Reply to post: Re: Meeeh

'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>"The freedom aspect is primarily what has made Linux successful here"

Well no, the free (as in Beer) aspect is an enabler of success. In that if it cost a lot of money that would obviously have held it back. But it's not the reason GNU/Linux has been a great success. It's because it's very capable of doing the job. Evidence: it is free as both a server platform for websites and as a Desktop OS for end users. But it is massively more successful as the former. Ergo, whilst its low cost helps allow it to be taken up, it's the tremendous suitability that has really established it. Also, anecdotally, I work with clients who would be perfectly willing to use Windows Server and pay the costs if that's what the admins told them was needed, but the admins have said "we're putting in some new CentOS servers" and the higher-ups have simply nodded and signed off pretty much the same way they would have if the admins had said "Windows Server, sign here". I genuinely think that the cost (free as in beer) aspect of GNU/Linux is a secondary factor for its success to its actual capability and reliability. And this is coming from someone who likes Windows Server 2012 quite a lot, btw!

>>"It's the fact that there are no restrictions on how you can use it, and that you can modify it in any way you like."

Well, the GPL2 does have restrictions and they're every bit as enforceable as any other copyright-based law. Also, there are practical restrictions on what you can do. The vast majority of Open Source code works in a friendly and compatible way without forking, especially something as fundamental as the Linux kernel or the GNU tools.

"If Microsoft are going to go anywhere of consequence in the IOT space they need to radically overhaul their licensing models and really let things go."

I actually don't think that's necessary. People are willing to pay an extra for things if they like it. Technically OSX is free, but in practice you pay for it as part of buying a Mac. Microsoft suffered badly as a consequence of the Race to the Bottom that most OEMs pulled between 2000 to 2010. It took a while to come home but when it did, Macs savaged Windows laptops badly and Google found a way to monetize people, meaning they could attack the bottom end as well. MS and its OEMs only good way of fighting back against this is not to cut costs, but to raise quality. They're not going to win on price because they can't and because people are actually willing to pay for quality (laptops are being bought and kept for much longer now, as the pace of technology power is hitting Good Enough, and so seen as more of an investment worth paying for).

So changes to licencing the mobile area can help encourage OEMs, but overall, MS need to focus on high quality. Anything else is a strategic mistake, imo.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon