3 ms·

> 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 b

> 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."
      - bruce511 1y ago
        While I sympathize with your need, I don't think we'll see a new OS fill this space. Firstly, there's the obvious "all the apps you run on it". Your new OS has no apps, and even if a few emerged no business really wants to commit to running on a new OS with only a couple apps. I mean, if you want a stable OS there's always BSD, or BeOS or whatever. Which we ignore because, you know, Windows. (And I know it's fun to complain about ads on windows and Microsoft in general, but there's a reason they own the market.) OH, and business users don't see the things folk complain about anyway. Personally I have utilities on windows that were last compiled over 20 years ago that still run fine. Secondly no OS operates in a vacuum. You need to store data, (database) browse the web, communicate, secure traffic and so on. Those are very dynamic. And again (by far) the most stable place to run those things is Windows. Like Postgres 9, from 15 years ago, is still used in production. Of course it's also possible to freeze any OS and apps at any time and it will "run forever " - or at least until the version of TLS supports dies. So no, I don't believe there will be a new OS. Windows Phone died because there were no apps. Your new OS will have the same problem.
RajT88 1y ago
> You are making a variant on the 'piracy losses' argument which has been shown is simply a pricing issue An astute reader would find I am not in fact making that argument, and I suspect if we got into the weeds with it, we would find we agree with each other.
TeMPOraL 1y ago
> You are making a variant on the 'piracy losses' argument which has been shown is simply a pricing issue. That works for individuals. In many (most?) countries, the calculus for companies is vastly different. It takes one disgruntled employee or a bad dice roll to end up being audited for use of pirated software; between the regulators in many countries being on the side of the copyright holders on this, and the company itself being a much easier and juicer legal target than a bunch of regular people, the costs of getting caught using a bootleg Windows copy commercially far outweighs the costs of just licensing it. With Windows also providing genuine value, the choice for companies isn't between licensing or pirating - it's between licensing, or sacrificing some other part of the business to scrounge up money for licensing, or not doing the business in the first place. (Yes, the boundary between individuals and companies is fuzzy; this argument is somewhat weak for some classes of sole proprietorships, but generally solidifies quickly as the headcount of an org grows towards double-digit numbers.)

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."
    - bruce511 1y ago
      While I sympathize with your need, I don't think we'll see a new OS fill this space. Firstly, there's the obvious "all the apps you run on it". Your new OS has no apps, and even if a few emerged no business really wants to commit to running on a new OS with only a couple apps. I mean, if you want a stable OS there's always BSD, or BeOS or whatever. Which we ignore because, you know, Windows. (And I know it's fun to complain about ads on windows and Microsoft in general, but there's a reason they own the market.) OH, and business users don't see the things folk complain about anyway. Personally I have utilities on windows that were last compiled over 20 years ago that still run fine. Secondly no OS operates in a vacuum. You need to store data, (database) browse the web, communicate, secure traffic and so on. Those are very dynamic. And again (by far) the most stable place to run those things is Windows. Like Postgres 9, from 15 years ago, is still used in production. Of course it's also possible to freeze any OS and apps at any time and it will "run forever " - or at least until the version of TLS supports dies. So no, I don't believe there will be a new OS. Windows Phone died because there were no apps. Your new OS will have the same problem.

RajT88 1y ago

> You are making a variant on the 'piracy losses' argument which has been shown is simply a pricing issue An astute reader would find I am not in fact making that argument, and I suspect if we got into the weeds with it, we would find we agree with each other.

TeMPOraL 1y ago

> You are making a variant on the 'piracy losses' argument which has been shown is simply a pricing issue. That works for individuals. In many (most?) countries, the calculus for companies is vastly different. It takes one disgruntled employee or a bad dice roll to end up being audited for use of pirated software; between the regulators in many countries being on the side of the copyright holders on this, and the company itself being a much easier and juicer legal target than a bunch of regular people, the costs of getting caught using a bootleg Windows copy commercially far outweighs the costs of just licensing it. With Windows also providing genuine value, the choice for companies isn't between licensing or pirating - it's between licensing, or sacrificing some other part of the business to scrounge up money for licensing, or not doing the business in the first place. (Yes, the boundary between individuals and companies is fuzzy; this argument is somewhat weak for some classes of sole proprietorships, but generally solidifies quickly as the headcount of an org grows towards double-digit numbers.)