Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer, Gates on Microsoft's Future
RoadFever writes: "At the Microsoft shareholders meeting, CEO Ballmer acknowledged they may have a popularity bug. "We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry," Ballmer said.
There's a summary article in the Seattle Times and more stuff on the Microsoft investor relations page.
Will words translate to action? Well, the company might want to start by toning down the habit of taking credit for every innovation: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines," Gates said." The question-and-answer session near the end of the meeting has the most juicy quotes.
It can't and wont change. Microsoft loses money if it doesn't Innovate everything!
huh?
just like MS DOS was theirs??
So wait...did Al Gore or Bill Gates invent the internet?
Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter
Give Microsoft a couple of more years of acting the way they do, and consumers are going to feel like they've just woken up in a blood-stained bathtub full of ice in some fleabag motel.
So wat he's saying is that the mass adoption of their inflexible software has driven people to create open products that will meet their needs, or am I misinterpreting him ? ;)
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Honestly, why would MS care what other companies thought of them. If this were Oracle or IBM do you really think that MS would try and help them out?
This whole DoJ thing is about compitition, if you were the CEO of a computer software company (For profit that is) would you want MS in the same ballpark as you. Get rid of MS and then the money going to them has to go elsewhere, ie your company
Like they haven't already killed off a lot of competitors, knifed in the back a lot of partners, and set their sights on other industries, which BTW could be customers of partners and competitors? The problem with being an 357.142851428 Kg. gorilla is, you can sit anywhere you like, but after you've done so, who's willing to be their friend and stick their neck out for you? Even some things PR can't fix.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'd like to see Microsoft stop pushing Windows and start making software for all operating systems. Seems to me though they are way to disfunctional to change their ways and the only way anything is going to happen is if (like an alcoholic) they hit rock bottom.
He's right on that. A local radio station has been running the following spoof of an XP commercial every morning:
(Madonna music in background)
Q: With XP, can I burn CD's?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I send email?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I create an internet virus?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I download female-on-female animal porn?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I install XP myself without help?
A: Not f***in' likely!
QUESTION: It appears to me that the open source movement is gaining momentum, and as I understand it the key to success of a software product involves efficiently building an ecosystem of developers and users, resellers, and so forth. Doesn't the open source model a more efficient paradigm for building such a community around your products, and isn't perhaps Microsoft maybe on the wrong side of that trend of long-term?
MR. GATES: Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that. We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle.
In terms of getting people excited about software and building communities around them, yes, that is a key to success. Nobody has done that more effectively than we have with Windows. Are there ways that we can do that better? Are there aspects of this where we're actually learning from all our different competitors out there? I think it's fair to say yes.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion. So I certainly don't agree with the full sort of free software foundation view that there should be no jobs in this area, and that the kind of commercial advances and risk taking that we've been able to do you can't get that, you can't get things like speech recognition on a tablet computer coming out of that kind of a paradigm. You can get things that follow along, you can get some smaller software, and so we embraced the idea of the free software paradigm and the commercial software paradigm moving forward in really a self-reinforcing way.
MR. BALLMER: I just want to add one thing, echo what Bill said, but encourage you to go to our web site. If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software, it's kind of inconsistent with the goals of most people in the room. We recognize it, it probably doesn't fit in most of these people's mind's eye, so we're not going to embrace that. But there is something about the way the community works to support itself which is brilliant, and which we've done many good things, but we think we've seen some good things sort of in the Linux, et cetera, world, and I encourage you to go up to Microsoft.com and check out our community areas. It's an area where we have sort of massively mobilized. It's still in the early phases, but we are massively mobilizing to try to stimulate communities, support communities, and really, if you will, borrow one from their playbook.
Forget all the anti-trust stuff and "we don't play well with other" crap for a minute. In terms of "investment relations" what MS needs to do is pay out a god damn dividend. They're sitting on a pile of cash, and the days of constant double digit growth are behind them. They are going to have to face up to the fact that they are a grown, mature company and their stock price is going to act accordingly.
That's what's driving their licensing debacle, BSA audits, etc. They've hit the wall in terms of market penitration on the desktop, they never achieved the "slam dunk/home run" domination of the server market they thought they would (not to mention where they do dominate there-- small print, file, web servers they've got linux/BSD nipping at their heels) and the X-box is going to put a hit on revenues for the next few years even if its a runaway success. Other than Web Sevices, which at best are a few years away, they have no room for massive growth.
So, if the stockprice ain't going up all that much they better start paying out on all that cash they're sitting on, or some investers are going to be none too happy.
(then again, I'm a code jockey, what the f**k do I know about finance)
Microsoft was founded in/around *1975* at a time when nobody thought there was a market for PC software. Some of the Marxists-in-training who regularly snipe at Microsoft were probably not even born then. A standard, cheap Intel platform that can run e.g. Linux exists because of Microsoft software driven custumer mass demand for PCs. It's very "in" to be a Microsoft basher, but try looking at reality sometime.
Why, he's the Al Gore of Open Source!
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Gates said: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines"
No, the reason you see open source is because people want the ability to customize code to their own personal needs without having to license said code from a monolithic company known for overcharging. Mr. Gates needs get rid of the god complex. Open source has nothing to do with identical desktops and everything to do with control of the code. This statement is just more overgrandizing and makes him look even more out of touch with the industry than he already is.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
A: Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!
Q: Uh, never mind... please stop dancing around, Mr. Ballmer, and for god's sake, man, use some fuckin' anti-perspirant!
it just realizes than lots of money it could have is getting away.
. . . really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines
WTF. Did I miss something?
at least Balmer didn't use the word "hatorade".
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Gates:(paraphrased) "the only reason that open source is even around is because we forced the computer industry to standardise on a hardware platform"
UMMMMM......mr bill, IBM did that, you just went along for the ride....
whats next?
Gates: "By the way, all of you investors are here today because I created the hevans and earth"
this guy is a total loon
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Surely he means popularity "feature"!
"Second, we know we need to continue to focus in on our relationship with our customers. This is an area where we need to be ever vigilant. Certainly, as Bill talked about, we have opportunities for improvement in security, in virus protection, in the way we license and sell our products, and the reminders on that are always in front of us." --Steve Ballmer
I think this pretty much sums up a lot of what is wrong with Microsoft:
1) Security
2) The way they license and sell products.
At least they are realizing that market opinion is starting to go against them, and are trying to change this. I don't love Microsoft, but if they started to change their licensing tactics, I would be more inclined to buy their products.
When asked what members of the Freedom to innovate network can do to help Microsoft now that the trial is winding down. Did that sound like a planted question or what?! And they didn't answer the question at all. They just said the FTIN is a lobby organization that's been useful to us, so join the FTIN!
I had a good laugh anyway...
Mozilla
...all the whiny questions about the number of female executives at the company? Good grief!
The PC platform that Gates is touting was created by IBM, not Microsoft. Sure, Microsoft software was running on all of them but what made it appealing was the low costs of the hardware which came about by IBM's rather loose licensing policies. It took a very long time for the PC to become vaguely usable, but it remained cheap and ubiquitous which is why it eventually came to dominate.
But Microsoft's position in that domination was, at best, an accident. They were in the right place at the right time and did a good job of screwing IBM. Credit to them for that, but not much else.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
In the Q&A portion near the end, I thought it was interesting how two different people (both women, I believe) brought up the topic of the number of women on the board. Apparently 1/23 isn't a good enough number for them.
"CEO Ballmer acknowledged they may have a popularity bug"
hahahah.. its all too true.. and in true MS style, it took them forever to even admit the bug existed.. and we know exactly where this is going, taking microsoft's track record at fixing bugs into account.
If you were to distill the -essence- of what was said (especially on women on the Board and in the company), you'd end up with exactly nothing. Sure, they may be concerned about this, or feel strongly about that. I'll allow for that possibility. But feelings don't equate to action. They're just feelings, the same as "happy" and "sad".
Even the sweeping apparently-grandiose statements made wrt "Open Source" and "Free Software" really reduce to nil. Sure, they may have been a factor in the popularity of "Open Source". But there are probably as many coders inspired by a rainbow, or a fascinating geological formation.
In short, I have to give credit for an amazing non-statement, which said exactly nothing and offered nothing. However, the credit has a value of $0.00.
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)
Yes, the Q&A was quite revealing. I think the open source question appeared to be basically ignored, politely.
The issue of women execs was also something you could tell they weren't going to address, which is very strange, in that most of Bill Gates foundation work has focussed on educating women and providing contraceptive measures for women in third-world countries.
As to China, this again was something that didn't seem to be that interesting to the execs.
Very disappointing responses, overall. One related news item in the Seattle P-I business section today noted that many MSFT employees have picked up their purchases of stock recently.
Does this mean we're nearing the bottom of the market, or that they know something we don't?
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Looked like a lot of questions about females as a percentage of the MS board (not many). Any comparable stats for Linux based companies?
"We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem."
Wow! Thanks Bill! and here i thought we were a cancer. maybe he meant open source is part of the ecosystem like a plague or a swarm of locusts.
"In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together."
wow.. sometimes i wonder what the world would be like without capitalism... no taxes people working to help others instead of for meaningless profit. and why do we need big companies hiring people if alot of open source people are willing to develop in their spare time for free?
"There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle."
its not surprising that the US Govt and microsoft are so buddy buddy... they have the same goals! make citizens pay taxes, push propaganda, get people to buy into a failing economy... oh and i seem to remember microsoft not paying any taxes last year so i wonder...
-
I'm sure Ballmer does not have a "publicity" bug-- it looks more like ebola or something, and he's not afraid to go out in public with it.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that."
I, for one, am glad that Microsoft came along. After all, what would we do without the universities?
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
How is this juicy? Gates and Ballmer have been asked by the people who own their company and all of the intellectual property if they have any plans of giving it all away for free. They said essentially "no", because then there'd be no business to speak of and all of your investments would be worthless. This is pretty damn basic. How is this "juicy"??
I think I'd have to hear more of an explanation about that credit-taking statement. As it stands, it doesn't make any sense.
I mean, sure, open source might not even be an issue if companies like MS weren't hell-bent on performing in monopolistic ways. But him saying MS is responsible for the open source movement is like saying the Romans who persecuted the early Christians should have credit for it's spread.
Gates: "Well, shareholders, I know the world thinks I'm an evil son-of-a-bitch, but if I wasn't an evil son-of-a-bitch, there wouldn't be this great open source movement going on!"
My sigs always suck.
