
For Sale: Free Operating System (1998) - emmelaich
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/09/biztech/articles/28linux.html
======
busymom0
It's crazy for me to realize that Linux was created the same year when I got
the first computer in my house running Windows 98. I didn't know Linux was
this old.

Another funny thing I just remembered is how I broke our house computer trying
to install Linux (I have no idea how to actually do it, I was barely 10-12
years old back then). I bought one of those magazines which shipped with CDs
with demo games and other software. I tried to install Linux on our home
computer using that and completely messed the computer up because apparently
my hardware didn't support it or something. Anyway, I got a pretty good
beating from my Mom after that.

EDIT: correction, as couple people pointed out Linux was created in 1991. I
thought it was created in 1998 based on the publishing of this archived news
article. I also grew up in a developing country where things came much later
than the US.

~~~
mkl
Did you make a typo? Linux was created in 1991.

~~~
busymom0
Oh, my bad. I thought it was created in 1998 based on the publishing of this
archived news article. I also grew up in a developing country where things
came much later than the US.

------
DavidPiper
> The movement, known alternately as free software and open source ...

Ha, I can think of someone who might take issue with that.

I know it's 20 years ago, but I'm interested to see it reported like that
first-hand.

------
jacurtis
> James Cameron's special-effects company, Digital Domain, which used the
> operating system to help create the illusions in "Titanic."

I know this is a random tangent from the core theme of the article. But I
found it funny that in 1998 we describe CGI as "illusions".

~~~
jspiral
my memory is that the most common term to use there would have been "special
effects", and "illusions" would have seemed strange even then

------
et2o
> "An operating system is a living thing," said Carl Shapiro, an economist at
> the University of California at Berkeley and a co-author of "Information
> Rules," a book to be published this week by the Harvard Business School
> Press. "Ongoing investment and upgrades are essential to attract customers.
> Nice cooperative thoughts are not enough."

Typical economist thinking. Linux will never work.

~~~
ls612
He wasn’t wrong though. Linux has flourished because many different entities
have invested a lot of money in its development, not just because of “nice
cooperative thoughts”.

------
xmprt
I wonder how different things would be if Windows XP didn't end up being so
popular. Or maybe there are benefits of proprietary software that aren't
mentioned in this article that ended up naturally overcoming open source
software.

~~~
badsectoracula
Before Windows XP being massively popular it was Windows 98 being massively
popular - up until Service Pack 2 (IIRC) the main competitor to Windows XP was
Windows 98 and people would simply not move off it. There isn't really a
universe where Windows XP is a failure with Windows 98's popularity - there
wasn't much of a real choice from people who eventually _had_ to abandon
Windows 98 outside of Windows XP and Microsoft was pushing Windows desktops
hard as their primary focus at the time. Of course Windows 98 owe part of its
popularity to Windows 95.

Around Windows 95 was the last time you could say that other desktop OSes had
a chance to become a de-facto standard, but IIRC the only desktop competitor
at the time was OS/2 and IBM shat the bed on that one (BeOS also tried but it
was too little too late and Linux at the time was a regression from both DOS
and Windows UX-wise... assuming anyone knew about it).

Microsoft's sketchy deals with PC vendors where they had to pay an OS license
for every PC sold regardless of the PC being sold with a Microsoft OS or not
didn't help competitors much.

~~~
pjmlp
Like children, it needs two to have a sketchy deal.

If enough OEMs had decided to go their own way, the license deals would have
been changed. However they saw it as convenient as well.

As counter example, Android OEMs couldn't care less for Google's roadmap and
updates.

OS/2 was not an option for most consumers when I had to pay extra 500 euros on
top of an already expensive 1500 euro 386SX computer, on a country where the
minimum wage was around 300 euros after taxes. Naturally I converted the
escudos into euros.

As for BeOS, the only thing I got from it was the R5 demo disk and the
developer book that I eventually found out by accident on a technical library.

It wasn't really on sale over here.

~~~
badsectoracula
OEMs had no choice, it was either that deal or they wouldn't be able to sell
Microsoft OS licenses at all - this was something Microsoft did since the DOS
days and they took advantage of their position as the #1 OS provider for IBM
PC and the clones. A PC that cannot run DOS and later Windows would be
worthless.

~~~
pjmlp
Even small shops on Mafia controlled neighborhoods have a choice.

My first PC was bought with DR-DOS 5.0 on it, and at high school we were using
a mix of MS-DOS 3.3 and PC-DOS.

Plus the market for Atari and Amiga was still kind of strong, before the
respective companies started going astray with their business decisions.

And to make it actual, most Web devs have a choice, yet they decide to put
Google in power with their Chrome-only focus in name of convenience.

~~~
badsectoracula
I think you should read on MS-DOS's per-processor licensing which was the
cheapest one: it wasn't _technically_ the only available scheme and didn't
_technically_ forbid other OSes, it was just the cheapest by far option,
especially for larger PC manufacturers who were the ones that would popularize
the OS (some small corner shop using DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS wouldn't make a
difference in the grand scheme of things).

~~~
pjmlp
Lets not blame Microsoft alone for OEMs having the easiest route out, it takes
two to dance.

Poor little OEMs, specially the ones that were installing pirate copies, so
they weren't bound to any Microsoft requirement to start with.

Just like they do nowadays with Android updates, producing new handsets with 2
- 3 versions behind, to avoid new development costs, without any kind of
updates afterwards, regardless of Treble compliance.

~~~
badsectoracula
Vendors were the least affected by all this and they just did whatever was
most profitable for them. Remember that the original message i wrote above
wasn't about vendors but about by the time Windows XP came out it was already
riding a huge popularity wave that began back in the DOS days. Whatever
vendors took out of it, this sort of tactics made DOS hugely popular.

~~~
pjmlp
Vendors were doing what people asked them to put into their custom built PCs,
mostly pirate software, while maximizing profits.

------
visarga
It's interesting to see those early speculations while knowing how they turned
out, such as Netscape open sourcing their code and MS fearing the open source
approach.

~~~
0815test
MS did fear the open source approach back then - the 'Halloween' documents
were leaked out of MS in that timeframe, and they do make that quite clear.

------
salutonmundo
It's pretty unfortunate that English uses the same word for "no-cost" and
"unfettered".

~~~
bad_user
In this case both are relevant, since indeed, why would you sell something
that's also given away by others at no cost, possibly along with your own
contributions.

In Red Hat's case we did have CentOS.

~~~
pwodhouse
Marketing is why. With good marketing investment you can reach people who
don't know how to get the no cost version and are willing to pay.

