Windows 7 Likely Going Modular, Subscription-based 603
Microsoft CRM writes "When Windows 7 launches sometime after the start of 2010, the desktop OS will be Microsoft's most 'modular' operating system to date. That's not necessarily a good thing, of course; Windows Vista is a sprawling, complex OS. From Microsoft's perspective, though, there are many possible benefits. The OS's developers can add/remove functionality module by module. New modules could be sold post-launch, keeping revenue streams strong. A modular approach could also allow the company to make functionality available on a time-limited basis, potentially allowing users to 'rent' a feature if it's needed on a one-off basis. Microsoft is already testing 'pay as you go' consumer subscriptions in developing countries."
The primary idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The primary idea (Score:5, Funny)
1. open command prompt
2. yum install msoffice2010.msi
3. cat "http://www.officeupdate.com" >>
4. apt-get update
5. emerge -pDNu windows
Re:The primary idea (Score:5, Funny)
apt-get remove msie7
cat "http://3rdparty.windowsupdate.com" >>
apt-get install firefox
apt-get install openoffice
If they're going to go to the bother of making it modular, they'd make life a lot easier for many geeks if they let users choose their "modules".
Re:The primary idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you will get to choose the modules. MS will have a large list of MS or MS partner made pre-approved apps or modules that you can install from.
They might allow open source, but I would not be holding my breath.
I am surprised at how long it has taken the MS to get to this point. This has the potential to be far more profitable to them than the current model. If it is not installed, they do not support it. If it is installed, then that is an extra cha-ching for them. It eliminates the bundling issues, and allows people to semi-customize their MS installations. It is a huge win-win-win for MS, MS partners and MS customers. That is provided they do it right.
I am willing to bet that there is a fee to become a viable installable module proivder (or at least to get a module listed). I am willing to bet that there might be some kind of specialized location where the modules can be downloaded (and only from this locations of other *approved* locations). MS was (is?) very smart at making money. This could be a great time to buy their stock. If they can put out an OS that actually competes with many of linux's merits and allows the *windows* experience their fans have come to desire, they have a chance for a strong winner.
Now, lets see what they actually release. Everything else until then is vapor.
InnerWeb
Re:The primary idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The primary idea (Score:5, Funny)
ps> Get-An-Install-File microsoft_office_2010.msi
ps> Append-String-To-Text-Document "http://www.officeupdate.com", "C:\WINDOWS\7\module\installer\config.txt"
ps> Update-Installer-With-The-New-Config-File
ps> Update-The-Computer-To-The-Newest-Version-Of "Everything"
Re:The primary idea (Score:5, Funny)
won't it be called something like PowerShell Professional Enterprise Level Home Edition Plus Networking, Five Seats, Single Core?
Re:The primary idea (Score:5, Funny)
Mach (Score:3, Interesting)
It's interesting to note that Apple's OS is ultra-modular at the lowest levels but is sold monolithically. Apple has always done well by specing out it's hardware and software at a maximum consistent level for every machine. Thus developers could assume that firewire exists or this or that OS feature
Re:Mach (Score:4, Interesting)
In what way? How is it more modular that, say, the Linux kernel with as much as possible compiled as modules?
Re:Mach (Score:5, Informative)
The Linux kernel is monolithic, even if you compile everything as a module, it's basically stitched back together as a big monolith. Linux modules are just excised chunks of the kernel that you can load on demand, but you still need something specifically compiled into the kernel for each specific module to hook into.
With XNU, kernel extensions are more self-contained, and insert themselves into the kernel using more generic/universal interfaces.
That's why OS X device drivers don't have strict requirements for kernel version while binary Linux device drivers require a specific kernel version with specific compile-time options, and source drivers need the kernel to be compiled with support for them.
Re:Mach (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call the bizarre mess of the MacOS kernel "modular". It's certainly not a micro-kernel, if that's what you mean.
All the mainstream operating systems today are somewhat modular, in that you can swap components in and out if they implement the same interface. This is especially true for Windows, in which long-term heavy usage of COM (which was explicitly designed to promote modularity) has meant that you can do things like swap out the IE rendering engine for Firefox, and it'll work. Well, assuming that Firefox supports the features the embedding app in question needs, of course. If you doubt this, feel free to download the Gecko ActiveX plugin and try it ... most apps use IE just as a convenient rendering engine and can run when Gecko replaces it.
