Survey: Windows loses ground with developers

July 5, 2007 Leave a comment

From a recent InfoWorld article:

Microsoft’s Windows platform is losing traction as a target for application developers in North America but still is the dominant platform, according to Evans Data survey results being released on Tuesday.
Free IT resource

A survey this spring of more than 400 developers and IT managers in North America found that the number of developers targeting Windows for their applications declined 12 percent from a year ago. Just 64.8 percent targeted the platform as opposed to 74 percent in 2006.

“We attribute [the decline] largely to the increase in developers beginning to target Linux and different Linux [distributions]. Both Novell and Red Hat are the two dominant ones right now,” said John Andrews, the CEO of Evans Data.

The arrival of Windows Vista likely only kept the numbers from being even worse. “I think Vista probably offset some of the decline,” Andrews said.

The share for Windows is expected to drop another 2 percent, to about 63 percent, in the next year, Andrews said.

The targeting of Linux by developers increased by 34 percent to 11.8 percent. It had been 8.8 a year ago, according to the survey. Linux targeting is expected to reach 16 percent over the next year.

Evans views the situation as a battle of Windows versus open source with open source maturing, Andrews said. Windows remains tops, though. “They’re still dominant, there’s no doubt about it,” said Andrews. Use of Windows on the development desktop remains steady.

The survey, featuring developers at enterprises and solution providers like system integrators, covered both client and server application development.

Evans Data said the shift away from Windows began about two years ago and is accelerating. Linux is benefiting as are nontraditional client devices. Evans Data also surveyed developer plans for such platforms as Unix and Mac OS but did not release those numbers.

Now, I dislike “surveys” for a variety of reasons, which I’ve detailed in the past. They’re easy to manipulate, so can often come out saying whatever it us you want them to. That being said, I think in the right context and given the right qualifiers, surveys can be extremely informative. Sure, the linked survey isn’t without issue, so shouldn’t be taken without a grain of salt (only North America for instance, doesn’t seem to take into account people using languages that don’t target a specific platform). But, it comes to a general conclusion that seems congruent with what most people are hearing. As an industry wide trend, developer support for Windows is declining. I think that’s a leading indicator and one I’d be worried of if I were Microsoft. It’s not just Linux that they’re losing to, though. It’s Linux and OS X and the web (a huge one) and platform independent technologies and mobile devices and, well you get the idea. They are fighting a rising tide. I think < 50% of developers targeting Windows will be the watershed moment. Given the current trends, that may only be a few years off.

A quick note on a related topic. I often hear people say that many Open Source applications have surprisingly large download numbers for Windows. From asking around and thinking about this, that’s not surprising at all. I’d say it should be expected, in fact. You see, the adoption of Open Source apps in many companies is a grass roots type adoption. Because of this, coupled with the fact that Windows is still by far the dominant corporate desktop, you’ll get huge numbers of developers downloading various Open Source apps for Windows so they can test them out on their workstations. Once they are comfortable with the product and have a proof of concept, they very often (but of course not always) deploy them on non-Windows infrastructures. Raw numbers alone don’t always tell the whole story. It’s about context.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, Open Source

Massachusetts May Adopt OOXML – What Say You?

July 5, 2007 Leave a comment

Andy continues his prodigious coverage of the Massachusetts OOXML/ODF debate. From a recent post:

The Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD), the state agency that effectively launched the voyage of ODF around the world in August of 2005, has released a new version of its Enterprise Technical Reference Model. And this new draft includes Microsoft’s OOXML formats as an acceptable “open format.” The new draft was posted today here, and the very brief comment period will end on July 20. The header to the announcement at the ITD Web site reads as follows:

A review draft of ETRM v. 4.0 is available for review and comment from July 2nd through July 20th, 2007. Comments should be submitted to standards@state.ma.us. This major release of the ETRM updates content published in version 3.6, introduces the new Management Domain, enhances the ETRM’s format for accessibility and usability as well as provides additions and updates to existing language and technical specifications. For a detailed outline of major revisions made in this version please consult the Major Revisions for ETRM v.4.0 document.

