I wasn't aware of this but just a blurb about it last night from a MS guy.

Can you imagine paying a yearly subscription? One number I heard was $67US. To me that would just force many to switch to Linux and it's another example of Microsoft abandoning the everyday user.

One contradiction, though, is MS is trying to get into the home entertainment area. By charging a subscription you could "subscribe" to entertainment services included with the OS. Businesses already pay annual fees for multiple licenses so it won't be different for them.

Though MS could change their mind, I think this could tip many small developers over to Linux/BSD and independent development could create what MS fears...further competition from the open source crowd.
Posted on 2005-03-06 08:04:22 by drhowarddrfine
To deliver these benefits, Microsoft is aiming a few years ahead of the hardware curve. Few of today's PCs and none of today's handhelds are likely targets for Longhorn.

Microsoft's vote of no confidence in the future of many basic Web standards puts the company on a collision course with competitors who continue to invest in those standards -- and with customers who would like to see Web standards supported and advanced.

Avalon will run only on high-end PCs. A stripped-down version might be capable of running Windows CE, Dieken says, but "the spirit around Avalon is to exploit the PC as much as possible."

Avalon reboots Windows graphics to unify three modes -- documents, user interfaces, and media -- within a single display stack. According to Darryn Dieken, group program manager of Avalon at Microsoft, the massive effort has already produced nearly 20,000 APIs.

It makes no use of Web standards such as XHTML, CSS, or SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) and indeed invents its own counterparts to these.

If you decide there's competitive advantage in giving rich Avalon experiences to your intranet or Internet users, Microsoft will dramatically simplify the task. But you'll have to do everything again -- and very differently if you also want to reach the Web. Although ASP.Net 2.0 can surely help, Microsoft is doing nothing to improve Internet Explorer's support for DOM, CSS, SVG, or other standard ways to enrich the browser.

"it will be hard for some developers who have to make a choice."

Avalon's TV-like "presentation experiences" clearly favor the home entertainment center over the business desktop. An accelerated convergence of voice, video, and data could alter that equation, and Avalon is designed to help drive that convergence.



More reading I've done
Posted on 2005-03-06 08:23:54 by drhowarddrfine
What I don't like from Linux is the license, I thought at least Public Domain. Even my friends tell me that they want to switch to Linux,
:wink: I stay with XP and wait for later service packs.
Posted on 2005-03-06 10:46:05 by Xor Stance
The problem that I see with a license of that type is that most will simply not pay every year for the right to access the software and programs that they have bought. Imagine if you only use your PC for your banking, which alot of people do, and you have to pay a yearly fee just to access the software that the bank has given you for free.

Updates and enhancements could be purchased on a yearly contract however they have to at least provide the security updates for free. I already pay yearly subscription fees for various software, for example my AV, firewall, anti spyware and many other programs. I would not be too surprised if MS decided to do the same as most other companies.

I think that this is one of those rumours they float from time to time to see how badly the public reacts and base the decision on that. In the same way that politicians "leak" reports in order to get feedback before committing themselves to anything. Yet another no starter idea from the minds of Microsoft.

Ofcourse if they are serious, now would be a good time to buy stock in companies who develop Linux apps.
Posted on 2005-03-06 22:49:15 by donkey
Thanks Doc,

A good article and what looks like a developers nightmare. The rate of change and the endless changing the rules has already damaged the whole world of personal computing to the extent that a large number of developers develop only for the web as they have some chance of earning a living that way.

The "interconnectivity" style brain of recent OS versions has lead to an out of control disaster on the net because no-one took into account the security problem that followed from badly designed ideas.

