PC World Community: Linux Blog: Linux: Rumors of its Demise are Greatly Exaggerated

Linux Blog

Previous Next

Linux: Rumors of its Demise are Greatly Exaggerated

Posted by chipbennett Apr 12, 2008

Scott Spoonauer of LaptopMag seems to be spending quite a bit of time trying to insinuate that Linux has missed its opportunity for widespread adoption. For example:

Spoonauer claims that the window of opportunity for Linux (as a desktop client) has closed, maybe for good. He gives some examples of the closing window of opportunity, such as BestBuy opting for the WinXP version of the EeePC instead of the Linux version, Wal-Mart "pulling" Linux PCs from store shelves and opting for internet-only sales, and Dell thus far being the only "major" PC vendor to offer pre-installed Linux.
After getting slammed in the comments to his previous blog post, Spoonauer then goes about trying to defend his premise regarding the window of opportunity closing, but conceding that he may have been premature in proclaiming a "death knell" for desktop Linux.
Spoonauer then attempts to portray some objectivity by interviewing some analysts who essentially say, "not so fast." Their conclusions are that the BestBuy decision has no real bearing on the future opportunity of Linux, and that Microsoft is making concessions with respect to licensing in order to fend off a legitimate threat from Linux.
But the Spoonauer goes right back to his premise, interviewing yet another expert in attempt to discount EeePC Linux sales. Here, the premise is basically that while the Linux EeePC has sold over one million units worldwide, it has only sold about 100,000 in the US, which the expert claims have all gone to existing Linux geeks.

Others are picking up on the meme, and refuting it. See Linux Watch and Linux Solutions. Let's do the same, shall we?

As I have already pointed out, Microsoft's dual actions in extending the end-of-life for Windows XP and in offering pennies-on-the-dollar licensing for ULCPCs is a de facto concession of the threat of Linux. These actions are a stop-gap gambit to avoid loss of market share, and are neither sustainable nor viable, long-term.

OEM licensing (presumably, Windows and Office) accounts for 95% of Microsoft's revenues. Thus, Microsoft finds itself in a no-win situation in the ULCPC market: either concede the market to Linux, and thus generate no revenue due to no OEM licensing, or else give away OEM licenses (essentially for free) and thus generate no revenue from the OEM licenses they do procure.

The Linux business model is entirely different. With a few rare exceptions (SLED, Xandros, etc.), Linux distributions do not make money by selling OEM or end-user licenses for use of their OS; rather, the Linux business model is to give away the software and then make money by selling support contracts.

So, extrapolating the current environment several years: Microsoft continues to generate no revenues by giving away OEM licenses and offering support for an otherwise end-of-life operating system, while the Linux revenue stream is entirely unaffected. Linux is positioned to win any protracted desktop market share battle of attrition.

The second fatal flaw in Spoonauer's argument is the inherent assumption that US market share will continue to dictate the adoption rate for desktop Linux. While this assumption may hold true today, it is quickly being invalidated.

While Microsoft has entrenched itself in the various sales channels in the US (retail outlets, vendor online sales, etc.), it is quickly losing its grip outside of the US, due to increasing open source (and, in some cases, anti-Microsoft) trends, especially in Europe and Asia - not to mention the growing computer-user market in third-world countries.

Government agencies, educational institutions, and others are moving desktop installations wholesale from Windows to Linux, by the thousands and tens of thousands. Each one of these desktop Linux installations directly impacts Microsoft's bottom line.

In short, the jury may still be out regarding the ability of Linux eventually to realize its full potential - and market share - but if Windows remains the only viable threat to Linux desktop market share, Then the Linux window of opportunity will remain open in perpetuity. Microsoft's business model will ensure it.

(Cross-posted from chipbennett.net)

Tags: linux, windows, operating_systems

Apr 12, 2008 4:38 PM

Evildave

Or simply ignore the dope.

The world is full of Microsoft's shills, paid and unpaid. Giving him any attention only makes him seem greater than he is.

Consider it a 'Troll'.

Reality will dictate the future, not whiny Microsoft sycophants.

Apr 12, 2008 9:20 PM

g4acre in response to: Evildave

here here dave, I agree 110% with you. Bravo for you. G4acre

Apr 14, 2008 3:27 PM

RedRat

Well as much as I would like to see Linux succeed, Linux will need to make some changes for it to be adopted within the business community. Keep in mind that Microsoft made the decision very early on in its birth to really deal with the business community and they viewed the home user as incidental. For example, MS Office, with its core of Word and Excel, was really intended for business uses. MS really saw the PC, at least in the 80s, as a desktop work environment. MS's read of the tea leaves took them into the business community and left Apple to the home users. I suspect that even today, the still is in MS's DNA.

MS did not even see a need for networking, that came much later, e.g., Windows 3.11. Windows in its early years was not seen as requiring a network connection and this is why MS missed the Internet Connection and was a "Johnny Come Lately" to the party. Some here may remember how difficult it was to hook a Windows machine up to a network. In fact you had to use a 3rd party program in order to do it back in the DOS and Windows 3.x days.

If Linux is to be successful, there is going to have to be some simplification. Right now, there are far too many distros of the OS. Basically, if you are small to even large business when you have to decide about the OS, with Windows you have a choice of Windows Vista or XP. With Linux, my God there are at least a dozen distros--which do you use?????. How would any IT department deal with that? Asking the average worker in just about any business to deal with a terminal window would through them into a panic. Linux will have to better deal with wireless communication devices both for PCs and laptops. It is getting there, but not yet really arrived.