Gates also took some credit for the genesis of open-source software. He said Microsoft made it possible by standardizing computers: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines," he said.
Wow, thanks for the info Bill. I didn't know you guys did hardware! And open source was your creation? Really! Did you invent the internet also, or was Al Gore lying to us?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
In answer to the question of why MSFT doesn't pay a "g**d damn dividend", it's pretty simple.
Look, MSFT is a shell company, one that permits Bill and Paul and a few other major shareholders to buy other companies. By maximizing the capital growth and having no dividends, they reduce their effective tax rate to 8 to 10 percent. Then they sell off a few shares and pay the 5 year capital gains tax on them, or sell the high purchase shares and keep the low purchase shares, thus getting a capital loss.
That's why there's no dividend.
Until MSFT becomes more like GE, where no single shareholder owns more than 20 percent of the stock, this will never change.
This is their way of avoiding taxes. People like me buy a mix of stocks - some dividend and some non-dividend - we use the non-dividend stock to go long on capital gains and thus reduce our tax hit (realized income) and use the dividends from the other stock (or bonds, PERQs, SPARQs, money market) to provide enough cash flow for expenses.
Thus we pay less tax than the working poor do. My realized income is very small. And so is Bill's and Paul's.
Unless you change the tax system, we'll keep doing things like that. There is no incentive to realize earned income, under the current system.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
as though it weren't patently obvious :
1) bill gates claims MS responsibility for the popularity of the IBM-clone (see the post above yours, great job done on that.)
2) he claims people making software for free, then companies stealing it is a 'cycle'. he admits GPL breaks this, but he sees it as a bad thing of course.
3) MS is trying to build 'grass roots' support for windows,.. ie, make a site that is to windows as
i'd say your handle is your iq, but... i think that'd be too generous
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Microsoft saying 'won't you buy our Linux software'
Ya know, I do agree with you to a point: MS did push/prode some for of standards on personal computers back in the day. The merits of their system (I hated DOS then too) can be debated elsewhere.
Now, that said...
What if there had never been Microsoft? What if Bill Gates had decided to sell insurance and then get into designing role-playing games instead?
Would we not have PC's today? Would we still be in the 70's era of computers?
I highly doubt it. Somehow, we would have stilled ended up with PCs today, probably just with another OS and such. (Like OS Warp or even a true desktop *nix, who knows?)
So, arguing that MS is responsible for where we are today is kinda pointless and giving them lots of credit for it is just as so. They were in the right place, pushed the right buttons, and did so at the right time. Nothing more.
Bill Neukom's answer concerning the "Freedom to Innovate Network" makes the company sound like a cult. In response to a question, Neukom says:
"The network is a very vital organization, it's open for new members and we
invite more activity from existing members. We are constantly supplying information and it is
designed to be a grassroots organization of people of open-minded goodwill who are interested in
bringing to the attention of public decision makers useful information and help them make sensible
decisions in a way that would be constructive for high-technology industries, particularly
information technology. So, we thank all of you who are members, we invite you all to consider
being members, and that network provides a vital source of information that helps bring about
decisions that help us as an industry innovate and grow and serve our customers."
Microsoft will NEVER change.
Gates also took some credit for the genesis of open-source software. He said Microsoft made it possible by standardizing
computers: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's
identical with millions and millions of machines," he said.
Well Bill, you're right. You are the reason for open-source software. Just not for the reasons you think you are.
Dick.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Not hardly. Sorry to point out the obvious, but the reason the slashdot icon for the Micro$oft topic is Bill Gates as a borg is because of it's ability to adapt.
It has adapted by doing anything it needs to to destory the competition.
It has adapted by pushing for laws like the DMCA and the SSSCA to stop Open Source/Free Software.
It is not adapting to it's bad reputation with this speech. Nothing more. If you are expecting change, i reckon that you will be sorely dissapointed.
Taco puts the lotion on its skin!
Taco puts the lotion on its skin now , or it gets sprayed with the hose!
They don't care if a few people disagree with them.. but when a great many devleopers start NOT supporting microsoft, and not sayin "Gee, this is great new stuff you've given the world".. microsoft sees problems on the horizon.
So basically, free software is only good for taking the software that you didn't create, didn't put any work into, and stealing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hselling it commercially, then waiting for the next big free software project to come out, and sell that one. I guess it saves MS some money; they don't have to buy out a company to get it's good software.....
How very droll.
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
Gates and Ballmer exude pure arrogance in the way they take credit for everything from the BIOS to free software. The victor is the one who writes history, eh? Good thing they're not the victor yet, and their attempts at writing the history books come off as lies.
Gee, I didn't know Gates was responsible for all that free software I used to use back in the CPM days before M$ even existed. Even the stuff I wrote too! Thank you, Bill Gates! Without you, I wouldn't exist today!
I sort of am, to be honest. Notwithstanding that words don't necessarily translate into action, those two quotes seem to indicate that Gates and Ballmer are starting to "get" why people dislike the company.
Given Mircosoft's arrogance over the years, that's a really big first step.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Come on people, what GPL projects have you contributed to? File a bug report, write a patch, help with the documentation, write a HOWTO, anything. Help make Linux strong!
They have no idea how badly XP and Xbox are going to flop. Trust me, I've spoken with several people regarding the WPA (product activiation) and people will REFUSE to pay for it. They know how sucky it is. No one will pay for it.
The shareholder's are polishing the brass on the titanic; it's all going down
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
Who did they knife in the back?
Intuit did a good job of giving Microsoft the shaft when they locked MS out from online bill paying so that Money would still have trouble competing with Quicken.
I believe Broderbund had a contract with MS where MS couldn't hire anyone away. The CEO of Broderbund got pissed off when MS did hire someone, and called up Bill Gates, only to be told that, yeah, they were hired away, but the contract that prevented that expired already. Way to keep on the ball, Broderbund (or whichever company it was...I can't recall right now).
Microsoft might be legally an illegal monopoly, but if hard proof of "knifing in the back" can be provided, I would like to see it.
Perhaps if other companies would hire intelligent people and work as aggressively, we might see some actual innovations from them as well as MS.
Too many companies are being big babies and crying about it instead of actually doing something. What was the last big innovation we saw from a major company outside of the open source community? AOL hasn't really done anything, and I am at a loss to really point out anything Sun or any other company has done that affects me now.
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
nobody said they were intelligent,...
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Here's a different look at Microsoft's future.
I don't know a whole lot about Mennonite churches, but isn't this a little liberal for them?
--------- Matt
I just read the rest of it.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The National Weather Service has issued a karma whore alert for the remainder of this thread. Forcasts call for class F karma twisters for the next hour in the tri-counties region.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but:
* What a vacuous event. Do shareholders really travel any distance for this presentation, year in and year out?
* All of one shareholder proposal for voting? Shareholders are true owners, aren't they..?
that's Michael Sims... get it right moron
Well, the company might want to start by toning down the habit of taking credit for every innovation
At least Al Gore took credit for the creation of the Internet.
"We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry."
Translation: "No more Mr. Nice Microsoft. From now on we will use stronger threats."
So if Microsoft is responsible for Open Source, and Open Source (by their own accusations) is Unamerican, then isn't Gates really taking credit for a great deal of Unamerican Activity?
Hmmm, you know, this IS a time of war. Maybe the new Ashcroft HUAC would be interested...
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
"MR. BALLMER: I just want to add one thing, echo what Bill said, but encourage you to go to our web site. If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software, it's kind of inconsistent with the goals of most people in the room. We recognize it, it probably doesn't fit in most of these people's mind's eye, so we're not going to embrace that."
It's quite simple really. They tell shareholders what they want to hear and their shareholders don't want to hear about free software.. Yet! I've said it a hundred times: the free software revolution is in its infancy. When the 'critical mass' of OSS code base is reached, which is inevitable, Microsoft is going to have to innovate or die. Free and proprietary software are not complementary and they will not peacefully co-exist for much longer.
I don't think this holds any water whatsoever but it might serve as the thread of a pretext to unravel the warm snug cozy wool poncho we all call open source. There are several dozen ways you spin this to make it look like those damnable hackers and terrorists aren't paying their taxes like everyone else has to.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Some dude whose quote I haven't given much thought to until recently
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
is it just me, or do the photos in the microsoft meeting website show everybody there as being hideously ugly?
:)
:/
That, and what is here really can't be trusted. Shareholders are coddled, and this whole meeting was just for internal PR purposes. Bill could say basically anything, and probably has -- he's not really the most trustworthy guy on the planet!
just ramblings from a man who had to drink a cup of really bad decaff this morning in lieu of real coffee...
It's been a long time.
your post makes it blatantly obvious you are firstly ignorant of anything that happened in the computer industry before 1995.
in no way did MS-DOS make the PC ubiquitous. it's the other way around, jackass. DOS was just along for the ride. nobody bought a PC because DOS was so great.
in terms your PR-addled brain can understand: DOS itself was not the 'killer app.'
my point had nothing to do with MS themselves giving away free software, you bring up your same point again. which is valid, but was so obvious a five year old would have known it.
look, i'd argue with you further but it's clear you won't understand any viewpoint but your own. so very sad.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Yep, while all this was going on, Apple was just sitting on their hands. Commodore, too. And the TRS-80. Atari, too. Microsoft was the only one who saw a future in the home computer market.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
"All your base are belong to us". Amazing! He's addmitted that he thinks his company should be free to exploit the labor of others without compensation and be the only conduit of that free effort in any "adequate" form. This does not do much for my view of M$. I'm waiting for anything M$ that is the equal of Debian, Red Hat or OpenBSD, and therefore adequate.
It's the blind leading the blind. Bill, where is your mind?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Ahh, Steve Ballmer, poster child for ADD.
They bought it from the guy who did. If Microsoft hadn't existed, IBM would have bought it directly from Gary Kildall, or used the real deal (CP/M, which was what DOS was inspired by), or any of a number of other operating systems that were easily available in the 1980 time frame.
All Microsoft did was the same thing they always did... sold something that someone else invented after sticking their name on it.
Microsoft has had a significant hand in creating a common PC platform, and their biggest "contribution" came first.
That contribution? Convincing IBM to license PC-DOS on a non-exclusive basis. That left Microsoft free to sell MS-DOS to clone makers.
With the same OS available, only the BIOS needed cloning in order to produce IBM compatible machines.
No noble intentions, but a very powerful coup.
"And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that."
Bill's right. We should be nicer to Microsoft. The universities are flourishing, fer chrissakes!!
