And meanwhile in Munich…
They run "Windows? Nein!"
Microsoft has at last revealed the date when its second major update to Windows 8.1 will ship to customers: never. Despite months of speculation that the software giant has been planning to push out another major update roll-up for its latest OS this year, much like it did with the oddly named Windows 8.1 Update in April, …
"WINE and other crutches"
As you well know, WINE can be required because many software companies can't be bothered to produce Linux versions.
Strange that Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, GoogleEarth, Chrome, Skype, Open/Libre Office and others seem to be able to manage that.
We are not talking "mass market" software here but specialist packages for city jobs. Those have a small licence base and are programmed based on customer request and profiles. If 99 cities say "Windows" and one says "Linux" the latter has to pay for each and every change it needs. And if the software needs certifications/checks - you pay fully for those as well unlike the other 99 who "share" the costs at least partially.
And that assumes the software is written in a language that runs on Linux. Let's face it, if my main customer base is "Windows" there is no reason NOT to use the latest versions of C# and .NET (and no, Mono is NOT a substitute since they are n, n > 1, versions behind). I did some work for power companies and they demanded "native Windows software". Well, I programm what is payed and since Windows software is payed well, I do that.
And all that is before we add the "financed by others" (OO) element and the "let's hook the trade goods so we can rip of their data" (Chrome, G-Stuff) elements.
"We are not talking "mass market" software here"
I've had plenty of experience in specialist scientific software packages with a VERY limited user base. Companies still managed, in many case to produce Linux/Mac/Windows versions although often Linux/Mac versions were only available as Windows wasn't deemed stable enough - this is Win2000 time.
"if my main customer base is "Windows" there is no reason NOT to use the latest versions of C# and .NET"
Then Windows is not your MAIN customer base its your ONLY customer base and by definition you are biased.
As for the nonsense that is your last paragraph
Yawn. Those companies did offer that software because - CUSTOMER DEMAND! No companie that want's to stay in business and earns it's money through software would do stuff "because somewhere in the 1.4 percent user base one might be interested".
I am not doing .NET as my main job, 80+ percent in the last 10+ years where JAVA, quite a bit J2EE. But if a customer is paying - I can do C# as well. Or PHP. Heck, I even do Fortran if I am payed. Mercenary all the way.
"You mean because there is no demand / market"
There's not likely to be a market if people can't be ar*ed to produce the goods. (Google "Chicken & egg" - you seem to have sufficient expertise with computers ). Plenty of commercial software for Android BTW.
The scientific software I was referring to below (closed source for Linux) was VERY, VERY expensive but did the job - no problem spending the money. If some commercial software was actually significantly better than the free and/or open-source alternatives I'd have no problems spending on that. As it is I just donate.
Getting back to Munich, they have it on record that one of the main drivers to go open-source was to have control of their future, saving money was a bonus.They just didn't want to be locked-in to Microsoft's vision of the world. Can't blame them for that. As for mmeier's comment about their spend on support - well, if true, they can certainly afford it with all that they are saving
We are talking
FULL time staff in germany! Where the taxes/healthcare etc. can easily be as high as the money you pay out to your employee.
Still having to pay for Windows/MS Office/Citrix because they can not get rid of it
Maintaining their own distribution
They are definitly NOT saving money. What little they saved on licences (and no 1000+ units customer pays list price) they more than spend on personal.
As for chicken&egg: WHY should a company spend considerable manpower on writing software that no one asks for. We are NOT talking MS or SAP here, more the 50-500 employees range of software houses that offer "general base package + tailoring". So as said before:
IF München wants a Linux version, than München has to order it and pay for it as well as for the additonal maintenance requirements. I am sure if the money is right the companies will take the job. Granted, it WILL cost a lot more than the MS Licences for Office up to Office 2033 and therefor may NOT fit in the LiMux plans.
And if München wants that software to be general available - put that in the contract. The software houses LOVE that. One customer to pay for dev and every "extra" however (un)likely is a bonus
No they have not. Otherwise they wouldn't need all those Citrix systems, Windows servers and WINE crutches. Ordering a Linux version of the software packages would have been very costly and LiMux preferred to hide most of the extra costs in ther personal budget instead of showing them in the software budget.
Other cities like Freiburg where smarter and checked the software costs BEFORE the migration. After the costs where tallied - they went with the solution that was cheaper.
When third parties have the ability to change program code on a weekly basis effective configuration management and testing become impossible. Security patches (many of which I'm convinced would not be required if sound software design practices were followed) are arguably necessary. Extending the scope of the changes to include updates to the Applications is going to produce chaos.
