What is Digg?90 Comments
- yoyoyoyo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41worst. charts. ever.
and where in the article does it go into why M$ is scared?
no digg. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Wow, gee, a proprietary API DirectX has yet to have fully compatibility open source version - wow amazing. Don't blame the game makers who could have just as easily written against OpenGL which is open source. No no, blame open source for not making an API that mimics an API that was written to screw up 3D graphics with proprietary crap.
Brilliant. - blinks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@zybch -> perhaps you mean "until games are made for it like they are for Windows"?
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I don't think the open source community is jumping to create a DirectX clone since OpenGL has been around for some time and in many cases works better.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16First of all, there are many paid OSS developers out there. Many companies support the development of various OSS projects now. It turns out it some cases it's cheaper to just hire programmers instead of paying commercial software license fees. If you do some research you will find many well known companies funding OSS develop in one way or another. You're ignorant if you think all OSS programmers work for free.
Second: The independent/unpaid work that goes into OSS projects is almost always done by people who want to enhance a project for their own use. You're very incorrect to think they're doing it for free -- they are getting an improved product they can use without restriction in the end. They ARE compensated for their work -- that's why OSS has grown so quickly around the world. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Yeah, they are.
Microsoft profits not by selling rock-solid quality apps, but from trying to lock people into only ONE solution (ie windows, office, IE, etc), turning people into *consumers* who are more or less forced to upgrade when a "new" version comes out..
Given a choice, people will choose something that's free and works just as good.
Free and MS do not go together. MS does not exist to benefit anyone but itself.
When other organizations take that bread and butter, make it work just as good, if not BETTER, it scares them. It's evident from their declaration of never releasing another IE again, but once Firefox started gaining a massive user base... guess what? IE is back up again.
Entire offices no longer have a reason to buy Office as Open Office takes over just fine in most cases. That's a lot of money they're no longer getting.
Desktop OSes are another story mainly because of compatibility, however, the gap is narrowing very quickly as time goes on.
Look at how much Mozilla profits from Firefox, and it's 100% open source. It's completely possible and probable to make free programs, release the code, AND still profit and make a name for yourself.
It's just a matter of time before most people are aware that these free alternatives exist, and THAT is what scares MS. - danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13lupinglade: "Do you really want to work for free?"
I work on open source projects and use open source platforms, and every project I create is billed to a client. Like me, most developers get paid for their work... Open source does not change that at all. Sheesh. - hammy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'm not going to be one of those "ZOMG no digg" idiots, but that was a rather poor article. What's up with the Netgraph chart without a key and no link to the original data? That's just sloppy.
- RoboPimp3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9 "The following graph shows how it has been taking market share from Microsoft's webserver (and others) since 1995."
How can that graph show anything when neither axis nor the lines are labeled? - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8All you had to do was read the article. To wit:
"Mistakenly released internal Microsoft emails provide obvious testimony of this concern: Open source software [OSS] "poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space," the email said. "Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long-term developer mindshare threat." - jclstone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think they were comparing Apache to IIS, not Apache to Windows. In which case, Apache is the clear winner in terms of scalability and reliability. It also doesn't help Microsoft that Apache runs more efficiently on a unix based OS. For open source OS comparisons they provided FreeBSD and Linux against Windows. RTFA.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14graphs with no key....
Apache is great, I use it and everything. But how does that scare MS and their sales of OSes?
I still need an OS to run Apache, and Windows uses it just fine. - bailey3003, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7yeah horrible post! That first graph shows me nothing. There are no labels just colors, yet they claim--"The following graph shows how it[Apache] has been taking market share from Microsoft's webserver (and others) since 1995." I guess maybe they thought the colors would confuse you enough. NO DIGG
- JCPicache, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why are all these authors posting their own articles in Digg? That article was written by some "Curt Finch" and guess who posted it to Digg? I understand if it's something utterly groundbreaking, but the 'facts' presented in the article are rather poor, and the graphs are useless without a legend key.