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
the pc bios. If you think IBM is some paragon of open and cheap systems, I have a 80lb, MCA bus only IBM PS/2 model 80 to sell you, that originally retailed for at least 6k, IIRC, maybe 8k. IBM was forced downwards pricewise by those who figured out the pc bios and made clones. IBM tried to avoid that with proprietary foolishness - MCA, and it damn near killed them (that among a shopping list of bad decisions in the late 80s).
ostiguy
(*) Requires product registration.
PS: Does anybody really believe Microsoft will change?
Did I not read on this site that M$ paid no federal taxes last year? Maybe Bill could help out Uncle Sam a little and pay his fair share..or under a Republican administration is his fair share zero!!!!
I want to be alone with the sandwich
XP has one of the easiest installations I've ever seen, and no distribution of Linux has ever succesfully installed on my box!
Are you sure you don't have it backwards? For me installing Mandrake 8.1 or RedHat 7.2 is like a warm and pleasant dream. I honestly believe a total Linux newbie could manage it.
When I protestingly installed XP on a friend's machine last week (me: "I don't wanna touch Windows, I'm a Linux geek!" him: "But I want it *professionally* installed!") I was floored by the requisite 3 reboots and by major portions of the install being in text mode. It brought back a dusty old memory of installing NT4 before I discovered the Goodness of the Penguin.
No modern Linux distro would be caught with such a clunky setup. It would *immediately* be flamed for being too hard to install. I think it is time to have the "Linux is hard to install" FUD declared obsolete. Anyone who can install XP can certainly install a current Linux distro.
"We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry," Ballmer said.
Take a gander at this excerpt: (emphasis added)
Sounds like ol' Billy has seen his doom coming, and it's the GPL!
Take a good hard look at that rambling morass of a quote, and you see the strategy (and the enormous depth of self-delusion) that will be driving Microsoft forward. Free-as-in-Beer, Good! Free-as-in-Speech, Bad!
In Bill's world, Free Software is fine as a toy, an interim solution, and educational tool, but it takes a company to turn it into something useful! Nothing good ever comes out of the commons!
Except, of course, the "Microsoft Commons". Funny, when was the last time community work became part of Microsoft, except by force?
And gee, where have we seen this attitude before?
How about in the actions of every tin-pot political dictator who tried to buy off the goodwill of his oppressed subjects with free goodies! The barbarians are howling at the Gates, and Bill is offering Microsoft's shareholders bread and circuses!
Funny thing Bill, those dictators don't have much of a track record....
Stallman (for all his faults and foibles) is the Martin Luther of the information age, and bill is the Pope. Quick - who can name the Pope who was in service when Luther nailed his manifesto to the door of the cathedral?
Me neither.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I can see it now... Microsoft meets Slashdot... Microdot, news for sheep, stuff that we think matters
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
As a hardcore linux user it pains me to read the shareholder meeting notes from Microsoft, but the problem is I read them as a linux user. :)
People that pay microsoft aren't linux users. People that are there aren't linux users. Microsoft is, much like the United States government, old, rich white men keeping a stranglehold on what they have and trying to get even more. Twice...TWICE the question of 'where are the women?' came up and both times, it was danced around like someone stood up and asked, "Do you know how easy it is to bootleg your software?".
Microsoft is run by people represanitive of the US governement, and runs the US government.
What does all of this have anything to do with this?
Let's say that it was better times socially here in the US (that's my disclaimer to say that this is completley hypothetical) and you wanted to even be heard by the government as a minority of say native americans with a list of grievences.
They don't care about you. You are not in their agenda. You are not part of their 'plan'. So, in order to stop their plans you have to get in their way. You don't do this by playing along the same rules and guidelines, because you'll always be losing. You have to assess your goals, look to see how you can get there with what you have to accomplish what you want but never ever underestimate your enemy and always know what they are doing.
So, let's bring this full circle. Re read the microsoft article but not as a linux user but as one of their enemies. Study it. Learn from it. Understand exactly what they are doing. It's all right there. We need to reassess our goals. Are we trying to compete with Microsoft? Give up now. You have to bring them down, sideswipe them and play their game by different rules. Everyone whines and complains about microsoft being this horrible machine and evil and all that and I'm no different, but that only feeds into them. We should be studying their tactics, their moves and their goals. They got this far because they are dirty, underhanded and brilliant.
Much like white supremisists, you can't beat them down like you would really like to do, but in order to beat them, you must learn from your enemy their weaknesses, their fundamental beliefs, and their system of existance in order to figure out what is really going on.
Then, and only then, do you beat them down
I don't know where Gates gets his figures, but Google tells me that Canada is up there with South Korea with penetrations of around 40-50%. This neat page of summary stats shows Denmark and Sweden at around 14% and I suspect many Scandinavian and other European countries are on par with the US's 11% broadband penetration rate. Sounds to me like the US is fighting for fifth at best. Articles at Newsbytes, and Broadband week both refer to a study by eMarketer that seems to says similar things.
An older report by the Strategis Group referred to in this CNN article names Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Singapore, and Sweden as likely to lead broadband penetration.
Mozilla
Didn't work before...won't work now. Restraint in the use of power is certainly more difficult for nations than for companies. Actions will speak louder than words for most people when it comes down to it.
Shareholders rejected, for the second year in a row, a proposal to have Microsoft join a coalition seeking to enforce labor and humanitarian standards in China. Executives said the company abides by similar principals on its own.
Repeat after me. MSTDs. Lets get it to catch on. Just imagine how pissed Bill will be.
...or is their Executive VP really Dr. Who?
t 01 BillnJohncon.jpg
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/speech/smeet/smee
I noticed that myself in the CS classes I took; even in the lower level classes, I'd have a lecture of 90 people, and I was one of the 4 women in the class. Quite strange. Interesting stat on GE, btw.
These days I'm more worried about the possibility of Time Warner/America OnLine buying out the rest of Amazon.com than MS pulling PR moves. I believe TW'AOLzon is referenced somewhere as a Great Old One.
.NET takeover. Don't let down your guard!! My CS buddies and I were at UIUC (sponsored by M$ this year) and we *still* aren't sure what .NET is. I half-jokingly believe that MS doesn't actually *have* .NET specs created yet. They fed the parameters for what .NET was supposed to be into XML and gave it a database of all current programming languages. It's parsing their "strategy" right now. After giving it a cup of really strong hot tea, of course ;)
But all this shareholder crap is just a smoke screen for the coming
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
...in my opinion. Whatever benefit capitalism has for society...it is and "emergent" one. Certainly corporations, under capitalism, only have an obligation to benefit shareholders. Customers benefit only as long as there is competition for their business. When that competition is gone, there is nothing left but shareholder profit. Look at XP...that says it all.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
I recall reading some time ago (Philip Greenspun's site perhaps??) that Gates' mother was on the board of the American Red Cross with the chairman of IBM.
Coincidence that a small-time software company with no previous operating system for sale would get such a large contract??
I think not.
Glenn
first, Mr. Ballmer says: "The last three years, the period of the lawsuits, people ask us what we've learned. From the lawsuit itself, I don't know exactly how to answer that question from time to time..."
and shortly afterwards: "We need to expand the range of companies, bigger companies, established companies that we have relationships with, in the telecommunications industry, in the media industry..."
i thought that if they were a monopoly that they were not allowed to do precisely this type of thing. indeed, it would appear that Mr. Ballmer hasn't learned anything from the law suits.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
Perhaps your opinion has some basis in your being a Linux geek?
I've installed both Mandrake and XP several times recently (and XP about 30 times in the 6 months before that) and my opinion differs from yours. XP does require a couple of reboots, and there is some portion of it that's text-y (which doesn't bug me at all), but other than that in installs like a dream. Even my boss installs it himself.
Mandrake, on the other hand, has never properly recognized all of my hardware, is somewhat cryptic, and requires considerably more knowledge to repair the install if it doesn't proceed perfectly. These are not the hallmarks of an easy to install product.
You, of course, will disagree. Which is my point.
that's all, free software means no sales tax, and gosh our government really needs those tax dollars. I see it so clearly now, MS is just being good for the ecconomy.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Even if Gates meant that commodity PC architecture was helped out by Microsoft's monopoly practices, that wouldn't explain why kernel development projects like NetBSD and Linux have developers who attempt to port to every CPU architecture imaginable!
Dude, stop listening to Rush. You're in your late thirties, fer chissakes. Grow up!
If you're *really* into yourself--and what honest Randian isn't?--try reading some Stirner.
"In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle."
Bill is implying that GPL is an affront to the American system by saying companies hire people and pay taxes, as if something is wrong with GPL because it doesn't. The American system is for capitalism, but also for free speech and thus the open exchange of ideas. We need to strike a *balance*, not just put down anything non-capitalistic in nature. This line of thinking is simple minded and would be ludicrous if it weren't so dangerous.
He says GPL was "designed" to break the cycle where people develop free software then enhanced commercial software is developed on that free base. This shows again shows Bill is a bit delusional, I don't get the impression that GPL was created to destroy business, but to protect from exploitation the systems that hard working volounteers have built. Bill's cycle sounds awefully familiar:
A company develops innovative software, Microsoft borrows it, and then runs them out of business.
Microsoft borrows kerberos, "extends it", and makes renders it non-interoperable with existing implementations.
Numerous other examples can be cited. *shrug* I think Bill will need some therapy before we see any honest attempts at change.
I think that Microsoft HAS been the seminal power behind open source in a very strange and obscure way. So yes, Microsoft IS the reason that Open Source as a movement is able to compete today. People will disagree with me saying "Look at GNU. It is designed to be a UNIX killer, not a Windows killer. Look at Linux's effect on UNIX. It is not about Windows at all!"
However, let us look at the economics for a moment. Microsoft is a company with very little technical innovation but one world-shattering contribution-- the introduction of a multi-vendor OS manufacturer. This really does not seem like much but it really is. Microsoft's contribution really HAS resulted in lower prices for the consumer because they were able to help more companies sell their products hence spreading more of the cost of development around rather than letting it land on a comparitively few customers. This has allowed many more people to use computers because they can now afford to do so.
The ubiquity of the computer which really IS Microsoft's legacy is the driving factor of Open Source and Free Software because it allows a much greater number of developers to work on projects. Open Source has an economy of scale too. Would Linux have existed if Linus had not been able to afford a 386?