It was bad enough having to try to figure out where MS had hidden the start/shut down button when they moved from W7 to W8. The demand for novelty and constant change has one inescapable effect. If an existing function is optimal, change can only degrade it. I can just imagine the fun of trying to figure out where they have hidden different functions on a week to week basis.
Whatever happened to "do it right the first time" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
"effective configuration management and testing become impossible."
Are you talking in a personal and/or small business context? Then maybe, but only if you have your update settings set to automatically download and install all updates.
In an enterprise environment proper change management of software updates and testing can easily be managed. Turn off automatic updates in Windows and all your other software and deploy all your updates and patches with either a simple WSUS set up for purely MS updates or with even greater granularity and support for deploying other application updates using SCCM.
You can't complain about Microsoft's update release strategy causing chaos if you don't use the available tools to manage it. Default automatic installation of all updates is only really a suitable approach for individual and small group users who don't care about managing their environment and experience.
Don't want to check what each update does before installing? Just stick to only installing security updates, which can easily be done, as these rarely have any impact on UI/UX.
It's not that I don't care about home users, on the contrary. It's just that I haven't yet met a home user who was excessively baffled or inconvenienced by any cosmetic or functional updates delivered to them either automatically or through them clicking to accept them.
I frequently support a number of largely computer illiterate friends and family who mostly managed to use Windows 8 (moving from Windows 7) with no great problems, just some minor grumbles about it being different, they were perfectly happy with it within a month.
Moving from 8 to 8.1, caused them even less grief, they barely noticed the Start button had been added, but they did start using it. Similarly with 8.1 Update 1, they noticed no difference and it caused them no problems.
For the type of person incapable or uninterested in managing and monitoring their updates at home, installing them all automatically will generally not cause them any problem, but may well offer them some performance or security benefits.
For non-home users their are a variety of tools and methodologies available for managing updates.
I suspect that the next step from this will be to remove the separation between feature updates and security updates. That will make development easier, and going forward, MS' internally perceived competition is rather more nimble than they are.
If they don't do this, testing a growing complexity of interaction between different levels of installation of security updates and UI/feature updates will become a huge problem. Look at the way they're dropping support for 8.1 pre update 1 - they're trying to manage the variety of system configurations they need to test against.
"I suspect that the next step from this will be to remove the separation between feature updates and security updates"
Won't happen, simply because of the rage it would cause from Microsoft's large corporate cash cow customers, many of whom will only ever install security updates.
At worst they may remove the separation between them in the Home efitions of Windows, but I don't see it happening in Professional and Enterprise or Server editions.
"Won't happen, simply because of the rage it would cause from Microsoft's large corporate cash cow customers, many of whom will only ever install security updates."
How would you describe the new IE patch/release/support policy then? There's Enterprise mode as a mitigation, but I suspect it won't be 100% - even the MS web site describing it says " designed to emulate Internet Explorer 8,"
That's a pack of codswallop. Even with the 'smartest' tools like MS SCCM, System Center Service Manager and all the other collateral that Microsoft throw at us in the name of 'configuration management', most folks wouldn't have a scooby how an impacts their environment. WSUS gives you the right to 'choose' what to update if you have an on-site instance and Service Manager and SCCM are dumb to the updates apart from their file extension and any wrapper that goes around them.
And 'choosing' means 'deciding not to' in some cases for an update. Great! you know that you don't know what you're missing.
I love Linux (which makes me a rabid, jihadist monk who talks in binary and awk) which comes in major builds (and stable LTS versions) which means every time I run a big update, it's all taken care of. Oh and I can have whatever interface I choose. Including Unity, which makes Metro look like a Fisher Price toy.
"When third parties have the ability to change program code on a weekly basis effective configuration management and testing become impossible."
Linux seems to cope OK - but yes configuration management, update release coordination and testing do rather suck with many distros compared to Windows.
"Whatever happened to .... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
People got an education? There is no such word as "ain't" and you mean 'broken'
Security patches ... are arguably necessary. Extending the scope of the changes to include updates to the Applications is going to produce chaos.
Not applications, the UI is where the problem is. Applications can have security issues too or have additional functionality added without causing much in the way of distress, but if the entire menu system is rearranged (e.g. drop-downs for ribbon) there might be a bit of trouble. Decouple functionality from cosmetics and things will get a lot better for all.
"How long until a functional update
...bricks millions of machines?
I betting within 6 months."
Linux seems to manage OK with a far less organised and more chaotic update system in many cases. Seeing as Microsoft patches get fully integration and regression tested unlike many Linux updates, they shouldnt be any worse...
"Linux seems to manage OK with a far less organised and more chaotic update system in many cases. Seeing as Microsoft patches get fully integration and regression tested unlike many Linux updates, they shouldnt be any worse..."
