Freedomain Radio

I've been wanting to write about how Vista is going to be the worst OS ever but i've recently changed my tune a bit. Vista is the perfect example of the problem with proprietary software development, especially on the OS scale. We can get into other issues if people would like to but for now I'd like to talk about what vista will do to the hardware market and Free software.

Vista's hardware requirements are outrageous system wide with the biggest hit on the video card. Almost all computers will require a significant upgrade of one or more major system component if not an entire system upgrade. Vista will be shipped on new dell/gateway/compaq boxes and corporations wishing to stay current will be forced to upgrade most if not all their computers.

This will do two things for the Free software crowd: linux is becoming more and more advanced as an end user desktop enviroment. within a year, i feel strongly the Ubuntu desktop will be a modern operating system on the level of look and feel to OSX and Vista. There will be a greater movement toward Linux in corporate and personal environments for nothing else than to save money (despite many other advantages) rather than a costly software and hardware upgrade to Vista.

The second windfall for the Free software movement will be the flooding of the used hardware market. Vista will cause systems to become obsolete which are quite powerful computers. The average desktop computer today is far far more powerful than its common uses require. People developing and using open source often use obsolete machines (PII, PIII sometimes older, very small memory, etc) with great success because of the small footprint and superior hardware use of linux/unix/BSD. Vista will accelerate the useful lifespan of many computers which will upgrade the level of hardware the Free software hobbiest will be working with. This may increase the speed of open source development.

The other day I found an ancient MP3 player i haven't used in years (rio600, 32Mb capacity) and sure enough there are drivers and utilities people have reverse engineered to keep this hardware usable. it only takes one person with an old piece of hardware and a few hours to code to revitalize on a global scale any piece of forgotten hardware. it is a very soulfull movement.

I got an MP3 player and found out it only works on WinXP...

I certainly agree that Microsoft's version 1 products go for features over speed, but version 2 is usually better.

The real question for end-users, after the internet/email revolution is: what else do I need?

80% of users use 20% of features in their word processors/spreadsheets etc. Now it's all about the eye-candy, like dull-but-pretty video games.

I saw a demo of Vista recently, and I don't think MS has answered the basic question: why upgrade?

I'm on Win2K, over 6 years old, and it does everything I need. And I use Office 97, which is great too!

So I think they might be starting to tie into hardware manufacturers, so that new hardware requires the new OS. Not noble perhaps, but it will bring down the price of hardware (less testing), to perhaps the point where buying the OS becomes cash-positive.

But you won't be able to fool the consumers. Vista might be the next 'Microsoft Bob'.

haha, i agree entirely. good points.

the why upgrade tends to answer itself; otherwise everyone would have the set-up you have which is ideal for the work most people do (instead of that being rare).

Vista is just a symptom of the problems microsoft is having as a company: not being able to pull the trigger, not having realistic goals and expectations for release and upgrade schedules, etc. remember IE is over 6 years old and was originally written for the PII/PIII upgrade. I think they are in bigger trouble than anyone is admitting.

The Vista demos i've seen have not been that impressive. There is very little new "content" being developed. The false sense of "security" with anoying dialog boxes being a good example. IE is just trying to keep up (and doing a poor job of it). there are no features it has that haven't been available in firefox or opera for a while now. the desktop eye-candy looks like they think png's and alpha levels are something new and exciting.

ubuntu releases a full upgrade of the OS (with new kernel, upgraded window manager, the whole works) every 6 months. let that sink in. a free competitive operating system developed largely by hobbiests updates every six months with features that (one of) the largest company in the world can't keep up with. Yet I read all these microsoft appologists justifying ANOTHER 6 month set back to the release date of Vista.

Rapid upgrade schedules are at least as much of a problem for both businesses and home users, as are Jurassic sized upgrades that only happen every three or four years.

For large businesses, an upgrade schedule of anything less than 2 years is likely to become an out of control disaster. My own company set a 5-year schedule, and with an employee roster of over 15,000 now, even that is a little aggressive. Add to that the rediculous hardware demands made by Vista, and subtract the fact that there really is nothing worthwhile to be gained from it in the business environment (Security and other manageability aspects are already being handled quite well by third party network-and-server-level vendors), and it's pretty clear that there is no value in yet another conversion.