And please, stop with the one-sided headlines..."Microsoft is scared. Here are the stats that show why..." show me some real facts first then I will make that conclusion. - CrumbleBeeHaHa, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19a day would not be complete on digg without some "open source is taking over the world and microsoft is going down" story. Not that I'm going to digg this *****.
- GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Cut him some slack. He probably used "KGraph" or "GGraph" to make the graphs.
- Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Did you notice the guy who wrote the article is the CEO of a company that was pimped as a successful SaaS provider. Totally weak! Layer a chart of MS growth over the Red Hat chart and then post to digg. No digg.
- Euan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is the type of post I would expect to see on Slashdot. Idiot.
- gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oh ya guys - I get it - open source is ALWAYS better. Find a good open source NLE then I'll agree.
- zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It has M$ worried not not scared.
In the next few years as M$ turns the screws on features like required and payed OS upgrades and making product activation that's hard to crack. Think vista people.
It will drive more people to look at Open source fixes for the closed source operations.
Only about 8 years ago if you said. I would like to use an open source solution for this project.
You'd been run out of the company on a rail.
Now's a days all I hear; is there a free or low cost way to do this. Open source is that way.
Closed Source = Closed Minds - vyshane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I work for an open source company. I get paid and get to feel good about my job to boot. Open source works, both as a development model and as a business model.
- finnif, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"just 3 words: ruby on rails"
Rails is no panacea. Have you tried deploying it using Apache and FastCGI on Windows? On Linux it's painful enough to have to download the 15 components to Rails to work, on Windows it's crazy. InstantRails is great, but can't help you with production.
Oh, and then try debugging low-level rails problems sometime. The stack gets so deep and complex that it's almost as much fun as C++ template errors. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21YAWN!!
Seems like a story like this will appear every week.
We get it okay, open source good, MS bad.
Seriously, who gaves a damn. Open source (OS anyway) will never catch on with the general public till it can play games better than a closed system like windows. - joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Being a bit of a Windows guy I enjoy seeing posts like that. It was very detailed and I agree for most part (you need to add getting rid of the registry as a big giant sign from the gods too).
Microsoft is very threatened and losing in parts of the server market. Apache has been and will continue to dominate the Web market. I would imagine IIS's number are a lot better on intranet though because of the ability for it to tie together everything in an enterprise (I wouldn't be surprised if their share is much higher in that reguard). If you have seen or used IIS 6, it is a different, secure beast compared to the past and there really hasn't been any major screw ups in that product since it came out. I think Microsoft right now is on a security swing that will end with Vista and they will start working on developing new ideas and hopefully a designed from scratch OS as a secondary product for the time being. As much ***** as people give Microsoft, it is really from 2-5 years ago and they are heading in the right direction they still have a few things to iron out however.
Apple, is doing everything right, but I hightly doubt they will dominate because they target the home market. Their share will increase there, but it will never be substancial because their corporate push is close to nil.
Linux I just don't know. The only knock on Linux is that it is seen as "the cheap alternative". If an IT swing goes back in where spending is not an issue, this could really hurt Linux if they are not providing superior solutions, just free ones. There are plenty of products out there that are free and superior to the compitition, but there are a lot of hack jobs that do enough to warrant the use, but are definetely not better. - Shazam999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Apple's stock price has risen because of the iPod, not because of OSS.
Most of the growth you see in the other charts are because the software market as a whole has become bigger, not because companies are switching over and replacing Windows servers. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Remember that OSX is built off Darwin the OSS BSD OS and they turned it into a closed source piece of proprietary software. So much for the advancment of OSS.
- pcheaven2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Where Microsoft has gone wrong and how to fix it!"
I am a very objective computer user. I like Mac OS, Linux, Windows - each has its strengths and weaknesses and in the grand view each has a user base that loves the OS they use and hates everything else. I personally use all three, on a regular basis. I have a TVR box running Windows, an iMac running Ubuntu and soon will be building a new TVR box with Linux on it so I can use Windows as my desktop ALL THE TIME and not share it with the TVR. Now that I have clarified my objectivity I will get down to the point of this post.
