Slashdot Mirror
More Thoughts on Microsoft vs. Open Source
An anonymous reader submitted a pretty well-written editorial running over at LinuxPlanet about the Microsoft Open Source Hoopla that has been fluttering about lately. Several good points (like how MS will obviously blur perception of Open Source and Free Software to their benefit). Worth a read.
People will use whatever the media tells them to use...and businesses who use better software should have a competitive advantage over those who use crap. I doubt Mr. Mundie has ever used Linux, so who cares what he thinks? If he wants to use an inferior product, we should all snicker at him quietly and move on. Enough of this feeding frenzy.
Take a step back from the brink, folks; if you just want a stable, reliable, high-performance OS, Linux is a great choice. If you want a cause, go join the Peace Corps.
IMHO, Linux distros that are aimed at the educational, corporate or government markets should be concerned. Mud sticks, even when the mud only exists in the minds of others.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
And, really, do any of us give a flying fsck if PHBs love free software or not? The choice will still always be OURS - and that's the important part.
I don't really give a ff if PHBs love free software or not, but I do care about whether or not they're willing to deploy it in a production environment in place of Windows9x/NT/2K/XP.
While I may love running Linux and FreeBSD at home, the only place I can run it in my little domain at work (a Fortune 10 company) is in the lab. And then, only because I do IT security, and need to simulate "hostile hacker boxes" to test various security implementations. A lot of our infrastructure is NT/2K because we aren't allowed to use Linux (even though many vendors are now supporting it).
Why? Because PHBs and senior executives not only don't love Free Software or Open Source, but also because they are 1.)scared of using something which "isn't supported by a vendor" 2.)not interested in deploying something they where they can't own stock in the vendor company 3.)Don't really care about cost differences, only want to pass the next corporate audit, etc.
Sadly, I've learned since I came to corporate from Academia that the article's author is spot on - perception is everyting! The only way to gain ground in corporate is to get the right perception out there, and to get more vendors to write software to support Linux and *BSD.
So why do I care if FS/OS gets adopted in the workplace? Because I spend anywhere from 40-60 hours a week in the workplace, and what we use there has a serious influence in how much time I can spend at home on what technology. I've actually got Win2K at home, and I'm working on an MCSE (shudder!) because there's so much Windows at work. Granted, I'm working on SAIR Linux and Solaris certifications also, but because of the environment at work, I'm spending 33% less time on UNIX technology, just to ensure my resume is spiffy when a PHB/Senior Exec looks at it.
That's why I care what they think.
This is the wrong attitude to take. Because of the very nature of free software, there is NOTHING microsoft can do to prevent people from writing and using free software. The only thing that they can do is spread FUD so that businesses may think twice about using Linux/BSD/emacs/What have you.
And, really, do any of us give a flying fsck if PHBs love free software or not? The choice will still always be OURS - and that's the important part.
When that didn't work, many of us aren't American anyway, they attacked our credibility.
But if you have the source code you can defend yourself so you don't have to be towed back to port because the clock management software (the clock for Christ's sake,) has a bug and divides by zero.
And as a bazillion scrips kiddies can tell you, its easy to repeatedly crack OSes that evolves as slowly as Microsoft's. You don't need source code. In fact you don't want the source code because the writer's intent keeps getting in the way of seeing what the code really does.
And, by the way, NOBODY who spends serious money on software (like a million for a package and a couple of grand per seat on maintenance for one mission critical system,) buys it without getting ALL of the source code. Of course we make them sign non-competition and non-disclosure agreements out the wazoo.
Microsoft has been selling a pig in a poke for years now because they don't sell anything important. Office apps. Bid deal... And when that market gets saturated, they're broke.
Now the bag is unravelling and their business model is proving to be mushroom fertilizer. For years they made money selling something that was only "almost good-enough."
Well it IS now only just good enough so they're sucking wind trying to hype crap. Nobody I know's buying it. If the OEMs weren't bundling it, nobody would bother buying anything beyond Windows '95 with service packs to fix some bugs.
FUD doesn't work if you can't show something scary. All M$ can show is a bunch of Unix and Linux systems working and not cratering the bottom line.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If your PHB's like passing audits, perhaps you should invite the BSA to have M$ over for a little audit party? After all, these audits are for their own good, and they should be more than willing to pay such a small price for quality software and peace of mind, right?
