This topic has been spoken on a lot, a quick google search shows that this topic has brought up as far back as 2003 when The Inquirer wrote Is Google the next Microsoft?. A buddy of mine in the industry sent me a more recent article by RedmondMag Google, the next Microsoft and ask for my thoughts on the issue. I will start off by saying, this isn't a black and white questions and/or answer. This is a very hot topic, not in because everyone is talking about it, but because of what it means. Both to corporate users, end users and the technology community.

There is no doubt Microsoft is a monopoly, even after going through the courts over the issue, they are still a monopoly and flex their muscle when they want to. Over the years though, Microsoft has position it self as a company for the corporate world. That is how they got their start, and that is where they continue to focus, offering steep discounts for the more you purchase, which every retailer does. What this allows is for Windows and Office to be forced on the employees, which learn to use it and get comfortable with it and then look for the same solution when they go buy a personal PC. That is all fine, as that has been done for years and years. But times are changing and Microsoft is not. They have continued to ignore the end user and ignore the technical community that is also such a deep part of Microsoft's success.

Google on the other hand is the opposite, they focus on the end user, they focus on the technical communities they have given them the power they have. They give back to the open source products which drive the backbone of their products. They provide innovative software and tools to GTD (get things done). They do all of these for free for the end-user, but charge the corporations who want to build their software repository off of these Google Services. Free is a very loose term, we are still paying for it, we are paying for it not via our hard earned cash, but instead in our information. We give up our browsing habits and the information we store in their applications. But, the free software and services isn't the only thing we get in return. We also get ads, the wonderful world of ads. What is different about the google ads, they aren't intrusive as most and they are relevant to you and what you are looking for. So while Ads have a negative stigma around them, these are actually benefical has they open your eyes to products and deals you didn't know about. Not just random ones, but relevant to what you like.

This is the biggest difference from Microsoft and Google, their focus on the client is completely different. Google is for improving the end user experience and for providing rich services. Microsoft can provide rich services, but loses focus of the client.

Now don't get me wrong, Google is becoming if not already, a monopoly. This difference being they haven't showed any bad faith. Microsoft has tarnished it's name and ruined it's trust in the eyes of many, and that will take a long time to get back. Google hasn't lost this yet, and they should be aware of this and learn from Microsoft. Keep the good will, keep the trust, and you will succeed.

As many know, I am a huge Open Source advocate, but I am a bit different then most. I do not want to see Microsoft's demise. I do not want to see Microsoft to become 100% open source. I do want to see Microsoft become a responsible corporate citizen. Not just "Business" corporation, but technical. I want to see them give back from the places they started and from the projects they use. (I'm pointing their Network stack here). Release the knowledge and you will see Microsoft flourish.

There is no doubt that both of these topics are on the top of the discussion boards. They have been proven to save energy and most of the time cut costs. But you know a topic has reach stardom when 'big' time news and blog sources right about it, but the 3 page article doesn't even make a single point.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/19485/1154/1/2/

It goes in a complete circle, and after reading it I walking away learning nothing. Not be enlightened, and felling great disappointment. The article title "Will hypervisors make Ubuntu and other Linux operating systems obsolete?" sounds like it would be a great article. But it isn't. It is filled full of buzzwords to generate traffic.

What worries me, is the same most have said and seen, IT is becoming political. This article is a prime example. There is no point, they ask a question, give a single word answer, but don't explain it. It is blog spam. On most sites (like mine) this might not matter, but on a company / news site, we should be expected/given/demand more.

What shows even more they are going after buzz words, is they taking about Linux failing. How it "might" not make it. They don't talk about windows failing as an OS if Hypervisors take over. What else is funny, they don't even mention the fact the Virtual Machines still need an OS to run ... kind of ironic. Bah, this article has pissed me off and wasted enough of my time

We should be demanding more out of our news sources, both Online and Off

So, it's only a proof on concept I did in about 15 minutes before going to be, but I thought I would go ahead and show it off. Please critic.

Or you can Download the XCF and play with it yourself.

The 92.1 Image came from Neo on Flickr and the Tux logo com from wikinews

EDIT :: Some have ask in other places what 92.1 KTFW is, they is a local Country Radio station. http://countrylegends921.com/

Some seem to think so, other are hoping they will last until through 2009 to release new products and survive the economic downturn.

After reading an article at The Var Guy and another at The Register things are not looking all the great for the company financially. Which in the corporate world, sadly, is all that matters.

Personally I love Sun Microsystems. I think they produce The top x86 hardware in the market, and the some of the best servers period. Their CEO's stance on open source is a fresh breath and their portfolio is jusy shy of amazing. But yet they still continue to falter, reaching a low on the stock market they haven't seen in years. In 2000 they hit a high of nearly $250 per share at nearly 64 million shares. Fast foward to now and they are currently at $9.73 a share with just under 1 million. They already hit a low of $9.68 today.

On top of all of this, their are now rumours floating around the internet of Johnathan Schwartz, CEO Sun Microsystems, being at the end of his reign. I sure hope not, this man has done more in his 2 years at Sun then most CEO's have influence on any single company. While in charge he has open sourced Java, seen Solaris grow into an open source distribution that is going to contend with the best. Sun now has a storage line that is based on open source foundations. Sun has acquired MySQL and continue it's ongoing Support of Star/Open Office. Yet despite all of these developments the share is falling and the earnings are have problems keeping up. August 1, Sun will be announcing their quarterly results. Can Sun keep for burning out? Can, or even Will, another company save Sun? Only time will tell, but I sure hope so.