or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open - Page 4

post #121 of 310

Most of the time I come to this site to be entertained by the comments. 
This is one thread of comments that stands out for me due to the fact that it is an actual "discussion" between intelligent people.

 

I'd really love to see more of that.

post #122 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyMarc43 View Post

I'd really love to see more of that.

The long thread about the new Mac Pro fits that bill, I should think.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #123 of 310

i really can't figure out the point of this DED article.

 

yes, there are still some - very few by now - "open" evangelists who preach its supreme value as a general rule. but there were 100x more of them 15 years ago. their great consumer-facing crusades - desktop Linux OS, Mozilla, etc - just didn't pan out in the real world. the verdict of history is in. if that is who DED is aiming this post at, he is still fighting the last war that ended years ago.

 

and it turned out instead, as many here have noted, it was "under the hood" open software that often worked great and is now ubiquitous. like Apache, and Apple's Webkit.

 

given the current state of "Android" (there isn't a single OS there anymore) and Google's blatant manipulation of its version, hardly anyone still claims it is "open" with a straight face. more accurate to say, it's technical underpinnings are being "openly used" to create many closed outcomes.

 

as to the connection between all this and profits, well, i think that's talking apples and oranges and DED is stretching too far with that theme. the profits will always be focused on the popular consumer/business-facing products. and those will typically be "closed" implementations of some kind necessarily providing a whole package of services to users - aka, an ecosystem. MS still has the leading generic business ecosystem. Apple has the leading consumer ecosystem. Google has the leading web ecosystem. Samsung is the outlier, being instead the leading commodity product OEM, vs. HTC, Nokia, et al. ... Samsung makes great refrigerators too.

post #124 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Well they've forked it right?  Which is practically the definition of co-opting something, which itself is as close to "stealing" as makes no difference.  If the fork works, they could be considered to have taken something, bent it to their own uses and simultaneously (at least attempted) to torpedo the original.  
LOL! Because Apple certainly never forked that particular codebase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

iOS sure is open, huh¡ 1oyvey.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Darwin

(another forked project)
Quote:
Shut up and go away.
Do you know anything about locks? 1tongue.gif
So the answer to his question is essentially "no" then, I take it?
post #125 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post

So the answer to his question is essentially "no" then, I take it?

What question? How was that even a question? My stars. Is it or is it not easier to take open software than closed. THAT is a question. Already answered, by the way.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #126 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

WIndows Vs Open is more Windows Vs Unix.
The difference between Windows and Unix = Unix works, its scalable and have zero viruses/"server grade security".

If closed was better, then Windows Phone should do much better, also Windows on ARM.

Windows simply could not fit the GUI/Power requirement in a post PC world.

 

From a technical point of view, the windows of today is just as secure as unix. It's had modern security elements, such as privilege separation, fine-grained file access control, DEP, ASLR, etc., since Vista. While Unix has always had privilege separation by design, its various implementations didn't adopt some of the other features until recently. For example, it took OS X until Lion in 2011 to fully implement ASLR. And it's unclear whether FreeBSD has ASLR yet (perhaps someone in the know can clarify). 

 

With respect to scalability, you may have a point about scaling up to the level of supercomputers, but Windows has had a major presence in servers and embedded systems for years, so clearly its scalability can't be that shabby. Windows Phone runs great and the lack of adoption of the platform has little to do with any technical defects.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 7/7/13 at 1:55pm
post #127 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Your premise of the "premise of the article" is simply wrong. Either your reading comprehension is pretty terrible or you're trying to cloud issues by making a straw man argument about how great open source is. 

 

The article clearly mentions WebKit, and if you Google the web for LLVM, AI's DED article from 08 on the subject is in the top 5 hits. So don't trot out your education about how Apple is also using open source. The article also makes no connection between security and closed software, another strawman you erect to show your superior boxing skills. I'm sure there are some actual flaws in the article you could argue against; you don't need to invent your own.

 

The article makes it pretty clear that, if you're taking about "superiority," "market performance," "efficacious impact on the world/technology/culture" or anything along those lines, it's just silly to compare Google's copy of software being handed out to a bunch of visionless cloners who were making boring PCs a decade ago to a series of real products Apple is making, products that have defined the culture and changed how people act and think, from the iPad to iPhone to iPad.