Please stop commenting on Linux until you actually have some real experience to back up your claims, because they certainly don't line up with my own experience.
@Hargrove - 'Whatever happened to "do it right the first time" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"'
"do it right first time"!!! You mean you have never used any Microsoft software, or to be honest any software of any substance. If software suppliers produced cars it would look like a CV2 and arrive with no wheels, you would never be able to trade it in as you don't actually own it.
It is broke and they are struggling to fix it :-( The only issue as I see it is that Microsoft's definition of broke is somewhat different to yours and mine.
> "do it right first time"!!! You mean you have never used any Microsoft software, or to be honest any software of any substance.
Some of us remember Veritas software. That was an excellent example that showed it was possible to produce rock solid software. The trouble is that marketing wins over engineering, e.g Oracle vs. Ingres, Shimano vs. Campagnolo, Bose versus Gale. Marketing people don't believe that a design can ever be optimal.
"It is broke and they are struggling to fix it :-( The only issue as I see it is that Microsoft's definition of broke is somewhat different to yours and mine."
My definition (and the dictionary's) of 'broke' as an adjective is out of of money. You must have had a sadly lacking education as you obviously meant 'broken'...
You what? I never even considered that that might be a problem needing an update.
My laptops, going back to an old but venerable Tosh SatPro PIII to a current SatPro, via a couple of Dells, has always allowed use of the touchpad and mouse at the same time. Of course, they were all running one version or another of Xubuntu.
On the other hand, I've certainly used WinXP and later with two mice plugged in and/or two keyboards on a desktop PC, either or both of which can be used.
Am I missing something about this update? Are MS talking about two independantly controlled pointers on screen?
You what? I never even considered that that might be a problem needing an update.
Neither did I, so I've just booted my laptop into Win8.1U1 (not something I do all that often - I mainly do it to ensure it gets the monthly updates...) to see that I already have a checkable option to "disable internal pointing device when external USB pointing device is attached".
I also have the ability to "select whether right-clicks are allowed on the touchpad, and enable dragging by double-tapping." (although since I hate tapping - far to easy to do it accidentally - I turn it off.
So Microsoft is going to give me an update to enable something that is already possible. Don't they actually know what their OS can do?
Or is it that this is currently done by the Synaptics driver, rather than Windows? In which case I predict I'm going to have fun sorting out the resulting dog-fight with conflicting options in different parts of configurations menus (nothing unusual there for Windows).
the author is suggesting that Win9 will probably be Win8.1 SP1.
In which case I might be sticking with XP for longer than I expected!!!!
(Still updating nicely since adding the "POS" entry to the registry)
(I always assumed "POS" stood for "Piece of sh.....................................................
...this is it.
Let us review, shall we? Now no longer can we expect the updates to simply fix critical problems, now they will also cram more of Microsoft's "View of the World" (more accurately, an ADHD-addled Millennial marketdroid with self-esteem issues's dystopia) down our collective throats.
Consider this: Basically, nobody likes the stuff coming out of the Microsoft pipe recently, which probably really pissed off said marketdroids and their collective handlers. So they figured out a way to bundle the crap nobody wants with the other crap everybody thinks they need, and made it an all-or-nothing proposition. I don't know about you, but I know how I'm voting on that proposition.
So near to Windows 8's EOL (it can't come soon enough) someone with a new system will need to update to 8.1, then 8.1 Update 1, then download about 900 patches, sorry, updates followed by Classic Shell.
No problem for enterprise though, it's another reason just to stick with Windows 7... forever.
What's going on inside MS? Does anyone know? Do they know?
"No problem for enterprise though, it's another reason just to stick with Windows 7... forever."
Any enterprise that goes with Windows at the next refresh is totally moronic. I can't think of one reason for that. Even the Exchange/Outlook pig is ready for culling.
We've got a business critical windows only (ties to DirectX, touches the hardware and has millisecond level timing requirements (which are already an issue with the new sound subsystem in Vista, 7 and 8) app which doesn't work properly in VMware.
We are due to do a new deployment around Christmas, of machines which typically have 1-2 TB of user data on them and have an expected lifespan of 5+ years. The logistics of reimaging those machines midlife to prevent them having 7 on them past the end of support doesn't appeal. Neither does deploying them with 8.1.
"Any enterprise that goes with Windows at the next refresh is totally moronic. I can't think of one reason for that. Even the Exchange/Outlook pig is ready for culling."
I've just found my first customer who don't do the Windows thing wholesale. They seem quite happy running Linux on everything - quite refreshing really. Things aren't perfect - as you'd expect - but the flaws are simple admin things and not OS related.