;-)>
Perception is everything, and the perception that M$'s ever-tightening licensing demands coupled with their ever-faster upgrade cycles and ever-more-aggressive lawyers is a significant cost of their "solution" needs to be reinforced. If M$ can be egged into reinforcing that perception themselves, that's even better
After reading this article (and the others on the same topic) there seems to be something missing.. MS is attacking the GPL, but why? They can say 'Linux' specifically, but (as Alan Cox pointed out) why would they urge others to not use the GPL?
The general consensus is that they're scared of something they can't compete with, but I think that's a little short sighted..
It dawned on me while reading this article, that MS is urging against the GPL, not because they're scared of competition, but because they can't own a GPL'ed product..
I think that if MS was the only software company that provided non-GPL software (as in the unlikely event that every other company on earth suddenly GPL'ed their products..) from a competition standpoint, MS wouldn't really care - from what I've seen, they don't care about competing with other companies...
It's well known that MS rarely (ever?) invents anything themselves - most of their 'R&D' consists of buying other people's technologies.. Just think about what a GPL'ed world would do to them: unable to 'innovate', they'd be forced to come up with new technologies themselves!
I think that this is what really has MS running scared.. each of their competitors that embraces the GPL means one less corporate aquisition.. and that scares them more than anything else in the world..
Linux, by extension of this, is their worst nightmare - a technology that they can't own.
Well, Microsoft isn't going to be able to touch the meaning of OSI Certification. It would help us if people explicitly said that their open source project, using a license listed at http://opensource.org/licenses/, is "OSI Certified".
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I don't see what is so contradicting about that.
Mundie talks about advantages and disadvantages of open source. The main advantage he mentions is that it gives more eyeballs and indeed makes development more efficient. The main disadvantage he talks about is that putting stuff under GPL is the "viral nature" of GPL in that any code that is used with GPL also has to be under GPL. He talks about how some companies may not have fully understood what it means to open source their software and that they run the risk of doing an un-reversible move simply because they are uninformed or have not understood the issues right.
Steve Ballmer bragging about MS partners having access to their source code is not contradicting what Mundie says, since sharing the source code ("read only") is exactly one of the strong points that Mundie mentioned about open source.
Bill Gates saying things about Linux and it's economical impact on Microsoft are completely unrelated from any statements by Ballmer and Mundie regarding the pro's and con's about open source. He could just as well be talking about Solaris or BeOS.
And what was Jim Allchin talking about when he says free software hurts innovation? He was not talking just about software but also other forms of intellectual property business, such as music. He talks about how the community mentality is that *all* software should be free. So how does it hurt innovation? He thinks that hurts innovation because he believes that without companies being able to charge for software, they won't be able to spend $$ on R&D and thus innovation. You may argue that he doesn't get it or that he is wrong but that's not the point. The point is that his statements are not contradicting any other MS statements about open source. If you think they contradict Bill Gates' statements that Linux is no threat, then that's a different thing - he is talking about Red Hat selling lots of Linux distros for servers. Allchin was talking the mentality about all software, music, movies etc. being free: "I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
They have to think of ways to increase revenues - charge more for software, make sure people pay every 3 years rather than copy their old software onto their new machine, tie OS software to particular pieces of haredware so you have to pay them again when you replace a machine, produce incompatable versions of office documents so everyone has to upgrade etc etc. They're stuck on this treadmill - just to keep still they have to do all these things or the tower of cards (aka the stock price) will collapse - AND they have to do more - in order for them to be a GOOD investment they need to keep growing - and for them to do that they have to continually find new ways to suck money out of someone's pocket - this is reality in corporate america
I think MS is worried about Linux for a lot of reasons - we're stopping them taking over the server marketplace from Sun - we're eroding mindshare - and we (in their eyes) compete unfairly - we give it away for free (let's forget that little explorer/netscape incident for the moment) - but worst of all we're not even competing in the same ballpark - it's kinda like we're playing across town in the football stadium - they have to worry about the quarterly bottom line - we care if people think our code is cool - they worry about dollars - we get paid in kudos
Are you insane? FUD is twice as effective when it contradicts itself. Even better is if it takes twelve different steps to actually prove it. By the time he's done thinking about all that crap, your typical IT manager is like "Whoa this is way too exhausting... I'll just stick with what I've already got."
Since MS has a monopoly, that's exactly the kind of thinking they have to encourage.
Can your IM do this?
