Open Sauce always to be 2nd fiddle

[W1nTry]

To you linux/unix/etc users out there, here's what Harvard Business School has to say on the matter:

Microsoft will always beat Open Source

Harvard Report claims


By Nick Farrell: Monday 11 September 2006, 08:22

OPEN SOURCE will always be a poor cousin to Microsoft, according to a report by boffins at Harvard Business School.
In a new report, professors Pankaj Ghemawat and Ramon Casadesus-Masanell have sat down with their books of economic formulae and come up with a stinging rebuffing of the Open Source phenomena.

Ghemawat and Casadesus-Masanell decided to look at the Open Source versus Vole in terms of competitive dynamics and ask if OSS ever displace traditional software from market leadership.

In their concisely titled academic paper 'Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux vs. Windows', the authors believe neither side is likely to be forced from the battlefield, but Vole will always be the leader.

This was a bit of a surprise to them, because when they started they thought that network effects and demand-side learning would result in Linux forcing Windows out.

It turned out that they had failed to realise that a larger installed base together with its pricing power allow the company to price strategically to control Linux's market share.

Lowering the price of Windows would cause the demand for Linux to shrink to a point where it is not a threat, they said.

There is an interview with the report’s authors here. µ

[TinyGrasshopper]

As long as Microsoft gets first mover advantage. Of course we could argue that Linux winning could come in the form of better practices from Microsoft, and also none of this invalidates the technology. As was the case before Open Source in business became popular, companies need to be agressive in competing with Microsoft. This is easier for open source companies since thier technology theoretically grows faster, but still.

[Qloxx]

Dude people are too lazy to pick up new software even if you make it look and work exactly like windows
the majority of the idiots will still go for microsoft why Marketing and stupidity.

[Nephilim]

Dude people are too lazy to pick up new software even if you make it look and work exactly like windows
the majority of the idiots will still go for microsoft why Marketing and stupidity.

this is beyond true, i use Ubuntu linux as a productivity OS encoding video and such, and the performace benifits are impressive, and like you said it looks just like windows there is just a learning curve with installing and using some software (e.g. system software), but no matter how many times i try to convince people to just TRY the Live Cd they shine away when the hear the word "linux". Automatically a console prompt appears in their head.

Also remember that 90% of games are developed for the PC/on it, only certain titles like NWN and Quake make it in the nix world (Quake looks S!47 loads good on nix in you can believe it).
And that if money$oft didn't invent winblows we'd still have only the select few unix gurus (now i'm not saying that i'm one ) who could use the PC, effectivly.

Sad but true, the world was weened into computers on Win 3.x/'95.

[disciple]

 correction, wintry.. unix itself is not open source ( currently, it is claimed to be owned by the SCO group...).. bsd, however, is..


according to  the report , should microsoft drop the price to windows, then it has  a chance to render linux irrelevant..
as we can see with  the last vista pricing scheme, this is not coming soon



i don't think any serious user ( okay, there are zealots out there) believes that linux will overtake windows any time soon....


something just occurred to me...  is any company going create a new proprietary, closed source desktop operating system any more? i don't think so..
no one has the money to compete in that arena with microsoft; ibm tried and died with os/2 ..though apple might have more than a fighting chance if they release OSX ( which itself is based on bsd) for general use

so efforts are focussed on linux  to be that second player.. and it will continue to grow..     ubuntu has already started to advertise via billboards in the US and more and more vendors are releasing drivers for their hardware, so we are seeing progress with regards to getting into the heads of average joe, and the manufacturers..


but linux isn't the only open source rep out here

take for example the apache web server..  it's the most popularr web server .. and its open source ( iis is catching up, but for the moment, apache is top dog)

then you have firefox.. open source chipping away at i.e. ( 11% in 2 years  is somewhat herculean, considering that many people just stick with ie, cuz it there.. and the very size of the internet-going population)

open source as a business model will never defeat closed source, nor achieve even parity..
but it is gaining in awareness, and considering the resources of closed source empires, that means a lot

[vivman1107]

Don't forget MySQL, one of the fastest growing RDMS, is also open source. It is true, though, Windows will continue its dominance in many areas: office use with the "obvious" choices of Microsoft Windows and Office. Also, true gaming might not ever be practical for Linux users as most games are for Windows. In most other areas, though, Linux is just as good or better than Windows and applications are always improving at no cost (as opposed to proprietary software in Windows). I have taken to using Linux as my everyday OS for surfing, etc. and Windows for my gaming fix (when not playing Xbox, PS2, Cube, DS). I am sure that a majority of people can do the same if pointed in the right direction especially since many people are not as interested in gaming as we gamers are.

[W1nTry]

correction, wintry.. unix itself is not open source ( currently, it is claimed to be owned by the SCO group...).. bsd, however, is..

As disciple argues symantics with me. So disc, tell me something, is BSD a form of Unix or is Unix a form of BSD? or are the COMPLETELY different with neither being based upon the other?

