5 ms·

Yet ms dominance was beaten only by linux and firefox...open source efforts, not competing companies, and those cracks allowed for google and others to come in.

Yet ms dominance was beaten only by linux and firefox...open source efforts, not competing companies, and those cracks allowed for google and others to come in. Prior to that you had crap like "ie6 will be the last ie, and we dont see a need for tabs in the browser".

adventured 8y ago
Microsoft dominance in browsers was beaten by other large corporations throwing resources at open source. Mozilla was set up by Netscape. It provided Mozilla a drastic headstart over having to do everything from scratch. Firefox only exists due to the Netscape Corporation. It directly came out of the Mozilla Suite, which was originated by Netscape. Webkit was started within and supported by Apple, and then Google. Derived from KHTML of course, it non-the-less had a vast corporate push. Chrome became so successful on the desktop because Google promoted it endlessly on the Google search page among other places (and they still do). It wasn't just open source that beat Microsoft there, it was Google's massive reach. Almost nobody is using Konqueror. The drastic improvement in JavaScript over the last decade was sparked by Google's efforts on V8, which forced everybody else to play catch-up. JavaScript itself of course also came from Netscape.
- ergothus 8y ago
  > Microsoft dominance in browsers was beaten by other large corporations throwing resources at open source. I don't agree with your timing. My memories of the time were * Browser wars I - Netscape loses, MS rests on its laurels while Netscape releases source code * Years pass * Mozilla has been able to build up the Netscape base into a viable product and starts to really make in-roads against MS * Big corps see success and fund it to avoid MS lock-in * Years pass * Chrome comes along Sure, there was some initial investment in Mozilla, but I sincerely doubt success occurred without relying on a vast number of unfunded volunteer hours. Chrome is cool, but likewise it built on that open source base that you dismiss so lightly. If market success relies on people doing free work, and the dominance is in place for years because no competitor can compete in that market until the unpaid labor can catch up, then the market isn't what's responsible for the success.
buboard 8y ago
Nobody thinks linux has beaten windows
- berbec 8y ago
  By sheer install base, it certainly has. Compare Linux servers + android and windows definately loses. Android at 2.7B vs windows at 1.4b (1) 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_sys...
  - belltaco 8y ago
    It's funny how Android is considered to be Linux when comparing marketshare, but talk about malware stats, and suddenly Android is not Linux.
    - godman_8 8y ago
      It's a poor implementation of Linux that's for sure, but Linux nonetheless. Some like to call it Android/Linux to distinguish it from GNU/Linux.
  - buboard 8y ago
    that doesnt mean it has 'beaten windows', i.e. people did not uninstall windows to replace it with desktop linux. Windows was never in android phones, and not too deeply into servers.
- ergothus 8y ago
  At the time in question, NT Server was a real threat. Commercial unixes were expensive to get and worse to maintain. NT Server was (by most accounts) TERRIBLE, yet as servers became more mainstream, NT Server (and IIS) became more common because alternatives weren't considered viable. Heck, even Linux success was often contrary to the expectations from above. Plenty of articles in the 90s covered how techies would install Linux in secret because had it been known they'd have been told to use NT. Meanwhile, on the desktop Microsoft literally invested in Apple to prop up the idea that they had competition. Had Microsoft not done so, and they likely would not have had they not been afraid of antiitrust concerns, would Apple have survived to become the behemoth it is today? Does anyone think that NeXtStep, however nice their work, would have been even a speed bump to MS?

adventured 8y ago

Microsoft dominance in browsers was beaten by other large corporations throwing resources at open source. Mozilla was set up by Netscape. It provided Mozilla a drastic headstart over having to do everything from scratch. Firefox only exists due to the Netscape Corporation. It directly came out of the Mozilla Suite, which was originated by Netscape. Webkit was started within and supported by Apple, and then Google. Derived from KHTML of course, it non-the-less had a vast corporate push. Chrome became so successful on the desktop because Google promoted it endlessly on the Google search page among other places (and they still do). It wasn't just open source that beat Microsoft there, it was Google's massive reach. Almost nobody is using Konqueror. The drastic improvement in JavaScript over the last decade was sparked by Google's efforts on V8, which forced everybody else to play catch-up. JavaScript itself of course also came from Netscape.

ergothus 8y ago
> Microsoft dominance in browsers was beaten by other large corporations throwing resources at open source. I don't agree with your timing. My memories of the time were * Browser wars I - Netscape loses, MS rests on its laurels while Netscape releases source code * Years pass * Mozilla has been able to build up the Netscape base into a viable product and starts to really make in-roads against MS * Big corps see success and fund it to avoid MS lock-in * Years pass * Chrome comes along Sure, there was some initial investment in Mozilla, but I sincerely doubt success occurred without relying on a vast number of unfunded volunteer hours. Chrome is cool, but likewise it built on that open source base that you dismiss so lightly. If market success relies on people doing free work, and the dominance is in place for years because no competitor can compete in that market until the unpaid labor can catch up, then the market isn't what's responsible for the success.

buboard 8y ago

Nobody thinks linux has beaten windows

berbec 8y ago
By sheer install base, it certainly has. Compare Linux servers + android and windows definately loses. Android at 2.7B vs windows at 1.4b (1) 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_sys...
- belltaco 8y ago
  It's funny how Android is considered to be Linux when comparing marketshare, but talk about malware stats, and suddenly Android is not Linux.
  - godman_8 8y ago
    It's a poor implementation of Linux that's for sure, but Linux nonetheless. Some like to call it Android/Linux to distinguish it from GNU/Linux.
- buboard 8y ago
  that doesnt mean it has 'beaten windows', i.e. people did not uninstall windows to replace it with desktop linux. Windows was never in android phones, and not too deeply into servers.
ergothus 8y ago
At the time in question, NT Server was a real threat. Commercial unixes were expensive to get and worse to maintain. NT Server was (by most accounts) TERRIBLE, yet as servers became more mainstream, NT Server (and IIS) became more common because alternatives weren't considered viable. Heck, even Linux success was often contrary to the expectations from above. Plenty of articles in the 90s covered how techies would install Linux in secret because had it been known they'd have been told to use NT. Meanwhile, on the desktop Microsoft literally invested in Apple to prop up the idea that they had competition. Had Microsoft not done so, and they likely would not have had they not been afraid of antiitrust concerns, would Apple have survived to become the behemoth it is today? Does anyone think that NeXtStep, however nice their work, would have been even a speed bump to MS?