 

Where is all the supposed innovation across all of the Android landscape? The most unique thing running Android is perhaps a SLR with a smartphone camera back, and that just doesn't seem like a great idea. Why not just attach a smartphone? What else has Android come up with apart from copies of the iPod, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV? The community should be able to devise a few really cool things that at least catch on, but instead they are churning out nothing but me-too copies.

 

 

Apple has leveraged open source software to do great things. It gave the world a third browser (rescuing some KHTML code that would never have gone anywhere otherwise), it has built a next-generation coding toolchain with LLVM, LLDB and Clang, it made *BSD relevant again and took advantage of really cool things the various *BSDs have created.

 

But Apple doesn't brag about having given away the most web browser engines the way Google brags about having deployed the most (yet most defective!) smartphone OS licenses. And having given away so much Android has not resulted in some sort of superior platform for development or deployment. Smells a lot like Linux on the desktop to me. 

Apple's kernel is open source, and they might use some open standards code like Open CL, etc.  but they have closed it to run on their own hardware. Same goes with all of these different flavors of Unix by Sun, IBM, HP, etc.  I don't know of too many people with an HP server running Sun Solaris on it. I think HP might have a difficult time servicing them.

 

Apple did have the Darwin project but they pulled the proprietary stuff off for obvious reasons.. The problem with Open Source OS where you can freely modify it is the mechanism for support for the consumer and businesses.  For a college student learning?  Sure, have at it, but once you go out in the real world, it doesn't make sense. There's been so many Free OS's out there they all are more for college students to hack around with so they can go to a real company and help develop an OS for a specific device (regardless of what it is)  

 

The Freedom to customize is childish.  I think if someone wants to make their own device, sure, but close the thing up once you're done so you can give great support to your customer if you take your product seriously, so will the user. 


I see a HUGE potential in a DIY smartphone.  Pick from cases, screens, motherboards, etc.  so you can put your own OS and name on it.   Maybe there's an opportunity.LOL.

post #128 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by otbricki View Post

 

iOS is built on BSD.  1smile.gif

Probably most or all modern OSs are based on a KERNEL that came from Open Source, with the exception of Microsoft, but that's the just the kernel, but Apple closed the OS just to run on Apple hardware. So I think the more appropriate way is Open Source kernel Closed Source architecture.

 

Microsoft is a proprietary OS, but they write it run on a variety of different processors, license it to the typical PC mfg, and then sell an off the shelf version to DIY crowd, but you still can't modify it.  They've been trying to get Microsoft to release the Source Code for the Educational and Government Crowd to mess with, but not the general public.  SO, it's a closed kernel, open architecture with a commercial license because you can buy the license to put on whatever hardware it's meant to run on to use but not modify.

 

Programmers that can't get a job with these smartphone mfg to assist in the development of an OS is where these people belong, or using some Open Source OS for college studies but please, not in the real world. 

post #129 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
I see a HUGE potential in a DIY smartphone.  Pick from cases, screens, motherboards, etc.  so you can put your own OS and name on it.   Maybe there's an opportunity.LOL.

 

Google's already one step ahead of you.  I guess we'll see if you're right and if there is a huge market for that.  They're also boasting that it'll be assembled in the US.

post #130 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

 

Google's already one step ahead of you.  I guess we'll see if you're right and if there is a huge market for that.  They're also boasting that it'll be assembled in the US.

 

Google is more of an Open Loop architecture.  

 

 

Google already one step ahead? Actually, not really.  You can't take a Samsung chip, with a LG display, stick components from HTC, Samsung that are specific to certain models and stick it in a Oppo case. come on.  Get real.  It's not that DIY.  All it is is a cheaply designed business model to save them money from having to have the overhead costs that a REAL computing company like Apple that actually designs more of their own product than anyone else, that actually supports it, updates and deals with not allowing malware whenever they can.  Android on a Samsung S3 is a different flavor than the S4 version, than the Admire, than the HTC One, etc. etc.  So they are not only fragmented by the version of Android, but by the various modified versions running on all of the different mfg/model phones.


