7 ms·

He's talking about selling Linux OS in a shrinkwrap package. On the other hand, Shuttleworth says that services are where the money is at -- something that comp

by thras 18y ago

He's talking about selling Linux OS in a shrinkwrap package. On the other hand, Shuttleworth says that services are where the money is at -- something that companies like Red Hat have known for a long time. Shuttleworth's most interesting comment was a suggestion that XP is being given away for free to certain OEMs. That would be a bold move by Microsoft. The whole ecosystem could change if Microsoft changed XP over to the Firefox model of making money from software.

13ren 18y ago
Yes, MS already sell XP Home OEM for $40 for the eeePC... they have the capacity for brutality. From sales so far, it doesn't seem to need to be any cheaper (in fact, a higher price would probably be OK). The ecosystem built on XP's platform is still worth a lot. What could kill them is a crossover to the web as a platform... ie. as the desktop. Implementations of Flash, Javascript and Java are getting faster and adding features needed for the desktop (e.g. client-side persistence). It seems inevitable that the old settop box dream will be realized. It was such a cool idea! The OS might even be non-linux, if it has other features that are needed more. e.g. faster, more power efficient, maybe intrinsically multicore, so it can work on cheaper, lighter devices, requiring less power - like a phone. Linux has bloated, through evolving in the same rich hardware environment as Windows.
- jbert 18y ago
  > Linux has bloated, through evolving in the same rich hardware environment as Windows. I'm not disputing your point directly, but I'd be interested in your data. For example, there are Linux distros which run well on what I consider low-power devices (I'm thinking of ARM-powered NSLU-2 or WRT54 devices) with, say, 32Mbyte RAM. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'intrinsically multicore' - are you implying that Linux doesn't make use of multiple cores? Or doesn't do it well?
  - astine 18y ago
    Linux can be made to be far more lightweight than Windows or OSX, but who uses those distros? Most people use Ubuntu or something similar and those distros are fairly heavy, not as heavy as Vista, but still much heavier than they could be. Things like Compiz and KDE/Gnome really weigh a system down.
    - jbert 18y ago
      > Things like Compiz and KDE/Gnome really weigh a system down. If you're looking for a modern desktop operating system, then yes, it is tuned for a modern(-ish) desktop. But if you're talking about using "a different OS" (as the OP was), then you're already further from the mainstream than using a linux distro tuned for your needs. I'm just checking on the substance of the "Linux is bloated" claim, and trying to find out what alternatives there might be.
      - 13ren 18y ago
        Also, I believe that the kernel has also grown much larger, especially in recent years (don't have data or links, just from articles I've read). Concurrency isn't really a solved problem. If someone did solve it, and formed an OS around it, that would be what I mean by intrinsically multi-core. It might also involve an entirely different CPU architecture, and view of the hardware, which the fundamental concepts of linux just didn't map to efficiently (e.g. no filesystem). Hypothetically speaking. But if you could make it look the same to webapps, it wouldn't matter. My point isn't that linux is bad in any way, but that if your platform is the web, then the OS doesn't matter. BTW: I also don't believe that linux is the ultimate OS - it's just an OS, and it's possible to have something better. In practice, the alternative might be based on linux (or at least compatible). Not because linux is perfect, but it's there already and because of the ecosystem of software that relies on it (borrowed from unix). Linux is a market success - by which I mean many people use it. The only alternatives I can think off the top of my head are: BSD, solaris, minix, QNX, Plan 9, AmigaOS and there are also some really "weird" OS's in academia, many no longer used. I believe Plan 9 was written by the creators of unix... as an improvement. But it lacked market success. EDIT BTW I'm not claiming that linux is as bloated as Windows - just that it has increased significantly in size, and due to the same cause: there is no real need not to.
wmf 18y ago
services are where the money is at In that case, it's still very hard to make money from the Linux desktop. The consumer desktop has no services (except maybe the Geek Squad) and service/support revenue for corporate desktops is probably even smaller than for servers.
- wheels 18y ago
  It's a service when Dell comes to you and says, "How's about we give you a pile of cash and you make Ubuntu work with our new netbook?"
  - wmf 18y ago
    Porting and certification? I wouldn't want to rely on that as a business model either.
netcan 18y ago
Even if it were free, I think it's a sub-optimal solution. I think they just want to keep pc associated with windows. As an everything you need is in the box solution, the linux Eee with ff/openoffice/ seemed like a good idea. The reports I heard said it worked great & was really easy. Since it's cheap & usually going to be a 2nd computer, it'd have been a smaller risk. Since its an ultra portable, loading fast is a bigger deal then usual. Cost or not, people still want the XP. MS got away light. Even though they ahave to go & pirate office for themselves.