Like it or not Microsoft is THE REASON computers are so popular, so cheap and so powerful. Before Microsoft computers where extremely slow, wouldn't due much and cost Thousands to Millions of dollars. There was no major push to make those computers better either. Yes there were other companies that came out with CHEAP computers before Microsoft stormed onto the scene (Atari, Adam, Coleco, Apple, etc.) but none of them possessed the necessary skill and diligence to bring computing to the main stream it is today. So while I have and admit to there being numerous flaws with Microsoft, the truth is if Microsoft had never been we would be just now be getting 486 DX25's with 8MB Ram and 40MB Hard drives and they would cost $25,000.....and there would be NO INTERNET, we would still be on a TEXT-BASED BBS style network and paying $100 a month for a 9600 baud connection to it.
My point is that we (computer users, geeks, hackers, IT pro's, etc.) owe a lot to Microsoft. BUT BUT BUT
Microsoft has forgotten that it is US that BOUGHT INTO THEIR VISION and gave them the POWER to BRING US to where we are today. They have lost sight of the fact that WE are WHY they RULE the COMPUTER WORLD. That is the FIRST and GREATEST MISTAKE.
There second mistake is their lack of diversification. By that I mean they have continuosly been piling all their eggs into ever fewer baskets. 10 years ago you could buy DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, then you could buy Microsoft Works or Office (at that time you could also buy all the office programs seperately). IIS was sold seperately, now it is integrated. They have continuously consolidated their holdings in an attempt to force us to spend more on Microsoft Products while giving us LESS OPTIONS for stuff to spend our money on. This has empowered the Open-Source and Linux communities greater than any other event in the last 10 years.
There third mistake is their unwillingness to release a NEW, STABLE OS that is not built onto old code. When they went from Dos to Windows it still used some of the same code base as dos and was dependent on Dos. Then they came out with NT 4 which was a WHOLE NEW CODE BASE. But since then everything has been built off the same code base as NT4. Including Windows 98/98/ME/XP/2003/Vista. There is a lot of newer code in each newer version of windows since NT4. But there is a lot of the OLD code there too. They have done this to ensure REVERSE COMPATABILITY, but it also ensures there OS is slower and buggier than it should be. It doesn't have to be that way, just look at Apple. They finally got the hint and released OSX with an entirely new code base (based on Open-Source at that). Best of all Apple was able to bring an all new code base to market and still allow you to run MOST (90%) of older MAC OS software on it. If Apple can do that, why the hell can't Microsoft? Linux is following the same path as Microsoft in that respect. The Linux Kernel has not been RE-WRITTEN from scratch in a long time. It is just constantly UPGRADED with NEW CODE and as a result it is becoming (NOTE I SAID BECOMING) just as BLOATED and BUGGY as Microsoft's OS.
With Apple's recent changes, acceptance of Open-Source, release of lots of its code, switching its software to use a Universal Binary, plans to release the API's that enable those Universal Binaries to work, switching to Industry Standard Intel Processors, etc. they are rapidly positioning themselves to kick Microsoft's ASS if the Gate's and Balmer's don't pull their heads out of them soon and WAKE UP.
Personally, I hope Apple rattles there cage and stills alot of their market share. It would really be nice if the Open-Source community could write a NEW LINUX from the KERNEL UP from SCRATCH and could also steal even more of Microsoft's market share. The way I see it is having THREE MAJOR COMPETITORS would only serve to FURTHER THE MARKET for those of us that CARE.
Now how can Microsoft fix there screw ups and ensure continued domination of the computer industry?