The announcement is not a surprise to me, as I’ve been following the progress of the ITD’s internal reviews over the past six months. I’ve not been commenting on this publicly in order to try to give Bethann Pepoli (once again the interim CTO, since the departure of Louis Gutierrez) and her team the space to do their internal evaluations with less pressure than Peter Quinn experienced the first time around. However, and as you can imagine, the ITD has been under as much pressure behind the scenes (and perhaps more) as the legislators of those states that have recently tried, and failed, to pass laws that would mandate open formats in government.

The OOXML-related changes to the text of the ETRM are deceptively insignificant. By my word search, there are only three references: the inclusion of the name of the standard in the introductory summary of changes, a brief description and migration section in the Domain: Information part of the draft (scroll down and look for the “Open Formats” section), and the listing of Ecma among the other standards bodies on a list of “Relevant Standards Organizations.” But the potential impact of these change if retained will be great.

How much pressure has the Massachusetts ITD been under to accept Ecma 376? I’ve been told by those in the know that the contacts reached all the way to Deval Patrick, our new governor. Here, as in the states where legislation was introduced, the point was forcefully and repeatedly made that Microsoft is the kind of company that can provide jobs and other economic support where and as it pleases. And, to be fair, the same points were been made in the past by representatives of IBM and Sun when they have spoke out in favor of ODF.

Now we are looking at a very short comment period, commenced with no advance warning, spanning a holiday, and contained within one of the busiest vacation months of the year (one can’t help wondering why).

That makes the comment period less than 14 business days in a month that, as Andy points out, is one that is very popular for vacationing. Assuming the addition of ECMA 376 moves forward, the question becomes how large of a blow is this to ODF? Opinions on that remain all over the map. Some seem to think it’s a minor setback while others say it could potentially relegate ODF to being a footnote in history. The fact remains that OOXML still only has a single implementation. It’s also unclear if the latest version of Office completely implements the spec or implements items not in the spec. This means that if ODF adoption doesn’t gain any traction, Microsoft will easily be able to move forward with proprietary extensions, let ECMA 376 languish or even drop support in the future altogether. In other words, we’ll be right back where we started. That’s a bad thing. Andy has further coverage on the topic, including reactions from around the industry.

–jeremy

Filed under Microsoft, Open Formats, Open Source, Open Standards

Red Hat CEO Says He Talked Patents with Microsoft II

June 29, 2007 3 Comments

A quick follow up on this post based on some questions/comments that I got via email. First, no – I absolutely don’t think Red Hat is currently in discussion with Microsoft to sign a Novell-style patent deal. Note the bolding. They may very well be in some kind of discussion, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. If Microsoft privately went to Red Hat with potential patent infringements, even silly unspecified ones, then Red Hat would be obligated to address the issue. That would require discussion. It’s very tough to be the CEO of a public company these days. “No comment” is very often the only answer you can give without the MSM twisting your words in all kinds of directions. Also note that Red Hat may be in talks about specific and valid patents or talks about something completely non-patent related. Who knows – speculation on this is mostly useless. I do remain confident though, that a Novell-esque deal will not come out of this. Don’t forget that RHT is fundamentally an Open Source company. It’s in their DNA and it’s reflected in their employees and culture. Novell had one or two key people leave after they signed the deal. Red Hat would have an exodus. The C-level execs at Red Hat know this. They get Open Source at a very fundamental level themselves, in fact. The following is the last official statement I could find from Red Hat on this topic. In the end, I have no reason to believe that sentiment has changed.

“Red Hat has only recently been able to see some of the terms of the original Microsoft/Novell deal, due to the belated and redacted SEC filings that were made. Based on what we have seen, the deal is not interesting to us. Red Hat continues to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency.”