BUT: Open source then takes Microsoft's edge and makes it sustainable. It is a market innovation which beats Microsoft's market innovation. In this war, Microsoft cannot win.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
MS Borg Groups
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." -Mohandas Karamchang Ghandi
i++;
DNA just wants to be free...
YOUDON'TKNOWWHATPAIN IS!
I just realized I get better Microsoft coverage here at Slashdot than anywhere else! Innit ironic?
Back in 1975, Microsoft was producing nothing of any relevance to today's PC market. Basically, Microsoft pulled out of a deal with IBM to make a GUI interface to their feature poor DOS OS, won the marketing war vs. IBM's superior OS/2, and now , with the blessing of a complacent justice department, enjoys a powerful industrial monopoly!
In 1983, GNU was started, based on principles of Good coding standards and code sharing...! The GCC compiler project led directly to developments like LINUX, APACHE, PERL, etc...APACHE, for example powers 50% of our web pages today, more stably and securly than microsoft's IIS servers! Gimme a break, Microsoft does not deserve the accolades that you are implying!!!
(slap me down if you must, but I can't keep this one from slipping out)
A new Movie about Microsoft:
forget Antitrust, wait till you see:
Crouching Monopolist, Hidden Agenda.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
Here's my favorite quote from Gates:
" So I?m pleased that even in this last year, as PC sales and the economy were tough, Microsoft showed its commitment to long term R&D. We grew R&D percentage wise less than in most years, and I think that?s probably what you?ll see going forward."
Since they cut funding for R&D, and plan to cut it more going forward, plan on seeing more blatant ripoffs, err...I mean innovations.
Really. This is all such bullshit. I can see it now: Ballmer and Gates sitting around some massive table in a dark little room having a "soul-searching" discussion.
What, they're gonna get all touchy-feely now? Nex TechNet convention everybody is gonna join hands and let Ballmer know that he's succeeded well at this new mission to teach Microsoft how to "comport" itself as a company?
You know companies are full of the bullshit spin when they publically start talking about how it's high time to "change our image" and become less of a draconian, narcissistic, behemoth and more of a "company that understands."
Hey, here's a new flash for Microsoft. From someone down here in trenches.
Number one, shut the fuck up. Shut the fuck up about all this image enhancement and lessons learned about "just what exactly this massive monopolistic suit has taught us."
You know what it should have taught you? Not that you need to get more emotional with your employees but that you're a massive, monopolistic behemoth who steamrolled over a lot of good talent in order to get to the top. Maybe, okay, that's the nature of the business. Well, if it is, here's a clue: shut the fuck up about it. Don't remind people that you *aren't* touchy-feely and you *were* a massive, monopolistic behemoth that steamrolled over a lot of good talent.
Number two, no one really cares. The world ain't built around Microsoft. Much as Ballmer likes to leap around the stage and pretend he's got energy, the world has its own share of non-microsoft problems. You wanna go touchy-feely and try to comport yourself anew? Great, more power to ya.
Ya wanna try to "reduce the cutthroat culture" within the halls of Microsoft?
Great, go ahead, Pal. Do what ya need to do. Leap around the stage, waving your arms, spitting, screaming: "I love this COMPANY! I love this company!"
Whatever.
Just love your little employees, compete fairly, and keep on keeping on. Just don't announce that you're gonna love your little little employees, compete fairly, and keep on keeping on.
Really, no one cares. No one cares. No one really fucking cares.
Really.
It occurs to me that maybe he should run for public office. His debate skills are most impressive. But then he'd probably find some way to oust the Chancellor, hunt down all the Jedi, and disband the Imperial Senate. (Can't you just see Ballmer jumping up and down in Vader's outfit? Tee hee hee.)
Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines,
This is laughably wrong. RMS made the GPL and the Free Software movement in the early 80s, when Gates was still piddling around with DOS and saying that 640K should be enough for anybody. The actual movement started even earlier; the concept of open source predated commercial software.
In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together. There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL
Gates apparently doesn't know what a "cycle" is. A cycle, by definition, has to link back up again with its origins, in this case, free software. Microsoft breaks the cycle by incorporating open source code into, for example, its TCP/IP stack. The GPL restores the cycle by requiring developers to give their changes back to the community.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
Tell that to Red Hat.
Here's a telling quote from Ballmer:
If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software, it's kind of inconsistent with the goals of most people in the room.
In other words, Microsoft is against freedom in software. Remember, we're talking free speech, not free beer. So all this stuff about "Freedom to Innovate" is nothing more than a thinly veiled apologetic for Microsoft's business practices.
Indeed, Microsoft single-handedly revolutionized the world economy by making powerful and inexpensive computing technology available to all.
There you have it. Truth in print. The rest of the article is as equally fact filled and interesting to read.O=='=++
But this is what stood out to me. Bill Gates himself has now called slashdot "brilliant"! He could, of course, be talking about newsgroups. If you've spent much time there, you know the linux groups are much more friendly than the groups full of MS apologists. The truth is that people who write software, and give it away for free are friendly!
Once I was working on writing a driver for a network card on microcontroller hardware. I wrote to Alan Cox, to ask for help. My work had nothing to do with GNU or linux, but guess what.... He responded, and told me exactly what I needed to know! I doubt Ballmer would do that!
MS may try to copy our developer model, but it will never work. People in a corporate atmosphere cannot harness the full power of cooperation, because it's not in their nature.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
I interpret what really happened in this other way:
l ash-results
BALLMER: After 20 years of backstabing, copying other's innovations, playing Mafia-games with IT companies, abusing our consumers and stealing children's bubblegum, we have gotten a slap on the wrist by the DoJ. Surely this means something.
GATES: If I might add a few words...
BALLMER:, Sure, Bill, go on.
GATES: Our impressive innovation Laboratories -MS-iLabs , (c) (R) - show that actualy being nice to customers can help selling our product...
AUDIENCE: (gasps, mutted comments of surprise, a few horror screams)
BALLMER: Be quiet back there! It is true! You can get the results in ExcelXP format at dubya-dubya-dubya-microsoft-dot-com-slash-ilabs-s
GATES: In fact, in a demo-test carried over at Poukeespie-upon-Avon (Yorkshire, UK) with a cautive population, we discovered that WindowsXP-SE was being bought by people that had no history of verbal-and-phisycal abuse by part of our marketing representatives.
SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE: Don't you think that having both legs not-broken could help? I mean, last year, in the ASF file that you showed us about training methods for Microsoft Certified Marketing Representatives , they were being trained in "MS-Leg-Breaking-As-A-Buying-Stimulous 101". Maybe we should change this module to "MS-**ARM-TWISTING**-As-A-Buying-Stimulous 101" instead of playing nice...
AUDIENCE: Yeah! yeah! that sounds more sensible!
GATES: Please! Calm down! I personally worked with the MS-iLabs environment definition and I can assure you that the results are true!
AUDIENCE: but... but.... We Want Blood! We Want Blood! We Want Blood!
CATS: All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
CATS: Make Your Time!
BILL: HAHAHAHA
BALMER: Take Off Every ZiggyXP!!!!
God, where is MEEPT now? S/he could do much damage on those boards; OR DAVEO...REMEMBER THAT GUY DAVEO WHO REFERRED TO HIMSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON AND ALWAYS TYPED IN CAPS AND WAS HARD TO READ AND SUCH AND SUCH? So many slashdot memories...
The things that bothers me the most from the minutes of this shareholder meeting? The fact that only 8.9% of Microsoft shares (how many shareholders is that?) agreed that Microsoft should avoid engaging in deals with the Chinese Government that would result in further human rights abuses by the Chinese Government.
The attitude at the meeting seemed to me to be that "as long as we make a buck, we don't care."
have nothing to do with Windows, and they predate it. For example, the reason there is Linux is because people wanted a free clone of their favorite environment, which obviously wasn't Windows, and because they wanted to engage in fun hacking. That environment they wanted to clone wasn't seriously buggy or unstable; the motivation wasn't that the world needed a ``crash proof'' operating system. Only that it could use a free one.
The results have had the unexpected benefit of providing an alternative to users who are not happy with Windows for whatever reason. That there are such users, and that some of them are loud Microsoft bashers is entirely Microsoft's fault, and has nothing to do with the free software.
Gates is trying to promote the view that free software is only reaction to ``big, bad'' Microsoft, and therefore the motivation behind this software is not legitimate outside of the context of Microsoft. By extension, it's not legitimate in the context of a ``kinder, gentler'' Microsoft either.
When I started using Linux, it was because it could connect to the Internet and support multiple logged in users. At that time, Windows had no credible protocol stack for connecting to the Internet, and still cannot support multiple users today. Windows was so beneath consideration in 1992 that it wasn't even on the mental radar of any hacker. Though it has improved, the predominant consumer version still remains an unstable, unreliable crock that can't be trusted with any application needing more than a solid half a day of uptime. The industrial version of Windows is better in that regard, but that's completely besides the point. To the early adopters, Linux had to prove that it worked as well as, say, SunOS. Or reasonably well to be used in many of the same ways. Not that it crashed less than Windows; who with a clue would have been impressed with that?
So given the state of Windows when some of this free software was germinating, to call it a reaction to Windows is pathetically laughable at best. Or it would be pathetically laughable if uttered by some Anonmous Coward on Slashdot. But someone like Gates must be treated seriously; when he says so, it is a blatant, dangerous lie.
We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry," Ballmer said.
...
Guess what, all your industry belongs to MS
"...we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use..."
Genesis 1:3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Geez, Billy...Get the fuck off your high-horse. It's our turn to play God...
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
So, wait. Al Gore invented the internet, Bill Gates created open source... This is getting confusing!
Screw this. I'm going back to AOL, where it's so easy, no wonder it's #1!
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
hrmmmm...sounds like a certain former vice president I know...
But actually when you think about it, the reason Microsoft is in its position of dominance today is because they decided to open their APIs to software developers and concentrate on compatibility, as opposed to Apple, who kept all their secrets tightly held. It was the reason for Apple's eventual demise. In the last few years, however, Microsoft has gone the other direction...closing things up and making them "Microsoft Only". No wonder nobody likes them anymore...
Maybe someone posted this already, but what about the other OS's? Sorry, my first comps were Macs. Graphical interfaces weren't a M$ revolution, maybe even precedents to Apple like Next, etc. Anyways, The evolution of software and OS's isn't all about M$. M$ Office is dominant now, but what about all the others that have come and gone? Equally important to the spread of home pc's has to be all the game titles, most of proabably have bought more games than anyother pc software product. People don't have PCs due soley to M$.