That might not sound impressive, but try swapping out Gecko for WebKit or Opera on Linux and see what a mess you get into. Hell, just try upgrading Firefox on Ubuntu. You will almost certainly fail. I know, because I've tried it. About the only sane way forward is to leave the old version in place and install a new, parallel copy - but that has its own problems due to general brokenness in the way ELF was designed (it doesn't seal off shared libraries from each other properly, so they can interfere and cause crashes). Although to be fair, Linux (really, unix) does let you swap out your display subsystem for another one thanks to X. So they all have strengths and weaknesses in this area.
I'm not really sure why you think Apple has "specced out its software at a maximum consistent level". Dealing with missing features is just a part of the software development game, and Apple supports that with what they call weak symbols. It's important because not everybody upgrades their OS at once, so even if you only have one edition of your operating system, developers still need to adapt at runtime to things that are missing. The piss-poor support for this in Linux is another reason upgrades are so flaky (it's only done at compile time for most programs).
I'll be interested to see what Windows 7 actually ends up being. I suspect that this whole modularity drive is coming from upper management somewhere, and by the time it reaches the engineers they will say "well .... but windows is already modular!". They'll make some token gestures, clean up some cruft that users won't really notice except in worse app compatibility, marketing will trumpet the changes as meaning that things will Really Be Different This Time! and nothing will really change.
Re:Mach (Score:4, Informative)
Well... in a way. COM is now pretty dated, and it required a lot of extra programming to make sure that things were properly supported. Programs that bundle with Microsoft Windows are extremely integrated, regardless of whatever libraries and APIs are made available. There is no "cd %notepad_dir%; make" command for the Windows system, literally, there is no way to know for sure if something needs to be rebuilt without literally recompiling the whole source code.
You make a change to some random library, that changes the publics for that library, and that disseminates out and touches potentially tons of binaries. The reason Vista started using componentization is exactly for this reason, so that you could trust that updating a certain library only hit a limited number of binaries. However, even this isn't ideal, as many of the changes to library don't propagate changes out to binaries, but since they're all in the same component, you have to bundle all of them together, even if most of the component is just updating version numbers.
For quite awhile the Service Pack for Vista was looking at being a ton of GiBs big... once they made some changes to be able to again only patch at the binary level *gasp* the SP size went down. Oddly enough it was called "small SP", even though it is still larger than other SPs before. (There's just data to "touch" the version number of all the binaries that didn't change despite being in a component that was serviced.)
(it's only done at compile time for most programs).
As noted above, most of the internal modularity of Windows the OS is done at compile time as well. As for updating things, I've updated on the fly the Linux kernel, X-Windows, WINE, and Mozilla/Gecko before on the ol' Red Hat systems. Honestly, I don't know where you're getting your troubles from, but I've never experienced any of them myself. Most notably tough, I don't have to recompile everything from scratch each time a new version of Gentoo is released... rather, I just compile what was updated. Windows Vista still isn't uncomplicated enough in compiling to be able to do this. No less, its dependence upon the Microsoft Corporate network.
And you're actually wrong. Mach is a microkernel. But just because the kernel is a microkernel doesn't mean that the stuff built upon it actually make use of that microkernel. Windows has also been based on a microkernel since Windows NT. The difference between a microkernel and a macrokernel are pretty irrelevant once you get to the layer of stuff on top of the OS.
Re:Mach (Score:5, Informative)
Ubuntu uses Debian's apt package management system. It's a great thing, fast as hell (especially when one's coming from Gentoo or source-y relatives), easy through Synaptic and so on. It does, however, have one major difference to Gentoo's way of handling new releases: Only security fixes are applied to packages after a release.
That's a great advantage to admin staff. Never touch a running system's config unless upgrading to a new release. It's also a (rather large) disadvantage to people favouring the bleeding edge. A seperate "backports" repository will contain some new releases but it's not as extensive or current as gentoo's. The actual updating process itself, though, is typically orders of magnitude faster because packages are distributed binary (source optional) instead of as source and compiled locally.
Updating Ubuntu's embraced and extended* edition of Firefox to it's newest version is as easy as "apt-get upgrade" (emerge -u world) or "apt-get install ubufox" (emerge firefox) after an "apt-get update" (emerge --sync). Updating to vanilla Firefox from mozilla.org is, as GP stated, another beast.