So, far, Android (if you add all of the different flavors) has more market share, but not profits.  Profits keep the doors open. No Profit closes doors.

 

It's almost like comparing HP/UX, IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, etc. and adding them together into one market share number and calling it UNIX market share vs Linux Market share.

 

Some market share numbers can be misleading.

post #131 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Programmers that can't get a job with these smartphone mfg to assist in the development of an OS is where these people belong, or using some Open Source OS for college studies but please, not in the real world. 

Ugh, I hope new and up coming programmers never share your views on this subject.
Edited by Relic - 7/7/13 at 2:42pm
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #132 of 310

On what?  Not on desktop and laptop, I'll guarantee that.

 

A lot of those devices are things like gaming consoles, kiosks, speciaty equipment, but those are not desktop and laptops and servers.

 

What's your source?

post #133 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

On what?  Not on desktop and laptop, I'll guarantee that.

A lot of those devices are things like gaming consoles, kiosks, speciaty equipment, but those are not desktop and laptops and servers.

What's your source?

I said servers, just servers.

Here is an article on revenue;
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linux-servers-keep-growing-windows-and-unix-keep-shrinking/10616
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linux-its-where-the-jobs-are/10358
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption

Apple also uses Linux in their datacenters
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/07/21/the-technology-inside-apples-new-idatacenter/
Edited by Relic - 7/7/13 at 2:58pm
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #134 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


You do realize the majority of the servers in the world are running Linux by a huge margin. So it seems you stand alone on this.

Linux 93.8%
AIX 3.6%
Hybrid Unix/Linux 1.4%
Other Unix 0.6%
Windows HPC 0.6%

 

Here's some numbers to look at.

 

GO look at the market share of desktop computer OSs, Linux is down in the Less than 2.1%, while even Macs are at around 7%.  Linux is not mainstream even as much as OS X is.  While Windows (all flavors combined are around 90%).

 

Linux is used in a lot of specialty equipment that are designed for you NOT to hack into.  There are medical equipment systems, gaming systems, kiosks, car systems, etc that run on Linux, that's because they it's FREEEE for them to develop their own OS that gets locked down afterwards, if they're smart. 

post #135 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones.

I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
 

For a business, "success" has to translate into making money. That's how you pay your employees. That's how you pay for components to make the next great product. 

 

And your statement that Google may be just trying to "elevate the level of technology out in the world" is one of the most asinine statements I have heard in a while. The fact that Google spouts such patently false nonsense makes it even worse. Google wants to make money as much as the next corporation. The reason they give Android away for free is because your eyeballs looking at ads have far more value to Google than your cash ever could. And since they have a profitable product in search, they're not afraid of losing money on Android if that ever happens. 

post #136 of 310
Hi I am an Android guy who saw the link in Google News and decided to read this, if I am a troll, I don't meant to be.

I think you're analysis is mostly correct, however I think your concept of success as "making money" and failure as "not making money" is wrong. Google wants to make it easy for people to click on ads, and while people might be able to block ads on their phone, they did remove ad blocking apps on the play store which means 90% of users now have no idea how to download them. Google's profit from mobile web ads has skyrocketed in the past year.

You also ignore that there are high end Android smartphones that have some advantages to iPhone. Also if success is making money, why do you consider Apple to be successful despite their stock price being so low?
post #137 of 310

Here's an idea.

 

They should have a product line called the Android Freedom phone.  NO SUPPORT, NO WARRANTY, and there's NO guarantee that you actually use it on a cellular network.


Then they can use the marketing tag line.  YOU ARE FREEEEEEEEEEEEE. and then just give them away and all they are are the oldest crap that's been returned that no one else wants.

post #138 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Here's some numbers to look at.

GO look at the market share of desktop computer OSs, Linux is down in the Less than 2.1%, while even Macs are at around 7%.  Linux is not mainstream even as much as OS X is.  While Windows (all flavors combined are around 90%).

Linux is used in a lot of specialty equipment that are designed for you NOT to hack into.  There are medical equipment systems, gaming systems, kiosks, car systems, etc that run on Linux, that's because they it's FREEEE for them to develop their own OS that gets locked down afterwards, if they're smart. 

