Linux?

I saw that on /. today.. I wonder if any institutional folks here can tell us if x86 SlowLartis is being used in their envrionments..

I do know that Bloomberg supports Solaris 7, but not on intel..

 

With fewer desktops running Linux than even Mac, it seems tough for a software company to justify spending the time and money to do it - especially since in most of these cases it's not really a "port", more like a rewrite and then having to do duplicate support/maintenance/development. The incremental marketshare would be trivial. If they were going to do it at all, it seems there'd be a better business case to target Mac as a secondary platform.

And Java's hardly the magic solution people want to believe (technical and cost factors aside - you're still talking about a complete rewrite for small incremental sales).

 

True, there may be fewer desktops running Linux than the Mac now, but Linux is also growing very quickly, faster by far than Apple, who's constrained by the need to buy new hardware to run MacOSX (which is also a fine OS), as well as a license that prohibits massive growth rather than encourages it.

Linux is an undervalued, fast-growing, worldwide movement. It has strong support from large corporations like IBM, Sun, Sony, Oracle, and others. It is licensed so that it can never die - there's no company to put out of business and there are no restrictions allowed on sharing the operating system itself. Linux is free to share among friends, which will allow for even faster exponential growth as it catches on with the common man. It has government mandates in many countries with more governments joining daily.

If you've learned anything about trading, what is it? Buy low and sell high. And don't let fear prevent you from getting into a good trade. If application developers wait until Linux is as popular as Windows to support them, they will have lost their competitive advantage to the masses of competition who were smarter, faster, and hungrier. They will lose out because of fear and foot-dragging. Right now, the Tradestation people (for example), think Windows will be on top forever, like people thought Apple and Amiga would be on top forever, or the Commodore 64, or Lotus1.2.3, or VisiCalc, or Wordperfect. They're not prepared for change, which to me says they'll get wiped out when change does come. And it will. It will probably happen first everywhere but North America, because here, Microsoft has the home team advantage. India and China, on the other hand, see Microsoft as offering a product which is expensive, American-controlled, with possible backdoors, lots of viruses, unstable, and no access to the source code and no freedom to adapt it to their specific needs. They see Linux as the exact opposite. And they're right.

The situation for application vendors as I see it is not "being the first to risk supporting an alternate operating system", as much as it is "getting in on the ground floor, getting a strong user base established before the competition arrives". Basically, it's buying low and selling high. Being a contrarian. And some of the people who make technical analysis software actually trade. And those who do will instinctively see the value in investing for the longer-term to make the big payoff - imagine if Wealth-Lab or AmiBroker is already an entrenched Linux standard before the Tradestation guys even consider porting their software! Pretty hard to unseat the reigning king.

And yes, it'll be hard for Linux to unseat the reigning OS king Microsoft, but it's also hard for Microsoft to beat *free*. That's a pretty good price. And technically, Linux is superior in many ways, and is getting more user friendly and more commercial applications daily. I think that within five years, Windows will be in big trouble from this emerging competition.

Linux on the desktop gets a STRONG BUY rating from me. They're going up, not down. It's inevitable.

 

You know what? I think that Microsoft will kill itself on its own.

With the world domination Palladium environment, Microsoft will force itself out of its own market. Who wants palladium stuff...my god. If anybody, traders will be the first to hate it with geeks.

That's why it is your duty to switch to Linux and get acquainted with it and make the transition smooth than by being forced to, at the last minute.

 

Schattenjäger -

My earlier comment had nothing to do with whether Linux will surpass the Mac market share or whether it's "better" than Mac or Windows - both of which are highly subjective, frought with religious debate, and in the final analysis are meaningless to the specific point.

Software vendors are in business to make a buck - not exhort techno-religious prognostications. Investing a lot (and make no mistake, it would be a LOT) of dough to rewrite their existing software that currently runs under Windows (where don't forget, the mass of their users currently are) on merely the "possibility" (and again it is only a possibility and probably not a very large one) that Linux might someday develop sufficient market share on the desktop to make their expense and effort worthwhile, isn't a very good use of resources and would have a very long return on investment (assuming they EVER even broke even on it) and a lot of companies have gone belly up betting on the come like that.

Far better business strategy for these guys to make as much as possible from what they've got, wait to see if the Linux desktop space ever grows large enough, and then worry about deciding if it's worth spending the money to deliver their products there.

Any supposed risk of waiting to see if the market ever develops into something worthwhile is marginal. And what you characterize as "foot dragging" is prudent use of company resources.

 

ArchAngel, I agree that caution is good sometimes - "Look before you leap".