For home users, As long as Microsoft can command obedience from hardware vendors like Dell and Compaq, every 'average joe' shopping for a new computer will simply 'live with' whatever came out of the box. They'd rather not have to think about it - and who can blame them? However, for people who already have a computer in their home, you guys are absolutely right - almost nodody I know, is going to look at their present Win2K or WinXP system, and say to themselves, "Gee whiz, I really need alpha levels.", and then go out and drop 2 or 3 grand on a new box. The headache of switching machines, for most folks, is just not worth the payoff.

So, I think this is one of the reasons why there's been so much 'bad blood' between the MS folks, and Dell, for example. Dell sees it's own fortunes being dragged to the bottom of the sea by the MS Vista Titanic, and they can't figure a good way out. That's also why I think *RIGHT NOW* would be a great time, to convince one of the hardware vendors to partner with a FUNCTIONAL linux distribution, and really push hard on the marketing. The Lindows/Linspire folks had the right idea, for sure, but just not the right time. The hardest part of making a plan like this succeed, though, is GAME VENDORS. Convincing them it'd be worth their while to invest time into producing Linux-compatible games would be a real chore, but without it, getting a biege-box linux system off the ground (or out of the store) would still be a struggle.

Microsoft only released once a "breaking" change to their OS; when they went from windows 3.1 to Windows 95.  They have always released an OS with most of the features back ported to the previous version.  Nearly all the the API level design they have put into Vista are backported to Windows XP: ZAML, Indigo, etc.  Most businesses are on a multi year schedule.  If you have Windows XP, I doubt many companies are going to upgrade.  But if you have Windows 2000, it is probably time for a hardware upgrade anyway.

Microsoft hasn't been able to command obedience from any hardware vendors.  They offer the license and the vendor sells them.  Windows 98 still outsold Windows ME when ME was released.  I think the hardware vendors just quit selling older version because it is harder to find good device drivers and consumer demand in the free market doesn't warrant support anymore.  There are no USB drivers for 2000+ for one of the early models of digital cameras I have.

Does anyone remember when Microsoft pushed the RAM requirements from 8 MB of ram to 32 MB?  There was the same doom stories of 2 to 3 thousand dollar machines.  They were right, ram was about $50 a meg, so that was $1,500 for just RAM.  But the price dropped and the bottom fell out of it.  Now ram is 17 pennies per MB.

Assuming there are functional linux distribution, (there might be, I'm just unfamiliar with it) what's in it for Dell to produce a hardware lineup that only 3% of PC purchasers are going to want?  If there really was some cash to be made in preloaded linux machines, someone would have already filled that market.  If no new company can make a profit off a linux load, why would Dell do it?

I do agree if the Game Vendors would start pushing their products out supporting linux, it would help the demand.  I've heard from my friend at Retro Studios (Metriod), it is hard to produce games for linux because of driver support and the unstandardized version of everyone's linux.  It would seem better for the Linux community to begin to develop "emulators" or fully develop Mono to open up their software to the gaming market.  Is there something like DirectX for Linux?

nedsferatu wrote:

ubuntu releases a full upgrade of the OS (with new kernel, upgraded window manager, the whole works) every 6 months. let that sink in. a free competitive operating system developed largely by hobbiests updates every six months with features that (one of) the largest company in the world can't keep up with.

I couldn't imagine writing software for this system.  Every six months you have to retest your software!  Or even rewrite portions of it.  Most companies aren't going to spend 500,000 for a software system that will have to be retooled every six months.  If during every rewrite, they left the backwards compatibility in it eventually their OS would become so bloated it would become unmanageable.  That is the situation MS is in.  They still have code in their base that was written for Win 95, so you patch on top of a patch and then hack it one more time, you end up with crap.

But you aren't speaking of a commercial grade OS, you are speaking of hobbyist creating their own OS.  A commerical grade OS requires stability.  As a developer I would hate to develop software targeting a platform that is always moving.