Those numbers are for the top 500 supercomputers, I failed to realize and Linux servers is over 25% in 2013.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2013/03/report-enterprise-linux-growth-outpaces-windows

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23974913#.UU-PJBm_SJJ


Source Date Linux Windows Unix z/OS Total
IDC Q4 2012 20.4% 45.8% 17.6% 12.3% 96.1%


Top 500 SuperComputers
Linux 93.8%
AIX 3.6%
Hybrid Unix/Linux 1.4%
Other Unix 0.6%
Windows HPC 0.6%
Edited by Relic - 7/7/13 at 3:17pm
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #139 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrzejls View Post

It is FREE you moron,  so you do not STEAL. Comprende?

No, try again. This time without breaking rules.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #140 of 310
Quote:
. oiginally Posted by rcfa View Post

Ugh, wrong on so many counts...

I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.

Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.

I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...

Linux is  not a clone,  it is free version of Unix. iOS is a Linux clone,  and not that very good.

post #141 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrzejls View Post

Linux is  not a clone,  it is free version of Unix. iOS is a Linux clone,  and not that very good.

Linux is the very definition of a clone, it is not Unix, though it is Unix like and is build completely on open source. iOS is a BSD Unix and not a Linux clone.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #142 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgwebb1469 View Post

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Android v. iOS arguments across the web is the very idea that for one of the platforms to win then the other has to be losing. I think Android is winning in the areas they want to win while Apple is winning in the areas they want to win. 

Precisely: the whole iOS vs. Android thing is a stupid narrative fueled by fan boys of either camp and stock market analysts who love when the stock moves depending on the "news" so they can make speculative trading profits.

Android may have stolen ideas from iOS, but that's life. No viable profitable market will ever be owned solely by the inventor. Otherwise we'd only have Mercedes cars, Zuse computers, intel CPUs, etc.

So it's a fact of life, and in no way alarming that Apple loses marketshare in their markets until things stabilize at some level, because the inventor first owns the market, then competition shows up, and takes a part, until the various market forces (price, features, differing tastes, etc.) are in equilibrium again.
To think that Apple would forever hold its quasi monopoly in tablets, touch screen smartphones, etc. is just stupid. If it's not Android, it would be BlackBerry or Nokia or Sony...
...because one size does not fit all. There are enough people who want something different just for the sake of being different, they'd happily go and buy a worse product just to not have the same as the rest of the people around them. That market alone is big enough to take a sizable chunk out of Apple's market. And then there are the gullible people, the extremely price sensitive people, etc. so a bit of advertising and a lower price will get a huge chunk of these people too. And that's assuming Android is worse in all respects, but it's not.

e.g. screen size. I'm all for the current iPhone screen size, because bigger phones will not match my usage pattern. But a friend who uses the phone for remote video surveillance of his business bought one of the phablets, because he wants to see the details better, particularly since he's not always having his reading glasses with him.
It may not make sense for Apple to have all the costs of inventory, tooling, distribution, development, testing, etc. to have a bigger screen iPhone that only serves a sliver of their market. But that doesn't mean that this sliver of a market doesn't have legitimate needs, and if an Android phone can fill it, while Apple keeps its costs down and margins up, then everyone is served, including Apple.
post #143 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

The Freedom to customize is childish.  I think if someone wants to make their own device, sure, but close the thing up once you're done so you can give great support to your customer if you take your product seriously, so will the user. 

 

Many of your posts seem to have the underlying premise that if other people modify your product as they wish, they would ruin your design plans and prevent you from supporting the people who use your unmodified product. Is that an accurate inference? That would suggest for example that the iOS jailbreak community is interfering with apple's vision for the next iOS, or that people who install custom car stereos are preventing BMW from providing "great support" to its customers. 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 7/7/13 at 4:38pm
post #144 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Precisely: the whole iOS vs. Android thing is a stupid narrative fueled by fan boys of either camp and stock market analysts who love when the stock moves depending on the "news" so they can make speculative trading profits.

Android may have stolen ideas from iOS, but that's life. No viable profitable market will ever be owned solely by the inventor. Otherwise we'd only have Mercedes cars, Zuse computers, intel CPUs, etc.