But they also say, "He who hesitates is lost". And I think it would take a month or less for a company to thoroughly research the strengths and weaknesses of Linux and come up with a conclusive decision as to whether or not Linux has a future, and if it does, how they can profit from Linux. They can both be cautious and still act quickly enough to have an advantage over their competition.

This thread shows that there is demand for Linux software - maybe not a large demand yet, but that's because it's a Catch-22. A great many people would switch to Linux if their favorite applications were there, and the developers won't write applications for Linux until the users are there. My whole idea is to tell the developers that "If you write it, they will come". I've got $2000 to buy Metastock or whatever, the moment it gets ported or written for Linux. I will not be buying another version for Windows.

As for porting, it's becoming popular to use WINE to port Windows applications quickly to Linux. That's how Corel brought their WordPerfect Suite over in a very short time. They basically set up and packaged the Wine emulator into their original Win32 code, so it would install quickly and easily and run bug-for-bug exactly like it was on Windows, because the application thought it *was* on Windows. Also, the Opera browser is a good example of a wellknown app that was written with the QT libraries, http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/, which gives great crossplatform functionality. Thus Opera runs on a minimum of 5 or 6 platforms, including Palm Pilots and the like, with basically the same code.

Yes, it's a risk; yes, it's an investment. But if companies do their research, they'll realize it's a sure thing. Linux might not bankrupt Microsoft for a long time, but there definitely will be a market for vendors to profit from in the near future. There are a lot of us willing to buy the software whenever they're willing to sell it to us.

 

You assume they haven't already done the analysis - doesn't take long given the current state of the market.

At best, any "Linux potential" would be almost completely guess work at this point. If you look at the market pragmatically, there is no Linux desktop market worth an existing vendor spending all the time and money rewriting their software for - and that's not changing in the next couple of years (probably longer).

So given that most vendors haven't even seen any practical reason for supporting the Mac (which has a much larger (well, in relative terms) desktop presense than Linux), there's nothing to justify spending the money to create a Linux version.

And the cost of converting an existing Windows based cash cow application to Linux is hardly trivial. After the upfront cost, it costs a lot more to continue to support the app - not to mention the higher cost and larger personnel related issues than in a Windows environment. So it's not a trivial decision for a company to risk undergoing a substantial organizational impact and potentially throw away a lot of money and time that may never be recouped and could almost certainly be used right now for a higher return.

Catch-22 or not, the masses simply don't see a reason for switching to Linux right now and all the technobabble (which is at least half hype) won't convince them. Windows apps have been available on Macs for years and you don't exactly see them flocking there in droves - they're not likely to suddenly decide Linux is a good reason to do it. They're unconcerned with techno-religious issues.

As far as it being an "investment" for a company to go through the sizable effort to convert their existing trading software run on Linux - it's not. It's all risk with no current expectation for recovery of the costs because there's no market for it.

Of course Tradestation isn't interested in wasting their time and money rewriting their software for Linux. There's no cost justification for it. And if the Linux desktop market does EVER grow sufficiently, they can be perfectly content to be a quick follower into the space rather than pouring tons of cash to be the first one there. Hardly "foot dragging" - that's how pragmatic business decisions are made. And in software, being first almost never matters - tons of examples of that - among them, Microsoft.

As far as Linux cutting deeply into Microsoft - good luck. All this thread demonstrates is there is the niche interest everyone already knows there is - not that there is sufficient critical mass to make it worth an existing Windows software vendor to bother. The Wordperfect example is immaterial - they have limited market and continue to scramble to try to keep their heads above water. The Opera example is similar - 99% of the people out there have never heard of it, don't care about, and aren't likely to bother changing from IE or Netscape.

Is that a mistake? Who's to say. Personally, I understand the interesting features of Opera, but there's nothing compelling enough right now for me to waste time switching from IE. Maybe if they introduce some new killer feature.

Anyway - different opinions is what makes the market

 