It sunk it and it stung.

billrob458 wrote:

Assuming there are functional linux distribution, (there might be, I'm just unfamiliar with it) what's in it for Dell to produce a hardware lineup that only 3% of PC purchasers are going to want?  If there really was some cash to be made in preloaded linux machines, someone would have already filled that market.  If no new company can make a profit off a linux load, why would Dell do it?

well installing linux is a much easier process than installing windows so people either convert windows machines or buy systems without os's installed (saving about $150 a machine). remember no licensing problems and most distros can be installed from a single cd or dvd. now-a-days, it's like a 15-30 minute process depending on the hardware. i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at with this paragraph. dell has sold linux boxes (i think it may still be an option when buying a computer, at least in europe if not in the usa) and many other companies sell linux machines as well.

I do agree if the Game Vendors would start pushing their products out supporting linux, it would help the demand.  I've heard from my friend at Retro Studios (Metriod), it is hard to produce games for linux because of driver support and the unstandardized version of everyone's linux.  It would seem better for the Linux community to begin to develop "emulators" or fully develop Mono to open up their software to the gaming market.  Is there something like DirectX for Linux?

a lot of people's perception of linux comes from trying it out 5-10 years ago. unlike the small changes that have been happening in the windows world in that time, the linux world has seen HUGE changes. people tend to still think that it's not user friendly and has ugly window managers, and you have to be a command line geek to use it, and the installs are very hard. these are all very old problems.

since the kernel 2.6 release, i'm pretty sure it's development has been almost entirely driver support. Driver support is not something that the linux user thinks about anymore really unless you have a really obscure piece of hardware (even then drivers are often available for manual installation). there are lots and lots of emulators available for linux. not sure what mono or DirectX are.

Check out the Dapper XGL video here:
http://www.osvids.com/

Does anyone remember when Microsoft pushed the RAM requirements from 8 MB of ram to 32 MB?  There was the same doom stories of 2 to 3 thousand dollar machines.  They were right, ram was about $50 a meg, so that was $1,500 for just RAM.  But the price dropped and the bottom fell out of it.  Now ram is 17 pennies per MB.

not seeing your point here, or how that was a good thing.

billrob458 wrote:

I couldn't imagine writing software for this system.  Every six months you have to retest your software!  Or even rewrite portions of it.  Most companies aren't going to spend 500,000 for a software system that will have to be retooled every six months.  If during every rewrite, they left the backwards compatibility in it eventually their OS would become so bloated it would become unmanageable.  That is the situation MS is in.  They still have code in their base that was written for Win 95, so you patch on top of a patch and then hack it one more time, you end up with crap. But you aren't speaking of a commercial grade OS, you are speaking of hobbyist creating their own OS.  A commerical grade OS requires stability.  As a developer I would hate to develop software targeting a platform that is always moving.

this is not exactly how things go in open source. you speak of retesting "your" software, and rewriting "your" software when that really doesn't exist...especially for large projects. so the new os comes out or a library gets updated and part of your program breaks. somebody somewhere will work on it and send you a patch (or upload it to the cvs). say someone is colorblind and the program is confusing for him. he may write a feature and add it to the program. backwards compatability is only when it's needed. if someone would still like to use an old piece of hardware community will provide that functionality. it is a lot like the free market. where there is demand there is supply. if the code gets too bloated someone or team will optimize it. This happened with the window manager Gnome recently. It's speed was improved by a few hundred percent with the new release. And these are very much commercial grade OS's. I'm not sure where you got the idea that linux is unstable (especially in comparison to windows! ha!).

I didn't get the time to read all of your posts, but Neds first couple of posts mainly, along with Stef's reply.

I wanted to say that as a tech who works on Macintosh computers as well as Windows computers, I can say without a doubt that I have fallen madly in love with OS X 10.4 tiger.  It has taken in a lot of linux/unix/bsd developers because their software is also compatible with other BSD based Operating Systems.  OS X is a marvel with the out of the box free bundled software.  Garage Band, software that comes bundled to do podcasting and music mixing/editing/midi, is really a fantastic piece of software for a beginner.  I did things straight out of the box on my Mac Book Pro that I could never do out of the box on Windows XP.  Whats more is that the latest Macintosh hardware will run Windows XP using Bootcamp or Parallels.  With Parallels you can also run Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, all simultaniously on top of OS X.  I will never recommend any other computer manufacture aside from my own custom built boxes, and Apple, who is now currently ahead of all manufacturers in the market as far as stock value goes.  Most of OS X bundled software is typically all you need, other free software to add on to it is available, Firefox I find to be far better than Safari for example.  Stuffit is free for the most part as well.  There are plenty of other free applications out there for OS X and compared to Windows XP there is relatively a whole lot more free stuff.  Most games, which are one of the major reasons I love computers, are now compatible with OS X.  World of Warcraft can be bought and will install on both Windows XP and OS X - using the same CD's/DVD's.  Whats cool is most Macs come with Superdrives, and PC's from major manufacturers don't, they also don't include firewire ports on major manufacturer PC's.