Oh, and M$ makes cr@ppy games in general.
I'd guess that Mandrake is a good candidate there, i really don't know if it's easiest, but it went very straightforward. There were some bumps with X, but it was 7.0 then, the present version is 8.1 and i guess they ironed it out. But there might've been problems for new users, that i couldn't see, because i already know Unix/Linux. But i heared/read from other sources too, that Mandrake is a good Linux for starting.
No. Not semantics. Fact. He didn't compare Gates to bin Laden. He compared a statement by Gates to a fictitious, yet equally ridiculous, statement by bin Laden. Nowhere does he compare Gates to bin Laden. I think the attack on your intelligence was warranted.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well never fear folks, it's not going to be Microsoft doing the wonderful 'innovating' in this field of computing. Why would I say that? Take a look at this press release from a year ago: CheckFree and TransPoint Complete Merger
(Transpoint was a joint venture between Microsoft, Citicorp, First Data, and a few other minor players. Unfortunately, their solution to online banking never really got rolling, and Checkfree essentially bought 'em out. I kinda doubt Microsoft will end up making big strides in the financial software arena, as that has never been their specialty.)
Disclaimer: Yes, Microsoft sucks.
However, many Linux developers will admit something - Microsoft made the proliferation of cheap, cloned hardware economically feasable.
This in turn increased the pool of potential Linux developers.
It wasn't MS's intention, but that was the effect. Leave it to Bill to claim credit for a totally unintentional by-product of his company's sucess...
"Gates also took some credit for the genesis of open-source software. He said Microsoft made it possible by standardizing computers: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines," he said."
do i even need to comment on this?
The really scary part of all this is not what words that come
out of MicroSofts obviously lying mouth, but that there are MS
drones, customers and stock holders that actually believe it.
I find it additionally scary that there are so called OSS and
linux supporters here that don't know the facts enough to know
that open source existed before Gates made BASIC for the Altair.
Where do you think he got the source to BASIC from?
There is also the hackers ethic, as written by Steven Levy in
an early book he did. An ethics which existed prior to Gates
Altair BASIC.
How come alot of the posters here don't seem to know this?
The fact is, Bill Gates Yelled "Piracy" and coined the word. And
in the process of what happened, the honest became distrustful
and the dishonest rationalized their taking Gates BASIC for the
Altair and fixing it, and selling their bosses on buying it.
In the process of Bill Yelling Piracy (and making the cover of
TIME Magazine - "The Great Software Flap") he busted up a natural
evolution of software development directions, one of trust and
openness.
For him to now try talking credit, the only credit he should get
on this matter is that of causing a great distraction and detour
of what would have been a far more innovative direction of not
only software but hardware. Stalling out a major forward direction
in order to apply consumer entrapment abuse so as to extract
monies from consumers of such products.
In legal terms It's called Anti-Trust. WHY DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THIS?!
This is not true. The real reason was that GNU software (which comprises a substantial part of what some people call "open source") was (and is) designed to be ported to a variety of systems (in fact, it is the most ported software). All it took was a POSIX complient kernel/library to provide the whole system. It had nothing to do with the homogeneity of systems, but with the skill of the program authors to provide the ability of the operating system to be ported to many kernels (such as the wonderful Linux, obviously).
Here's my experience with XP:
Install from bootable CD. Some text mode, but nothing awful, and it all was pretty easy to understand, with defaults that looked pretty good (I didn't have to change anything.)
After text mode finishes, system configures itself. Yes, it took a lot longer to do this than my RedHat 7.2 box did, but oh well. Big whoop.
After OS boots, install drivers from Web. Double-click Nvidia package, double-click Creative package, reboot. No activation, no BS. It's ready for me to move on to installing Office (which also went in quite smoothly.)
Machine is configured and ready for use.
Compare that driver part to the hell I'm going through installing Nvidia's drivers for Linux (the SRPM's just won't install, so it doesn't work.) No editing X86Config files. No loading kernel modules. Just run the two executables, reboot, and enjoy.
Just because the installer runs doesn't mean it's all good. There's a lot more to a computer than the OS, including drivers and software.
llllll i iii nn n o oooooooooo o oxxx
The largest problem with Linux installs comes from Windoze bassed intentional hardware obfuscasion. There may be 100s network cards bassed on NE 2000 that can be run by a single driver, for example. M$ makes you have the specific brand name driver to work the $10 ass pain. Sound hardware is even worse. Free software avoids this as nothing is hidden. The information is on the web now, and more companies will be dumping that little M$ flag for the sake of honest development.
My problems have been few with Linux. Either a driver is available and it works or it's not. With M$, it was only a matter of time before something would break the registry and devices failed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ trash.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Mr. Ballmer has four words for you... We've... screwed... this... industry... yeah!!!!!!
First of all, you're a moron.
Do you REALLY think that of all of the current XP users, 70% of them are crooks? That's ridiculous.
Plain and simple, you linux monkeys are the only cheap bastards that don't pay for microsoft software because your OSS salary can barely pay your bills.
Allow me to translate this:-
:-) but today...
BG: We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
[In other words, other people can continue to work out new ideas 'for free' (i.e. at no cost to us) and we can commercially exploit their ideas (like we've done for the last 25 years.]
BG: There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle.
[But the GPL can put a serious spanner in the works of this practice, so we _really_ don't like it.]
In 1984 I thought that the microcomputer industry would make more progress without Stallman's GPL than with it. Hell, the industry had gone from integer BASIC to the Lisa/Mac interface in six years. I don't know if I made the wrong call then (how could I ever find out
Actually, I read through the investor relations doc, (well did a word search for "Open Source") and the "platform" gates is talking about is actually the PC, not windows/DOS.
... sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
..., but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle.
Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that.(emphasis mine)
If you want something to bitch about, read the next part:
We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things,
There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL that is not worth getting into
In any event, gets is not a very clear speaker, He kind of rambles on a bit. But I don't think he's claming that DOS and windows created Open source, but rather Microsoft's accidental (well, I'm sure he would take credit for it) creation of the standard PC industry. This is somewhat wrong, in that Free Software has been around longer then PCs, but also correct in the sense that the PC infrastructure provided a fertile breeding ground for the nascent Linux operating system, way back when.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
What he seems to be saying is that Linux can't run on an Apple Mac or an Archimedes.
Linux can run on a mac. And a lot of other hardware out there.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"but the open-source movement taken to its extreme would mean no software jobs or taxes paid by software companies"
/not/ pay any taxes! their employee share option policy allows them to write all their corporate tax liabilities off against the options! /i/ pay more tax than m$!
m$ does
say what you will about b.g & s.b., they have the cojones of giant brass bulls to stand up there and imply that m$ pays taxes that support the economy.
Standardize the hardware!?!? My ass! Before Microsoft/Windows took over the hardware we had hardware consortiums that would fight out OPEN standards so that they could make sure their stuff would work on the largest array of systems so that they could get the largest amount of sales.
Does anyone remember things like VGA, S-VGA, NE2000, ISO9660, etc... If you could get a generic driver loaded in your OS, you could access the hardware from whatever OS you were using. Now we have DirectX for everything, and Microsoft protocols for the rest. It's a miracle that we have things like Linux and other Open Source OSs given that there is absolutely no consistency among any hardware from any vendor. For crying out loud, just how long did it take before anyone could actually us a f*cking WinModem outside of Windows?!? A perfect case of making it hard for anyone who wanted to use an inexpensive modem to use anything BUT Windows.
I would have to say that rather than Open Source being success because of Windows, I believe Open Source has been a success INSPITE of Windows.
There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle.
The cycle in question is the cycle of theft. Not the cycle of software develupment. That is presumming Gates knows the diffrence and I think he dose.
The is a sereous issue in the software world.. both commertal and free..
I'll call it "conversion".. It's a kind of theft.
I saw a lot of in in the early to mid 1980s.
It went both directions.
It still happends today.
Only diffrence is theft of free software is perfictly legal...
Unless it's GPLed software..
To exemplify this.. Linux was originally released under a much harsher liccens than the GPL.
This was very commen and the direct result of the conversion of a free game by a major video game software company.
Microsoft is having a hard time "educating" the problems with the GPL becouse they can't just come out and say whats wrong with it.
The GPL means Microsoft can't steal parts of Freedows for use in Windows.
I'm sure Freedows would be perfictly willing to strike a deal with Microsoft...
Freedows can have access to Windows XP source code for develupment of the free platform and Microsoft can use Freedows for develupment of it's consummer platform.
But thats not what they want...
They want to steal just as quickly as the avrage software "pirate" would steal Windows...
I don't actually exist.
I found the following from the Seattle P-I summary of the shareholders meeting interesting:
"Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive officer, shrugged off the historic antitrust case, mentioning it as among problems that include 'lawsuits and blah, blah, blah.' He said Microsoft's real challenge is in taking on rivals such as AOL Time Warner Inc.'s America Online unit, Palm Inc. and IBM.
Each company represents areas Microsoft is seeking to dominate -- Internet service, hand-held computers and server software, respectively. Ballmer said they all have strong competitive offerings, but Microsoft has the benefit of its dominance in other areas."
I thought this was exactly what they were being sued for--using their monopoly in one area (the desktop OS) to extend themselves into other areas.
sounds like from the article heading microsoft combined balmers body and gates body into one... haha resistence is futile
I've said it over and over to who ever will
listen:
the only inovation that MSoft did was
in the field of agressive licensing.
That was it. They sent in the suits and
made the fools pay. Now that we are in
the midst of economic collapse (caused
by Msoft destroying the computer industry)
we are all loath to shell out another
100 bucks for another round with that
slut of a company, Msoft.
I'd rather throw my money away.
I think... ...ask questions of the high muckedy-mucks.
(Applause)
Thank you. I think that it's great how they let the common folk...
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Wild applause)
Thank you. I'd just like to conclude by saying, I'm glad the Mennonites were all up in there representing. Word.
(Thunderous applause and a smal riot ensues)
Thank you.
(More applause)
"We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry," Ballmer said.
Oh dear. The return of the Even More Draconian EULA!
microdot acid
cpeterso
The free software response is realy good fortune cookie materials.
Microsoft always answers questions about Open Source with concerns about the GPL. They said that the GPL doesn't allow Free software and commercial software to co-exist; which as many Slashdot readers know is not a true statement. They also fail to recognize that they themselves are the benefactors of a great deal of open source software. According to Microsoft themselves, the IP stack in Windows 2000 is almost verbatim from FreeBSD. They also discount the fact that there are other Open Source licenses than the GPL. The whole reply to the question that Bill Gates answered is logically flawed, and therefore useless.