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, MSFT, Novell, Open Source, Red Hat

Windows Vista – 6 Month Vulnerability Report

June 22, 2007 1 Comment

Jeff Jones, a Security Strategy Director in Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing group, recently posted a 6 Month Vulnerability Report that compares Windows Vista, Windows XP, RHEL WS 4, Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Novell SLED 10 and Apple OS X 10.4. Jeff has pointed out his potential bias, so I won’t even get into that angle. This report indeed does a better job than some from a methodology standpoint. For instance, he didn’t simply compare a default RHEL install, which includes a full Office suite and a whole host of apps not found in a default Windows install, with a default Windows install. He attempted to rip out the packages from the Linux installs that he perceived as being extra functionality when compared to a Windows install. This gives a much better baseline.

I’d like to simply offer a couple items that I think make reports like these a bit misleading. First, there is no standard definition of what a “Critical” or “High” security level is. It’s usually up to the vendor. It’s therefore possible that some vendors would rate nearly identical vulnerabilities with different severities. Second (and more importantly), we’re of course only looking at reported vulnerabilities here. Due to the Open Source nature of Linux, it’s much more likely that vulnerabilities will be discovered, reported and addressed. I’d contend that there are many more unreported vulnerabilities (which can be and in fact are still exploited) in proprietary software. If done again, another component I’d like to see added is average time to fix from time of first report. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that there are points that can easily be made for the flip side of the coin. The obvious one is that with a much larger install base, many more people will be targeting XP and Vista than other operating systems. In the end, statistics can almost always be made to say whatever you’d like.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, Open Source

More Microsoft Patent Dealings

June 19, 2007 Leave a comment

So, Linspire is the latest company to sign a patent deal with Microsoft. They’ve even managed to wrangle some additional items they claim are not in the other deals:

Linspire Inc. has announced an agreement to license voice-enabled instant messaging, Windows Media 10 CODECs, and TrueType font technologies from Microsoft for its Linux distribution. Additionally, Microsoft will offer protection to Linspire customers against possible violations of Microsoft patents by Linux.

In his June 14 weekly Linspire Letter, Linspire CEO Kevin Carmony stated, “This agreement will offer several advantages to Linspire Linux users not found anywhere else, such as Windows Media 10 support, genuine Microsoft TrueType fonts, Microsoft patent coverage, improved interoperability with Microsoft Windows computers, and so on.”

Linspire has always been more willing than most to include proprietary codecs and drivers, so this is no surprise. While I may not agree with their stance, I do think they are legitimately trying to improve the desktop Linux experience, and you can’t fault them for that (or at least I don’t). I do find it odd that they’d choose to have a demonstrably inferior product in Live Search be the default, but I digress. What’s troubling once again is the inclusion of dubious patent protection. Now, Linspire (nee Lindows) and Microsoft have a tumultuous history. In that vein, this post has some interesting tidbits.

We now have three Linux distributions wrapped up in this patent debate. It was speculated that Mandriva may be next. Based on the profile of the latest two companies, it seemed a logical guess if you had to make one. It’s good to see that they have gone on the record saying that it’s not going to happen. Red Hat already rejected the idea and Mark made his feelings very clear in this post:

There’s a rumour circulating that Ubuntu is in discussions with Microsoft aimed at an agreement along the lines they have concluded recently with Linspire, Xandros, Novell etc. Unfortunately, some speculation in the media (thoroughly and elegantly debunked in the blogosphere but not before the damage was done) posited that “Ubuntu might be next”.

For the record, let me state my position, and I think this is also roughly the position of Canonical and the Ubuntu Community Council though I haven’t caucused with the CC on this specifically.

We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements.

Allegations of “infringement of unspecified patents” carry no weight whatsoever. We don’t think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together. A promise by Microsoft not to sue for infringement of unspecified patents has no value at all and is not worth paying for. It does not protect users from the real risk of a patent suit from a pure-IP-holder (Microsoft itself is regularly found to violate such patents and regularly settles such suits). People who pay protection money for that promise are likely living in a false sense of security.