So it's a fact of life, and in no way alarming that Apple loses marketshare in their markets until things stabilize at some level, because the inventor first owns the market, then competition shows up, and takes a part, until the various market forces (price, features, differing tastes, etc.) are in equilibrium again.
To think that Apple would forever hold its quasi monopoly in tablets, touch screen smartphones, etc. is just stupid. If it's not Android, it would be BlackBerry or Nokia or Sony...
...because one size does not fit all. There are enough people who want something different just for the sake of being different, they'd happily go and buy a worse product just to not have the same as the rest of the people around them. That market alone is big enough to take a sizable chunk out of Apple's market. And then there are the gullible people, the extremely price sensitive people, etc. so a bit of advertising and a lower price will get a huge chunk of these people too. And that's assuming Android is worse in all respects, but it's not.

e.g. screen size. I'm all for the current iPhone screen size, because bigger phones will not match my usage pattern. But a friend who uses the phone for remote video surveillance of his business bought one of the phablets, because he wants to see the details better, particularly since he's not always having his reading glasses with him.
It may not make sense for Apple to have all the costs of inventory, tooling, distribution, development, testing, etc. to have a bigger screen iPhone that only serves a sliver of their market. But that doesn't mean that this sliver of a market doesn't have legitimate needs, and if an Android phone can fill it, while Apple keeps its costs down and margins up, then everyone is served, including Apple.

I agree, unfortunately everyone is going to rip you a new one for it.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #145 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrzejls View Post

Linux is  not a clone,  it is free version of Unix. iOS is a Linux clone,  and not that very good.

Comments like these show why it's a waste of time to engage in discussions here. Regret it each time when I get suckered in.

Linux is a clone, read up on its history, or the definition of "clone" as it's used in the context of software.

iOS is certainly not a Linux clone, because it's Darwin, which is the same as NeXTSTEP. Actually the Darwin version numbers correspond exactly to the version of NeXTSTEP the product would have, did Apple not change the name to Mac OS X/OS X/iOS at some point in time.

NeXTSTEP existed BEFORE Linux. Development on NeXTSTEP started in 1986, I was working with NeXTSTEP 0.8 in 1989, Linux wasn't even released until 1991, and it was far from useful and popular at that time. Again, read up on computing history if you're too young to have been there.

Maybe all the teens posting here would do well consulting wikipedia before posting ridiculous claims...
post #146 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdeasde96 View Post

Also if success is making money, why do you consider Apple to be successful despite their stock price being so low?

Because a company doesn't make money based on its stock price, but based on its profits.
Long term investors could care less about the price of Apple stock, they care about sustainable profits and sustainable dividend payments as well as no debt, plenty of reserves.

Speculators on the other hand, don't care about how healthy a company is, they just care about the stock price moving such as to generate a trading profit. As such the volatility of the stockprice, which is a nightmare for non-seasoned long-term investors, is what drives their profits. A stock that stays high is boring to a trader, and while traders could make a lot of money in a quick run-up to 700, they couldn't make much money if Apple had stayed there, and slowly had crept up to 725 or 750 with mostly sideways movement.

Shorting the stock or holding put options, and then talking the price down, that however generates massive profits, just as gaining again on the way up once people realize that all the analysts were producing was unfounded rumors and hot air.

The stock market, except for very long-term moving averages, is a horrible indicator of the success of a company in real terms.
post #147 of 310

Quote:
Once again, we have a dramatic battle where the "Open Source" role of Linux is now being played by Google's Android.

 

Apart from the slight distinction that Linux has negligible consumer market share, where Android has the majority of the consumer market.

 

So basically, Android isn't in the same position as Linux at all. 

 

What a load of bilge!

post #148 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

From a technical point of view, the windows of today is just as secure as unix. It's had modern security elements, such as privilege separation, fine-grained file access control, DEP, ASLR, etc., since Vista. While Unix has always had privilege separation by design, its various implementations didn't adopt some of the other features until recently.

Depends what you men with "from a technical point of view". Security has a model, and then it has an implementation of the model.