[disciple]

lol  i mentioned it because you referred to unix proper,  as open source, when it isn't ... it is a trademark, and copyrighted code

as far as i understand :-

the code is different, in addition to the license ...roughly ,  the bsd license allows you to implement the code freely, in whatever way you see fit, without your derivative being open source if you so desire..
bsd is unix-like, but is not licensed to call itself unix..


the unix trademark and the actual unix code is supposedly owned by SCO   ( or novell.. there is currently a lawsuit before US courts, in addition to the SCO vs IBM and every linux user lawsuit) and you have to pay for the license ( which is not open source)


solaris, aix, hp-ux, irix etc are  unices (?) seeing that the code itself is derived from the original AT&T developed code (yes the phone people wrote it back in the 70s) , and they are certified to ascribe to standards set up by the Open Unix group,like 'unix 98' and 'unix 03'  ( and advertise as being unix). some of them bought the licensed code from AT&T back in the day under a commercial license, as well...they contain improvements derived from bsd, yes, but the bsd license allows for this..  (this is also how apple could appropriate BSD code into its proprietary osx). 



bsd ( berkely source distribution, named after the university of california, berkely  where it was first developed)  grew initially as extenstion to and modification of AT&T code, yes, but over time, what ever was AT&T code was replaced with their own  open-source code.. the general principles of the operating system however, remained the same ( philosophy behind the kernel, system calls, user commands, driver model, etc)

and as such bsd derivatives (FreeBSD, dragonlyflybsd, openbsd, netbsd,macosx,  etc)  are unix-like, but do not contain unix code, or are currently licensed to call themselves such....

they can  however, pay for such certification ( once they adhere to the Open Group's standards and pass ceritification)

the unix code initially was free for academic use, but that changed a long time ago..
so.. seeing that you have to purchase the unix code, and you cannot distribute the source , it is therefore not opensource (well, from my understanding)

opensolaris is the project to open-source solaris, but with the licensed unix code removed, and the sun-developed code released under an open source license


 i not tryin to be argumentative, but there is a difference :-)

[vivman1107]

That triggered a flashback to my Unix System Programming and Database Design classes. Nice recap of the *nix history.

[TrinireturnofGamez]

   Open source will gain more ground in certain areas... Recently i think Nigeria ordered 5 million  of those cheap pcs designed for the 3rd world , all run linux as they too slow to handle windows and don't think they have X86 processors anyway....
 
    What would make a huge  difference for linux is if alot of the different distro programmers got together and compiled one easy to use distro which they all support... ( possibly more work done in emulating windows programs and making it viable?) and if big system OEM's included Linux as an option it would help tremendously ... Especially since it would shave like 100 USD off the end price of a PC , and most average/business users not gonna need more than a browser and word processing  even if emulation is a no no.

[disciple]

if is the 'one laptop per child initiative' you're referring to, they run on amd geode chips.( x86)

fun fact : steve jobs was  offering free use of osx for the project, but the director of the program said he preferred an open source solution ( hence red hat)  which would allow free customisation, and wouldnt be tied up in the event that the company folded ( apple)


as it is, whilst windows emulation is a good thing ( the WINE project, and the commercial Cedega, for games, are actively developed.. but is really reverse engineering they're doing.. so is a uphill battle.. and also , the win codebase is always changing)..
i think even better is if companies release linux versions of their software..(note, this does not mean for free, or even open source.. e.g. nero for linux.. )
 
maintaining different codebases is not impossible; there used to be separate 9x/nt versions, and also mac os 9 and osX versions all maintained simultaneously by commercial software houses.. so the argument about tying up resources in support just doesn't fly..
ms does it right now with office ,as well as adobe with almost all its offerings ( both available for mac and windows)



with regards to differences within linux ( i.e. mandrake vs ubuntu vs favourite linux distro) , once the software is compiled by the developer , all you have to do is make sure you have whatever dependant libraries installed.

this again, is not impossible..  it's the same thing we do if a game requires us to have directX  and we don't have it installed  ..  or a program requires the visual basic runtime....  you get it, and you install it..


lenovo has started the OEM  ball rolling again with novell's SLED 10 , and HP has certified models for use with SLED 10, and redhat's RHEL .. and hopefully others do as well..( i think dell used to offer red hat)
there are even a couple other non-mainstream vendors who are linux-only shops. a small niche, but it's growing  ( www.system76.com)


what could send linux over the top with regard to full blown business adoption would be exchange/office compatibility..  so many businesses run exchange mail servers, and there isn't a viable solution for them
also whilst thunderbird et al     are  decent enough mail clients for regular use , it lacks certain features ( like integrated calendaring , a whiteboard and other stuff i dunno bout.lol) that outlook ( with exchange) provides , and that medium to large organisations require

 ( though ibm announced lotus notes for linux.. we'll see how that pans out...)



what would help too, is an advertising campaign ( mainstream, not just computer mags, or internet), to counter the huge presence MS has everywhere

which reminds me..  vista campaign prob gonna start soon; i bet it gonna be larger than the win95 campaign ( and all over the mainstream as well...wonder if they gonna have a theme song too, like 95?)

