Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Delays New Licensing Terms
Reader tempestdata indicates this CNN story, writing: "It appears Microsoft is facing quite a bit of opposition for its new licensing program." It looks like Redmond is granting a one-fiscal-year reprieve to the many companies who were caught off-guard by the announcement of new Microsoft licensing plans. Perhaps some of those companies would be interested in the new KDE 2.2.beta1 -- at least KDE and GNOME don't seem likely to institute monthly subscription fees.
Uh, isn't that because you have to actually be charging money before you can "work the beancounters"?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
If the threat of the DOJ and the possible British anti-trust trials aren't enough to make them stop the insanity, at least something they have showed signs of fearing should. Oh well, a guess a leopard really can't ever change his spots
Personally I would pay good money if Apple would come out with MacOS X for Intel. It wouldn't be that hard with Darwin already ported, and with Mac's ease of use, AND the power of UNIX, I imagine alot of companies and indeed average Joe Schmoes would choose MacOS over Windows.
Isn't the whole idea of Ximian based on charging subscription fees for software services?
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
The Microsoft Algorithm:
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
""Never in my career have I seen the customer base so angry at Microsoft," says Rob Enderle, an analyst with the Giga Information Group. "They were calling Microsoft things you wouldn't want your family to hear."
Obviously not a visitor of Slashdot, now is he?
There are many organizations who haven't yet fully deployed Win2k and have no plans to deploy XP. The 4 year cycle cited in the CNN story sounded typical. The outfit I work for probably won't be in a position to deploy XP for at least a couple more years. The developers despise using NT/2k. A skunkworks development environment already exists using non-MS OSes. If MS turns the thumb screws, things could get interesting.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Unfortunately, I don't think that this really changes anything. Microsoft, for all we bash them here, is not stupid. Stupid companies go out of business. They may have shady business practices, they may not make the greatest software, but they are certainly not the imbeciles we often make them out to be.
My guess is that they are doing this in order to gauge the marketplace reaction to their subscription model. Many people don't feel the need to upgrade, and it's possible they've got something under their belt that will change that in the next year (or at least they hope it will change).
KDE is certainly nice, but for your average Joe Sixpack, it still isn't quite there, and corporations already have a huge installed workforce already trained and familiar with Windows. It will take Microsoft driving customers away (already begun) in combination with the maturation of one or both of Linux's desktop systems to really get things moving. Much of the software already exists, but the user base simply does not.
This creates an unfortunate Catch-22, because many pieces of software are useful, but are certainly not polished for the masses, because the user base isn't large - and the user base isn't large because the software is not polished.
One thing that Linux on the desktop needs more than anything else is a standard look and feel. Diversity is certainly a good thing, but it's hard to explain that to someone who has to learn a different set of menus for every single piece of software that they want to use.
-------
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
It really does leave you looking for alternatives. At universities, often many labs are used for students to log into some web based instructional tools and to print up papers. It makes you seriously think about the viability of a lab with Linux, StarOffice, and Mozilla or Konqueror. I know in many states there have been budget cut backs and it leaves you wondering if it is best to completely avoid these types of Microsoft agreements. As all budgeting takes quite a bit of planning and red tape, this type of shifting of licensing agreements is a little scary. Does anyone know of any universities that actually use a set up like the one mentioned above?
bbh
Clearly Microsoft has been using the press to float trial balloons about controversial policies. Instead of discussing the policy with customers (like a company that doesn't have a monopoly has to), they formulate a Machiavellian policy, float it in the press, and watch the firestorm. If it looks politically manageable, they proceed. If not, they repeal it as a misunderstanding.
Ziff-Davis had a story that described how Microsoft had to back off of SmartTags and their upgrade policy. Remember when Microsoft spammed their users (Infoworld, 1999) to encourage them to write to congress to promote their "freedom to innovate"? On the other hand, they're policy to rent software was a miss in 1997, but they're doing it now with Office XP.
The result is that, these policies get postponed, but Microsoft just keeps trying. Either they're waiting for people not to notice an especially odious policy (or to be too jaded to care), or for their monopoly power to be so entrenched that it doesn't matter anyway.
I'd like to think that this is an example of the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I suspect another expression will sadly become more appropriate; To paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be a monopoly."