1.) Write an entirely NEW operating system with NO CODE carried over from previous software or operating systems. Design the OS using a Linux style schema that has a miniscule kernel that has limited functionality. The kernel would ONLY translate code from (hexadecimal to binary and back) and support 'kernel plugins' for easily adding/removing functionality for hardware, software, etc. These 'kernel plugins' would act as DRIVERS for all the hardware in the system, they would also enable virtualization so that multiple graphical user interfaces (Windows/Gnome/KDE type environments) could run on top of that kernel simultaneously. This new OS would have only a very basic ability to boot the computer to a black screen with a command prompt. However, thru the use of 'kernel plugins' the system could be upgraded and modified easily. Microsoft could then simultaneously release a GUI (Windows Interface) 'kernel plugin', Virtualization 'kernel plugin' and API's and Programming Tips for creating additional 'kernel plugins'. They could package the new OS (kernel) with the Virtualization and GUI 'kernel plugins' and sell it as "Windows 2008 Modular". They could then make the kernel Open-Source and work with the Open-Source community to develop numerous, powerful and extremely fast 'kernel plugins' that enhanced the functionality and usability of the new OS. They could still make money on it by limiting the Open-Source licenses to 'kernel plugins' and retain SOLE RIGHTS on the KERNEL itself. They could release UPDATED/NEW kernels and new GUI 'kernel plugin' on a yearly basis with ease to generate revenue. They could also continue to sell their own software Office, IIS, SQL, etc. that either ONLY RAN inside their GUI or directly as a 'kernel plugin' that would run SIMULTANEOUSLY to their GUI using VIRTUALIZATION.
This would allow for Microsoft to CONTROL THE MARKET while SHARING THE MARKET (without loss of sales or profit) with the rest of the world. This is basically what Apple is doing RIGHT NOW and it is the reason APPLE is poised to KICK MICROSOFTS ASS and bring the Open-Source community along for the ride. If Microsoft doesn't change their practices to something along the lines of what I have outlined or at least along the lines of what Apple is doing they are TOAST inside of 5 years. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah I forgot to mention laptop compatability - it is still pretty buggy with linux (Ubuntu Laptop with Linksys wireless card)
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah Microsoft doesn't give a ***** about Open Source. You can't compete with a nebelous "movement" anyway, even if they wanted to. They compete with companies like IBM and Novell who push OSS. Without some company backing it, OSS doesn't sell.
- dhmlco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Even the stats it has are misleading. Take the "Apache on the warpath" section, which states "Users have found Apache to be easier to implement, more secure, and more reliable than its competitors", with the implication that all of these "users" have made a choice and switched en mass to Apache.
When in actuality the percentage of web sites running Apache is misleading because ISPs use Apache to host most of the personal and mom-and-pop pages and sites on shared servers. So the "users" made no such choice, they're simply using whatever their cheap web hosting provider provides.
Eliminate all of the "vanity" sites and personal home pages and you'll see a different set of numbers. Look at, say, business intranets, and you'll see results skewed dramatically in the other direction.
Just another example of how one can use statistics to "prove" whatever point they're embellishing at the moment. - j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Microsoft has no reason to be scared. They should just release their source code. Everybody would still buy the CD's for support, etc. The only people who would download and compile the source code are the same kinds of people who pirate it now anyway. Releasing the code would only add extra value to using the OS.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8More difficult to program for though, esp when most game developers have embraced DX and all the little shortcuts that make it faster to write for (but not neccessarily better).
- gearwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Articles like this undermine the value of digg.com. I might as well just stick to reading slashdot, arstechnica and etc...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4To make good inovative software(not just copying microsoft), requires teams of people. Long hours by skilled people who spent a lot of money on their education.
Why the F&@# does anyone expect these people to work for free. Pay for good software for F%$# sake. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Alot of valid points in your comment. +digg for your post
- bristolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can still buy MS Office apps separately. At least I can and do.
- TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why do people confisue server vs desktop stats so much? These numbers are for server deployments. Even the staunchest of MS supports recognise that Linux as a server OS is powerful, and reliable. Apache is the leader in web servers - no argument. Opensource database servers? Umm - not really ... not in ost mission critical environments. They will be running Oracle or UDB/DB2 - quite possibly on Linux.
BS article drumming up hype for yet another acronym - SaaS (Software as a Service) - as a means of saving your company $$$. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The following graph shows how Microsoft is more certainly in the hole:
/
_____/
_/ - mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3On the contrary, Microsoft has managed to increase the price of the computers. Right now Microsoft's OS is the most expensive component in low end computers even more than the CPU. The price of the operating system has gone from $89 for Windows 95 to $200 for Windows XP Home. Price of the operating system has more than doubled in five years while hardware prices have consistantly gone down.