* I'm seriously hoping for that third "e" there -- all those annoying Fx banners and buttons and other nuisances are enough to ruin an already mediocre product completely. Freedom in software should mean letting people use whatever browser they like. Be it Opera, Safari, ELinks, Lynx or even a properly secured instance of MSIE.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's rare to encounter if you only install software from your distribution, because typically, people will hack around it or simply force everything to compile against the same version of the library. I documented this problem a few years ago: here's a relevant GCC bug [gnu.org] and if you want a slightly easier to read explanation read this doc I wrote on writing shared libraries [plan99.net] and search for "scoping".
The long and short of it is that in ELF, every symbol exported by a shared library (including internal symbols
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The transparent idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The transparent idea (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Have some faith! Microsoft can always do worse!
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
It's both sad and funny at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
inspiring anticipation inspired OEMs to continue pre-loading
the previous version.
You can't rationalize that away as Linux user grousing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a) All 32-bit hardware.
b) 64-bit hardware with limitations on the MMU that ultimately restrict (to various degrees) mapping of high portions of memory.
b) 64-bit hardware with an MMU that does not have the above restriction.
All modern operating systems on hardware platform a are going to have problems seeing 4GB of RAM.
All modern 64-bit operating systems on hardware platform b (including Windows Vista 64
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) What? You want to use ALL of your installed 8 GB or RAM, not only 2 GB? Sure! The "improved memory accessibility module" subscription goes for just $1.50/GB/month!
b) So, you say you want to use all 4 of your cores instead of just 2? Plus have access to the 2nd processor in your 3D graphics board? Why, no problem! We're selling a PERMANENT, I say PERMANENT license to the "multi-core compatibility mode" for just $35! Offers end by July 13th, 2011.
c) Ah, you need to have 5 USB devices connected simultaneously, and need them all to work in fast USB 3.0 mode instead of USB 2.0? We had a promotion for that last month, but unfortunately now we're back to the standard price, sorry. It'll be $0.50/USB device/month for every device above the 4th, plus $14.99 for the permanent 3.0 functionality, or $0.90/month for the subscription version. The module name is "FastUSB expansion/speed-up bundle package", and you can find the different option in the Connectivity tab at the Module Shop window.
And so on and an so forth.
Not a pretty picture.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a bit before my time, but the story goes [findarticles.com] that IBM used to operate in pretty much exactly this way back in the mainframe days. They would sell the customer a mainframe at a certain performance level, but actually ship them a much more powerful machine with some of its resources disabled/limited/throttled via software, so that it performed at the (lower) level the customer had been sold. Then when the customer needed an upgrade, they would bill them a ginormous amount, then send out a service tech to "install the upgrade" -- but all he really did was remove the limiters. This was called a "golden screwdriver" upgrade because the tech could earn IBM hundreds of thousands of dollars just with the proverbial turn of a screw.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
The big difference here is that we are talking about software, not hardware. If MS really does this, it will either be a wild success or a dismal failure. Personally, I will stick with my Mac or move back to Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Though I don't think it will go over well with customers. As if running a Windows computer wasn't already a hassle with having to think about virus protection, malware protection, now yo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's ONE version, and it's free.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Selling the OS as on-demand modules could be the first great leap in converting the Windows user base to 100% open source.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Microsoft is forgetting how they came to be dominant in the first place: bundling, hiding the cost of the software in with the hardware purchase. Even if they end up paying about the same in the long run, customers are going to feel like they are paying more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Simple solution to that one: you allow anyone to write the modules, but Windows will not install them unless they're signed by Microsoft. And the signing process costs money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OS 7 may choose to go modular, but if it's a sales model, not a feature model, then it will likely fail. I can understand the abilit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd have to guess that the primary target of the 'renting modules' scheme would not be to home users, but, mostly to businesses. Businesses are used to 'renting' software, and maintenance fees. It would probably do well for them, especially for trying out new things, and if it didn't prove profitable, they could drop the module/service.
Artificial Bundling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Artificial Bundling? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering Microsoft has, in the past, been accused of artificially bundling components together (IE+Windows, DirectX10+Vista, etc), [...]
Of course, accusations != truth. For your two examples, IE was no more "artificially bundled" into Windows than its equivalents were into contemporary OSes and DirectX10 requires features only present in Vista's new display system.