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, but Linux as a server OS and Linux as an embedded OS is already kicking Microsoft's ass... do desktops really have a future, or will 95% of PCs be replaced by embedded devices (e.g. web pads) ten years from now? Having a lock on the buggy whip industry doesn't do you very much good when everyone is buying cars... look at Novell, for example -- how much good is the fact that they used to control 75% of the NOS market doing them now?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
-------
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The next time you sit down to your Windows PC at work, remember that these sorts of licensing fiascos cost your company real cash.
The company has to make up for the increase in expenses somehow, and we all know how most companies are doing that these days.
And then ... the pitch: "Tired of being pushed around by your software? There's an alternative ..."
> "Microsoft is saying 'we made a mistake,'" says
> Chris LeTocq, principal analyst with Guernsey
> Research. "They listened to IT executives."
> Those executives were saying they could not
> afford the new licensing model this year.
Any IT manager out there worth his or her salt should ask Microsoft for an extension, begging and pleading for time. Then immediately put together a task force to reduce their company's dependance on Microsoft's products. Maybe not completely (they do have a monopoly, you know), but be able to put your company in a position where you have a second vendor for any product Microsoft makes. That way you have a second vendor to keep Microsoft honest. That means instigating policies such as "all company documents should be stored in an open format like RTF or even PDF, but not like DOC."
That way, the next time Microsoft floats a trial balloon, your company can have a credible alternative to give Microsoft in response.
Remember, your first responsibility is to honor your fiduciary duty to your company's shareholders, not to Microsoft. A simple concept, but something overlooked in all companies I've worked for.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
"Microsquish"
"...can shove it up Balmer's.."
"We need some ALTURNATIVES"
and most importanly:
"if only Linux was viable on the desktop"
I'm not making this up. Another concern was that the whole IT department would have to be re-trained for linux, in addition to a lot of other people, which would be very expensive. Someone quietly noted that it'd be cheaper than $10 to $20 MILLION in microsoft taxes. Someone else mentioned that the dep. of defence is moving over to linux (see, sometimes it's GOOD when people don't read the whole article). In case anyone had any doubts, there IS interest at the enterprise level.
I probably shouldn't be posting this, but if it gives a few developers the extra motivation to hurry up and produce a 'consumer' linux...
I'd put my money where my mouth is, and pitch in, except I'm working full time and working on an engineering degree at night...so no flames please.
I don't think that they planned on this, nor do I think that they realize how much this will hurt them. However, they don't really have a choice at this point. Microsoft has backed themselves into a corner (as far as business models go) and can't get out.
Open source would not be where it is without one very positive thing from Microsoft. They came into an industry which was dominated by players who were interested in selling a few copies of their software to businesses for several thousands of dollars per copy and realized that most of their expense was in development. So they undersold their competition in order to dramatically increase the market size and take advantage of this economy of scale. This tactic has helped to make the personal computer as affordable as it is today and such operating systems as Linux possible (the development of the internet has also helped this dramatically).
This model is only sustainable in a growing computer market. If the market ceases to grow, then it becomes harder and harder to maintain the revenue streams necessary to pay developers and still sell the software at insanely low prices. Microsoft executives know this and they know that their stock will tank or worse if they don't do something.
So here is their plan:
- Cut down on piracy. This helps with the immediate cash flow.
- Try to dominate the middleware market with
.NET (given that their plans to, in their words, "pollute" Java failed to some degree.
- Force people to pay them subsciptions for their software.
These strategies hinge on #2, dominating middleware, and I doubt that they will be able to pull it off because #1 will alienate them from some customers and induce a lack of trust and they will be facing competition from a variety of sources, both comercial and open source. So they will have trouble collecting royalties.Anyway, this indicates that Microsoft is becomming aware of the problems that it will face with these companies but still has yet to grasp its full impact.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I assume you are not trolling because your opinion is the most prevalent one I have seen in the business world.
That does not mean that it is the truth. There are a few problems I have seen with using if for businesses but they are comparatively minor. Abiword is still in beta and is missing key features like footers which makes StarOffice the only reasonable office suite (I have had stability problems with KOffice, sorry, and OpenOffice still lacks spell checking capabilities). Windows is the only realistic option because people think it is. But that is not the case, and I have run a business entirely on Linux. When I have needed to, I have written basic CRM apps, etc. in PHP and run them off Apache.