by thras 18y ago

13ren 18y ago

Yes, MS already sell XP Home OEM for $40 for the eeePC... they have the capacity for brutality. From sales so far, it doesn't seem to need to be any cheaper (in fact, a higher price would probably be OK). The ecosystem built on XP's platform is still worth a lot. What could kill them is a crossover to the web as a platform... ie. as the desktop. Implementations of Flash, Javascript and Java are getting faster and adding features needed for the desktop (e.g. client-side persistence). It seems inevitable that the old settop box dream will be realized. It was such a cool idea! The OS might even be non-linux, if it has other features that are needed more. e.g. faster, more power efficient, maybe intrinsically multicore, so it can work on cheaper, lighter devices, requiring less power - like a phone. Linux has bloated, through evolving in the same rich hardware environment as Windows.

jbert 18y ago
> Linux has bloated, through evolving in the same rich hardware environment as Windows. I'm not disputing your point directly, but I'd be interested in your data. For example, there are Linux distros which run well on what I consider low-power devices (I'm thinking of ARM-powered NSLU-2 or WRT54 devices) with, say, 32Mbyte RAM. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'intrinsically multicore' - are you implying that Linux doesn't make use of multiple cores? Or doesn't do it well?
- astine 18y ago
  Linux can be made to be far more lightweight than Windows or OSX, but who uses those distros? Most people use Ubuntu or something similar and those distros are fairly heavy, not as heavy as Vista, but still much heavier than they could be. Things like Compiz and KDE/Gnome really weigh a system down.
  - jbert 18y ago
    > Things like Compiz and KDE/Gnome really weigh a system down. If you're looking for a modern desktop operating system, then yes, it is tuned for a modern(-ish) desktop. But if you're talking about using "a different OS" (as the OP was), then you're already further from the mainstream than using a linux distro tuned for your needs. I'm just checking on the substance of the "Linux is bloated" claim, and trying to find out what alternatives there might be.
    - 13ren 18y ago
      Also, I believe that the kernel has also grown much larger, especially in recent years (don't have data or links, just from articles I've read). Concurrency isn't really a solved problem. If someone did solve it, and formed an OS around it, that would be what I mean by intrinsically multi-core. It might also involve an entirely different CPU architecture, and view of the hardware, which the fundamental concepts of linux just didn't map to efficiently (e.g. no filesystem). Hypothetically speaking. But if you could make it look the same to webapps, it wouldn't matter. My point isn't that linux is bad in any way, but that if your platform is the web, then the OS doesn't matter. BTW: I also don't believe that linux is the ultimate OS - it's just an OS, and it's possible to have something better. In practice, the alternative might be based on linux (or at least compatible). Not because linux is perfect, but it's there already and because of the ecosystem of software that relies on it (borrowed from unix). Linux is a market success - by which I mean many people use it. The only alternatives I can think off the top of my head are: BSD, solaris, minix, QNX, Plan 9, AmigaOS and there are also some really "weird" OS's in academia, many no longer used. I believe Plan 9 was written by the creators of unix... as an improvement. But it lacked market success. EDIT BTW I'm not claiming that linux is as bloated as Windows - just that it has increased significantly in size, and due to the same cause: there is no real need not to.

wmf 18y ago

services are where the money is at In that case, it's still very hard to make money from the Linux desktop. The consumer desktop has no services (except maybe the Geek Squad) and service/support revenue for corporate desktops is probably even smaller than for servers.

wheels 18y ago
It's a service when Dell comes to you and says, "How's about we give you a pile of cash and you make Ubuntu work with our new netbook?"
- wmf 18y ago
  Porting and certification? I wouldn't want to rely on that as a business model either.

netcan 18y ago

Even if it were free, I think it's a sub-optimal solution. I think they just want to keep pc associated with windows. As an everything you need is in the box solution, the linux Eee with ff/openoffice/ seemed like a good idea. The reports I heard said it worked great & was really easy. Since it's cheap & usually going to be a 2nd computer, it'd have been a smaller risk. Since its an ultra portable, loading fast is a bigger deal then usual. Cost or not, people still want the XP. MS got away light. Even though they ahave to go & pirate office for themselves.