"Artificial bundling" is as meaningless as "bloat". Stuff that you, personally, aren't interested in != stuff that no-one is interested i
Re:Artificial Bundling? (Score:5, Interesting)
I dont think its about selling the add-ons for hundreds of dollars. I honestly think the basic Windows will eventually be free but by then it'll just be stripped down to the basic OS & browser. They wont sell the add-ons, they'll license them to people for a monthly fee. As the mess they made with Vista shows... if the OS doesn't sell they make less money and the hardware vendors make less money.
By giving away Core Windows with every new PC they get around the MS Tax on buying computers by charging you more later. Then you can upgrade as much as you wish...
Multimedia upgrade for $10 per month
DirectX upgrade for $15 per month
Office upgrade for $30 per month (or $7 per app per month)
Microsoft wants a continuous revenue stream from its users. They want you to keep giving them money whether you upgrade or not. They wont care if you insist on running your 4 years out of date OS as you'll still be paying your MS Rent. All the software will be auto-installed, auto-patched, auto-scanned and made nice and safe. They'll get people to upgrade to newer versions by charging more for older OSes which encourages them to upgrade their hardware (so the system feels less sluggish).
Its all leading to TPM/NGSCB machines riddled with DRM-locked hardware. Only 'approved' software will run (cue the protection from malware excuse) and any attempts to bypass security or normal operating functions will be reported. Future Windows versions will check all the files on your PC to make sure its safe, deleting anything they decide is bad for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Promises, promises ... nothing. Microsoft is over. (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, Microsoft is making fantastic promisses that have little to do with their last set [roughlydrafted.com]. I wonder how many current features will evaporate [wikipedia.org].
This is not a good way to make money. Vista is a failure and Windows 7 will be an even bigger failure. At a minimum, the next three years belong to GNU/Linux. Users and hardware makers alike know better than to buy into Vista now and people looking for new hardware and software are going to go Linux. By 2010, Microsoft's base will be erroded. The Microsoft game, at long last, is over.
Re:Promises, promises ... nothing. Microsoft is ov (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Promises, promises ... nothing. Microsoft is ov (Score:5, Funny)
Because, in the next 5 years, Linux will really be ready for prime time. Trust me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is different now from 5 years ago is that MS is facing heavy weather on a number of fronts: OOo is really growing up, with a certified, fully open document format with multiple other implementors; Google is one hell of a competitor; Ubuntu is improving faster than MS' offerings; MacOS X market share is rising, even more on laptops; Neelie Kroes (EU) is watching MS' every move; dirty MS politics are more well-known (ISO); all of MS' 'visionary products' are nowhere to be seen (tablets are but a small ni
How to get karma'd-up-quick on slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
2. Don't provide any evidence
3. Predict the downfall of Microsoft in X years.
4. [optional] Add reference to glorious "Year of the Linux desktop".
5. Profit?!
Re:Promises, promises ... nothing. Microsoft is ov (Score:5, Interesting)
Anybody remember Vista Ultimate edition? The one that promised Ultimate Extras - regular extras that you could download through Windows Update? They released 3 things through that: an small card game, DreamScene (sucks up CPU to animate your desktop background), and Bitlocker full drive encryption. That was all just a little after RTM - nothing since then.
When they came up with the idea I thought it might be interesting, but they've shown they can't follow through. If this is at all similar I'm sure it will fail. Microsoft won't be overthrown just from this, certainly not by 2010, but I'm sure it will pave more of the Disappointment Road that Vista started.
When they say "subscription" I get kind of worried. Valve carefully calls their Steam games "subscriptions" to remove your right of resale.
Hmmm (Score:3)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're no longer dependant on the OS, then why rent one if you can get an identical one (from a productivity perspective) for free?
A bit risky? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A bit risky? (Score:5, Interesting)
This would be great for lots of people: other companies could write competing modules to replace Windows functionality (why pay for Microsoft's system-wide search module when Google's is so much better?). Also, free and open-source modules will probably be created for many of those features.
Of course, it may be that Microsoft intends to create a complicated system of internal certificates and code signing so that only MS-approved modules can use these hidden APIs. It seems like that would add a considerable performance penalty, but then again I guess that's not too different from the decisions they made in designing Vista.