Apr 16, 2008 2:20 PM

chipbennett in response to: RedRat

RedRat,

Linux is already being adopted by the business community - though the adoption rate is fairly slow. Would a "distro consolidation" speed the adption rate? Perhaps.

I'm not entirely convinced, though. Again, the Linux business model is selling support contracts. Ostensibly, any Linux organization (Novell, Canonical, etc.) would then provide excellent service - and this service is the one thing most critical to large-scale business adoption.

Let's say Company X decides to migrate to Linux, and chooses Canonical. Company X isn't going to care about the 300 other distros available, so long as Canonical upholds its commitment to support Company X's Linux installation.

After that, the learning curve for end users is not that great (aside from very specialized applications): business software applications consist of productivity ("office" suite) applications, a PIM (email/contacts/calendar), a browser, and the like. Many, many other applications are moving to the browser - and even more as SAAS and TCS are used more often.

Again, my point here is, I'm not arguing that a simplification/consolidation wouldn't potentially speed up the Linux adoption rate; I'm merely arguing that it is not critical to Linux adoption.

Apr 16, 2008 2:49 PM

RedRat in response to: chipbennett

The situation you describe here will hinge on costs. I agree that both Ubuntu and Kbuntu, in their present form, are pretty much straight forward in that their GUIs are similar to Windows and Mac. People would not necessarily need a great deal of training in using common office software (both OpenOffice and some others (abiword-which I haven't tried)) are so similar that office workers could come up to speed quickly. However, over the past 10-20 years now, many businesses have huge commitments to Excel spreadsheets. Conversion of these and any databases (e.g., Access) would cost, these expenses would not be cheap. I fully recognize that MS support does not come cheap (our agency was basically a Windows workshop).

Basically, the question facing a company would be to completely retrain their MS certified techs to Linux, or hire some Linux people. All of this does cost. So a business is going to look out there and see his choice as Windows or Linux. If I am currently a Windows shop, more than likely I will remain so. What does moving to Linux mean for me? The initial purchase price of the Windows (even the exorbitant Windows Vista) is small in comparison to all the support costs. This is the headwind that I see Linux facing. Unfortunately, it is business adoption that will drive the success of Linux.

Apr 16, 2008 4:12 PM

chipbennett in response to: RedRat

And thus, Microsoft's strategy all along with Office: proprietary document-format lock-in.

However, aside from any movement toward Linux, businesses (and governments) are moving separately toward open document formats. The struggle of ODF is exactly the one you describe (cost of document conversion, especially for the 10-20 years' worth of existing documents). It is also the driving force behind Microsoft's OOXML efforts.

Even so, all new documents created as XML documents (OXML or ODF) will be much more inter-operable. (Only OXML documents that use legacy, proprietary formatting - thanks to the DOC/XLS "black box" tie-ins to OXML - will remain less inter-operable with ODF.) That means that, as time goes on, the percentage of legacy documents in proprietary formats will decrease - and with it, the cost of conversion. (Also, conversion tools will only continue to improve - especially as Microsoft is forced to give up more and more of the proprietary formatting information that they have held so closely.)

Everything comes down to return on investment. The conversion to open-source (hardware, software, document formats, etc.) is a one-time cost, regardless of how high the cost. The cost of Microsoft lock-in is continuous (Windows and Office licenses for new computers, as well as upgrades for existing computers, every 2-3 years - not to mention, learning-curve costs incurred with upgrades such as Office 2007 and Windows Vista.)

Linux adoption may be facing a strong headwind, but it is buoyed by the ever-increasing lift of gradual adoption momentum.

Apr 17, 2008 8:42 AM

RedRat in response to: chipbennett

I agree that the legacy document issue is certainly a considerable stumbling block. The movement toward an open source document standard is really the way to go. The question, then, is how to accomplish that. Early on, having worked in a federal government agency, the first attempt at this was to try and make WordPerfect the standard. However, because of difficulties with that and to some extent Microsoft's persistence and lobbying efforts, support for WordPerfect slipped away and MS's Office suite more or less became the "de facto" standard now.

Both the business and government (local, state, and federal) sectors now have, for better or worse, settled on the MS Office standard. Whether we like it or not, MS Office is ubiquitous. OK, given that, how best to push, now again, for an Open Source document standard?

One approach is to make a mandatory standard by government. Of course I am suspicious and uncomfortable when government tries this approach, having seen it first hand. Usually such choices are not always wise and more than likely give rise to a constrictive standard. So, from my perspective, government mandated standard is pretty much out the window.

Another approach is the International standards body, the ISO approach. However, this is like designing an animal by a committee, you end up with the duck bill platypus! Not to mention that it is unbelievably slow and circumstances (not to mention technology) rapidly outpaces the process. By the time a standard is agreed upon, it is obsolete. Because of its glacial progress, the ISO approach also tends to be constrictive, more by omission than commission.

Then there is the "Free Market" approach. Given enough time the guy with the best format wins. This is basically what we have been doing now and in the past. You are right in that the costs of this approach is very high. You gotta license your software ad infinitum if Microsoft has anything to say about it. This is costly, to say the least.

In the end, I have no great insight about the way to go except to say that in a perfect world, the ISO approach seems best. However, we are not living in perfect world, and due to haggling and politics, ISO is just too slow. However, there are dangers in trying to speed up the process in that we can have a "rush to judgement" and get a lousy standard just to have a "timely" standard. But this may be the best that we have for the moment.