The WindowsNT kernel's security model was always rather secure. However, there are constant issues with bugs in the implementation, and there were many issues with the default settings that were applied to that model to make e.g. the porting of Win95 software to WinXP easier...
Given the nearly endless stream of Windows security patches, wide-spread existence of Windows based bot nets, etc. the real world security of Windows remains questionable.
post #149 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Those numbers are for the top 500 supercomputers, I failed to realize and Linux servers is over 25% in 2013.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2013/03/report-enterprise-linux-growth-outpaces-windows

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23974913#.UU-PJBm_SJJ


Source Date Linux Windows Unix z/OS Total
IDC Q4 2012 20.4% 45.8% 17.6% 12.3% 96.1%


Top 500 SuperComputers
Linux 93.8%
AIX 3.6%
Hybrid Unix/Linux 1.4%
Other Unix 0.6%
Windows HPC 0.6%

 

Everyone has their methods for buying something. You seem to buy based on popularity, that's going with the crowd mentality.

 

Market share is actually numbers just to show more social trends in something, or market acceptance, which is more of a social trend.  It has nothing to do with the best or worst, or anything else.  Typically things follow a bell curve where there are the select free on the far right and left and the masses in the middle.

 

There have been social behavior research that indicate that people get confused with the more products there are to choose from. They are more likely going to want someone else to tell them what to buy because they have a difficult time making a decision due to too many choices.  So a lot of people will end up asking a  sales rep, a friend, a family member, some one the look up (even if its their favorite movie star/celebrity), or what gets advertised the most on what they should buy.  It's a human behavioral trait. Some, if money permits, or if they have a sub conscious addiction to hoarding, will start collecting, so if they have a lot of choices, they won't buy one, they'll start collecting because they might want to show off their collection or not be left out of any group because they can always have what everyone has or what no one else has.  I think the same goes with customization.  You know the saying "look at what I did, isn't it cool and it's my own custom design that I created that no one else has".  That's not of interest to me either.

 

It would be interesting to see what the surveys would say if you asked EVERY smartphone owner how they arrived at their decision and if it was based on seeing an ad for something, a friend's recommendation, etc.

 

Do you REALLY want customization or is that you are trying to fit in with others that share the same mentality thinking that customization is the most important thing due to peer pressure?

post #150 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post

 

Apart from the slight distinction that Linux has negligible consumer market share, where Android has the majority of the consumer market.

 

So basically, Android isn't in the same position as Linux at all. 

 

What a load of bilge!

Android uses the Linux kernel.

 

Which means that Linux is the most commonly installed and used (by all users, from sysadmins down to people who barely need a feature phone) operating system kernel in the world.

post #151 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Those numbers are for the top 500 supercomputers, I failed to realize and Linux servers is over 25% in 2013.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2013/03/report-enterprise-linux-growth-outpaces-windows

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23974913#.UU-PJBm_SJJ


Source Date Linux Windows Unix z/OS Total
IDC Q4 2012 20.4% 45.8% 17.6% 12.3% 96.1%


Top 500 SuperComputers
Linux 93.8%
AIX 3.6%
Hybrid Unix/Linux 1.4%
Other Unix 0.6%
Windows HPC 0.6%

What is the most popular amongst servers.  What do the Top 10 run, in order?  And what are they using them for?  If I were planning on building a Super computer, I would first decide what the purpose was and then figure out which would be the best choices for that specific need.  Super computers are where? Research labs, colleges.  Well, I'm neither, nor interested in having what OS they use in a Supercomputer that can't run the apps that I plan on running for a desktop, laptop, smartphone or tablet.  that would seem kind of dumb, don't you think? 

post #152 of 310

Regarding the idea that no serious company relies on open source software.... Check the job listings for Linux Sysadmins sometime. Every company that's looking for one is a company that relies on open source software :-)

 

Really, if it wasn't for MS Exchange (which really is a wonderful mail server if you're looking at well-implemented feature sets. The OS alternatives I've tried simply haven't come close), I'd be hard pressed to see when MS servers are actually needed in any of the places I've worked. My current workplace probably simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't possible to take an open source OS (in this case, Redhat) and extensively modify it to our own requirements.

 

Might also like to look up Scientific Linux sometime and ask yourself why it's being supported.