Here's where the technological shackles come in.. (Score:5, Informative)
- Installation of Windows 7: the OS communicates with the TPM and 'takes ownership' of the TPM. (The tech docs can't spell it out any clearer: the programmer controls the computer, not the user.) When taking ownership of the TPM, Windows provides the public key of Microsoft to the TPM.
- Booting the computer: During installation, Windows installs a hash of the bootloader code and the OS code into the TPM. The bootloader performs a sanity check using the TPM to ensure that it has not been compromised. The bootloader then verifies the OS against the TPM and only loads 'genuine' copies of Windows. Note that the definition of genuine is entirely up to MS; at any time the TPM can be instructed, only by its owner, to invalidate any credentials. It's perfectly possible, and in fact designed into the specs, for the TPM owner to completely disable TPM protected software at any time. Irreversibly, because the binaries are encrypted and require the TPM's cooperation to run.
- Updating Windows: Before updating, the OS instructs the TPM to provide a guarantee that it is a genuine TPM (using information manufactured into the chip), and the TPM signs MS's public key. This cryptographically proves that the computer has a TPM and that Microsoft owns the TPM. Microsoft then transmits the update to the computer, encrypting it with the TPM's key to prevent the native code from being revealed to the user or installed on a non-authenticated machine.
- Installing a module: Similar to updating, but more insidious. The user purchases a certificate to run a module, then the module is securely transferred to the machine. The certificate is stored by the TPM itself to prevent it from being read from disk or RAM by a third party. This is done for all the TPM's information. The module is then installed if and only if it is authenticated by Microsoft. This may seem to have some flaws, but that's taken care of with the following...
- Running a binary executable: The OS can require that every single binary be signed by a person who is authenticated by the owner. The TPM verifies this, and then either provides the OS with the decrypted binary or a failure notice. 'Configuration states' are a key principle here; at any time the state of the system (all programs that are running) can be saved into the TPM. This can be used for example by Windows update. The updater saves a configuration where only the core OS and the updater are running, and then can ensure that it will not update if not in this configuration. This keeps any on-the-fly memory editors out.
A lot of very smart people put a lot of effort into this system; it works. It's just been waiting for that 'killer app' to use it...Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Stupid Is as Stupid Does (Score:5, Insightful)
What Microsoft doesn't get is that operating systems and computers, in general, are just appliances. Yes, people like to tinker, but, when one opens up the box, they want everything. This fascination with dynamically installed and dynamically loaded modularity has been the ruin of Microsoft ever since Windows 3.1 began prompting me for Disk 5 when I tried to do something, and it continues to this day. All the Windows versions continually ask for the CD/DVD, whatever, Visual Studio defaults to online help - which sucks when you are on the train, and now they want to make Windows even more modular?
By contrast, I put in a Linux DVD, and I install everything. If I want to install something more, I can do the insanely difficult exercise of typing "sudo apt get install [programname]".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't have it both ways. (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, this isn't about programming practises or about providing something that the customer has asked for. This is a new attack vector in MS's ongoing battle against piracy. The more the product shifts to online management and control, the easier it is for MS to cut loose individuals or organizations (or countries...) that it suspects are not fulfilling their subscription requirements. It also lets them offer value packages that have the same core OS without gimping the product.
I don't like this development, but MS is going to go this way regardless of what the customer wants.
competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if this will backfire. A modular OS means that each component is easier to replace, as it's not intrinsically linked with the rest of the OS.
If you can replace a component, and choose which pieces to run piece by piece, people might make choices that aren't in Microsoft's interest.
It makes me laugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Since NT 3.5 we've had:
True multi-user (Terminal services, fast-user switching), sudo (UAC), headless servers (server core), decent scripting (PowerShell), and now more modularity?
Yeah I know, some of these aren't exactly the same, but you see my point.
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
... if you haven't started your plans for moving away from Windows, now would be a good time.
I think Microsoft is starting to realize the gig is up. In Vista, the whole "we'll just produce a mound of crap, and people will have to buy it" model is starting to dwindle. Unfortunately, it looks like the new model is "we'll only force half the amount of crap we used to, and you can pay for the rest when it's released."
I honestly like using Windows 2000 and Windows XP. I don't like it as much as my Ubuntu installation, but it isn't terrible... at least, not after SP2. I simply just can't tolerate Vista, though. I was somewhat hopeful for Windows 7, but news like this (albeit far from 100% sure to happen) puts a big dimmer on it.