I personally think OS X will inevitably take Windows' place in the market.  It is far easier to configure, and manage based on a very intuitive interface that even the dumbest user can figure out (why we rarely get near the demand for configuring and fixing problems for Mac users on a percentage basis).  Its just a better OS period.  I like Linux to a degree, but with Linux there is no straight out of the box easy install and configuration by comparison, Linux is still as much of a pain in the ass to use and configure for the average end user as Windows XP.  That is why I don't think Linux is going to be it, and why I think OS X will be the next operating system for PC's and Macintosh.

Sephethus wrote:

I personally think OS X will inevitably take Windows' place in the market.  It is far easier to configure, and manage based on a very intuitive interface that even the dumbest user can figure out (why we rarely get near the demand for configuring and fixing problems for Mac users on a percentage basis).  Its just a better OS period.  I like Linux to a degree, but with Linux there is no straight out of the box easy install and configuration by comparison, Linux is still as much of a pain in the ass to use and configure for the average end user as Windows XP.  That is why I don't think Linux is going to be it, and why I think OS X will be the next operating system for PC's and Macintosh.

check out ubuntu dapper if you get the chance. 15 minute install with all the software needed for a desktop system bundled on one free cd. yes they will mail you an install cd for free. you can also get a LAMP server in 15 minutes as well with xubuntu.

i think i should take a minute to explain how one goes about installing new software on a linux machine. i'll speak from the debian end of things since i know the most about it. in my experience with windows (limited) and mac (lots), in order to install a new piece of software you go online, search the web, find the relevant web site, down load an archived directory (or disk image), extract the installer, and install the software. not very hard i grant you but not the most elegant was of going about it. Debian uses primarily package managers. a package is a set of files that are scripted together to compile, install, and set themselves up (basic configuration, etc). packages are kept (by the thousands) on servers call repositories. often these packages rely on other packages to work properly called dependancies. A package manager is an application allows you to search repositories for software that you would like to have on your computer and then it will download all dependancies and install it. so anytime you need a program to do something, you just open your package manager, type in a key word, select the software, click install, and a few minutes later it's ready to use. you can identify as many repositories as you want and there are literally thousands of apps that are immediatly available to you. it's really pretty cool once you start using it.

nedsferatu wrote:

check out ubuntu dapper if you get the chance. 15 minute install with all the software needed for a desktop system bundled on one free cd. yes they will mail you an install cd for free. you can also get a LAMP server in 15 minutes as well with xubuntu. i think i should take a minute to explain how one goes about installing new software on a linux machine. i'll speak from the debian end of things since i know the most about it. in my experience with windows (limited) and mac (lots), in order to install a new piece of software you go online, search the web, find the relevant web site, down load an archived directory (or disk image), extract the installer, and install the software. not very hard i grant you but not the most elegant was of going about it. Debian uses primarily package managers. a package is a set of files that are scripted together to compile, install, and set themselves up (basic configuration, etc). packages are kept (by the thousands) on servers call repositories. often these packages rely on other packages to work properly called dependancies. A package manager is an application allows you to search repositories for software that you would like to have on your computer and then it will download all dependancies and install it. so anytime you need a program to do something, you just open your package manager, type in a key word, select the software, click install, and a few minutes later it's ready to use. you can identify as many repositories as you want and there are literally thousands of apps that are immediatly available to you. it's really pretty cool once you start using it.

Hmmm, Ubuntu, I'll check it out.  I would say they should rename it - doesn't seem to have that zing to it that the market might go for.

nedsferatu wrote:

well installing linux is a much easier process than installing windows so people either convert windows machines or buy systems without os's installed (saving about $150 a machine). remember no licensing problems and most distros can be installed from a single cd or dvd. now-a-days, it's like a 15-30 minute process depending on the hardware. i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at with this paragraph. dell has sold linux boxes (i think it may still be an option when buying a computer, at least in europe if not in the usa) and many other companies sell linux machines as well.