One day, more people will regard things more logically and less emotionally, but untill then we will have to put up with spin doctors like Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer turning things around on us. Fortunately, Microsoft seems to do a good job of being their own worst enemy.
Here's looking forward when people won't care what operating system they run, but can interact and share without forethought of compatibility. If that comes from Microsoft, Linux, BSD, or Apple; I applaud whoever acheives it.
Wherever you go, there I am...
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
I agree that control of the code has a lot to do with open source, but I think that Bill is hitting on the reasons why OSS has become popular rather than te reasons why it exists at all.
The GNU project started in 1983 - after the first MS operating system, but long before Microsoft because the industry-dominating force it is right now. Bill surely knows this, and from that alone he can't claim any responsibility for the ideological roots of Open Source.
He's either talking about kids like me, who got into OSS to be different. I'm staying with open source for many other reasons, but if it weren't for the fact that Linux is the only way to try something different in a world where the only choices are Windows or MacOS (contrast with the days of MS-DOS, CP/M, Apples, Amigas, c64s, Spectrums, etc.) And before anyone jumps up and down shouting "BSD! BeOS!," sit down. The fact of life is, most people hear about Linux long before they hear about anything else.
If he's not talking about that, he's talking about the open source movement realizing just how powerful of a force standardization is. No, we don't all use the same OS or hardware platform, but overall, most of us are still using the same stuff - a POSIX operating system, X, KDE or Gnome, StarOffice or KOffice, and so on. POSIX and X aside, I don't think that anyone can tell me that most OSS projects don't at times steal heavily from "industry standard" software. Like a post further up said, we're riding on MS's coattails. And that's what is making the movement grow, too - when showing people what Linux can do, I generally have to show them that it can be just like Windows, hence why even though I usually use WindowMaker for my desktop and console-jockey around, when I'm showing someone else my computer, I generally show them WindowMaker, but also a Gnome desktop I keep around and let them see something that's more akin to what they are used to, with Drag 'n Drop and dekstop integration and registered file types and all that jazz that MS originally brought to the PC.
couldn't have said it better if my gpa were a full point higher!!! lol, but seriously this is dead on. God I love finance.
With Linux I can quickly and freely obtain a an OS that is current and will support my hardware. I don't know about you, but I prefer something coded in the last couple of months. I also really appreciate being able to compile a kernel specific to my hardware.
So I certainly don't agree with the full sort of free software foundation view that there should be no jobs in this area, and that the kind of commercial advances and risk taking that we've been able to do you can't get that, you can't get things like speech recognition on a tablet computer coming out of that kind of a paradigm.
Putting aside the absurd claim that free software advocates think no one should be employed as a programmer (have you stopped laughing yet?), there's a reason that a speech recognition tablet wouldn't be seen coming out of a free software project.
Free software developers write stuff they find useful. Who needs a tablet computer with speech recognition? For that matter, who needs speech recognition? There are a few people who need it, usually because of a disability. But these are people who probably cannot grasp a tablet computer in their hands. Those who need a tablet computer are in need of portability. They are probably using it outdoors, or in a factory, or other noisy environments where speech recognition is problematic at best, and pointless for most applications.
And do I really need to cite the example of Microsoft Bob? There was some pointless software, if there ever was any. No free software writer would spend two minutes on something like that, well maybe two minutes if he planned to release it as a joke. But that's all.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While this is an interesting idea (equating OSS with barter, and thereby taxable), I'm not too worried about it.
IANAL, but with barter, there is a specific exchange of goods that could have used money instead. With OSS, I am giving you the right to use some program, but there is nothing explicit in the license agreement that says you must give me something back.
This is not actual barter, ergo not taxable.
I'd be more worried about IP issues and proprietary, patented protocols than this.
Bad grammar and long-winded explanations are an obvious sign that the speaker is trying to avoid being straightforward. The kind of bad grammar evidenced here shows that there are certain key phrases that are in the agenda, and if it means stuttering over a few words to get to those points, so be it. This long quote by Bill Gates reveals his intention to speak things he knows are untrue. Those who think Bill doesn't get it are giving him too much credit for honesty. At this stage of their game, MS is hardly interested in representing the true nature of the "software ecosystem." Unfortunately, a lot of uninformed politicians and pundits are apt to jump on the MS anti-open-source bandwagon. Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate Network is the centerpiece of Microsoft's disinformation campaign. They've even adopted the nasty tactics of the Right Wing, such as asserting the opposite of the truth and using subtle ridicule to stifle debate. Expect more stomach-churning action in the coming months.
Translation: When Bill says "some people" he refers to those other people who you and I don't want to be: Those who settle for adequate. And of course, open source software is only adequate for simple little things.
When Bill refers to the capitalist tradition of hiring people and paying taxes he implies that OSS reduces the hiring of paid workers, and in this way hurts economic growth. This of course completely leaves out the overriding effects that OSS and free (as in beer) software have on the economy as a whole: lower costs, because your company isn't paying thousands of dollars in licensing fees to a centralized organization year after year; increased efficiency, because when bugs occur they are patched quickly, and not months or years later when MS gets around to it; furhter increased efficiency, because (for example) Linux leverages the power of older, less expensive hardware to do 90% of what servers are good for.
There are other "butterfly effects" that occur economically as a result of OSS, none of which Bill G. can see through his profit-colored glasses. The MS view is that software creates profit by leveraging corporate control to drive sales of licenses (priced according to MS standards, not market standards). It would seem that they see this as the end of the story. But software is much more than a boxed product for sale as Microsoft would have it. In a world now dependent on computer software for all forms of business, an economy benefits through the creative use of software. The software itself is just a starting point for innovation.
Because the quality of software has a global impact on productivity and efficiency everywhere it is essential that it be open and maintainable. A monopoly is identified in part as a company that institutes practices that benefit the company while harming the consumer. In this light Microsoft's attempts to misrepresent and vilify the open source movement are monopolisitic in the extreme.
There is a particular approach [called the GPL] that breaks the cycle ... that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called Free Software Foundations designed that to break that cycle.
Okay, we've heard it a million times before, but for completeness... Translation: In order for Real Software to exist it has to be supported in its development. Real Development is supported by paying Real Money to Real Programmers and then advertising it during The Real World. The GPL is a viral substance like Ice-Nine that "breaks the cycle" of the development of Real Software, causing programmers to lose work, software-selling companies to go out of business, and Real Software to become extinct.
In terms of getting people excited about software and building communities around them, yes, that is a key to success. Nobody has done that more effectively than we have with Windows. Are there ways that we can do that better? Are there aspects of this where we're actually learning from all our different competitors out there? I think it's fair to say yes.
... continuing in the same vain, Bill here reminds us that Real Software is an important part of our identity, our culture, and our community. Windows represents the centerpiece of that culture and identity. Is Micirsoft learning from its competitors? Well, it's trying to emulate them in any case.
In the free-software vision ... there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion. So I certainly don't agree with the full sort of Free Software Foundation view that there should be no jobs in this area, and that the kind of commercial advances and risk taking that we've been able to do you can't get that, you can't get things like speech recognition on a tablet computer coming out of that kind of a paradigm. You can get things that follow along, you can get some smaller software, and so we embraced the idea of the free software paradigm and the commercial software paradigm moving forward in really a self-reinforcing way.
On the issue of taxes: Is this really the Free Software Vision(TM) Bill? Mr. Gates' emphasis on taxes is dubious, to say the least. As an economy grows its tax revenues grow. It is not by virtue of taxes being paid that governments and societies benefit. If tomorrow a car appeared that was affordable and got 200 miles per gallon people would spend less money on gasoline, but they'd likely spend more money on something else. The oil industry might be harmed, but the economy itself would quickly begin to show growth as a result of the new freedom and affordability of travel.
The situation is not so different with software given its ubiquity. If people stop spending money on Microsoft software and choose free or open source software it might hurt poort beleaguered Microsoft, but there will be a positive impact on the economy as a whole. Bill's code-words to representatives from Washnington state: the GPL threatens your kickbacks and graft!
On the second point: Does the Free Software Foundation really state in its literature someplace that the software industry should go away and be replaced by altruists with decent coding skills? No, of course Bill is just plain lying here.
As for Bill's last point, that open source projects can't produce sophisiticated software, such as a speech-recognition system: Bill is using his Freedom to Innovate to make up innovative lies. Given a good specification, a couple of clever programmers with knowledge about speech recognition, and a few months of key-pounding, decent software can be and is produced for every platform. If a company thinks it can sell lots of hardware units by having speech recognition in its nifty toy tablet device, they can hire specialists to contribute to the project. They can hire programmers and designers to make a decent UI. They don't have to make the project GPL, and if they want to protect their code investment so that nobody can use it in a cheaper / better tablet computer, they should do that. At this point Bill is just trying to get in his schtick leading up to the Shared Source program, which, my dear shareholders, is kinda like Open Source, except that members of the program get to pay more than they do for Closed Source and get far less than they do with Open Source.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We have three concerns about Microsoft's China operations, labor rights problems, human rights problems, the sale of technology that may help Chinese government suppress dissent. First, as many of you know, China has terrible labor rights and human rights problems, common forms of labor rights abuse include physical abuse, forced labor, child labor, improper deductions from wages, and dangerous working conditions. The Chinese government does not enforce labor laws, therefore, Microsoft must undertake special measures to ensure its employees and subcontracted employees are not suffering labor rights abuses, and we have no evidence that Microsoft is adequately addressing these problems.
...
If Microsoft wants to do business in China where human rights and labor rights are freely abused, it must take action to avoid complicity in these serious abuses.
As shareholders you should be concerned if Microsoft or suppliers are violating labor rights in China, if Microsoft does not seek to protect employees who are arrested and tortured for religious practices or union activities, or if Microsoft software is used to suppress dissent.
...
Mr. Belluzo's response:
Thank you, Ms. Gibbons. Well, the board recommends a vote against this proposal, believing that it is not necessary. In 1991 the company adopted the Microsoft Corporation business practice standards and compliance policy, to ensure compliance with the laws of the countries in which we operate. In addition, Microsoft already maintains strong policies designed to promote a healthy environment, prohibit harassment, and prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, or national origin.
Huh?
What exactly does that mean? Microsoft follows the labour laws of a country infamous for abuse of labour and human rights? Are we meant to be reassured by this? It's nice to know that Microsoft promotes a healthy work environment, but that doesn't address Ms. Gibbons' concerns in the slightest.