I welcome Microsoft’s stated commitment to interoperability between Linux and the Windows world – and believe Ubuntu will benefit fully from any investment made in that regard by Microsoft and its new partners, as that code will no doubt be free software and will no doubt be included in Ubuntu.

He also goes on to state why he dislikes OOXML.

With regard to open standards on document formats, I have no confidence in Microsoft’s OpenXML specification to deliver a vibrant, competitive and healthy market of multiple implementations. I don’t believe that the specifications are good enough, nor that Microsoft will hold itself to the specification when it does not suit the company to do so. There is currently one implementation of the specification, and as far as I’m aware, Microsoft hasn’t even certified that their own Office12 completely implements OpenXML, or that OpenXML completely defines Office12’s behavior. The Open Document Format (ODF) specification is a much better, much cleaner and widely implemented specification that is already a global standard. I would invite Microsoft to participate in the OASIS Open Document Format working group, and to ensure that the existing import and export filters for Office12 to Open Document Format are improved and available as a standard option. Microsoft is already, I think, a member of OASIS. This would be a far more constructive open standard approach than OpenXML, which is merely a vague codification of current practice by one vendor.

The speculation as to what Microsoft’s end goals are with this remain all over the map. I maintain they themselves may not even be sure yet. One might think they are trying to fracture the Linux market – a sort of divide and conquer. As long as Ubuntu and Red Hat remain on the other side, however, that plan isn’t going to work. The only real loser in that scenario would potentially be Novell. It’s clear that smaller, desktop oriented companies are their current sweet spot, which says a lot in my opinion. Not sure where this is all going, but it’s getting more interesting to watch by the day. Stay tuned.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, MSFT, Novell, ODF, Red Hat, Ubuntu

Linux leaders plot counterattack on Microsoft

June 15, 2007 Leave a comment

This is from an article recently posted to Reuters about the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit:

Dressed in the alternative software movement’s casual uniform of T-shirts and jeans, the group is coming to grips with internal divisions that sap at its success — Linux is now used to power desktop computers, major Web sites, mobile phones — since rival factions often create very similar products.

But as many of the world’s top tech companies and corporate customers demand ever more from Linux, open source devotees still fight among themselves with the fervor of a tiny monastic order seeking to root out theological error in their midst.

“Guys: Be seekers of truth, not finders of contradiction,” Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, organizer of the event, only half-jokingly told the 150 attendees of what is billed their “Collaboration Summit.”

Collectively, the group is militantly opposed to Microsoft, which some attending the summit openly refer to as “the enemy.”

The thing I really don’t like about the article is the headline. It’s an attention grabber, meant to pull in readers. But, the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Having attended the event I can say the the subject of Microsoft was barely even broached. In fact, one of the panels included some of the best Open Source lawyers on the planet. The likes of Andrew Updegrove, Karen Copenhaver and Mark Radcliffe. The audience could ask this ridiculously prodigious group any questions they wanted. The recent Microsoft patent deals were not brought up a single time to my recollection. This summit was about how to better work together within our community, how to collaborate with each others in ways that make sense, how to improve freedom and how to build the absolute best products and services in the world. That’s a change from some events in the past, where it was about Microsoft. It’s good to see we’ve moved on to more important things. Yes, some people do disagree on some things. We’re able to rationally discuss those points as a community though, and through it all that makes us stronger. If 100% of the people in your organization agree on everything, you’re either not doing anything interesting or people are just scared to speak up. Both are bad.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Linux Foundation, Microsoft, MSFT, Open Source

Why Multiple Competing Standards are a Bad Idea

June 11, 2007 Leave a comment

A good look at why multiple competing products using an open standard is good, but multiple competing standards that do almost the exact same thing are not:

I guess one good result is that Microsoft has encouraged voting for OpenDocument, because that’s the only logical thing it can do if it really believes that having “many conflicting formats are a good thing”. In contrast, there’s no reason that someone who wants a truly open single format needs to vote for OOXML. It’s perfectly reasonable to reject OOXML on the grounds that it conflicts with an already-existing ISO standard (OpenDocument). If there’s something that OOXML does that OpenDocument doesn’t, it would be much easier to add that tweak to OpenDocument, because OpenDocument builds on existing standards while OOXML fails to do so.