 

Now, Ubuntu hasn't fulfilled its potential in the desktop OS market, and it's true that for home users it's a right bugger at times (I won't run it at home, but I won't run anything else at work)however... It's worth having a look here: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android

 

And asking yourself what that's going to do to the laptop market over the next decade.

post #153 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

What is the most popular amongst servers.  What do the Top 10 run, in order?  And what are they using them for?  

Unix-like (Which is mainly Linux) is at 65.6%

Windows is at 34.4%

And in third place is MacOS at <0.1%

 

http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/operating_system/all

 

From the looks of it, that's mainly going off HTTP servers, but it really depends what you're interested in.

 

Bind is the most common DNS server (85% as of 2010, I doubt it's declined). Also running on Linux.

http://www.securityweek.com/defense-bind-open-source-dns-software-yields-better-breed-secure-product

 

For MX servers, Exim (Linux) is apparently the most common at 45.95% market share

Followed by Postfix and Sendmail at 35.82% between them.

Behind them comes MS at 10.27%

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.201206/mxsurvey.html

 

For database servers, MySQL (Open source. Not exclusively Linux, but I understand that MSSQL controls the Windows server market, leaving... Linux. Kind of like how Apache will run quite happily on Windows) controls 54% of the market.


Edited by Robert Bray - 7/7/13 at 5:44pm
post #154 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

Poor thing.

1. I actually have memory problems.
2. I went back and read the question before even posting. And you're just a complete fool.

I ask again: how is that a valid question.

Did you bother reading my post?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #155 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Super computers are where? Research labs, colleges.

That shows just how little you know about the corporate and government IT space.  Ever heard of the Amazon Elastic Computing environment?  It was number 42 on the supercomputer list in 2011, don't know where it is now.  How about NOAA and it's weather forecast data provided to the public (enabled by supercomputers)?  

post #156 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

That shows just how little you know about the corporate and government IT space.  Ever heard of the Amazon Elastic Computing environment?  It was number 42 on the supercomputer list in 2011, don't know where it is now.  How about NOAA and it's weather forecast data provided to the public (enabled by supercomputers)?  

In addition to this, nearly every commercial VPS provider you find focuses on OpenVZ or Xen - Again, Linux-based.

 

The licensing costs of Linux and open source products combined with their flexibility has also meant that I can use backupsy to provide myself with two 500GB backup servers for $14 USD a month. I'd shudder to think what it would cost to support MS servers, including licensing and hardware requirements (given that Apple almost doesn't exist in the server market, we can really discount the idea of using OS/X)

 

Actually, on this, amusingly enough I had a Windows Sysadmin friend of mine make much the same arguments as are seen here against open source over the last few years.

 

Then he discovered a need for VPS servers and bought a Raspberry Pi at about the same time.

 

After losing a challenge to setup a Windows-based MX server on his Pi (Probably possible for the hardware specs, but MS doesn't allow it) he's been forced to use Linux and is coming around quite nicely.


Edited by Robert Bray - 7/7/13 at 5:56pm
post #157 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

Pure economic Gobbeldy gook !
You can't ascribe a $ value to something that doesn't have a price, then wrap it up nice and neatly and call it social surplus.
The fact that a dev turns around and sells it for $5 means its value is FIVE dollars not whatever number you pull out of your hat. If the dev could charge $10 do you think he/she would ? Of course they would. Then your social surplus would be what, 0 or would you try and up it because of lost Opportunity Cost just so that you can have a social surplus ?
What about if the dev sold it for $20 - does that mean that your social surplus is a negative number ? Is it now costing an economy to have something sell for what people are willing to pay for ?
My point being that it has to be able to be measured accurately - otherwise it's meaningless.

Just because consumers don't walk around with a sign that states their willingness-to-pay for a certain product doesn't mean that this concept doesn't exist. You also can't observe electrons directly - but we infer their existence from a long line of experiments.

For economists, the evidence is a transaction - it wouldn't happen unless the consumer's willingness-to-pay (WTP) wouldn't be greater than the price.

About your $20 example: consumers with WTP equal to $10 would not pay such a product but consumers with a WTP greater than $20 would. Hence, fewer consumers would buy the product but the surplus would always be positive unless you coerce the consumers with $10 WTP to buy the product.