Module? (Score:4, Interesting)
How is this any different to what they have done all along, where custom installations allow you to pick and choose components? I remember doing that all the way back in the mid-90s.
I guess what I'm saying is: what separates a "module" from an application or a library? There appears to be no meaningful difference.
Rentier economy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an issue that both liberals and conservatives should be united on. The desire to own stuff goes deep in the human psyche. The person who rents everything is utterly dependent on a high, steady stream of income can't survive even a short interruption or reduction in that stream. It's a very insecure and anxiety-provoking way to live.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. As a conservative/libertarian (not to be confused with the current White House occupants), I despise DRM because it's an assault on real property rights. It means that I own my computer only in the sense that I paid for it. The Cato Institute has an excellent analysis here [cato.org].
when does Cairo ship? (Score:3, Funny)
Because (Score:4, Funny)
Windows looks less and less appealing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, they are redesigning Windows not so much for engineering reasons, but for marketing reasons. Having a modular OS could be a very good idea, if done properly. However if this is just artificial fragmentation so that they can nickel-and-dime their customers, then this means the software is going to get worse.
Why? Because it's hard enough to optimize software just to do its job properly. You can't optimize for every constraint simultaneously, so if you add requirements like "separated into marketable modules" or "resistant to user tampering" then the coders will necessarily have to compromise on other optimizations, like "speed of operation" or "flexibility" or "reliability" or whatever.
Software is becoming more and more of a commodity... which means that open-source software is rapidly catching up (in those fields where it wasn't already the leader), and also that companies like Microsoft who are still caught in the "must sell proprietary code in boxes" mindset have to add more and more user-hostile features.
I have one of those (Score:5, Funny)
but what I'm scared of is I've been hitting the shopping cart too often, apt-get this and apt-get that.
I'm dreading the day the bill for all these nifty modules comes in the mail.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been an exclusive linux user for ~10 years. I know more than some, less than many. But friends, relatives, and co-workers are suddenly coming up to me and asking about "Ubuntu." And three days ago I read an article in CIO magazine posing the question, "Is is time to dump Vista?" to which many replied, "switch to Ubuntu."
That's significant. I've been happy to be ahead of the curve in terms of usability, stability, and security. And I can't lie--it gives me pleasure still to hear about people having problems with Windows issues while knowing I'm immune. But when people who've previously given me blank stares when I extolled the virtues of FOSS come to me and ask about a distro whose name is based on an African language, I can't help but wonder at the exigency that drove them to such extremes.
I look forward to the era of the 2nd coming of Apple, and the underlying gospel of *nix. For a time, Apple will collect those who have money and favor dead-easy implementation. But eventually they too will succumb to the ineluctable realities of *nix.
Subscription? (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens when you're late with a payment? You windows will refuse to let you log in?
I've been using Linux pretty exclusively at home for the past year (my wife does OSX on her new intel macbook). The more I use it, the more I can envision a completely MS free life. Now this news just gives me a date to go along with that vision
I'm going to say it: 2010 will be the year of the Linux desktop! Thanks to MS!
It was already "modular" (Score:5, Interesting)
I *fully* expect that the first version of Office that runs on "Windows 7" will have formerly free features that no require you to pay for add-ons to Windows before they will work.
I actually like Microsoft for the most part, but their push towards software-as-a-service is really turning me off. If anything is going to bring them down, it will be this. I don't think they understand just how much of a backlash their is going to be. No one wants to be nickeled-and-dimed to death. Business won't do it, and consumers won't care.
Software modules that add functionality. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why Microsoft in 2008 is Like IBM in the 1980s (Score:4, Insightful)
What we're seeing is the end of Microsoft--not as a company, but as the monolithic OS vendor that they've been for years. It's much like IBM in the 1980s. IBM went from the monolithic vendor of PCs to a company that had to compete with the "IBM compatible" clones. The reasons are the same in both cases:
Corporate Culture: IBM, like Microsoft, had the "IBM way" of doing things. They had a corporate culture that stifled real innovation and was all about maintaining revenue streams above all. They weren't willing to take risks, they weren't willing to sell products at less cost, and they were all about promoting their own ecosystem. Just like Microsoft. There have been plenty of rumblings about the way in which Microsoft is becoming a less and less hospitable place to work, and the erosion of the corporate culture is one of the biggest signs of a failing company.