Microsoft is not a “universal evil”, and I praise them when they do good things. But encouraging multiple conflicting standards for the same area is not a good thing. In some sense, I don’t care if MS XML or ODF become “the” format for office documents, as long as the final specification is truly open. But the materials noted above lead me to believe that MS XML is not really open; it appears to be effectively controlled by one vendor, both in its current and future forms, as one obvious example. So MS XML isn’t really an option, and we already have a nice working solution.

What I want is a single document format that is fully open. What’s that mean? See Is OpenDocument an Open Standard? Yes! to see what the phrase “open standard” really means. And let’s look at it in practice. Currently I can edit text documents using the program “vim”, and I don’t even bother to ask if the other person uses emacs, or Notepad… just by saying “simple text format” we can exchange our files. Similarly, I can edit a GIF or PNG file without wondering what originally created the file – or who will edit it next. That’s generally true with other standards like HTML, HTTP, and TCP/IP. That’s the beauty of open standards – real open standards enable a thriving industry of competing products, allowing users to choose and re-choose between them. I want to see that beautiful sunlight in office suites as well.

Interestingly, the issue of a single rail gauge standard during the civil war has come up in at least three recent examples that I can think of.

–jeremy

Filed under Microsoft, ODF, Open Source

A Patent Lie

June 9, 2007 Leave a comment

It’s great to see that the current patent situation is getting some attention in the main stream media. From the article:

The Gates memo predicted that a large company would “patent some obvious thing,” and that’s exactly what Verizon has done. Two of its patents cover the concept of translating phone numbers into Internet addresses. It is virtually impossible to create a consumer-friendly Internet telephone product without doing that. So if Verizon prevails on appeal, it will probably be able to drive Vonage out of business. Consumers will suffer from fewer choices and higher prices, and future competitors will be reluctant to enter markets dominated by patents.

But don’t software companies need patent protection? In fact, companies, especially those that are focused on innovation, don’t: software is already protected by copyright law, and there’s no reason any industry needs both types of protection. The rules of copyright are simpler and protection is available to everyone at very low cost. In contrast, the patent system is cumbersome and expensive. Applying for patents and conducting patent searches can cost tens of thousands of dollars. That is not a huge burden for large companies like Microsoft, but it can be a serious burden for the small start-up firms that produce some of the most important software innovations.

Yet, as the Vonage case demonstrates, participating in the patent system is not optional. Independent invention is not a defense to patent infringement, and large software companies now hold so many patents that it is almost impossible to create useful software without infringing some of them. Therefore, the only means of self-defense is the one Mr. Gates identified 16 years ago: stockpile patents to use as bargaining chips in litigation. Vonage didn’t do that, and it’s now paying a very high price.

Only patent lawyers benefit from this kind of arms race. And Microsoft’s own history contradicts Mr. Smith’s claim that patents are essential for technological breakthroughs: Microsoft produced lots of innovative software before it received its first software patent in 1988. As more and more lawsuits rock the industry, we should ask if software patents are stifling innovation. Bill Gates certainly thought so in 1991, even if he won’t admit it today.

Here’s hoping some progress is finally made on actually fixing the issue.

–jeremy

Filed under Microsoft, Open Source

Mobile is dead! (or the flexibility of Linux)

June 7, 2007 Leave a comment

Reading this post is a great reminder as to just how flexible Linux really is:

Back in the good old days we created mobile software from scratch. We created home grown operating systems for mobile phones, mobile stacks and UI frameworks, primitive light weight file systems, and so on. Back then, CPUs were lazy and flash was poor. Thus, we built dedicated software for mobile devices – and we called it Mobile Software ™.

