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    JChung2006 wrote:
    OSS would be a lot farther along if people like corona_coder wasted less time writing OSS propaganda BS and actually... oh I don't know... wrote some damn OSS code for a change.


    ++

  • User profile image
    YearOfThe​LinuxDesktop

    littleguru wrote:
    
    JChung2006 wrote:
    OSS would be a lot farther along if people like corona_coder wasted less time writing OSS propaganda BS and actually... oh I don't know... wrote some damn OSS code for a change.


    ++


    +=2

  • User profile image
    Ray6

    jamie wrote:
    
    That logo should scare the pants off MS


    They waste time doing a logo for a license and MS should be scared?

    jamie wrote:
    
    but should an OS cost 500$ cdn?  Force you validate and activate multiple times, add DRM, etc


    I have Vista running on a box here, and I have validated exactly once.
    If they didn't have DRM then how would you play the DRM-locked disks? I don't think MS should ask its users to scour around for hacking software,


    jamie wrote:
    
    Why can Apple sell 5 home OS's for 129 - with everything?


    Because they also charge over at least $500 for each of the five machines that you run it on.

    And I cannot understand why everyone holds Apple up as a paragon of virtue when they're the ones who prevent you from running OSX on faster, cheaper and more reliable hardware.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.