[Sussex] From last nights conversation

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On 28 March 2003 at 10:24 Geoff Teale wrote:
<snip>
> Possibly, I have no reason to believe them, but the evidence is that
> Microsoft have been trying to kill off NT4 for some time now - this is
> normal business practice, no problem with that.

I have no doubt you're correct.  The speed at which Microsoft asked (told?)
OEMs to stop shipping Wind2K after the release of XP was incredible for me.

> I don't blame Microsoft for not fixing it - it isn't in their interest
> to do so 

But it could be.  It just appears to me, as an outside observer, that
Microsoft care little about supporting customers happy with older
version of their products.  What interests me in this is can we use
this to move sites over to systems where long term support is available.
I don't want Linux to win, and I don't want Microsoft to disappear.  I
just want choice in the market place.

> but their mechanisms mean they are the only people who could possibly
> fix it.

Which does support your argument that Microsoft aim to make money forcing
their clients to constantly upgrade.  But it could also indicate that
Microsoft are unable to support legacy code.

> I know of two Psycho-acoustics specialists who are funding
> development of Open Source BeOS clones because it is more effective
> for them to look for a future for BeOS than it is for them to redevelop
> their software on a different platform.  For Windows NT there are
> probably a few thousand companies in similar situations

But are these really comparable?  One is a highly specialised application
with (I suspect) only a few clients so the cost of supporting the OS BeOS
is less than porting their product.

Windows based apps have a much large market sector, and the port costs 
are therefore less of a burden per unit sale.

> currently they don't have a choice because there needs are not met by
> the vendor (because it doesn't mkae sense for the vendor), open source
> would not have left them in that position.

I don't think it is just open source here.  Any platform which offered a
stable API would also do.  Look at the upgrade problems Sun when through
with it's clients when the switched from BSD to SVR4.

> I won't argue that every company is in this position, they simply aren't,
> and I wouldn't argue that every Linux user is a kernel hacker, because
> equally they aren't - but from a customers point of view the 
> extra option is always a positive thing.

I think we're in violent agreement again!  

Steve