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.
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
---
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"
Agreed. The absolute best thing the Linux community can do is simply do the best job we can in our respective positions. I'm a consultant, so when I walk into a Microsoft-only business I don't proclaim how terrible their systems are and how I must convert everyone/everything over to Linux. That would just get me fired.
Instead, I do my job. And when new servers/routers/etc are needed, I typically recommend a Linux solution. At first, businesses are uncomfortable with this--and then I tell them the price ($100+ for a supported version of RH) and that I completely support Linux and can do much, much more with a single well-configured Linux box than three or four NT servers. I've never had anyone turn me down.
Microsoft's biggest fear right now is really people like me--the guys that recommend a gradual transfer to Linux. But it's not a true Microsoft vs. Linux situation. If Microsoft had a product that better fit the needs of my customers, then I would recommend it totally. Right now, Linux is a better choice in the back-end. But I believe Win2K is a much better choice for workstations, mostly because people are used to Microsoft's OS and Office products.
The fear at Microsoft is that those of us using/writing free software are not competing with Windows. We're in a different league. We don't play by their rules, and they can't kill free software using the very practices that caused the monopoly cases.
By fighting Microsoft, we are stating they they are a threat to us--but Microsoft isn't our enemy. In fact, we should care less about what Microsoft is doing. Linux and other GPL software is getting to the point of "critical mass" where the software is on par or better (from the "average" user's perspective) with anything Microsoft can produce. Once that critical point is reached, there won't be anything Microsoft, or anyone else, can do to prevent the spreading of GPL software. People will just choose Linux because it's not only cheaper but also because it has a large amounts of advantages over Windows. So why "compete" with a company that only cares about money and market share? Instead, GPL programmers need only be worried about their individual products and inprovements to those. After all, in the GPL community, marketing is done through word-of-mouth and reviews.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
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.