Anyway, I also have a new most hated buzzword, and that is "massively mobilizing". I think it's even worse than "going forward". It's a good thing they aren't massively mobilizing going forward, or I might have to take my sniper skills into meatspace.
And my final thought on the whole thing; these are some of the RICHEST MEN IN THE WORLD! Why can't they GET DECENT FSCKING HAIRCUTS?!?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This must be in horrible taste, but I found it quite amusing to discover the name of one of the directors of the board:
William G. Reed.
A more honestly named director you will not find.
Bill Gates helped create open-source by standardizing platforms? How, exactly? A lot of Windows programs don't even work well with differing versions of Windows -itself-. Someone give Stallman a hug before he shoots himself, I doubt he wanted to wake up today knowing that Bill Gates and he were compadres in the open-source movement.
If Bill thinks that homgeneity brought about open source software, then it's only because he hasn't bothered to use anything other than an intel box for a couple of years. Or he's following the advice of Joseph Goebels.
Open source software runs across any number of platforms, hardware and software. My experience is that non-intel versions of Linux sometimes lag a little bit, but other than that, platform often has little to do with it.
Case in point: my Powerbook G3 laptop running Apache, MySQL, and PHP on OS X (previous to release of public beta, sortof running LinuxPPC). No, I'm not running the binaries apple distributed with their system (don't think they did distribute MySQL binaries at first)... I downloaded OS X patches offered by open source developers and ended up making one or two patches myself -- which are no longer needed because the above will now configure/make "out of the box" thanks to open source developers. Open source developers not using Bill's homogenous platform.
But then again, watching microsoft make ridiculous claims of their own virtues in face of obvious contradictions is not really shocking anymore. It's long become obvious they belong to the Goebel's school of public relations thought.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Living in Cuba doesn't mean you escape capitalism. Capitalism is global, it runs the world. Cuba has to deal with the rest of the world to get by. If socialism ruled the world, Cuba would be doing well, and the small capitalist countries would be doing it tough.
Capitalism causes and enforces class divides, which causes oppression to most of society. Socialism aims to abolish the class system.
BTW
Capitalism uses cheap labour in Military Dictatorships like Indonesia to produce goods for western consumption. Nike sweatshops etc. It's countries like the good ol` USA that sets up these military dictatorships.
k@k
While the article had many blundering answers from Gates & Ballmer(C)(TM), and i'm sure most have been picked apart already (450 posts!), one that caught my one was the following...
This is from the 3rd "GATES:" section from the bottom of the page:
So I certainly don't agree with the full sort of free software foundation view that there should be no jobs in this area, and that the kind of commercial advances and risk taking that we've been able to do you can't get that, you can't get things like speech recognition on a tablet computer coming out of that kind of a paradigm.
First of all, let me say... APPLE!!! ever heard of Darwin, that would be the Open Source, fuh-ree version of Mac OS X? - a mighty fine OS if you've ever taken 5 minutes to sit and enjoy it...
and Second Of All, are you implying that university professors and post-docs aren't churning out amazing, GPL'ed advances in Computer Science, like maybe those fabulous molecular modeling apps, or create neat creations like the CAVE with the help of Government and industry and not have to be a vertically integrated illegal monopoly? No Way!!! Say its not so...
Whatever what really matters is that the whole paradigm of CS changed in a matter of 3 years, and the genie is out of the bottle. Linux and Open Source apps will thrive forever now that enough people came on board and we have the attention of everyone who can spell programming.. next its Corporate America/World (my Fortune 100 company has Linux/OpenSource programs running in every corner of the buildings, and they're only picking up steam)..
then it's time to kick Bill's ass and demand a refund for a lifetime of low-grade, shitty software!
They killed my computer.. you bastards!!!
Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
Recoup losses is not their current plan, I don't think, because there have never been any losses.
Rather, squeezing as much money as they can (like all corporations do) is one think, the other being trying to cope with a sluggish PC market. Economy of scale, folks. But this is our advantage. We are NOT tied to new product sales but rather by demand for new features. We are directly paid by our customers for the value that we create, and this will, I think, win over all.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
He stole it in the sense of playing the developers for suckers.
The agreement was to buy the code for $50k with a condition that Seattle Computer Products (as I think the company was) was not to ask who then end client was.
Needless to say, when they found out it was IBM they were Not Amused and I believe eventually successfully sued Micro$haft.
Typical Microsoft modus operandi: very clever, very sneaky, based on manipulating information, not exactly illegal but highly unethical.
Yes, it's called business. It's the type of business behaviour that got the DOJ involved.
little flyers don't work after you've cluster-bombed someone's family.
but then again most didn't read all the quotes fully.
/. issue.
The funny thing is that China is pushing for tight controls on the Internet. Isn't this a
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/08/china-0801.htm
I guess human rights are only your concern if it is your own that you are talking about. And what makes you better than Bill. Looking out for number one, the American Way. And why is the creation of a giant like M$ so suprising to you? Have you looked in the mirror lately?
Gates knows damn well that Microsoft had little to do with the development of open/free software.
He also knows that most people don't read history (or slashdot) and so he can tell them whatever he pleases and they won't question it.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
That IBM PC would be much more expensive if Microsoft was not also able to sell Compaq DOS at the same time as they were selling it to IBM. In this way, they were able to lower their cost per unit sold and help to generate more sales. IBM and Compaq deserve some credit but so does Microsoft.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Why is it that every time I read a quote from Gates, Ballmer, or Mundie that I get heartburn?
Lying evil sacks of shit. They deserve to end up as winos living on the street.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Dude, it's like the M3GA Tr011
k3wl yo
but likes, his sig gives him away even to total idiots... dude. !
y34h ms roxors Linux sux - xcept for one thing, "ping -f "rox d3|/\||)!!
Moderators on crack. See you in meta-mod you sad bastard.
All Bill really wants is freedom to innovate the OS, and control of the browser, and Instant Messaging, and streaming media, and ... the Sudatenland and ...
... I know, Godwin's law ... I lose.
Yeah, yeah
further, so I won't go through each point. /. don't seem to like anything that comes out of MS, but what is up with all the people who go out and insist on getting computers with the latest MS OS? Understandably they don't know better, but someone in a position of authority must, so if it is so clear cut and dry, why doesn't someone do something about it?
Basically it breaks down into the old MS and the current MS.
As for Intuit, they can't stab them in the back if they didn't make deals. In fact, Intuit actually had coupons for Quicken for those that bought Windows, so they actually took away MS's muster there.
As for the old DOS problems, I will have to look up this Stacker and such.
Currently, Microsoft is behind in terms of server software. Apple introduces their own software for stuff that others usually is supported by third party developers, such as DVD and CD-R, but Microsoft can't because it has a monopoly.
MSN was not exactly an agressive push when it first came out.
Of course, there is documentation that they tried to leverage their OS to do more. In itself, it wouldn't have been wrong, but the rules change just because they have a monopoly. Things are a little different now though. No one is forcing me to use Windows or Microsoft products, and in fact, I run Mandrake as well. I do wonder though how many Mac users have MSN...
You know what this seems to boil down to? Who is complaining about it, and who is actually buying into MS's software?
Obviously a lot of people on
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
Very often the very rich donate to causes so that there business practices do not come into a bad light. Also it doesn't hurt to set a charity to decide were your tax money goes instead of some polition's pork barrel project. I don't know BG's motivation but the lack of "upperwardly mobile" women in the microsoft hierarchy may be part of it. Hell he offed the "MS Bob woman" by marriarge.
Getting off-topic, but worth discussing anyway.
I run Qmail. And Bind 9.x (behind a firewall, talking only with my ISP's DNS server), though if I were running a production server, I would have chrooted it.
Qmail (and to a lesser extent Postfix) shows what good design can do to product security (also see Apache here). BIND and IIS are examples of poor security design. It comes down to the following security idea: minimal permissions. Does BIND really need root permissions to do anything except bind to port 53? Why not have a controller process and a worker process, where the worker does not have root permission? In essence, these programs are not policed by the OS (with the exception of the chroot) so any incident is a serious compromise.
Qmail and Apache run with minimal permissions. So a break-in into these programs is unlikely to be very interesting...
Do you trust your software? I don't. that is why I like limited permissions.
Unfortunately, MS does trust theirs...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Did anyone think that MS is just biding their time? That, at some point, they will do a complete 180 and embrace OSS? I know that may sound ludicrous, but is right now the best time for them to accept OSS? If OSS is in its infancy, then how do we not know if MS's end goal is to exploit what others have created under the GPL once OSS gets to an across the board level of superiority.
Frankly, I take anything that comes out of the Redmond crew as just what it is: A LOT OF HOT FUCKING AIR!
"Who thought GOD didn't have a sense of humor. Just look at the Platypus!"
Pope Leo X
Enough with the religion stuff already.
Not everyone shares your view of Luther. Luther was a pretty screwed up individual.
If you watch the video, the words at the bottom say:
"And I feel like beer in very good touch."
Now, is that free beer?
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
The second area, the video area, is the tougher of the two, because that really does require this high speed connection. And most people at work have high speed connections. So you can take a little news clip or video conference, and use that quite easily. In the U.S., as I mentioned, only 10 percent of homes have broadband. Actually, in Korea it's 40 percent of homes, but the U.S. is close to being second among broadband penetration. We'd like to see that go up. Of course, the key element of that is that the price has to come down somewhat from the $50 a month in order to see the wider spread usage.
I'm glad that inexpensive broadband is a part of Microsft's plan for us. I'm not sure what Gates and friends plan to do in order to lower broadband prices, aside from just wait, and let supply and demand do it's thing, but they seem to be moving in a direction in which they are becomming more and more dependant upon broadband.
So what should open-source developers do? Provide an alternative that doesn't rely upon high-speed internet access. I think Microsoft has really overestimated the future poularity of this broadband trend, and when they shift their focus away from people that cna't afford to spend $50 dollars a month on internet service, those poor and/or thrifty millions will find a more sensibly priced alternative. A free alternative!
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
"Oh gosh Bill, you are so darned silly. You didn't invent OSS/the internet/the computer, XYZ did!
Are there that many people who don't realise the existence of the vast gulf between what is said and what is thought in the world of PR?
You want an example: "The Greening Earth Group" is funded by the various coal mining corporations.
Microsoft is no exception - whatever they are saying in public, you can bet a few hundred shares of MSFT that in their corporate strategy sessions they aren't standing around patting themselves on the back.