ArchAngel,

Okay, we can agree to disagree. I fully see your point that it's not prudent to spend money on something that is not a sure thing or immediately profitable. From a vendors point of view, that is absolutely correct. From a users point of view, though, more choice is better, right? My friends want to switch from Windows to Mac, but can't because their favorite software (games) only run on Windows. Same deal with Linux. From the "tech market's" point of view, Microsoft is not very fair or equitable in their role of market leader and controller. Linux would fix this, by ensuring a level playing field for all applications vendors. You pointed out WordPerfect having "limited market and continu[ing] to scramble to try to keep their heads above water". Did you know that they had 90% + of the Office Suite market before Microsoft started giving out free office CD's every time you bought a Dell? Similarly, Netscape ruled the browser market until Microsoft included IE free with every copy of Windows. The Microsoft monopoly isn't good for application vendors, since there is the distinct probability that Microsoft will introduce their own product, include it with the OS, and annihilate the competition. What if the new MSMoney includes realtime charting capability, with good technical analysis capabilities? Bye bye Equis, bye bye Tradestation. Both WordPerfect and Netscape are at about 2% of the market share right now. And they've both ported their stuff to Linux, hoping Linux will catch on and they can compete fairly and evenly again. But what it will take is for MANY companies to port their stuff and CAUSE Linux to catch on. It will, if there are apps for it. Would you still use Windows if there was NO software for it, and it was all for Linux? No, of course not. Likewise, the more software is ported to Linux, the stronger competition Linux will be, and the less leverage Microsoft will be able to use on their competitors, the OEMs, and their customers. But until that time, Microsoft will continue expanding into other markets, leveraging their wealth and monopoly to destroy the competition until they're all dead. And when they hit trading software, I hope everyone likes the Microsoft offering (complete with copy-protection, IRS backdoors, huge pricetag, and viruses that corrupt your data), because that's all there will be left.

My point is that as a Windows, Mac, and Linux veteran and a paid Network Administrator, I have seen the rise of Microsoft, the fall of Apple, and the underground revolution waiting to happen that is Linux. Microsoft is incredibly entrenched right now, and they've been improving their products greatly with Win2000 and XP in response to Linux and MacOSX. However, as a person who uses all these platforms on a daily basis, if I had my choice, I would choose Linux, and not just for religious, but technical reasons. No, I'm not the average user. BUT - my mother is, and she runs Linux. She didn't know it wasn't Windows98 until she called me, terrified about the Klez worm, and I told her that she was immune and could just delete it when it showed up in her mailbox. If she can do it, anyone can. And being free, Linux will catch on, just like Microsoft's free IE and free Office CD's caught on. I'm living proof of that. And just wait until Palladium.

I'll keep supporting Linux, and you keep using Microsoft. That's cool with me. Hopefully, in five years or so, I can make an argument to you based on Linux's improvement and attributes that will encourage you to switch over. Until that time, I'll work on making Linux better, and getting software ported over, so that there can be even competition in the software markets again. If people based all their decisions on buying only the market leader, there would be no improvement in any market - we'd all be driving Ford Model T's (or horses) and using typewriters, which once ruled the desktop.

But this is starting to sound like a Slashdot post, so I'd better stop here.

 

I'll agree to disagree. Here are a few counterpoints for you:

1. Wordperfect - did not have 90% of the office suite market before Dell started shipping MS Office pre-installed. Wordperfect started losing their market place way back in the early days of Windows when WP chose not to support Windows. They stuck with DOS and later decided to support OS2. When they didn't go the Windows route, Microsoft built Word and people preferred it to Wordperfect (and still do).

You want choice? You got it - and people chose Word over Wordperfect. Lotus did the same thing and lost their spreadsheet marketshare to Microsoft for similar reasons (Excel was better and even when Lotus finally tried to support Windows, it sucked).

2. Netscape?? Hardly an argument for lack of choice. You used to have to pay NS their internet toll for a browser with a code base initially "borrowed" from a government funded project. Microsoft's browser didn't catch on (even though free) the first few versions. When it was finally as good/better than Netscape, people chose it. Netscape caused their own downfall by trying to build their whole business model on a single product that had low barriers to competition. They're as much a victim of their own lack of business strategy as anything Microsoft may or may not have done.

3. Apple? Again, poor business judgement cost them the lead. Steve Jobs's lack of vision allowed Microsoft to borrow what he'd borrowed from Xerox and beat him at his own game.

4. What if Microsoft introduces some new feature that puts a vendor out of business?? That's called competition. Personally I'm very happy that I don't have to cobble a plethora of third party software together on a PC - you used to have to get your network stack from one company, your disk compression from another, your browser from another, etc., etc., etc. Did MS's integrating those capabilities into Windows hurt/kill those companies? Yep - but so what? The cost of ownership is lower and it's simpler for the masses.

5. Linux being free (well, unless you buy it boxed) - not sure it's quite the same a comparison as your IE example. Installing IE instead of Netscape didn't change the operating environment, what programs you could run, whether you had to get new versions or completely new programs to do what you're already used to doing, etc. - changing to Linux does.

Will Linux supplant Windows or will it ultimately go the way of each of the other next best Windows killers? Who knows. It's as much a function of whether MS keeps evolving Windows (and everthing around it) as what happens with Linux.

Maybe one day it'll be easier, cheaper, and faster to build software (and easier and cheaper to build the staff to do so and support it) under Linux than Windows - it never happened with mainstream Unix flavors, but they might eventually get their with Linux.

In the meantime, it'll be an interesting horse race to watch unfold.