Defining the Game
Miguel debunks one of the common myths about why Microsoft succeeds. He explains that the real danger to Linux from Longhornis in the complete package; not because we ?define the game?: ?They are all fine points of view, but what makes Longhorn dangerous for the viability of Linux on the desktop is that the combination of Microsoft deployment power, XAML, Avalon and .NET is killer.? (I would just add that WinFS is another critical piece of the integrated package). The concept is simple. Provide a suite of smoothly integrated capabilities that serve to raise people’s expectations. Raising expectations is now the only way to reduce the risk that people will consider Linux to be ?good enough?. It’s not a sure thing;it’s a huge task with lots of risk.
His analysis is really interesting, as is the discussion of Linux’s options.From my perspective, Longhorn is a ?bet the company? response to fend off the threat of Linux; so it’s kind of strange to see Longhorn portrayed as a danger to Linux (well, it makes sense, but it’s like looking in a mirror - Linux is the aggressor here).