Erosion of Markets: Microsoft depends on a Microsoft ecosystem. Windows on the server, Vista on the desktop, Windows Mobile, SharePoint, etc. The second there becomes a viable alternative to anything, they lose revenue. If people don't upgrade to Vista, they lose revenue. If people stay with Office 2003 rather than Office 2007, they lose revenue. Don't even get them started on Linux servers, Macs, or iPhones. Microsoft's real biggest competitor, though, is Microsoft. The reason why they're moving to a subscription model is because they have to keep people on the upgrade cycle. If their old stuff works well enough that people don't need Vista, 2008, and the latest Windows Server, they lose their chief revenue stream. That's the wall they're running into today.
Stronger Competition: The iPhone is set to eat Windows Mobile's lunch. Macs are taking the educational market back. Linux is gaining more and more acceptance. Firefox has taken browser share from IE. Why pay $100 for a Windows license for a device like a $299 eeePC? As computing becomes a commodity, Windows loses relevance. The rise of the web has taken 15 years to start breaking the MS stranglehold, but it's doing what we said it would back then. You don't need Windows to use Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Flickr, or Gmail. Every web app challenges Microsoft's OS dominance. If those web apps run on commodity UNIX servers, even more so. Microsoft is competing for the market space of 5 and 10 years ago, while Google and Apple are creating their own market spaces where Microsoft isn't dominant.
This doesn't mean that Microsoft will go away, but it does mean that their days of dominance are over. The OS market will fragment, and we're already seeing that happen now. It isn't nearly as quick as some had predicted, but it is happening. Microsoft won't go out of business any time soon--but they can forget about being the only player that really matters anymore. It's the business cycle in action, and this was bound to happen sooner or later.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows Mobile isn't going anywhere, and the iPhone is not going to replace the hundreds of Windows Mobile phone models out there. Wanna take a guess why? Windows Mobile is more open.
User Mode Drivers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course not all drivers can be switched to this framework because the requirement to touch physical memory, register for ISRs, etc. But moving 3rd-party drivers to user-mode is definitely a good thing.
Windows 8 (Score:3, Funny)
Won't somebody think of the developers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I just say, "Holy crap!"? On the surface, my first response was - "Huh. Actually, that sounds pretty cool. I'm tired of getting Windows installs with all the extra shit I don't want."
Then I put on my developer hat, and reached the aforementioned "holy crap" conclusion. The best thing that Windows has going for it from a development perspective is its consistency. (I know enough people disagree with this, but just let it ride for argument's sake.) What I mean by that is that you know, for a target OS version, exactly what is available to you. If you have Windows 2000+, various security APIs work. If you have win98+, various common controls are available, etc.
This obviously isn't ideal, but it does work well; and IMO it makes Windows easier to develop for than Linux (yes, I've done both). You know exactly what to expect for a given version of the OS, and for most of the functionality you want, you don't have to worry about a large number of external dependencies.
Now... enter subscription components. Let's say I build something that expects to use the Mail API that MS provides. Oops! the customer hasn't subscribed to the mail option! Does MS get the call? Nope, but I sure do...
WGA Control (Score:5, Insightful)
This time it's not once that they need to check for validity but they constantly need to keep checking. (I do know WGA does this at the moment.)
That must be quite horrific to code though, they had enough trouble with XP and Vista. Now they need to start checking those modules in multiple configurations
Does this also mean the end of specific 'roles' of windows such as home premium, business and ultimate?
The Microsoft car dealership (Score:5, Funny)
Customer: Thanks, and just in time its starting to rain. (gets in car and buckles up)
Salesman: Are you sure you don't want any upgrades?
Customer: No, a million times no. Just the basic car!
Salesman: Your choice. Have a nice day!
Customer: Hey! Why won't the widow roll up?
Salesman: Oh, You wanted a Window?
Customer: Of course I wanted a Window!
Salesman: But you said you didn't want any upgrades.
Customer: Well I NEED a window, my car is getting wet inside.
Salesman: Ok, that will be another two thousand dollars.
Customer: TWO THOUSAND!!?? Are you crazy? Why that much.
Salesman: That particular option package is bundled with the expensive model radio.
Customer: Thats crazy! Why would you bundle the window with a radio option.
Salesman: Now that would be silly to put an expensive radio in a car if its just going to get wet now isn't it?
Customer: Ok, Ok, just give me the window now.
