Every so often, as I'm skimming through the trade press, I come across an article that really brings me down. The articles I find so disheartening all make the same sort of claim: Windows will rule the world; Unix will all but disappear; and promising alternatives like Linux and Java won't amount to a hill of beans. My latest encounter with this sort of idea came in the January 1999 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. Gregory V. Wilson, reviewing Jesse Liberty's book, Beginning Object-Oriented Analysis and Design, says "The author ... is up front about saying that for most commercial software developers, 32-bit Windows and MFC are the only platforms that matter, so you might as well get used to them."
I can't be sure from this review what Wilson's own position is on this matter. I note with some amusement that this particular issue of DDJ contains no less than nine articles devoted to Java. Apparently someone over at DDJ sees things a little differently.
What bugs me about the Windows-take-all theory is not the prospect of using Windows in the next millennium. I've gotten along okay with Windows over the past five years, and I'm sure I could do a lot worse for an operating system. What I object to is the notion that we should all just roll over and die because Microsoft is so big and scary. Indeed, conventional wisdom says that the company with the biggest marketing clout will always win. I think this is a cynical idea that should be called into question.
Allow me to toss a few monkey wrenches into this conventional "wisdom:"
- The Palm Pilot. This little palmtop uses not a shred of Windows code but has been kicking the butts of Windows-based palmtops in the marketplace.
- Jesse "the Body" Ventura, former wrestler. Running on the Reform Party ticket, he was elected governor of Minnesota. Hmmm... I thought you weren't supposed to win unless you were a Democrat or Republican.
- A little language called C. It came along at just the right time and place, and caught on like wildfire — without the aid of marketing. Developers knew a good thing when they saw it.
The above points suggest a couple of encouraging things to me. First, people, like the weather, are not perfectly predictable. Marketing analysts, for all their focus groups and theories, don't know everything about what people want. And they consistently underestimate what one person or group can do. Second, it seems there really are "right times and places" in our personal and collective histories, certain critical points when relatively small efforts can bring about enormous changes.
Linux may be nearing such a critical point. Some companies are beginning to give Linux a spin, even though there is no vendor they can turn to when things go awry. Conventional wisdom says that for this very reason, open-source software is too risky. But regardless of the support you can get by paying for an OS, there is also a risk in being tied to a single vendor. You gotta stay on that endless treadmill of upgrades, and if you don't keep up you'll find yourself with no support anyway. Maybe people are finally getting tired of this game.
Linux will not save the world, and it is definitely not for everyone. So this editorial is not a crusade to wipe out Windows and replace it with Linux. I just want to put my two cents in for diversity. What really gets my blood boiling is the occasional "expert" who says we should be happy to have an all-Windows world because it will bring us stability. Stability, huh? That's ludicrous when you consider what a fragmented thing Windows really is. And it will only become more fragmented when the four (or is it five?) versions of Windows 2000 come out. I'll take my fragmentation with multiple vendors, thank you.
Long live diversity in computing platforms! It is a pain in the rear sometimes, but it's worth it. I don't want to abolish Windows, but I do hope Linux and other platforms give it a serious run for its money. When they do, I'll be one of those on the sidelines cheering them on.
Marc Briand
Editor-in-Chief