The fact that there are firms out there who run Apache server and other OSS products means that their WTP is greater than 0. Now you might think that's the New York Time's WTP to run a website (they use Apache) is just 1 US cent or less and hence the surplus generated is almost zero - but I wager that the NYT would run a proprietary website such as Windows Server instead if there were no Apache. Hence, their WTP is at least whatever the license cost of Windows server would be - let's say $1000 (too low, but let's just stick to it for the sake of argument).

So this means that Apache enables surplus of at least $1000 for the NYT company.

Would it matter if Apache would not exist? Presumably not for the NYT - they would buy a webserver from (say) Microsoft and the same social surplus would be generated - except that it would be divided between the NYT and Microsoft instead of all going to the NYT.

However, what about small provincial papers or a school? It's entirely possible that they their WTP is less than $1000. Let's say it's $500. They couldn't run a website. In those cases, the existence of Apache creates a surplus of $500 which otherwise would be lost.

I don't think I am making any ground-breaking economics here - the marginal cost of replicating software is close to 0 and therefore it's unsurprising that it's efficient to sell it at price 0 (e.g. free).

It is possible that free software can diminish incentives to produce better proprietary alternatives - so a price of 0 might not be efficient if you take software creation into account.
post #158 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not sure how anybody can read the nonsense that DED posts. Like many other instance I get two or three paragraphs into the article and realize you can not fix stupidity.

Yes, but I bet you were not sitting by the pool, with bottle of beer in your hand (not sure if can would suffice). That puts everything in completely new perspective. 1wink.gif
post #159 of 310
@ BigMushroom - there's likely a Treasury official calculating the lost tax opportunity of social surplus 1biggrin.gif

"Gee, if only they'd charge for it, we'd have them !"

In the case of the school /newspaper - if the software suddenly cost them $500 and there were no other free alternatives, then it becomes a cost, it's not lost. It becomes a legitimate business expense and is therefore tax deductible.
Not wanting to nit pick or derail the thread
post #160 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray View Post

Unix-like (Which is mainly Linux) is at 65.6%
Windows is at 34.4%
And in third place is MacOS at <0.1%

http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/operating_system/all

From the looks of it, that's mainly going off HTTP servers, but it really depends what you're interested in.

Bind is the most common DNS server (85% as of 2010, I doubt it's declined). Also running on Linux.
http://www.securityweek.com/defense-bind-open-source-dns-software-yields-better-breed-secure-product

For MX servers, Exim (Linux) is apparently the most common at 45.95% market share
Followed by Postfix and Sendmail at 35.82% between them.
Behind them comes MS at 10.27%
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.201206/mxsurvey.html

For database servers, MySQL (Open source. Not exclusively Linux, but I understand that MSSQL controls the Windows server market, leaving... Linux. Kind of like how Apache will run quite happily on Windows) controls 54% of the market.

Hmm... this is all hard to confirm. Various data is available over the net, depending on method used for sampling.

For example, according to Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/01/09/an-overview-why-microsofts-worth-42/), Microsoft has 95% market share in the productivity software market, 75% share in the operating system market and approximately 75% share in the server software market.

And here (http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/the-enterprise-datacenter-os-war-is-over/) it is also stated that Windows holds 75% of x86 servers market, Linux having around 25% and Unix less than 1%. It is also said that non-x86 server hardware shipments are down to just a few % of all servers hardware shipped.

Anecdotal as it is, my personal experience is giving even more to Windows servers. We are (maybe?) specific for having all our major customers on Hyper-V by now, and typical scenario consists of number of Servers 2008 R2 and a few 2012 in Core mode, running (often more than one) virtual DCs, Apps, AV, Data, DMZ, Backup, Lync, SQL, SharePoint, RDS, Test... all Widows. Our biggest customer has around 80 servers (including HQ and branch hosts and VMs), the second one (more centralised) around 50 Windows servers... and zero anything else. Small as they are, these numbers are the only I can confirm, and to my knowledge, are relatively representative for this part of the world at least (NZ, Australia)... at least most our competitors and their customers run comparable setups.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open