Today, we run Linux, X, Gnome, Flash, and friends on Nokia N800. Our big idea form the start was to run –as closely as possible– a desktop Linux stack. Others will start to do the same and I predict that mobile software will thus eventually die. All we need is software that runs everywhere.

The N800 is a great example of this. For the most part it runs a fairly stock Linux (It’s Debian based – if you’ve never seen an N800 it’s a fantastic device and one I’m throughly enjoying). This is becoming the case even with things as small as a mobile phone. It’s “just” Linux. On the other end of the spectrum we have mainframes that run “just” Linux as well. Now sure, there are differences in kernel compile options, and while the mainframe will utilize NUMA the phone will have many things ripped out. In the end though, both are true Linux. That means you can use the same tools, the same developer knowledge and in many cases the same apps. Whether it be a phone, a tablet, a desktop or a server – it’s Linux. That’s a powerful proposition. OS X looks to be offering that same flexibility (and it’s not surprising, being BSD based) with the iPhone. Compare this paradigm to the Windows world. If you have a mobile or tablet it may run Windows Mobile, but it may run Windows CE. For a desktop you can choose between a couple versions of XP or myriad versions of Vista. For a server you have Windows 2003. Now most apps that work on XP will work on 2003 and many will work on Vista. I don’t think there is any compatibility between say Vista and Mobile or even Mobile and CE. You have different tool sets for many of these, completely different kernels in many cases and some have arbitrary limitations that I don’t quite understand from a technical perspective. Behind the scenes this all has to be a nightmare to manage and I’d guess the duplication of effort is astounding. Makes me glad I run Linux on almost every device I own :)

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, Open Source

Xandros signs up with Microsoft

June 4, 2007 Leave a comment

It looks like Xandros has signed a deal similar to the recent Microsoft Novell one. From the press release:

Today Microsoft Corp (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Linux platform provider Xandros Inc announced a broad collaboration agreement based on a set of technical, business, marketing and intellectual property commitments. These commitments provide customers with enhanced interoperability, more effective systems management solutions, and intellectual property assurances, all of which extend a bridge between open source and commercial software and deliver customers real value in mixed systems environments.

For Xandros, the agreement marks a major milestone in its vision of delivering end-to-end Linux desktop and server solutions as well as Windows(R) and Linux cross-platform management and interoperability tools.

“Companies today are running a mixture of Linux and Windows systems,” said Andreas Typaldos, chief executive officer of Xandros. “Cross-platform data centres are a reality. To meet evolving customer needs, vendors need to recognise the value of sharing intellectual property, developing more interoperable solutions, and providing management tools that are familiar and easy to use.”

— Intellectual property assurance. Through the agreement, Microsoft will
make available patent covenants for Xandros customers. These covenants
will provide customers with confidence that the Xandros technologies
they use and deploy in their environments are compliant with
Microsoft’s intellectual property. By putting a framework in place to
share intellectual property, Xandros and Microsoft can speed the
development of interoperable solutions.

— Microsoft sales and marketing support. The companies are committing to
a set of sales and marketing efforts to promote the output of their
technical efforts. As part of this effort, Microsoft will now endorse
Xandros Server and Desktop as a preferred Linux distribution due to
Xandros’ efforts to establish rich interoperability and deliver IP
assurance to its customers. Also, a specialised team of Microsoft
staff will be trained on the value propositions of this collaboration
to customers and channel partners. Xandros will also become a member
of the Microsoft Interop Vendor Alliance.

It should be interesting to see how the community responds to the one. Xandros hasn’t exactly been able to get much traction in the marketplace and this may very well have just been a move to stay alive. Details are a bit light at the moment, but I’d guess we’ll be seeing more very soon. Stay tuned.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →