3 ms·

I am also having a hard time trying to understand the author. The author seems to think that Firefox is in big trouble in the post-PC world but then tries to b

I am also having a hard time trying to understand the author. The author seems to think that Firefox is in big trouble in the post-PC world but then tries to blame MS for that, when MS has specifically made allowance for third party browsers? I know MS is the favorite whipping boy in the blogosphere but why does MS deserve blame for Firefox being in trouble?. He seems to realize that Firefox will have a good chance if Metro/Windows 8 succeeds, so calls for a EU intervention but then seems to vehemently wish that Win 8/Metro be dead. Edit: After some more thinking, it's beginning to make more sense. Linux/FOSS all these days have been made possible in part due to Microsoft licensing DOS/Windows to IBM clones made by Compaq. This allowed "open" PCs on a large scale competing with Apple and Microsoft did not have control over what ran on them. This allowed OSes like Linux and BeOS to show up and flourish since the hardware was cheap and readily available. Much of the other platforms were very closed and OS vendor controlled. Interesting that the object of hate and ridicule, Microsoft, is what enabled the platform in the first place. Coming to the Post-PC world, because of the top-down vertical integration by Apple and Android/Ubuntu/Boot to Gecko etc tablets not really taking off, Linux/Firefox. are being squeezed out of the market. There is no place for them on iPads and if that's what people buy and desert PCs, they are in real danger. One way is to continue on to Metro and piggyback again on Microsoft's success but that means arch-enemy Microsoft needs to succeed which is indeed a Catch-22 for many folks.

pavlov 15y ago
To be fair, IBM and Microsoft didn't invent the open PC market. Before the IBM PC showed up, there already was a thriving ecosystem of 8-bit PCs running CP/M by Digital Research. These had compatibility on several levels: CPU architecture (Intel 8080 + clones like Zilog Z80), operating system calls (CP/M had a simple API in the form of interrupts), user interface (same CLI everywhere) and also hardware expansion (a standard bus for add-on boards). The MS-DOS ecosystem largely followed this model. Large parts of MS-DOS, including the API and the CLI style -- those drive letters too -- were in fact borrowed from CP/M to make porting existing software easier. (There was a thriving CP/M productivity software market with apps like WordStar and VisiCalc.) IBM wasn't really happy that their PC had been cloned and turned into an open market, and a couple of years later they tried to regain control with a semi-closed platform called PS/2. It also included a new OS co-developed with Microsoft called OS/2. The whole strategy never quite came together and eventually Microsoft went their own way.

pavlov 15y ago

To be fair, IBM and Microsoft didn't invent the open PC market. Before the IBM PC showed up, there already was a thriving ecosystem of 8-bit PCs running CP/M by Digital Research. These had compatibility on several levels: CPU architecture (Intel 8080 + clones like Zilog Z80), operating system calls (CP/M had a simple API in the form of interrupts), user interface (same CLI everywhere) and also hardware expansion (a standard bus for add-on boards). The MS-DOS ecosystem largely followed this model. Large parts of MS-DOS, including the API and the CLI style -- those drive letters too -- were in fact borrowed from CP/M to make porting existing software easier. (There was a thriving CP/M productivity software market with apps like WordStar and VisiCalc.) IBM wasn't really happy that their PC had been cloned and turned into an open market, and a couple of years later they tried to regain control with a semi-closed platform called PS/2. It also included a new OS co-developed with Microsoft called OS/2. The whole strategy never quite came together and eventually Microsoft went their own way.