- kymudder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hardly think so. Nice try. Open source has it's place. It's certainly not in the business establishments that depend on reliable software for daily business. Open source is for the hobbist who have no value of their own time.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article was mediocre, and so is this discussion.
For starters, don't write, just read if:
you don't know the difference between Open Source and Freeware. There are free progs & uts around that are not open source. µTorrent is one example. It's given away free, but it is not open source.
Open source means the code under the hood has been compiled from a source that is open to examination, not an "industrial or trade secret." Then there is Free Software, which is philosophically a little different from OSS, but similar enough in most senses. Read Richard Stallman: the difference matters to him.
But in several ways [that both supporters and scoffers at OSS will point out] open source does NOT always equal no monetary cost. - Feej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I think open source will be used within organizations with a large user base as a way to avoid license fees."
But pay essentially the same for "services". - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Not it's not. ASP.NET on IIS is far easier to set up than LAMP, J2EE or any other solution out there."
WHAT?!? Seriously, you need to stop doing drugs. Either that or you're so used to the following, you equate it with "easy":
Run Windows installation (~10 reboots?)
Update Windows with latest patches (except you can't, because SQL server doesn't work with Windows 2003 SP1! So much for security...)
Install Anti-virus
Install ASP.NET
Install SQL Server
Configure SQL Server
Configure IIS to work with ASP.NET
Configure automatic updates for Windows/Anti-virus
Install various 3rd party tools since ASP.NET can't do everything you need by itself
Spend hours locking down/securing Windows and SQL server.
Spend thousands of dollars for all of the above in time AND licenses and later you'll spend thousands of dollars in TIME recovering from security problems.
Now here's how you get LAMP rolling:
Install, say, Red Hat Linux (might as well go with what's popular)... 1 reboot
Spend an hour or so configuring the machine (enable auto-updating, change MySQL root password, configure Apache the way you like, etc). All the software you need is pre-installed.
Install whatever Perl/PHP/Python software you want in your already-installed-and-configured Apache server.
Total time: ~2 hours from 0->fully working secure LAMP server
Now here's the Ruby on Rails way:
Install Red Hat (1 reboot)
Install any given ruby/rails app: "gem install whatever"
./webrick whatever
Total time: 10 friggin' minutes (assuming your CD ROM is fast enough)
Alternative: Boot off a Rails Linux live CD... total time: 1 minute
It doesn't get any "easier" than that!
-Riskable
http://riskable.com - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry but this article is really bad and given that they can't even label their graphs I'm not going to bother to read the damn thing. You really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find this one.
- fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have you ever see the price tag for Microsoft Premium support? How about Per-incident support? Microsoft doesn't do anything for free.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8These articles REALY have to stop. It makes you all look bad. Microsoft is NOT scared. Enough already. Digg users are not normal. And I mean that in the worst possible sense. Just because YOU love open source does not mean that the averrge user does.
Have you not figured out that everythoing you like is WAYYY behind the others? Not becuase you are smarter than the average user. You just want to THINK you are, so you don't want to seem mainstream.
Microsoft is not going anywhere. And if your whole life is waiting for the day it does, you may as well stop living your life not. becuase itis NOT going to happen in your lifetime. - mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2joshwehatetech - do you actually believe that MS will produce something that's secure? They've been selling that brooklyn bridge for the last decade and haven't delivered. I have to say, if you seriously believe and put any kind of trust in MS's marketing, then you're in a very small minority of customers that purchased their product in the past.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060330-6491.html
As for me, I think Phillip Morris will come out with a cigarette that's good for your health before Microsoft comes out with an operating system that's actually secure. - lupinglade, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Open source is not taking over the world, relax. Do you really want to work for free? And how many open source projects actually are so excellent as to deserve a mention? I can count them on one hand.
- stubby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Soooooooo... apache is stealing ground that IIS has had for years huh?
I thought that apache was the leader all this time, silly me. (sarcasm) People need to stop going out of their way to try and flame MS or Bush. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Are you sure that is what is implied through this article?
-G
http://www.oozm.com -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is