When you can buy a cheap MAC G4 these days for peanuts that is web safe and handles word processing, entertainment like DVDs and the like, Longhorn is shaping up to be a massive lemon. I think by the time its up and running if that ever happens, I will be communiating by smoke signal instead.
Posted on 2005-03-07 05:50:41 by hutch--
8) Now I'm convince to switch to Linux. What I doubt if I trust in Linux,
I simply don't lke their jokes and it seems that there aren't really serious.
Linux it's a good name but the image given from them, it doesn't look like if they really had work. Most likely better developing in IDE our own Os if time allows us.
Posted on 2005-03-07 10:17:48 by Xor Stance
Remember that MAC and Linux are only safe because their current market shares are so convincingly low. If/when their shares raise to an interesting amount, you'll start seeing all their security flaws exploited :(
Posted on 2005-03-07 15:10:39 by f0dder
Another thing is it makes you wonder about all those developers who are saying to themselves, "Gee, everything I'm trying to learn right now will be obsolete in 2 years!"
Posted on 2005-03-07 18:49:04 by drhowarddrfine
Remember that MAC and Linux are only safe because their current market shares are so convincingly low. If/when their shares raise to an interesting amount, you'll start seeing all their security flaws exploited :(


Yup, I've always felt that way too. The only reason MacOS and Linux are seemingly secure is that very few people bother with it. Imagine when they begin to exploit any flaws and they have the actual source code to work with. Not a pretty thought but then as the sign in my office says...

Failure is not an option, it comes bundled with the software
Posted on 2005-03-07 19:10:30 by donkey
Linux it's a good name but the image given from them, it doesn't look like if they really had work.


I'm not sure about that. :-D

IBM is just one of many that are investing heavily in Linux these days. Keep in mind IBM already has 3 major OSes (and a few minor ones) for their mainframes, that all run on the new z machines. MVS (aka z/OS), VSE and VM have a history that goes back 40+ years. But they're spending big bux on Linux for their new big-iron z/Architecture systems. Just a few weeks ago they spent another $100,000,000 in the Linux push, and that's just the most recent investment...

:)
Posted on 2005-03-08 00:27:55 by S/390
Open Source fate is has some positive and weak points.

Good points, it will encourage a programmer who has time to study and experiment the code. Maybe he needs money so he use his head and sell it. He learns from this source code.

Weak points, anyone can own it if it's a big company. Some users will note that their software is used for commercial purposes and they will start another project name and get away from them.

What IBM will do, but it wasn't Bill Gates fault... Take vengeance, 8) anything with hatred, more bad things comes on. Let live Linux forever and implement source code from open sources to their os and sell it.
All the dirty work is done by Linux in the OS, Microsoft shouldn't fall behind to do it too.

Linux: imagine a man who has work hard and he lets anyone live in his home and he's kind, some sort like that, the problem it's the jokes.

If Linux stands as a company later but they still produce open source.
They will offer the purchase ver with better convenience:

1.Original print
2.Technical support better service
3.New useful softwares

However, I don't know if it was the era of darkness of the bloated code, what made them to rise up or they want to be friendly.
Posted on 2005-03-08 19:37:50 by Xor Stance
mac and linux aren't safer than windows because there fewer users !
thay are safer because thay are based on UNIX where the problems
that windows is suffering from have ben solved long ago in UNIX
and as long as you don't run as root or wheel all that can be Cracked
is the one users account active at the time of the attack the system is
still up and running to fix the damage done by the attacker
( yes that user can end up loosing everthing but he did do back ups diden't he
even root kiters at some point need root acess to install there root kit

as far as linux being open source this has uncovered holes BEFOR thay
were exploited and as soon as a hole is found it gets fixed
think about it did any Cracker ever realy need the source code to Crack
and infect windows and how long dose it tack M$ to fix a hole

Posted on 2005-03-20 18:21:05 by rob.rice
Rob,

You will whistle a different tune if you have to keep forum software up and running on Linux or FreeBSD servers. having seen the endless failures of PHPBB software with its endless security holes where hackers can access and destroy the database with published exploits by running a script, I see unix based systems as being just as vulnerable.

Its basically how savvy the user is when they set up a machine. My last virus was in 1994 while loading another machine using a lap link cable on win 3.1. I got caught with the OPASERVE worm about 4 years ago by taking my firewall down for 5 minutes and caught it the next day when the firewall started to complain about the log file.

Set up a linux box the wrong way and someone who is interested will own ROOT very quickly and you have the added joy that they can install thier own software on it and use it as their web server as well.
Posted on 2005-03-20 19:16:07 by hutch--
How come this thread is hijacked?
Posted on 2005-03-21 09:22:01 by roticv