[vivman1107]

I was thinking about this and starting asking some questions. Why is it that id Software and Epic can release native Linux versions of their biggest games (Doom 3, Quake 4, Unreal Tournament 2004) and other companies cannot? Is it that they have better programmers or more resources? I am not sure but I think if more companies would do that, it would go a long way to establishing Linux as a viable platform for gaming. I tried out Unreal Tournament a couple days ago on PCLinuxOS and it ran beautifully with no visible differences between it and the Windows version. Maybe it is that these games are OpenGL based. If that is the reason, then I guess there is not much more we can do but wish the Wine folks well as not too many games use OpenGL compared to DirectX.

[TinyGrasshopper]

I was thinking about this and starting asking some questions. Why is it that id Software and Epic can release native Linux versions of their biggest games (Doom 3, Quake 4, Unreal Tournament 2004) and other companies cannot? Is it that they have better programmers or more resources? I am not sure but I think if more companies would do that, it would go a long way to establishing Linux as a viable platform for gaming. I tried out Unreal Tournament a couple days ago on PCLinuxOS and it ran beautifully with no visible differences between it and the Windows version. Maybe it is that these games are OpenGL based. If that is the reason, then I guess there is not much more we can do but wish the Wine folks well as not too many games use OpenGL compared to DirectX.

Well they want to be able to support their server versions of their engines. Linux is a well-known server OS so they know people running LAN Parties want to be able to run the servers on a reliable free/gratis OS and that's why they made the ports, since they have a customer base that would ask for that. Also the engine itself not just the games are a core part of their business model so it needs to be versatile as possible. Other developers are more concerned about the bottom line so they'll sell to hte bigger market, and while you and I are like, "I wish there were more linux games" we are but a tiny sliver of the pc market and a tinier sliver of the games market. so if you're a strapped developer you're not gonna bother. The reason they go to DirectX is because that's a better API, however the lack of market supercedes that. If Linux was 30% and Mac was 30% of the PC desktop pie each they'd use OpenGL even if it was inferior. Instead Linux is 2%, Mac is 4% or 7% or something like that. These numbers may not mean that much to a user, but they do to seat-level executives. Having said that a few developers have been cool about Linux, Second Life's alpha linux client is out, Cold War put out a Linux version, I think Savage put out a Linux client too It is really depressing how such things could be counted on one's hands. What we need is to bring back Loki, a game porting outsourcer like what Aspyr or MacSoft is for Mac. I think Loki didn't work out because the market was that much smaller back then but you're starting to see a new generation of Linux users who really do use it on their desktop day to day and would be willing to play games on Linux. especially one that can promise reasonable turnover so we don't play the Linux version 6 months later. 3 months sounds okay to me.

bsd is a unix since its based on at&t bell labs unix. linux was made from scratch, it's posix(unix-like) but definitely not unix.

The article focuses on the needs for open source companies to move faster since first mover advantages trump technical ability.

[vivman1107]

Well said. The idea to have a company port games to Linux is a good starting point. I mean, if Apple can have ports of games, I don't see why Linux can't either. Now that OSX and Linux are more closely related, maybe the Apple port guys could work on Linux ports also and hit 2 markets ...

[TinyGrasshopper]

Leo Laporte and Chris DiBona illuminated a lot of this in their interview with, Ryan Gordon, the guy that ported the Quake and UT engines as well as Google Earth to Linux. He's the guy that runs http://www.icculus.org The place where they host open sourced engines/games(http://www.twit.tv/floss/ryan_gordon)

edit: And in doing so I've stumbled upon the linuxgames podcast (http://podcast.linuxgames.com/) or (http://www.linuxgames.com/). There's also the Linux Games and Entertainment Podcast (http://www.thelinuxlink.net/lager/) Maybe this is something that we should be looking at more of. I'm starting to think there are more linux gaming options than we think but they don't get played up or patronised enough. I didn't realise that Neverwinter nights had a linux version. hmm.

[TinyGrasshopper]

Here are some free and open source 3d action games. I think they're all running an open source iteration of the Quake engine beit Quake II or Quake III.
Sauerbraten: http://sauerbraten.org/
Tremulous: http://tremulous.net/
Nexuiz: http://www.alientrap.org/nexuiz/
Full list of open source games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_games

I know that America's Army was put out on linux. I'm not sure if its still under development. The multiplayer wolfenstein was also put on linux.
Full list of commercial games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_Linux_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professionally-developed_Linux_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_games

There are some familiar gems here, America's Army, AvP, Doom 1, 2, 3, Duke3d, Wolfenstein: enemy territory, Homeworld, MoH:AA, Neverwinter Nights, Quake 1,2,3,4, Rune, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Savage 1,2, Serious Sam 1,2, Tribes 2, UT, 2k3, 2k4. Has anyone tried of these Linux builds to see how well they work?

[disciple]

hmm.. i think i'll go look for some good strategy games

thanks man!