Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win?

[zaxer]

I do not agree with this article but I think you should read it

http://hbsworkingknowledge.hbs.edu/i...4&t=technology

[desdinova]

I do not agree with this article but I think you should read it

http://hbsworkingknowledge.hbs.edu/i...4&t=technology

The problem is that only one side thinks its a race. A lot of us on this side really couldn't care less

There's room for both sides.

[jeremy]

Gandhi said, "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

[poofyhairguy]

Hmmm.

Our main result is that in the absence of cost asymmetries and as long as Windows has a first-mover advantage (a larger installed base at time zero), Linux never displaces Windows of its leadership position. This result holds true regardless of the strength of Linux's demand-side learning. Furthermore, the result persists regardless of the intrinsically better design and potential differential value of Linux. In other words, harnessing demand-side learning more efficiently is not sufficient for Linux to win the competitive battle against Windows.

No surprise there. MS has a lot of momentum. I bet we will still be seeing XP machines in a decade.

But....

What is the reward if Linux would happen to beat out MS? Sure we get better drivers and hardcore gamers won't have to emulate, but we will also have to deal with malware of all kinds and lawsuits from those losing their position.

In the end, Linux might "win" as long as its taken seriously.

[gylf]

To quote Gore Vidal, "You can't declare war against an abstract noun."

Vidal was referring to terrorism. I think the quote also applies to open source software. The article mentions that MS could never displace Linux, and of course it follows that MS could never really displace OSS in general.

Will Linux displace MS's market share? Maybe, maybe not. Will an open source OS someday displace MS's market share? No question, it will... someday.

[brickbat]

I fear that those people that are foreseeing the displacement of Windows with Open Source are not considering the actions of MS. When you have that many billions, you can influence governments.

I think the most obvious scenario is that private firms "Apple/MS/Intel/AMD/etc" will take over all business on the internet. If you want to buy anything on the internet, you can only do it through them. If you want see the latest increment of flash on the website, only them.

That way, linux will be excluded from most desktops forever without any direct competition on features. They won't stop you running it. They will just force you to have their product to do the day to day stuff - buy stuff, fill in forms, watch content, etc.

Most people will just hear the sound byte that "oh, it's linux's fault because it is not keeping up." and will stick with proprietary so they can trade on ebay.

And I'm not even trying. If I were MS, I could think of several things like this in a morning without breaking a sweat.

eg,

All the spammers are coming from linux...If we exclude linux, we get rid of spammers!

What about viruses? I'll bet all the virus writers are using linux.

Don't get me started on terrorists! I'll bet they all use linux too.

Denial of Service? Linux

Foot odour? Linux

Baldness? Linux....ok that out because of Stevel Ballmer (or does he use Linux in his attic at night?)

ciao
bb

Also, the article is rubbish. The reason MS will stay in power is not the user base. Apple had a bigger user base than IBM in pc's. Big Deal. Just because someone is the biggest by far doesn't mean they cannot fall hard. Remember, precisely because they are so big, their cost base is enormous too. And if there is a swing, it is some company CEO that says, "ok shrink the company by 50%. We'll just adjust. No big deal."

[Seti]

I think it really boils down to what users want. What are people using computers for? Lets face it, a really bit chunk of computer users out there only really want to play GAMES, browse the web a bit and send some email. I've said this before, but there's no harm in repeating it. Windows will continue to be popular because its cheezy. Most consumers are also very cheezy, this is why MacDonalds and Walmart are so popular. Plus most consumers also go for the big brand-names, doesn't matter whether it be shoes, jeans, soda, music or software.
Aside from serious applications in industry where linux really is a hot item, I think that on the desktop linux will only continue to gain strength slowly, but surely.
Actually, I can picture a greater level of linux acceptance in the next generation of affordable desktops. I mean, Walmart is already selling them from what I've read. So as an increasing number of distros cater to ease-of-use, more of these low-cost linux desktops will be making inroads.

[pdk001]

at least M$ will own in 10years or so

[ubuntu_demon]

it's an interesting article. But they should have made their models a bit more complex.

As soon as Longhorn gets released linux will become more interesting for users that don't have the hardware required to run Longhorn.

Also there's a big group of people who think computers have to run windows. A portion of them are easily "converted" to start using linux or an apple computer.

[ubuntu_demon]

Hmmm.

No surprise there. MS has a lot of momentum. I bet we will still be seeing XP machines in a decade.

But....

What is the reward if Linux would happen to beat out MS? Sure we get better drivers and hardcore gamers won't have to emulate, but we will also have to deal with malware of all kinds and lawsuits from those losing their position.

In the end, Linux might "win" as long as its taken seriously.

I quote myself from this thread :

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=41266

But I'm sure it's entirely possible to have a popular operating system without getting it's security as crappy as windows security.

It would be great if in a couple of years linux will be so big that hardware manufacturers have to work on open source drivers!