They aren't anti commercial stuff, they just don't like MS's offerings. I've just P2V'd their systems into VMware with a dose of Veeam sprinkled in.
This is in the north of Somerset (county) which, for the benefit of our ex-colonial friends, is a pretty rural part of the UK.
> "Things aren't perfect"
When I recently made the switch, things where a lot better than people (Windows fans) said.
I've stopped complaining about Windows 8.x, I no longer have to worry about how Microsoft's next brain-fart will screw things up. So a few Word documents aren't pixel perfect - who cares? I now have my computers back! I thought I'd miss Visual Studio - but they're destroying it, and it's only good for Microsoft tech, not the web.
What I'm trying to say is, it feels such a relief to no longer depend on Microsoft.
What I'm trying to say is, it feels such a relief to no longer depend on Microsoft.
I emigrated from the Microsoft world across to the world of Open Source some years back… initially I just spent holidays there, but in 2001 I packed my bags and moved there permanently.
I'm in a much happier place. A place where I can give as well as take. A place where I'm in charge of my own destiny.
Of course, I do sometimes travel back to the Microsoft world, but in most cases those are work-related business trips.
This company upgraded.....to Ubuntu!
I like the last sentence:
As Sang-Hoon Kim, President and CEO of Bukwang Pharmaceutical, explained: “At first, we just wanted to save money. But we never expected the free publicity that would result, nor did we expect to launch a profitable new business. For all our success so far, however, it still feels like we are at the beginning of our open source journey.”
Screw up Tuesday. No... I do not use W8 but MS's "W7 updates" forced me to image my pc every day so when the "updates" were installed I could repair the damage quickly and easily.
Yes, I know I can choose to download or install or not, but until they are installed you do not know if they are harmless or not.........
ermmm why don't you just have a few test configurations running as VM's. You test your updates on these first and if they work then deploy them to your production. We NEVER deploy updates as soon as they're released either we always wait a week or so you tend to hear of any updates that might cause a major issue.
And there is no need to image your PC either as Win7 will take a system restore image before the update is applied, so if the PC gets fecked up boot up in to recovery and restore to the last system restore.
Just when you think light is indeed at a tunnel somewhere being shined, they say 2015.
My knowledge of windows 8 is limited to a three day trial and argument over licencing with MS. (As and upgrade licence that formats your hard drive by accident because the installer is written by a bunch of retards invalidates your licence and you need to buy a full licence.)
However recently I have had a spate of relatives and friends with crippling viruses, the like of which I can only remove with a fresh install as AV won't touch it and they are hijacking browsers and rewrite the host file with 127. entries.
But all problems in fixing it stem from the very poor design in how the system sets itself up. And how you navigate between areas.
If it wasn't for Google and Safe mode (And my bought CD of windows 8) There would be a few more Windows 7 licences in use and less Windows 8.
And not for the reason that most MS haters would wish for. I can seriously imagine a time not so far away when MS drop the number from the name and end up just calling it Windows. After all, nearly all of the current references to Office now refer to Office 365 rather than Office 2014 - it wouldn't be a leap to imagine Windows going in a similar direction and by moving to an incremental update model for features as well as updates is a sign of things to come.
I wonder if Windows itself will move to an Office365 style subscription model too? Now that's a controversial idea...
Considering Nadella's cloudy background, I think Windows will move to a 'software as a subscription' model sooner rather than later. In fact, you can deduce this from Window 8's annoying habit of nagging you to sign in with your Microsoft account.
Fortunately, for my fellow Microsoft-hating comrades, this will most definitely spell the ultimate end of Microsoft as we know it. If there's anything we detest, it is an operating system that we have to cough out money every month for and one that demands you to be online all the time. If Microsoft hadn't yet learnt from the Xbox One debacle, it is daft.
and why SP7 was cancelled for NT4. I ran and tested preview NT4 USB stack that would have been in SP7. Win2K drivers / applications worked on it.
Or why no SP4 for XP.
They don't like SP since they moved to online updates. I'm amazed there were ANY SPs for any windows after XP SP3
Lots of people still don't have Broadband. They need SP CDs.
For many "free" isn't cheap enough when it comes to the Great Eight and Ridiculous Ribbons...
Perhaps they will move to "Suffering As A Service"....
Where they pay people to "suffer in silence" each month...
Would still only be attractive to masochists...
But then there are a lot off them about [in the corporate environment]...
CHORUS [you know you really want to join in]
Deadwood Redmond stage is coming on over the hill...
Whip crack away, whip crack away, whip crack away
Doesn't that feel better???
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019