I want to add that all of this is a side effect of the commoditization of the operating system. The OS is now effectively irrelevant; a personal choice which doesn't limit one's options at all, other than to set a course for the add-on products and services that become available.
In a commodity environment, all choices are functionally equivalent. Corn from this supplier can be used in all the same ways as corn from that one. Because of this, all units of a given commodity tend to be priced the same at the same place and time.
Operating systems are now a commodity with a price of free. Microsoft hasn't charged anybody for Windows for years, and neither does Apple charge for its OS or upgrades anymore. Those used to be a big part of those companies' revenue. What changed?
Both Microsoft and Apple started making more money from services than from licenses. Even when sold as an "Enterprise License," the real product is not the otherwise-free software, it's the support you get with it that enterprise customers must have to keep the lights on.
Since Linux was always free, the profitable Linux company (Red Hat) got into that business of selling services and support right away. The other side of this business for MS and Red Hat is hosting. For Apple, who was never good at hosting, they got into selling music as a service and made enough money from that to make OS income irrelevant.
So we have reached the point in personal computer history where all operating systems are free commodities with zero-to-few distinguishing features between them. The users' choice rides on their comfort level with the surrounding environment, the specific tools they can or can't use, and the products in which they have sunk costs -- existing things that have to keep working. Those are the things that MS is selling to with this Linux push. Keeping folks on the Windows juice.
In a commodity environment, all choices are functionally equivalent. Corn from this supplier can be used in all the same ways as corn from that one. Because of this, all units of a given commodity tend to be priced the same at the same place and time.
Operating systems are now a commodity with a price of free. Microsoft hasn't charged anybody for Windows for years, and neither does Apple charge for its OS or upgrades anymore. Those used to be a big part of those companies' revenue. What changed?
Both Microsoft and Apple started making more money from services than from licenses. Even when sold as an "Enterprise License," the real product is not the otherwise-free software, it's the support you get with it that enterprise customers must have to keep the lights on.
Since Linux was always free, the profitable Linux company (Red Hat) got into that business of selling services and support right away. The other side of this business for MS and Red Hat is hosting. For Apple, who was never good at hosting, they got into selling music as a service and made enough money from that to make OS income irrelevant.
So we have reached the point in personal computer history where all operating systems are free commodities with zero-to-few distinguishing features between them. The users' choice rides on their comfort level with the surrounding environment, the specific tools they can or can't use, and the products in which they have sunk costs -- existing things that have to keep working. Those are the things that MS is selling to with this Linux push. Keeping folks on the Windows juice.