OK, I'm a bit slow on the uptake (I refer to this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23852.html ) But doesn't this have rather strong implications for interoperability? BASICALLY, the article is about the next version of Windows and how M$ are said to be planning a filesystem that is basically one big database- effectively shipping out a copy of M$ SQL server with the OS. I guess that when you request some information, it will form a Transact-SQL (TM) query... Anyone have any thoughts on this? Another interesting article, btw is http://www.namesys.com/whitepaper.html Do you think it'll really make a big difference to Linux? Ricardo -- Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org Powered by Outblaze
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23852.html ) But doesn't this have rather strong implications for interoperability?
Yes. The whole next version of windows appears to be moving to a different architecture completely. I can see this happening in a future version of MS Windows: * Boot the machine * Base OS boots up * I launch a program * The program is constructed from several modules which are downloaded and assembled on my machine on demand * I do work inside the program * I save a file * You finish with the program The modules would be paid for on subscription or per use. Want to spell check your word document, that will be 50p please. Want to export your slide show from powerpoint for presentation, please insert your copyright protection information here (viewer can not see it with paying you a fee) The process of file saving will not be local, but more likely on a central server. However with the lack of interest in "My Services" recently, causing it to change direction, I am unsure about this. In other words, in the next version of MS Windows, you will have dumb terminals! But very fast dumb terminals :) And at this point, interoperability between MS and Linux would be purely academic. There would be no interface between them. Do people agree with this, or do I have a distorted view of the future of the MS OS? Ashley
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Ashley wrote:
* Boot the machine
BIOS Error: the DVD-RW drive on channel 0 does not implement EIDE copyright protection. Remove device and press any key.
* Base OS boots up
404 Not Found: The server check-registration.microsoft.com could not be found. Reboot and try again.
* The program is constructed from several modules which are downloaded and assembled on my machine on demand
s/is constructed from/includes, in addition to the bloated base packages loaded from DVD/
* I do work inside the program * I save a file * You finish with the program
In other words, in the next version of MS Windows, you will have dumb terminals! But very fast dumb terminals :) And at this point, interoperability between MS and Linux would be purely academic. There would be no interface between them.
Well, no. There will be linux clients to talk to MS services for sure, mostly in order to retrieve your data from them during the migration to a better OS as people are driven away in droves by increasing "software rental fees" and privacy invasion by nanny-OS.
Do people agree with this, or do I have a distorted view of the future of the MS OS?
You see a future for the MS OS? Andrew. -- All views are my own .... who else would want them?
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:52:36 Ashley wrote:
The modules would be paid for on subscription or per use. Want to spell check your word document, that will be 50p please. Want to export your slide show from powerpoint for presentation, please insert your copyright protection information here (viewer can not see it with paying you a fee)
This is an interesting topic. The non-free software model is one in which a company retains copyright and licenses the software to the users who pay for the privilege. There is nothing to say that licensing has to be for all time and I remember when I first joined BT that they were using some CAD software that was rented, i.e. you only had a license to run it as long as you continued to pay. Now add to this the model of the pay-as-you-go mobile phone where a user subscribes to a service and pays for a certain amount of that service up front. When the service payed for has been exhausted the user must pay again to continue to use the service. So even without the internet a model where people pay per use or per month to license software has been available - floppies with new license keys can be sent through the post or purchased from "top up points". So why would M$ try to adopt this new model now rather than at any previous time? There may be a number of reasons including: * The internet makes license adminstration cheaper. * Perhaps the market of people techically minded enough to buy a PC with the known complexities and problems is exhausted and people are looking for something simpler at home. * It provides additional lock-in opportunities. The last of those is the most interesting. A typical business application of a PC requires an office suite that is capable of reading MS Office documents, a web browser and e-mail and very little else. With free software to do all of that business can buy a large number of PCs and equip them with software without paying a penny to microsoft! This way of working is becoming increasinly realistic now. How is microsoft going to get its cut of these companies money? Perhaps through network based applications. So, how does that differ for home users? The first job the home user has if he wished to avoid paying microsoft for software is to buy his PC without licenses already included in the deal. This isn't hard but I suspect that it isn't easy enough that it will become common in the near future so on that front M$'s income is perhaps more secure. Any thoughts?
Ashley <ashley@ashleyhowes.com> wrote:
* How many training companies are offering courses now in using office suites for linux? * How many training companies show users how to use Mozilla for web browsing?
Apparently too many, according to the recent complaint from a training company that they're not getting enough interest. I think there's an email in the queue about that for tomorrow's announcement roundup. Feel free to tell them what you think they're not doing right: wrong courses, or publicity in the wrong places? I'm always open to having advertising material from friendly suppliers at meetings (but I *will* kill anyone who does too much of it on-list ;-) ).
on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:40:01AM +0100, Steve Fosdick wrote:
So why would M$ try to adopt this new model now rather than at any previous time? There may be a number of reasons including:
* The internet makes license adminstration cheaper.
* Perhaps the market of people techically minded enough to buy a PC with the known complexities and problems is exhausted and people are looking for something simpler at home.
* It provides additional lock-in opportunities.
I think also there is possibly another reason; it's quite hard to sustain a reliable income on software by constantly releasing new versions. (And a lot of effort.) Customers want backward/forward compatibility, so you should provide this. But this removes part of the incentive to upgrade. In fact, when comparing word xp to word 97, etc, there doesn't appear to be *that* many ground breaking features between them. So why upgrade? There are only so many features a word processor can have. Would you upgrade from Washing Machine version 1.0 to Washing Machine 2000 at any other time than when Washing Machine 1.0 broke/got too old? With Office the "too old" cycle has been quite small, but I don't see that many people jumping from Office 2000 to Office XP, so perhaps it's increasing.
The last of those is the most interesting. A typical business application of a PC requires an office suite that is capable of reading MS Office documents, a web browser and e-mail and very little else. With free software to do all of that business can buy a large number of PCs and equip them with software without paying a penny to microsoft! This way of working is becoming increasinly realistic now. How is microsoft going to get its cut of these companies money? Perhaps through network based applications.
Or patents/standards. I'm awaiting microsoft's "extensions" to X11, just like they "extended" Kerberos and "extended" CHAP.
participants (6)
-
Andrew Savory -
Ashley -
MJ Ray -
Ricardo Campos -
Steve Fosdick -
xs＠kittenz.org