The grammar nazi has parsed your blog. replace "propriatory" with "proprietary"

I stopped reading the article when I saw this line and I did not read further:

I am in no way a Microsoft defender. I was writing BSD (4.1) and SYS V drivers when you were still on your momma's knee.

I find it difficult to believe that BSD 4.1 existed in the 50's and don't you get sick of these old codgers who are passed it and think everyone else is a pimply faced script kiddy!

Well as another "old codger" who is not "passed it" no matter what others may opine, I too remember when OS battles kept the market fractured and application development stunted. Today my servers are evenly split between MS and Linux platforms. Both are good and both have issues with which to deal.

Love or hate BillG and Microsoft, what we got has been two decades of a relatively stable environment which created an active, competitive and robust market for both hardware and software development. Things could have been and probably would have been far worse.

And yes, Microsoft does run the risk on imploding. And yes if it does, we will all pay a heavy price.

Interesting how the 'EU' is echoing that court battle today with pre-emptive moves rather then just breaking it up or limiting their market share from the outset.
I think virtualazation will save us all even more then FOSS. Playstation3 is using it and they will be running multiple OS's, like Linux, more like applications. So in the end it's Xen. I think relying too much on the OS in the 80s created this monster.

"Love or hate BillG and Microsoft, what we got has been two decades of a relatively stable environment which created an active, competitive and robust market for both hardware and software development. Things could have been and probably would have been far worse."

UNIXlike was in everything from cable boxes to digital watches to servers.
People didn't start using Windows until the late 90s and I think MS-DOS was not the total market. I remember using OS/2 in my CAD class (DataCad, Cadkey, Aldus Pagemaker), at school in 1993. I understand the porting issue but that's life I guess. It's easy as pie to port in FOSS and with Xen...Look at the KDE vs Gnome example.
Wasn't software more open in the 1960s-1970s and it was easier to port? Also, to me, natuarally people should train in rudimentary languages that are cross platform.

In the end we can point fingers everywhere but it's just Gordon Gekko style greed.
This coming from a person who grew up in a shattered utopia. The Wall Street movie was supposed to help stop this but it wasn't enough in the end.

The comment that caught my eye is "Think of retraining 5,000 workers on a new OS and productivity suite."

The obvious inference is that Linux has these "hidden" training costs ... but so does Microsoft. I know of organizations that had to retrain 5,000 people when they moved from one Windows OS to another Windows OS ... so how is this a reason to go with a Microsoft OS?

At best, this is intellectual laziness ... forgetting to make an apples to apples comparison in the costs of competitive products.

At worst, it is bait and switch ... Microsoft claims Vista will have all of these powerful new features and exciting new functionality ... and you won't need extra training for your staff to make use of it?

All of which ignores the "overall productivity" issue ... Windows may have done wonders to stabilize programmer productivity (as the author mentioned, you don't need to code for a dozen different OSes), but that does not mean there aren't better alternatives that could provide better worker productivity.

Mark,

I've been trying for years to get users to try new platforms that would make their lives easier, more reliable, more fun, more productive, or whatever. All training (including MFST upgrades like you indicate) has a cost (albeit, I assume you agree that that the Windows upgrade path for the common user from 95 -> XP was not that traumatic).

Moving to a Linux or OS X desktop is another matter. Most user REALLY DON'T GIVE A DAMM about their tools/desktop/technology -- they just want the damm thing to work. Training them on another way to get the same things to work is ALWAYS RESENTED. That's why the obviously superior interfaces/platforms/technolgies are not adopted. Laziness and inertia.

It's bad -- of course it is. But since it is based on human nature -- this resentment will not change. You can apply strategies to lessen it, smooth out the transition, generate resentment for the existing platform (e.g. -- "Sorry -- you can't use that cool new application since we are on Windoze"), but you can't eliminate it. And that resentment is the heart of the real cost of transition to any new platform.

If Vista is really that different for the average corporate user, then you will have the same issue. If you are claiming that this transition cost is equivalent to migration to a more sane platform (OS X or Linuz), then I think you have lost your mind (respectfully :-).

Can't agree with you. I have spent far too many hours recovering muy system after a crash brought on by a Microsoft program to have any sympathy for that company. If you have to pay top dollar for a product shouldn't it at least work properly? Shouldn't it be stable enough not to require endless reinstallations? Microsoft sell products which are partially completed so that they can issue 'updates' and charge outrageous fees every time. And every time we are told that this latest version is more stable, more hack proof, more user friendly and ever time the promises are hollow. You stick to Microsoft if you want but I can assure you that your advocacy won't save them from themselves crashing in the bext 10 years. You can gouge people only so often. The game is up for Microsoft. I will never buy one of their products again.