Salesman: (reaches in his pocket, click click) There you go, you can put the window up now.
Customer: What about the radio? You said I get a radio with that option!
Salesman: You already have the radio installed, it should be activated now.
Customer: But wouldn't the radio get wet without the window?
Salesman: Thats why its bundled with the Window. If you don't have the good sense to put your window up we are certainly not going to waste a good radio by leaving it out in the rain.
Customer: That still makes no sense!
(Salesman reaches in his pocket again; click, click, Window rolls up automatically, sprinkler on the roof turns off, engine starts, and the tires start laying rubber through the parking lot.)
Salesman: (shouting) Are you still sure you don't want any other options? We have a great deal on breaks today!
In future news... (Score:4, Funny)
In 2010, the EU rules Windows still not modular enough, tells Microsoft, "All these desktops are yours, except Europe. Attempt no installations there."
Can you imagine the patching problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
sounds like a QA nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
RS
Re:To be expected (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To be expected (Score:4, Funny)
I hope one day I'm so smart that I can't comprehend what you just said. Heh.
Re:To be expected (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, "no" "hello" and "OK" are just about universal words at this point. If people are forward and the other party isn't made uncomfortable by foreign language speakers (Americans, for fairly obvious reasons I think -- isolation and power -- are the rudest first worlders about people who don't speak their native language. It isn't just waiters and store owners who are blatantly rude to non-English speakers, it's about everyone. A really high percentage of Americans will simply shrug or outright lie to someone requesting help to get them to shut up and go away.
Anyway, don't pick at peoples grammar. They're a stranger and you know nothing about them. Plus, given the way education generally works, it's classist as all hell.
Re:To be expected (Score:5, Funny)
Bullshit. English is so damn easy compared to, for example, Polish. Polish is the Perl of spoken languages. I speak both, and am a native speaker of Polish, so I guess I can say so.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many slashdot posters speak english as their second or third language. We should always remember that English is one of the hardest languages in the world to learn; it is an order of magnitude less regular and its working vocabulary is far larger than the Romance languages. All rules about spelling, punctuation, pluralization, etc. are wrong at least 1 or 2% of the time. There are over 30 vowel sounds represented by 5 1/2 letters. There is quite simply no logic to the use of prepositions in idiomatic phrases, and idiomatic phrases are all over the language, even in basic tourist / shopkeep speaking.
While I agree with what you are saying, I think it misses the point. My experience has been that the worst grammar and spelling comes from native English speakers. When I hear a (presumably) college educated teacher say, "Him and me are going to the store," I want to beat him or her with a stick. Most Europeans and Asians that I hear speaking English as a second or third or fourth language are much better at it. I think it has to do with working at it and wanting to be better. Although I speak Italia
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the problem is with you, not these people making the mistakes. Let me explain, many people agree that what matters in communication is the ability to understand the other person, I'd say 90% of the time when a common language mistake is made the listener or reader can understand what the speaker or writer meant.
Grammar and spelling change, if enough Yale grads
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's where I'm from, but I don't see that at all here from the people I know - most people are glad to help a foreigner, even if they don't speak the language. About the only bad thing I have to say about my Mexican neighbors that speak almost no English is they have terrible taste - the tacky plastic swans and puce house painted siding makes me want to barf. I have nothing but praise for the Hmong family that lives
Traveling Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
They make it out as if I'm the one making close-minded, stereotypical decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, I don't see anything wrong with correcting people. If pe
Re:To be expected (Score:5, Interesting)
A German guy once told me that he felt his language was one of the hardest in the world, and all the reasons he described reminded me of English to be honest (which makes sense considering English is Germanic, with lots of Romance vocab bolted on).
Re:To be expected (Score:4, Interesting)
Many Japanese can make sense out of written Chinese, but that doesn't mean they find the spoken language easy to learn. From their point of view, it seems to be every bit as devoid of logic as English. Despite having borrowed a lot of words from Chinese, the underlying language is very different from Japanese.
A multilingual Japanese once told me that Spanish is the easiest foreign language for Japanese speakers to learn. Its grammer is regular and it uses about the same set of sounds that Japanese does.
Re:To be expected (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To be expected (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To be expected (Score:4, Funny)
Re:To be expected (Score:5, Funny)
Mein Englisch ist besser als Dein Deutsch! Parlez vouz français, je ne comprende pas!
Ciao,
-S