Brian Proffitt makes some very interesting points in this article that anyone interested in the future of the GNU / Linux / GPL / Open Source movement should pay attention to.
"... Microsoft, it seems, has not learned Universal Law No. 312: If you call automatically equate GPL'd software with "open source," you will get a corrective statement from the FSF or Richard Stallman. It's like smoke and fire, can't have one without the other.
Yes, Microsoft did confuse the two concepts of GPL and open source. Care to take a guess why? Because they know the average listener is not going to know the difference. And like any good political campaigner, Microsoft is not going after the truth here. They are going for perception and sometimes that's all you need."
That's right, the average person does not know or even care about the difference between GPL'd software and open source software. Now that Microsoft is taking direct shots at Linux, GPL, and Open Source its time for Linux guru's, users and advocates to stop rolling their collective eyes at the thought that someone doesn't understand the difference and to start talking to the masses about Linux, the GPL and Open Source.
In the eyes of the average person Linux is an underdog, this strange OS used by college kids and computer geeks in dark rooms late at night. What is going to change this not the superior attitude that, "Linux kicks ass, and Microsoft sucks so much. Why does it suck? 'Cause Microsoft is evil and Bill Gates is the devil!" Sorry, this just isn't going to work, as Proffitt points out:
"We don't need to attack them just because they're there. When we do, we are just making their case for them"
What this movement needs are speakers that know how to handle the media and the public. Linus is a bit too self effacing and RMS is a bit too fanatical to make good spokespersons. So I issue this question to the Slashdot audience: Who is going to stand for the whole GNU / Linux / GPL / Open Source movement? Who has the availability proclaim the strengths of this movement in an intelligent manner? Who has the availability to manipulate the media in favor of this movement?
And as several people have said, I rather like using Linux at work, too. Right now the PHBs don't care because I program for UNIX boxen and I get the job done. I'd rather they didn't mandate that I have to use Windows. Having to deal with that shit would severely impact my productivity.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Something I see in the Linux community over and over again is the overestimation of the power of marketing, and the underestimation of the intelligence of consumers. This article is a classic example of it.
By saying Microsoft marketing is to be feared, the Linux bigots are implicitly criticizing Microsoft's technology. I assure you that the latter - while not focused on the same things Linux is - is quite formidable.
People do not choose Microsoft over Linux (or vice versa) due to marketing. They choose it due to hard-nosed business considerations - cost of licensing, cost of ownership, support costs, training costs, documentation, features and uniformity of available applications, etc., etc.
Based on the above, it is easy to see why Microsoft has (and probably will always have) a dominant position on the desktop. Ms. Secretary values the ability to drag-and-drop her bosses' excell-based expense report into her email to send off to finance, than she ever will having an elegant Samba configuration. Linux will (due to it's many different subcommunities) never be able to create a consistent unified user interface - among other things.
On the other hand, Linux is obviously better for the network server type tasks it grew up doing. Microsoft products will never be as flexible as Linux, nor free.
Universal Law No. 312: If you call automatically equate GPL'd software with "open source," you will get a corrective statement from the FSF or Richard Stallman.
I think they teach that in physics 101, right after the gravity chapter.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Office is worth as much as the market will allow. if people still buy it at that price then microsoft has no reason to lower it. it sucks but *shrug* thats the way it works
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
Article:
"And Microsoft knows this. Every time we fly off the collective handle when they do something threatening and they can just sit back and say 'see how unreasonable those people are? See how derisive the keepers of this Linux technology can be?'"
This is very true, I know many people that have been turned off from Linux simply by reading Slashdot. Most people don't like ideas that are assciated with advocates and fanatics, which is what most people see from slashdot postings. They think of Linux as a cult of some sort, you know those groups that rant and rave about the world and then kill themselves off because they can't handle society. I'm not saying this is the Linux community, but what I am saying is that the Linux community needs a more professional aura around it. People should look at the Linux community as something they can comfortably come into and talk with, not something they have to worry about getting their head bitten off by if they say the wrong thing.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
---
It would seem that they are supporting techies who are in their camp, and seeking to provide a single career route for the average programmer: the MS way, where people can't rip off your stuff like the GPL lets you do. It would appear that they are investing in brainwashing techniques, where, if you repeat something long enough (GPL == Open Source == hackers == that evil guy who stole all those passwords) it becomes true.
