5 ms·

There is a feeling that releasing the code is "giving it away for free". But, being able to compile and deploy it is not the whole story. Enterprises need sup

by RajT88 1y ago

There is a feeling that releasing the code is "giving it away for free". But, being able to compile and deploy it is not the whole story. Enterprises need support from the people who built the thing, and so without that it is not a very attractive proposition. It could be true in some scenarios though. Microsoft doesn't open source Windows. A big enough company could fork it and offer enterprise support at a fraction of the cost. It would take them years to get there, and probably would be subpar to what large Windows customers get in support from Microsoft. Yes I know y'all hate dealing with Microsoft support - imagine that but worse. Still, the company with the forked distro would definitely take a bite out of Microsoft's Windows business, if only a small one.

ChuckMcM 1y ago
> Still, the company with the forked distro would definitely take a bite out of Microsoft's Windows business, if only a small one. That has not been shown to be the case. There is ample evidence that other companies would run this 'off market' or 'pirate' version, and zero evidence that if those choices had been unavailable that they would have legitimately licensed Windows. You are making a variant on the 'piracy losses' argument which has been shown is simply a pricing issue. If you "ask" for more than your product is "valued" then it won't be purchased but it may be stolen. And if you make it "impossible" to steal you will reduce its value to legitimate customers and have zero gain in revenue from those who had stolen it before (they still won't buy it). The "value" in Windows is the number of things that run on it and the fact that compatibility issues are "bugs" which get fixed by the supplier. We are rapidly reaching the point where it will add value to have an operating system for AMD64 hardware that is overtly governed (not Linux or FOSS) which allows you to get a copy of the source when you license it, and has an application binary interface (ABI) that other software developers can count on to exist, not change out from under them, and last for 10+ years. As Microsoft (and Apple) add more and more spurious features which enrich themselves and enrage their users the "value" becomes less and less. That calculus will flip and when it does enterprises will switch to the new operating system that is just an operating system and not a malware delivery platform.
- antihipocrat 1y ago
  >>have an operating system for AMD64 hardware that is overtly governed (not Linux or FOSS) Not understanding this part, aren't Linux distros achieving this already without licence restrictions and various levels of stability depending on the distro selected? A huge amount of enterprise tooling is now being run on the cloud through the browser or via electron - for a large number of businesses, their staff would only need the equivalent of a Chromebook style GUI to perform their work. Native software is still essential for a small % of users.. is this what you're suggesting needs to be solved? A single alternative open source system (OS or VM?) that the software dev company can target.
  - ChuckMcM 1y ago
    >Not understanding this part, aren't Linux distros achieving this already without licence restrictions and various levels of stability depending on the distro selected? No. Ask yourself, if I install distro <pick one>, can I run a complex binary from 2015 on it? To pull of that kind of stunt you need to ensure you have control over changes not only in the kernel, but also in all of the associated user libraries and management tools. There are change paths for everything from how daemons get started to how graphics are rendered and sound is produced that are incompatible with themselves, much less other versions from 10 years ago. That is not a support burden that someone selling a specialized piece of software can easily take on. It makes their cost of development higher and so their price higher which loses them business.
    - rescbr 1y ago
      Yeah, if it uses the Win32 API! Thanks to Wine, it’s the most stable API/ABI Linux has! I’m kind of joking, but the main issue probably lies with the libc rather than with Linux itself.
      - ChuckMcM 1y ago
        I get that you're kind of joking but your right! Because nobody can "change" the Win32 ABI except Microsoft you don't get contributors pushing various "feature improvements" on it, not that there aren't a bunch of things one might do differently than the way the Win32 API does them, right? It's that externally enforced control that isn't possible with Linux/FOSS ecosystems. The 'why' of that is because people like Canonical can't afford to pay enough engineers to 'own' the whole system, and their user base gets bent out of shape when they do. It breaks the social contract that Linux has established. The only way to change that is to start with a new social contract which is "You pay us to license a copy of this OS and we'll keep it compatible for all your apps that run on it."

by RajT88 1y ago

ChuckMcM 1y ago

> Still, the company with the forked distro would definitely take a bite out of Microsoft's Windows business, if only a small one. That has not been shown to be the case. There is ample evidence that other companies would run this 'off market' or 'pirate' version, and zero evidence that if those choices had been unavailable that they would have legitimately licensed Windows. You are making a variant on the 'piracy losses' argument which has been shown is simply a pricing issue. If you "ask" for more than your product is "valued" then it won't be purchased but it may be stolen. And if you make it "impossible" to steal you will reduce its value to legitimate customers and have zero gain in revenue from those who had stolen it before (they still won't buy it). The "value" in Windows is the number of things that run on it and the fact that compatibility issues are "bugs" which get fixed by the supplier. We are rapidly reaching the point where it will add value to have an operating system for AMD64 hardware that is overtly governed (not Linux or FOSS) which allows you to get a copy of the source when you license it, and has an application binary interface (ABI) that other software developers can count on to exist, not change out from under them, and last for 10+ years. As Microsoft (and Apple) add more and more spurious features which enrich themselves and enrage their users the "value" becomes less and less. That calculus will flip and when it does enterprises will switch to the new operating system that is just an operating system and not a malware delivery platform.

antihipocrat 1y ago
>>have an operating system for AMD64 hardware that is overtly governed (not Linux or FOSS) Not understanding this part, aren't Linux distros achieving this already without licence restrictions and various levels of stability depending on the distro selected? A huge amount of enterprise tooling is now being run on the cloud through the browser or via electron - for a large number of businesses, their staff would only need the equivalent of a Chromebook style GUI to perform their work. Native software is still essential for a small % of users.. is this what you're suggesting needs to be solved? A single alternative open source system (OS or VM?) that the software dev company can target.
- ChuckMcM 1y ago
  >Not understanding this part, aren't Linux distros achieving this already without licence restrictions and various levels of stability depending on the distro selected? No. Ask yourself, if I install distro <pick one>, can I run a complex binary from 2015 on it? To pull of that kind of stunt you need to ensure you have control over changes not only in the kernel, but also in all of the associated user libraries and management tools. There are change paths for everything from how daemons get started to how graphics are rendered and sound is produced that are incompatible with themselves, much less other versions from 10 years ago. That is not a support burden that someone selling a specialized piece of software can easily take on. It makes their cost of development higher and so their price higher which loses them business.
  - rescbr 1y ago
    Yeah, if it uses the Win32 API! Thanks to Wine, it’s the most stable API/ABI Linux has! I’m kind of joking, but the main issue probably lies with the libc rather than with Linux itself.
    - ChuckMcM 1y ago
      I get that you're kind of joking but your right! Because nobody can "change" the Win32 ABI except Microsoft you don't get contributors pushing various "feature improvements" on it, not that there aren't a bunch of things one might do differently than the way the Win32 API does them, right? It's that externally enforced control that isn't possible with Linux/FOSS ecosystems. The 'why' of that is because people like Canonical can't afford to pay enough engineers to 'own' the whole system, and their user base gets bent out of shape when they do. It breaks the social contract that Linux has established. The only way to change that is to start with a new social contract which is "You pay us to license a copy of this OS and we'll keep it compatible for all your apps that run on it."