PDA

View Full Version : the death of windows



karellen
March 23rd, 2007, 07:39 PM
the article can be found here:http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/23/16712
what are your opinions about this?

DoctorMO
March 23rd, 2007, 07:52 PM
Do we care? I mean honestly if anything gnu and linux have 'won' because they have produced a usable desktop software stack that most people can use and extend for their own needs. in my mind what other people are doing is something of an industry and business view point. for a technologist floss has won already and now we're just refining the ores from the gold mine.

karellen
March 23rd, 2007, 07:57 PM
I agree, but others are concerned about the widespreading of linux and going mainstream etc...no my greatest concern from my point of view, anyway :)

troymcdavis
March 23rd, 2007, 08:33 PM
Just the subject raises an interesting question: in the event that Linux "succeeds", with this be directly related to the death of Windows?

This can be in two ways:

Windows must fail for Linux to succeed
When Linux succeeds, Windows will fail


For me, Linux is no doubt successful per se in the way that DoctorMO explains, but another challenge for the Linux community is market share. There are many benefits if we are successful in rising to this challenge, but there are many costs in attempting and rising to this challenge. Whether the costs outweigh the benefits is another discussion that has been had many times.

I'm inclined to say that both must are necessarily tied to meeting the market share challenge. Windows must come up short in some way, only then will Linux be able to gain a foothold. Then when Linux has worked up the market share, Windows, without it's monopolistic practices to rely upon (exclusive applications, format reliability, hardware compatibility, etc), market share for Windows will fall even further.

Luckily for us, Microsoft has taken care of the first one. Windows is, in many respects, a failure. Of course, it would accelerate the process if Windows would make many more blunders that are much bigger, but I think Linux, in time, will gain a bigger and bigger share of the market (if it is so inclined and developers continue to attempt to do so).

As for the article, I think there are other hurdles that Linux faces before becoming widespread other than just applications.

DoctorMO
March 23rd, 2007, 09:01 PM
What we need to get away from; as a community is this industry agenda of looking outwards to people not using linux or ubuntu and trying to devise ways in which they can use our wonderful system. this isn't the best nor the way in which developers look at the agenda.

The best way to improve ubuntu is to make it better for the people already using it. if others that are not using it right now see value in that then so be it; they will use what ever is best for them even if that is ubuntu.

So I don't go around polling windows users for what features they want to see in ubuntu before they'll make the switch, it's pointless discourse which wastes time, energy and function.

It's better to ask ubuntu users what they want to see improved and work on that.

The obsession with market share isn't really a community concern, it's a business concern and we're not a business so we should stop having Microsoft's, Apple's or even Conical's agenda on our minds.

For those who say market share is good for function, I say nae. Having a good development team producing quality software and working damn hard for their users is what is good for function. market share can only attract the cooperate market which while a help is not really what the core of our progress is about.

stand for users, not for non users.

lyceum
March 23rd, 2007, 09:25 PM
I think the idea is the death of the Windows buisness model. That is why I liked the artical.

SunnyRabbiera
March 23rd, 2007, 10:06 PM
Well I dont see windows going anywhere anytime soon, but really who says that in order for Linux to take the market has to mean the death of MS or windows?
Microsoft can still save its butt if it wanted to, get rid of DRM, get rid of the bloat, beef up security, make sure that it keeps its stuff up to date...
This is what MS can do if it wants to draw me back of course, I still use MS software even though I found a lot of great open source alternatives but the software I use is mostly not from them anyhow like adobe photoshop.
This situation is really a double edge for MS, on one hand they have a OS that can go anywhere, and yet they let thier greedy business practices get in the way of doing good business.

~LoKe
March 23rd, 2007, 10:32 PM
Being on the side that I am, I'm with hope that Microsoft will come out on top. Not only will there be an alternative for the less computer savvy, but there will also be some competition. In case no one has noticed, the only reason we have all the capabilities and ease-of-use that we do is because of competition. If there's no need to improve, there's no need to advance. This is the way it is with all things, and not simply limited to operating systems or even computers.

I for one am grateful that Windows can create great software that allows us to choose. I've made my choice, but that doesn't mean others will make the same choice as I have.

This "war" is one that has no purpose. There is no winning or losing. There is no "better" operating system. It's almost as futile as comparing Rock to Jazz; there will always be the factor which is opinion that will decide which is favorable to a single individual.

Let the user make his choice, and support him. There's nothing wrong with using Windows, it's a tool like any other.

Trebuchet
March 24th, 2007, 12:12 AM
I think the basic premise is wrong. A lot of these "Windows is dead and just doesn't know it yet" ideas seem to be based on the premise that Windows won't ever change. Windows isn't going to die; it's going to adapt and improve. It'll become more *nix-like underneath, become more modular, and security will be vastly improved. It'll work better with other operating systems. It has a lot of inertia because of the sheer size of its userbase, but it can and will adapt. Average users won't care what the kernel is underneath; all they'll care about is that it says Windows on the box and will run 90% of available software and hardware.

That doesn't mean it will survive forever, but then neither will Linux or Mac OS. Vast improvements in virtualization means the idea of unique operating systems is going to seem quaint in 25 years. By then we may all be using a web OS if not something entirely unanticipated.

cowlip
March 24th, 2007, 12:52 AM
Linux is what Microsoft wishes Windows could be, aka completely modular, NOW. Ubuntu releases every six months. Improvements come every day if you want. Projects work independantly and yet they come together to form a cohesive platform. You can use X11 or KDE on FreeBSD and it's basically the same thing.

Vista took five years and they had to scrap two years of work half way through because it was so unmanageable. Perhaps MS learned something but then there's no incentive for *them* to improve, being a monopoly.

BTW free/open source software is BASED on competition, haven't we seen that with KDE/Gnome already ;) If software sucks, it's not used or it's improved.

This web stuff overtaking the platform is all thanks to Netscape. Aka...firefox. Microsoft was right to be worried as hell about the Internet back in the 90s.

lyceum
March 24th, 2007, 12:56 AM
Microsoft can still save its butt if it wanted to, get rid of DRM, get rid of the bloat, beef up security, make sure that it keeps its stuff up to date..

That is the "death" they are getting to a point where they may not be able to make all the rule.