Funny how the author of the article talks about how calm and reasoned spokespeople appear and yet there was no voice more shrill than Gates before the DoJ. In any event, I suspect that in the business world the average CEO doesn't avail himself of the choices before him. Maybe they remember having spent a bundle on Lotus and WordPerfect, and even though the secretaries swore by WP as a better product (not so sure Excel, the one app worth a damn, is worse than Lotus per se), they were forced to switch to the Word standard in oh, 1990 or so, as all their peers were perceived to have made that the standard.
In my business, engineers are free to establish their own platforms. But Windows and Office are offered as standard; you have to 'purchase' Red Hat. Hell, one guy still uses WordStar in OS2. But even he has buckled under the weight of all those PowerPoint attachments, and so he has learned to use alternative boot schemes.
But I digress. I believe that some of the best programming minds have settled on Linux/Unix, but whereas you have a bunch of tinkering programmers on one side of the fence playing with code to add features and constantly improve performance, on the other side you have a corporate Giant dedicated to the development of products that are targeted at each and every application niche in the business world, with a cadre of trained professionals hawking their product and publicly electrocuting elephants (so what was that time the BSOD showed up in a trade conference? Edison electrocuting himself with a battery?), spreading FUD.
I actually Do think it's time for Linux programmers to put on a tie for once, because, like it or not, it's about politics, it's about marketing, and it's about propaganda. And those dishes are best served with garnishes on the side; the businessman is used to being catered to, not lectured.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
We have our own future in our hands.
We will not loose to MS because of anything that MS does.
If we loose, it is because we become our own worst enemies.
Foaming at the mouth is ineffective marketing technology. Microsoft is a master of marketing, using their strength in marketing to sell what is considered by some to be inferior products. They market to the masses, people who follow opinion leaders, because those folks do not have the time, ambition, or wherewithal to do the legwork themselves.
This is most likely the correct target to go after.
If you go to page three of the article, there is this bit which sums is up nicely:
There's a lot Microsoft can do, because right now, more people will listen to them than they will to the average Linux über-hacker. If you believe otherwise, then you may need to check your ego at the door.
Because when presented with a calm, reasonable-sounding statement from a large corporation versus sarcastic rants and flames from a bunch of apparent malcontents who do nothing all day but argue why Microsoft is an evil entity instead of stipulating exactly why their product is better, I will guarantee you that the average listener is going to give far more weight to the calm, reasonable-sounding statements every single time.
I am not proposing that everyone associated with Linux get haircuts, take manners lessons, and start wearing Tux-logoed polo shirts. But I am advocating that we don't rest on our superior technological laurels and think that's all we need to fend off Microsoft's very carefully planned attacks. Nor can we get so pleased with ourselves with how inventive we can get with hammering Microsoft with lofty insults. Because all of this is leading up to one inescapable conclusion: no one outside of our community is going to keep listening to this much longer.
And Microsoft knows this. Every time we fly off the collective handle when they do something threatening and they can just sit back and say "see how unreasonable those people are? See how derisive the keepers of this Linux technology can be?" We have our own future in our hands.
We will not loose to MS because of anything that MS does.
If we loose, it is because we become our own worst enemies..
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The KKK have this policy where they decide to go out and have a "peaceful demonstration". The police oblige by putting riot troops between them and the people who show up to demonstrate. A few off-camera sly comments here and there by the protestors, and the protestors go nuts, hurling stuff at police and the Klan, while the Klan, cameras rolling, just stand there trying to look angelic. The spin? "Well, we're just here exercising our constitutional rights. It's those animals who were the problem."
Microsoft is trying to provoke the same in the Open Source community. "Hey, we're just the most successful and useful software company ever, while they're a bunch of unwashed, unshaved rabble."
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Honestly, for all the back-patting Linux and OpenSource people do, they/we are still in a hard position with the 'average joe/jane' out there.
If you point out the flaws in MS stuff, you're 'biased'. The louder you shout, the more you turn people off. If you are calm, and simply point out the 'benefits' of open source, you end up sounding like an MS commercial.
"Improved uptime, better security, more stability, etc".
Sounds like those MS commercials where they show the machines in the server room silently chugging away.
IMO, the biggest benefit is actual real-world examples, but as you can't even publish benchmarks these days from the big boys, even that becomes hard to do in a large, public manner.