With the licensing issues, I run freely redistributable software as much as possible on my business machines. It exposes me to far less in the way of licensing liabilities, and prevents proprietary lockdown of my data. The worst problems I have ever seen with Linux in the business have been solely caused by workers being afraid to make mistakes, and so refusing to save their documents on an unfamiliar system. This is a problem but a 5 minute instructional introdution will reduce the worst problems here.
The real problems are psychological, not technological.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Why would using GNOME or KDE cause all productivity to stop? I have been able to use these desktops to get work done. Can you give an example?
Get real folks. KDE and Gnome are nice for the tech crowd but they ain't for the business crowd.
What features that are needed for business are missing from either of these desktops that Windows has? There are database apps, office suites that are not so bad to use that people can not get work done with them. (Hint if DOS is still used by many buisness out there as I have seen then how would GNOME or KDE on Linux be worse?) You offer no examples, have no evidance and in a latter post complain that you got modded down. Unfortuanetly I have probably been trolled but if you can give some answers to my questions then I might change my opinion of you.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
This is not bullsh*t. I've found myself lying and making up costs for the software libre work I've been doing. If you don't have costs you get two reactions: they either write it off as some unsupportable nerd nightmare that will require three PhDs to maintain or they hit pause and give you blank stares.
This in an environment of severe budget constraints. You would think they'd be falling over themselves to adopt this model, but the fear of the unknown is palpable. They tell themselves that no one ever got burned going with MS. Besides, with the beast setting the upgrade schedule, they've got more time to work on their swing.
illegitimii non ingravare
apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade -y is too hard, how about we make it an icon? Seriously things are getting better just take a look at KDE 2.2beta1 it almost makes gnome look comical, as far as I'm concerned kde is the standard interface, they're not about putting airs they release early and often and are cranking out great stuff. Take a look at apps.kde.com and the thekompany.com. I'm all for a standard interface, I just think we can choose one that comes out of healthy competition because we all have our prefrences and no one can agree about all of them. Now... On to preemptiveness and low latentcy!
Min: It was a nice robber-man, Henry
Henry: Did you tell him we have no money, Min?
Min: Yes, Henry.
Henry: And what did he say to that, Min?
Min: He said he'd give us a year to save some up, Henry
Henry: What a nice chap! We'd better get started; get your suspenders on, Minnie, we're going to Amsterdam.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I realize that since most can't code, many of the Slashdot Hive mind seem to think that the business men that run their businesses are morons.
Ya know something, not everybody can code, but I bet you they understand accounting and corporate strategy better than you.
With a separate managerial ranking instead of promoting within the company, we do have the unfortunate scenario where front-line managers don't knows what their subordinates are doing. This eliminated the Peter Principle, but created a management vs. employee mess.
However, they are not dumb. Most of them use the features of the Office suite that supplies their productivity.
Guess what, your deal-maker CEO may not know much beyond e-mail and word, but I bet that your CFO crunches out spreadsheets with a degree of complexity that you don't understand. Maybe your administrative assistances can't code, but they problem use Outlook's Exchange support to administer their bosses schedule. As everyone is pressed for time, freeing up 2-3 hours of scheduling and planning is a lifesaver to 80-hour a week managers.
Your analysts may not be able to run a Linux box, but they can problem use the Access databases that they had IT whip up for their data entry personel to enter information in, and export it into Excel for detailed analysis.
If you are a small firm, whoever does your accounting probably finds Quickbooks (Win32 only) a life saver.
These programs are extremely powerful with acceptable UIs.
Sure, your random family with a PC and no real need for one (a bit of web surfing, e-mail, and the kid's school reports) may not need Office, but a corporate environment can really take advantage of it.
Until spreadsheet designers actually TALK to the people that use them, they won't understand what is necessary. Merely trying to clone Microsoft's means that you won't overtake them. You may become good enough for home markets, but you offer no compelling reason to switch. If I am using version X of a program, and X+1 comes out, I'll decide if it is worth it. If your Free version is as good as X-1, no way I'll switch. It it is as good as X, no way I'll switch. If you are better than X+1, I'll likely switch. If you come between X and X+1, well, I'll have to decide if I want the new features.
Guys, the costs of MS software aren't that significant per employee. Given the cost of an employee (office space, salary, perks, payroll taxes, etc.), the cost of equipment (computer equipment, furniture, etc), the $1000-$2000 in software to get them productive is rather small. Sure saving $500/employee for 1000 employees is real money., it's half a million. But if it reduces my employee's productivity a fraction, I will likely lose FAR more money in lost productivity.