I was only getting this paragraph from Greg's implication that there aren't big name pre-loaded hardware vendors because of Microsoft.  I haven't installed linux since before Red Hat went commercial, but I don't see how a linux install could be any more difficult (or easier) than my last install of XP and Vista.

nedsferatu wrote:

a lot of people's perception of linux comes from trying it out 5-10 years ago. unlike the small changes that have been happening in the windows world in that time, the linux world has seen HUGE changes. people tend to still think that it's not user friendly and has ugly window managers, and you have to be a command line geek to use it, and the installs are very hard. these are all very old problems.

I will accept that.  My delve into linux was back when Microsoft has some major issues with their OSes, 5 - 10 years ago.  Microsoft have since rectified most of my complaints over it, and so I haven't go back to linux for quite a while.  I'm sure if I coded in Java and needed some IDE, Eclispse would be an excellent choice.

Mono is a .NET implementation for linux.  They currently have about 70% code coverage, meaning I could take my windows application written in .NET and it "just runs" on a linux machine.

DirectX is what nearly all video game shops use to program the graphics for their games.  They code against DirectX (a free microsoft API) so it can run on any DirectX piece of hardware.  If Linux doesn't support DirectX I could definitely see why linux is lacking in game support.

Does anyone remember when Microsoft pushed the RAM requirements from 8 MB of ram to 32 MB?  There was the same doom stories of 2 to 3 thousand dollar machines.  They were right, ram was about $50 a meg, so that was $1,500 for just RAM.  But the price dropped and the bottom fell out of it.  Now ram is 17 pennies per MB.  nedsferatu wrote: not seeing your point here, or how that was a good thing.

I probably should have done a better job of snipping.  My point on this was Greg's assessment the hardware requirements are way too expensive to run Vista with the 3D video cards, bus speed, etc.  It is an insanely good thing because the software I run uses so much RAM.  My Visual Studio I have open now is nearly 400MB of ram.  There are other compilers out that run on less ram, (some c++ compilers fix into 640K memory), but the feature gain is amazing.

nedsferatu wrote:

this is not exactly how things go in open source. you speak of retesting "your" software, and rewriting "your" software when that really doesn't exist...especially for large projects. so the new os comes out or a library gets updated and part of your program breaks. somebody somewhere will work on it and send you a patch (or upload it to the cvs). say someone is colorblind and the program is confusing for him. he may write a feature and add it to the program. backwards compatability is only when it's needed. if someone would still like to use an old piece of hardware community will provide that functionality. it is a lot like the free market. where there is demand there is supply. if the code gets too bloated someone or team will optimize it. This happened with the window manager Gnome recently. It's speed was improved by a few hundred percent with the new release. And these are very much commercial grade OS's. I'm not sure where you got the idea that linux is unstable (especially in comparison to windows! ha!).

Is this "not exists" comment back to our IP discussion?  :)

If I am a project manager with 15 developers and we are writing an accounting system, the accounting system is my software.  I code it out against Ubuntu build 1.2006.  I deploy my software company wide on 6,000 machines.  Who exactly is going to fix my software when the 7.2006 build of Ubuntu no longer will run my software? Me and my team.  To imagine someone somewhere would fix it?  I am certainly missing something here, ned...

I was never claiming that linux was unstable, but you can't honestly expect me to believe completely rewritting the OS kernel every 6 months will be completely backward compatibile or completely stable.  You can have regression tests that ensure it will behave the same, but no amount of regression test will substitute for "In The Wild" api consumer code.

I did look into Ubuntu and they do NOT rewrite their OS every 6 months.

Sephethus wrote:

I personally think OS X will inevitably take Windows' place in the market.

Almost makes you wonder if that is part of their motivation to switch to the Intel Microprocessor Architecture. 

I welcome the challenge, the more "natural" competitors against Microsoft the better.  (By Natural I do NOT mean government subsidized, either financially or regulatory)

One of two things would happen:

• Microsoft will respond and make software better. Meaning everyone that doesn't have an irrational hatred of MS, will be satisfied
• Mac, or some unseen future company, will kick the crap out of MS, and make software better.

So now matter what, software will get better the more "natural" competition there is.

I work for a mid-sized software company that is Open Source.