Showing that you can get the same, or better, performance from open source technologies as closed, WITH a better price tag (long term and short term) is probably the best way, but it's also a longer 'education' process to take people through.
creation science book
Mundies states that GPL is bad because if you use a bit of code then you have to give away everything. This I can understand. After all, if you don't like the licence, don't use it. But were also getting to the stage where people are gpl'ing tiny snippets of code. This is almost as silly as record companies trying to copyright a couple bars of music and bill ringtone providers!
This is where I get all confused. Microsoft is essentially arguing that if I write something and release it then I can't make money from that code and, that itself is bad.
Well unless I fancy living in a dumpster for the rest of my life I think I can see where they're coming from. If I work for a company developing software (which I did) and they went open source then I can practically wave goodbye to my job. That company makes its money on the basis that its product is better than anyone elses (which for a very boring market - it kicks other competitors stuff up the arse). By opening up the source, any tom, dick and harry can view the source and the innovation.
This, for the open source crowd, is a good thing. Everyone benifits, the authors get people reporting bugs and the competitors get access to their groovy stuff. Provided of course they release their updates using that code to everyone else.
Sorry, I just can't see it taking off. The whole software industry is about coming up with something thats better than others and encouraging people to buy their product over others.
Okay, lets put this another way. There are three and only three companies (A,B and C) that produce a product called "X"). If X is GPL'ed then why on earth should A develop for it, if its only going to mean that B and C get a load of work for free? (You have to think like a corporation here)
You get this little loop where no-one will work on something because at the end of the day, its a total waste of time because your hard work will be just dropped into someone elses impementation because thats what the licence says they have to do. And for them, it'll cost a tenth of the cost.
Don't get me wrong, the GPL has opened up stuff and helped me enormiously and I'm grateful. But thats me, as in an individual entity, not a global corporation.
And thats where I'm not sure what they think about it ...
--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Oh yeah, like thats a really good idea at this point.
Burn Hollywood Burn
The article spent quite a bit of time on Microsoft's work on public preception, but there's almost no emphasis on the work Microsoft is doing to educate (subvert) the U.S. and other governments around to their way of thinking.
While I don't hold much hope of the antitrust trial helping to solve this problem one way or the other, what really can help this problem is if some of the larger linux shops... ARE YOU LISTENING, IBM?!?... will start dropping the Benjamins around Washington just like Microsoft's lobbies have been doing.
This is also a great opportunity to encourage the countries that are considering open source initiatives with promotions, recognition, and cooperative deals. It's also a great time to start building bonuses for international companies who use Linux and open-source software.
Think about all those Internet cafes in Mexico and Eastern Europe that use Linux and Star Office rather than trying to pirate MS Office. Wouldn't it be wonderful mindshare to maybe drop a few late-model or promo PC's on these guys to help speed adoption?
This is not going to be a hard thing to accomplish because no one company or individual will be the driving factor. It does need some big names to happen, however. Maybe if VA Linux ever comes out of Chapter 11, they can start doing some lobby work, maybe?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Fiery sermons may work in revival tents, but the people in those tents are already waiting for something. The people outside the tents couldn't care less.
The only way to get most people to pay attention to you is to frame your ideas in a context which means something to them. For IT managers, talk about improved uptime and security, reduced support costs, smoother upgrade paths and the knowledge that you can't be orphaned by your vendor.
For corporate executives, talk about reduced support costs, cheaper hardware, better IT productivity and superior performance.
For Mr. and Mrs. America, talk about Free as in Beer and explain that roughly 10% of the price of a computer these days is the Windows Tax.
When someone uses hyperbole or inflammatory language, most people start to tune them out, unless they're really charismatic. :::Cough::: Steve Jobs :::Cough:::
I have to admit, I am a tad bit confused by Microsoft these days. Between this subscription model software (pay us every 3 years or we pull your apps), the .NET strategy (Host my applications offsite? I don't think so), and all this verbal warfare against open-source and free-software (we can't buy it, so lets just discredit it). It seems as though they are trying to alienate every hard-core techie out there. Do they not realize that these are the same techies that support their products day in and day out?? I am a rabid supporter of GNU/Linux and Open source in general, but my job is mostly Microsoft-Centric. Next time we budget new servers, will I purchase NT? No, forget about it, especially with all the new features in SAMBA, it's getting easier and easier to find alternate routes. I hope Microsoft comes to their senses and stops pissing off the people who have the most interaction with their business-class products.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.