For company's with 10,000+ employees, sure MS costs a lot. But what is their revenue/employee. What reduction in productivity is necessary to wipe out the licensing gains?
The real interesting thing here is that IT staffs know that as users upgrade on their own, they get a disaster. They also know that MS has them in a bind. If they don't upgrade, it'll happen anyway as a disaster. If they do upgrade, they'll likely benefit, but corporate accounting isn't that simple. Their department has a budget, a large change is problematic.
The problem is NOT that it is not worthwhile to upgrade, these company's WANT to upgrade. The problem is that the budget process has made now a very bad time.
Look, I love my BSD boxes. I also love my OS X workstation. I also like my Win32 laptop that lets me run my Win32 only applications.
However, the sooner the community stops patting itself on the back and starts solving problems, the sooner Free Software will make a difference.
Why should we win? It's morally better to let people help their neighbors. If I have software, giving a copy to a friend to help him out is the RIGHT thing to do. We want to win NOT to beat MS. We want to win because it will make the world a better place.
Alex
I'd like to thank Microsoft for all the help they've given us in this process:
- The Halloween documents, which gave us the heads up about that wonderfully flexible and open server platform, Linux.
- Attempting to use Java as a political tool, instead of focusing on providing customers with actual functionality. Of course, Sun used Java as a political tool too, but Sun provided value to customers at the same time, rather than treating their customers as expendable pawns.
- Sending out lawyer's letters to companies, including the one I'm referring to, demanding licensing audits for no apparent reason, and following this up with very threatening behavior when said audit was not performed instantly.
- Scaling up anti-competitive and anti-customer behavior to fever pitch in the past year or so, putting its business practices on the radar of top-level executives through critical articles in sources such as CNN and the Wall Street Journal. As a result, any mentioning in high-level meetings of reducing dependency on Microsoft, received approving nods without even needing to explain the reasons.
All in all, Microsoft, you've done a wonderful job. Your PR and customer relations efforts are as masterful as your software.Here are the details of the switchover I'm referring to, for anyone else out there who might want to do something similar.
Starting in early 1998, we began a redesign and rewrite of all in-house systems at a billion-dollar financial services company which I consult to on architecture and design issues. An important part of this redesign was to convert all in-house and customer applications to support web browsers as the primary user interface. At the time, the company was a 100% Microsoft shop, and IIS/ASP along with SQL Server was chosen as the primary server platform.
However, on my advice, this company used Javascript as their server-side scripting language, and Microsoft Java (J++) to implement business objects on the server. The justification for this was the potential for portability in future. VBScript and VB would have been too uncomfortably proprietary. In addition, I recommended that as far as possible, they avoid use of MS SQL extensions, and do their data processing in Java rather than in non-standard MS SQL stored procedures.
A year or so later, Microsoft effectively pulled the plug on their J++ product. Uh-oh, my recommendations suddenly didn't look so good. We now had two choices: bet the future on something called .NET, even today a proprietary vaporware product with an uncertain future. Or switch away from ASP and move to a more open solution, eliminating the pathological dependency on a single vendor.
We chose the latter. We evaluated alternatives and eventually settled on a Java Server Pages solution, using Javascript as the scripting language. This meant the existing pages required only minor tweaking and changes to wrappers to be ported. We switched the business objects from from Microsoft J++ to "100% Pure Java", which gives us a choice of compilers and VMs (Sun, IBM...), and as part of the deal gave us a whole lot of Java 2 functionality which Microsoft had been depriving us of, by lagging the Java standard by years.
Now, in July 2001, we have finally begun running one of our application servers on Linux, just as a proof of concept of the portability of our system. This has worked like a charm - a system that once seemed so reliant on Microsoft technologies - IIS, ASP, COM, J++, ADO, ODBC, MS SQL - will now run on most server operating systems, with any web server, with any Java compiler and VM (except Microsoft's!), and with any reasonably standard SQL database. A stunning turnaround!
I should point out that the applications I'm talking about aren't simple web apps. They handle the back-office processing for some of the most complex financial transactions I've ever been involved with, and I've been consulting in the financial services industry for 15 years.
This conversion has all been coming together over the past few months, so it's been wonderful to sit in meetings of company department heads and have questions raised about our dependence on Microsoft, and be able to answer by saying "we are no longer dependent on Microsoft for any of our servers."
The IT manager is even beginning to talk about Gnome and Staroffice, now...