There's no $$$ in 'team'...
www..--..net - for incisive, w
I am trying to remember when the last time I read anything bill said that did not contain at least one lie in it. You I can't. If am MS executive hasn't lied to 10 people by lunch he will get fired. I am convinced of that.
War is necrophilia.
I'd love to get an MP3 or WAV file of that one!
Preferably without letting on to which radio station it is from - so Micro$oft doesn't sue them into oblivion. (thinking of the fun I could have planting that audio file into certain public places..)
Those stupid XP TV commercials make me want to puke!
This anti "Marxist" stuff seems to be coming from :-) ?
some "Christian 200 pound priest" afraid of loosing the fat lunch
Is Microsoft trying to get public sympathy by posing as "anti-communist" ?
But, hey yours is a Christian country and
Matthew 19: 23
And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
certainly seems M$ is heading that way in the current climate
*G*
-- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --
Luther was a pretty screwed up individual.
And Stallman isn't? :)
I actually have very little opinion one way or the other on Mr. Martin Luther as an individual or on his beliefs - I'm an Athiest myself.
But his effects on the Christian religion are profound and undenible.
Pre Martin Luther, Christianity was a monolithic, monopolistic, autocratic entity - and the analogy of the Catholic Church => Microsoft is very compelling.
Post Martin Luther, the Catholic Church no longer held a monopoly on Christianity, and was greatly reduced in power and influence.
So Luther => Stallman from that perspective.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
This is a false protectionist arguement that has been well argued by Bastiat.
Bastiat's famous tongue-in-cheek petition to the French Parliament on behalf of the French candlemakers requested passage of a law requiring the closure of all the windows in France, thereby blocking out the sunlight. In turn, production would be stimulated and jobs created in the candle and related industries. The competition from the sun was unfair.
Microsoft is the candlemaker, and Free (as in speech) software is the sun.
The most significant of these is, I think, the platform component. They are directly aiming at knocking Java out of the only place it's really widely used these days, Enterprise computing. It aleviates a number of the, um... complexities, of the MS APIs which have created barriers to them getting into serious Enterprise computing. None of it is particularly original, but it's a well funded area of development that MS has the influence to shove down the throats of everyone who uses their software.
They're great marketers; they're using
I may not like Microsoft very much and certainly don't agree with what Bill said as far as creating the platform for open-source, but instead of being completely opposite of Microsoft, look at what they did to get where they are. It may not be ethical, but most business isn't. And, as the CEO of a fairly large software company, I do agree with MS that GPL is a joke if you want to make money. Most Linux companies are going downhill and support for Linux is dropping because, as I have said for years, Linux must mature and start standardizing. Microsoft learned that way back, and nearly all-rogue Linux programmers now think that we must abandon this methodology because it is similar to MS. Grow up and learn that business is business and it's not about freedom or open-source... it's about customers getting what they want. Most customers could give a shit less whether they are using StarOffice or MSOffice as long as it does what they want and has a good help system and support. The facts are that there isn't support, and there isn't for most GNU/open-source software. Until people start seeing this concept all open-source business is heading downhill. I did believe that as of the release of XP, the possibility of an open-source intervention would occur, but the only systems I see which could compete are the *BSDs.
Our company, as well as many others, cannot afford to write an application and expect it to run on 200+ different distributions of Linux unless we sacrifice and write it in JAVA or give out the source code. Let's perform a case-in-point:
A company, we'll call Billy Bob Software, decides it wants to write a RDBMS. So they go and hire a team of 12 and pays them (on average) about $40/hr. It will take a year to get a working version, then they plan to release the code under GPL and sell their product. The product will run (obviously) on Linux.
What happens?
The company spends $998,400+administrative costs in that year. They finally attempt to market and deploy their product to this Linux base while freeing their code for download. They probably sell 50 copies of their software for $500/ea and 100 support contracts at $1000/yr while the rest of the Linux programmer/dba community downloads the source code, installs it, and uses it for free. Then a competing company comes along, makes the product better by adding proprietary extensions, resells the original and makes three times the profit because they didn't give the source to the extensions out. So it really makes sense to spend $998,400+ and make back a measly $105K. Do you think any VC in their right mind won't see this minute ROI? Sounds a bit similar to MySQL... open-source, commercial support, not compliant to any industry standard that any enterprise would require. But hey, it's free!
Alongside the design and development must be support.... and I don't know any company in their right mind (again) that would load that many boxes with different distributions for test. Of course the majors Red Hat, SuSE, and debian would be tested... but for BSD it's basically a write once run anywhere. BSD projects support and employ standardization and have extensive discussions concerning their implementation. And before you Linux veterans attempt to reply, just realize that Berkeley Sockets are what allows you to view these pages.
The great contradiction that I see is that Linux zealots are, for the most part, hypocrites. They reject Microsoft and all that is Microsoft for this so called God given software freedom movement. And they reject Microsoft for not giving credit where it is due. True that Microsoft hasn't written nearly any of their products from scratch and bought them from other companies. But let's see where Linux developers stand:
- BSD is bad (Non-GPL)
- IE is bad (Not Open Source but a great browser, though Mozilla will hopefully someday surpass it)
- How many more do I need?
Linux isn't an invention, it's a copy of a copy (MINIX). I personally think MINIX was a far better UNIX-like implementation. Linux doesn't use any ideas from other operating systems??? Funny that I can look at some Linux drivers and then go over to my BSD boxes and the code looks remarkably similar. Linux zealots refuse to give credit to anything that isn't Linux just as Microsoft does for its products. So why shut up about it and get over it, you are all the same.
I already know I will be flamed for this post... but those of you with business sense will understand it from the above points. Databases such as MySQL receive more attention than they deserve because they are GPL... true that PostgreSQL is on a BSD license but it's actually ACID compliant as MySQL may be in 5 years. BSD was the first operating system to implement the full USB standard. OpenBSD is much more stable and secure of an operating system and with the recent Telnetd exploit Linux zealots were again pointing the finger at BSD and OpenBSD in particular... did anyone do their homework? I checked all of our OpenBSD 2.8 boxes and they were unaffected. Then I checked my TurboLinux copy and guess what?
Where does GPL have the advantages in a business world? The first rule of business it to make money, is this too large a concept to grasp? I just wish people would stop whining about Microsoft all the time. They did some things right. The only product they make that is halfway decent is Office (less the MSTDs). Microsoft is not that big an adversary. Netscape was just lost because their browser sucked ass for the longest time and now is making a comeback. I happen to remember that when IE was declared free, open-source people were stating that it would be for a year or until Netscape went under. How long as IE been free now? When did Netscape basically go under? Not saying that IE will never be free, but what kind of business sense does it make to charge someone for a generic browser when so many are available for free? Like the environmentalists foreseeing the coming Ice Age back in the 80s and now the Global Warming... Far be it from me to say that I don't remember any Ice Age and I don't believe they have a clue about Global Warming either. Is this relationally dissimilar to the traditional Linux vs. Microsoft debate... yes.
Pay a g**d damn dividend
I don't have your sophisticated breeding, so I'll say it openly: "good".
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
In many ways, software can be accurately compared to art. If you don't see it, try focusing more on the process than the product. Essentially, both attract highly trained professionals to train (code/learn a routine) for a task (product/performance) that few can do. While you can say that about many things, few match at so many levels.
The point I'm trying to express is free software is essentially equivalent to street performances - you can pay if you want, and some are doing it to showcase their skills to be hired for more prestigious jobs. There are also the large-scale productions that require hundreds and large bankrolls - I'm sure you can see where I'm going. What this means is that there is a future both for closed source and open source software to co-exist, and neither is likely to wipe the other out. I'm sure you can see that some people will only go to opera performances, while others would prefer to walk around and check out the street scene.
Software is often as subjective as art, some people like windows, some macs, some like OSs they make themselves. Try convincing someone that some piece of software (take a game) is the best software on earth. You may find those who agree with you, but also those who think you've been staring at the monitor too long. And one last note: artists have been arguing for centuries that all art should be free for the public to enjoy, subsidized by the government. Perhaps we should try.
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
This is all crazy talk. Of course they 'get it.'
They GET every single thing you all are saying. Bill's statement is a necessary lie which, like all statements he must make, supports the contention that Microsoft drives innovation, and therefore you can't break it up.
If you're going to listen to very smart people talk, you must abandon empirical truth to understand what they're saying.
Remember: Politically smart people make statements that align with their interests. Period.
- In a knowledge based industry your main asset will always be people -
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Compaq used that manual, then they would have owed IBM boatloads of cash for using their design. In actuality, EVERYTHING had to be clean-room reverse-engineered, that is, no one working on the project could have even ever looked at the cover to the IBM spec or the whole thing would have been tainted. By doing this, they had their own product that IBM couldn't touch, opening up this whole can of worms for the rest of us
Mr. Gates claims really are quite ridiculous. His claims of starting open source by (falsly) taking credit for opening the BIOS is an extremely long stretch. I see it as the equivilant of MS taking credit for Stephen Kings new book, because it was written in Word. Or a childs drawing done in MS Paint. The reason I say this is because yes, indirectly MS may have "helped" open source, but to take credit is silly. Finally, since he claims to have started open source, uhm, where's the open source code?
Beware blue cats moving at
While I disagree with a lot of what Stephenson wrote in his essay
"In The Beginning Was The Command Line" (find it here,) a lot of it is obviously accurate.
Without the PC's open architechture the demand for programs would have been harder to supply, and without Microsoft's influence and saturation of the market, there wouldn't have been a demand for cheap PCs.
Open architechture of PCs == clones
IBM clones == Cheap PCs.
Cheap PCs == computers to play with for the non-super-rich hoi-polloi.
With PC hardware as open (and cheap!) as it was (and is) Linus and RMS were able to do stuff. I really dislike Stephenson's closing of the essay, talking about the right pinky of god and all that shit, but even today, it's a well written essay with many good points.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
It's actually pretty ironic when you consider that we're coming off an economic boom that was driven in large part by growth, use and interest in the internet, which is powered in large part by, what's the answer kiddies? Open source, GPL'd and free software.
:)
The claim that GPL is bad for the economy rings false. It's bad for just Microsoft's economy.
And I'd have to say it was fuzzy logic business plans and poor investment choices that filled the internet up with lots of crappy, abstract business ventures that went nowhere and burned loads of cash. Again, not the fault of the GPL.
Just GPL Windows, Bill!
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma