Slashdot Mirror
"Linux is *the* threat," Says Microsoft
Ami Ganguli writes "Anybody who works selling Linux into large accounts should read this leaked MS memo on The Register. Show it to your clients as well. The good news is that Microsoft is scared. The bad news is that these guys play tough. On the other hand, I've worked with IBM sales before, and they're no push-overs either." And it appears that they want to go after the the City of Largo as well.
To tell you the truth, the memo looks like one you would find in any major corporation. Microsoft and Linux are competitors, there is no doubt about that. I don't see why this is newsworthy.. But then again this is slashdot so I guess that doesn't much matter!
No this is not a troll!
isn't that a great way to make people talk about you? doesn't matter how, or what they say. just as they did when they blocked non-ie browsers to their website, *exactly* when they were launching xp..
.02 euros
I refuse to believe that those 'memos' escape microsoft non-intentionally.. it just sounds suspect.
just my
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
Enter Linux.
Linux is not remotely a threat on the desktop - as long as it has multiple different GUI's and window managers and toolkits and all the rest, and a lack of a decent browser or office solution, it always will not be a threat.
On the server end, Linux is more of a threat, but Microsoft has never had a big slice of this market anyway. If anything FreeBSD is a greater threat than Linux in this arena, as it is better performing.
However, MS will always have a big place of the server market for as long as they produce a system that is easy to use. Not everyone can afford £60,000 a year for a Unix export, especially small businesses, to keep a server running. MS ensure that a boss can do such things part time - this has really driven the internet revolution, by opening access to the internet to many who would have been cut out by a skills shortage before.
All in all, I can see that MS are wary of Linux, but in truth they have nothing to worry about, as the two OS'es operate in different spheres, and don't really compete at all except in the minds of unthinking Linux apologists and Windows Advocates.
Windows will always have 95% of te market, MS need have no fear of that. The only way Linux will threaten this is if they start behaving in a more proprietry fashion by gearing things at the consumer and not at the Linux Geek.
Any guesses why they're pushing Windows 2000 as a substitute for Linux instead of Windows XP?
It comes down to senior management, and most execs are non-techie. Much microsoft advocacy is down from a primarily business perspective, much nix advocacy (especially Linux) is done from a primarily technical perspective; until nix vendors do a better job fighting Windows on the finance, marketing and media battlefield they'll keep losing ground to Microsoft, irrespective of the technical merits of the products involved.
This is tantamount to saying that a car salesman should never go below the sticker price. Sales people have to sell. If it means giving discounts, so be it. I wish the sales people at my company did a better job of selling! Bribery is not the right term for what this guy is doing or what he is advocating others to do!
I guess the good news is that it shows GNU/Linux is gaining in popularity, enough that it is now "the long term threat against [MS'] core business" but -- do we want Microsoft using its substantial influence to retard the development and implementation of GNU/Linux and related free software? This basically a direct assault by MS -- look at the language they're using: "wins against Linux", "Linux Compete Team", etc.
The free software community seems to be in a bit of a sticky point right now. We can no longer be completely ignored. However, the bigger we get, the more attention and fire we're going to get, and we're not really equipped to defend ourselves yet. It would nice to suddenly be the same size as Microsoft, to have that much power and influence, but the only way to get that influence is go through this very impenetrable gauntlet. It's a real Catch-22.
Look at what happened to, say, Napster. When no one had heard of it, it was great. Then the meme started to spread, and more and more people adopted it, and it eventually trickled all the way into mainstream news. And as it broke onto the mainstream, the RIAA immediately caught wind of it (well, they'd probably caught wind of it earlier, but didn't need to take action against it until it was getting too popular) and shut it down. It's sort of like underground bands that steadily gain in popularity for their genuine talent, then suddenly use that popularity as a wedge to sell-out and become yet another generic pop group.
Maybe GNU/Linux would be after all as a purely underground software phenomenom. Then the people who really need a free operating system can make use of it, without attracting fire from biased mainstream news outlets or monopolistic evil corporations. Maybe it's time to stop trying to position the growth of Linux as a "good" thing -- after all, you don't see ISO groups writing up Warez Advocacy FAQs, do you?
Of course, there's really nothing we can do to STOP people from adopting Linux. It's just part of the cycle of things. The underground, real coders start an operating system (remember, DOS and Windows were the new kids on the block once), it gradually spreads to more and more people, it starts getting compromised by the mainstream, the underground jumps ship, the platform soon dies without the support of the underground, and the underground begins its work anew.
To continue the MP3-sharing-software analogy, look at how Napster was abandoned in favor of Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Now everyone knows about and is using them. So the RIAA sues them, and they've started to crack down. Now we'll have a bit of a "dead" period, but soon they'll be another wave coming out of the underground.
It's all cycle.
Yu Suzuki
Deamcast. It's thinking.
Note the emphasis of the article. Microsoft believe that they are being very successful in migrating people away from Unix. Linux is eating into Sun, HP, IBM et al at the low end. Microsoft don't appear to be worried about people replacing Windows with Linux, they are worried about people *not* replacing Unix with Windows, which isn't quite as triumphalist as the Slashdot story suggests.
/. is that Linux developers like to compete against MS, but haven't givin much thought to cannibalizing the existing Unix user base, and *that* is where this particular battle is being fought,
And the worry is not to do with TCO and administration and operations, areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast). It's the porting of existing applications, which is perceived to be easier from Unix to Linux than it is from Unix to Windows. But remember that you can buy tools (MKS Toolkit for example) that make it very easy to do, and that Rogue Wave et al sell APIs that make it easy, and that in a world of Java/EJB, the virtual machines on Windows are very good indeed - often faster than VMs from the same vendors on Sun.
So what I'm saying is, Microsoft are taking Linux seriously, like they take *all* existing and even potential competitors. And, my general feeling from reading sources like
Well, Linux isn't necessarily free to use. If you want enterprise middleware (Application Servers, et al.) some buy WebShpere/WebLogic/whatever, which will set you back a few thousand bucks. MS platforms give you that middleware included in the price, moreover, if you're spending 80k on DB Server software, what does a couple thousnad bucks for Windows matter? Hey... But at least it's AN alternative.
I don't see anything particularly vile or reprehensible in the MS memo. It looked like some fairly standard marketing diatribe and the kind of thing that any agressive company would promote.
What's to be learned from this? That if you want Linux out there instead of MS, then you're going to have to market it. Whoever is selling Linux based solutions will need to be just as tenacious and aggressive as a MS marketer can be. No laying down just because Solaris/AIX/HP-UX/etc to Linux is a "natural" migration -- it's clear that MS will make it seem unnatural, slow, error prone, etc. After all, if they can sell IIS over Apache (and web service is one of Linux's strengths), they can certainly do it in other areas as well.
IBM's marketing department has been aggressive for decades. And I know most small firms don't roll over and play dead easily either (or else they wouldn't be in business long), but this is a good reminder that there's competition out there.
Is Microsoft THE threat to Linux?
I would say no. It may be argued that Microsoft may be a threat to RedHat, Mandrakesoft, Caldera etc. but they could never be a threat to Linux.
Linus would continue to maintain the kernel, GNU would remain hairy, and ESR would remain mouthy no matter how much ground Microsoft may take from us.
The only way Microsoft can threaten Linux is with crap like the SSSCA. Even then they can't use it to kill Linux, they could only force it out of the USA.
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
The memo says nothing new, actually. Companies are shifting from expensive proprietary platform (SUN, HP, IBM) to commodity PC, which now have enough horsepower for most of the common tasks tasks low-middle servers are purchased for.
Without Linux, the 100% of these shifters would have gone in the arms of Microsoft. With Linux, they have to fight harder to get some of them.
All this was already true two/three years ago, but now Linux is more recognized, also thanks to some advertising effort mainly sponsorised by IBM, and PHBs don't frown (much) anymore when their techs are proposing Linux-based solutions.
This is why Linux it is considered _the_ threat for MS on the server market.
Ciao
----
FB
I think Scott Adams was right when he placed the sign: "Two Drink Minimum" above the entrance to Marketing.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
I just think it's funny that there is a guy named Bret Cocking.
I'm a legend in my own mind....
I think people are kind of forgetting that Microsoft identified Linux as a serious competitor at least since 1998.
/. readers.
In short, you're right: it's OLD news for most long-time
> Is Microsoft *the* threat to Linux?
Yes. Linux is cutting off Microsoft's air supply. Microsoft will do everything in its power to kill Linux.
And it won't be sufficient, for them, to merely get Linux out of businesses; as long as it merely exists they will continue to see it as a threat. So expect them to continue throwing money at businesses, OEMs, governments, etc., and to continue "oops"-breaking standards. But most of all, expect them to lobby for laws that will break the OSS paradigm under thinly veiled concern for IP, security, etc.
After the DoJ cave-in it should be obvious that the only way for non-MS products to survive is to proactively destroy Microsoft. Unless you're vested in MSFT, you should be doing everything legal + ethical toward that goal (though there's no reason to suppose that MS will hamstring itself with the "legal + ethical" bit).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Linux won't be "the threat" to Microsoft until any average Joe can put in the CD's, select what they want, install, reboot, and EVERYTHING works. The one thing MS is good at is helping out the user when configuring the system. Now, don't get me wrong, it only works for a couple of days, then you get the blue screen of death or some sort of conflict, etc. The simple fact is though, any person can install any hardware as long as they have the Windows CD. The computer says: "I detect new hardware" and asks for the CD, and that's all you have to do. That takes away from the user control, and that is something I don't like.
My main point is that I've just started to get into Linux and I really like it so far, but it's a pain in the ass to get everything working. I have a 6 month old Gateway with a P 4 and all widely used hardware, so the latest distros of RedHat or Mandrake should have no problem with it, but they do. I can't get my soundcard to work, my USB HomePNA device, and other stuff I probably haven't gotten to yet. I'm sure I'll figure it out, but I have a background in computers, it shouldn't take that to get a computer to work. That's the main problem right now with Linux, it's just not that easy to get everything up and running. On the other hand, the main advantage of Linux is that once it is running, it doesn't stop.
~ now you know
IMHO, I dont think that solution is Apache / PHP / mySQL. I think that the solution is J2EE. This offers a language and framework for building web-enabled applications end to end. Furhter, there are a range of J2EE solutions from free (JBoss, Jonas) to vendor supplied and supported (Weblogic, Websphere). Linux needs J2EE to compete in with Microsoft in this arena
The problem is, quite simply, we don't know how Microsoft's salesmen are pushing Windows.
Are they lying about the capabilities of Linux?
Would you lie about Linux in their shoes?
Surely the MS folks must be mentioning Linux in their sales-pitches. I doubt it's very glowing.
-Evan
Now they are forced to offer discounts to win companies over Linux ( even though I don't doubt they plan to get back the discount money as soon as the curtomers are hooked).
Loosing money is annoying for _any_ company.
I bet that also in SUN and IBM there were (are?) people annoyed by Linux growing popularity.
Ciao
----
FB
In a way I already knew this:
I have a nice row of redhat boxes and books in my office (5.2, 6.0, 7.1) . I never do anything with it at work. I just buy them with my companies account to play around with on my home system. But whenever a M$ salesrep is here for a meeting, or a salespitch, I make sure he sees my nice row of boxes.
They always notice them, and they are always a bit nicer to me and my company.
Cheers.
And I suppose you speak for ALL of business worldwide? Karma whore.
I think you'll find that The Register is an everyone bashing site. They can be rather cutting and bitchy, but they are also pretty even-handed about it.
I would be a paid subscriber if Taco and Hemos weren't such cunts
Okay first, comments about this being a typical memo are right on. Big companies send stuff like this out all the time.
But also, this is Microsoft, they have been saying that Linux is the threat for years!
I failed to see what is new or news about this honestly? I mean, we already know corporations send out memos like this, and we already know they regard linux as the threat for years.
I thought the comment of Bill Gates that he created Open-Source (err the enviroment in which it can thrive) and that open-source users and programmers are all communists, was much more interesting. It's also on The Register for those of you who don't mind hunting - sorry I don't have the URL on me! :-)
Derek Greene
Maybe Linux needs a large advocacy site or two that specifically does these things:
1. List companies/organizations that have switched to or are created new uses for Linux.
2. Allow those companies to post their own progress reports, the good and the bad.
3. The linux comunity could provide anything from advice to development support for these companies.
4. Advocates could point to this site as a Linux testamonial and direct rebuttal to the same type of stories that MS uses. By showing the good and the bad it displays honesty (Which MS can't do) and by showing support activity, they see that there really is good support, and that bad senarios can be corrected with enough people available at your fingertips.
I know lots of this type of support is available through news groups and other channels. I suggest this specifically as a commercial/sales type operation. It should be big and well advertised and pointed directly at the corporate officer, with specific examples of problems found and solved. This is MS home territory. Lets get the battle off our terf and onto theirs.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
But the letter showed a win for Microsoft, when the "techie" CIO was in favor of the Linux solution and against MS. After months of struggling with the Linux migration, the CIO resigned. Within one month the new CIO, together with Microsoft made the shop running again.
Techies are not always right and sometimes MS has the better, and finally even cheaper solutions.
I can give two recent examples:
1. I recently upgraded vmware on Linux, which required me to change my video driver, because the vmware code for the video adapter changed. (Please note that this example works just as well when you upgrade video cards.) When I rebooted with the upgraded video device, my machine would hang. Apparently it's critically important to first tell Windows (98) that the video device is 640x480 standard VGA. It took several reboots to remove the offending adapter driver and get the machine working again.
(BTW - on RH Linux, when I install a new video adapter, the on-boot hardware detection routine notices and asks me to configure it. One boot cycle to fully functional X windows. If I didn't need to power down to install the card, it would have required 0 boot cycles!)
2. I recently acquired a Kensington USB video camera. Kensington no longer manufactures such devices, and has produced drivers for '95&'98 only. Users with 2000 or XP are simply out of luck. While I have a '98 machine on which I can use the camera, if I want to "upgrade" to a later version of windows, I'll need to buy new hardware.
(BTW - Interestingly, on RH Linux I was able to get the camera working just fine with xawtv. Here a device is not supported by the manufacturer, no Linux drivers have been produced, and the free software geeks reverse engineered the functionality and produced drivers, then gave them away!)
Don't even get me started on how dang complex all of this stuff is! My sister just got a cable modem and wants to set up a network so her kids can share the internet connection with her. She needs a firewall, proxy server/NAT solution, LAN adapters, cabling, ad nauseum! None of that is trifling, regardless of OS. (For her I'm recommending a dedicated device for firewall and a local consultant to assist with configuration.)
WRT your problems, have you had the opportunity to seek assistance from any newsgroups/mailing lists? I'm not sure that I can be of great assistance, but I'm willing to try. Please email me if you are interested.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Brian Valentine exists at Microsoft, he's the Senior Vice President of the Windows Devision. Would he address his colleagues in such a way? Why not.
JB Were's web site is partly dysfunctional, so not much information on this one. The City of Largo has just succesfully migrated to KDE desktops at the end of August. It's a bit hard to believe that they switch again after such a short time, and that his wasn't addressed in Valentine's memo at all (maybe it's about the servers, who knows, but then things would be really, really bizarre). Ameritrade has already been a Microsoft customer.
So, if this one is faked, it was faked in a much more credible manner than the previous NTs.
A much bigger threat to Microsoft than Linux is market stagnation. 90% market share means you have to look to other markets for customers (Xbox, keyboards, mice, Pocket PC), try and sell your product over again to the same people (XP), or change to a rental structure (.NET).
Having salespeople trying to win business in the fractionally tiny sliver of the leftover 10% of the market "people who are migrating from unix to linux" is freaking lame - what about the rather hefty and lucrative segment "people who aren't migrating to XP because it doesn't offer anything compelling"?
Microsoft should be spending its billions generating new demand, not trying to take its 90% market share to 92.5%. Where are the golden oldies, like voice recognition, speech synthesis, handwriting recognition, not to mention all the crazy stuff that no-one's dreamed up yet? Where are the VR interfaces, massive dataset visualisers, database filesystems, all built to smash my machine into whimpering shards and only run on XP(tm)?
The only killer app driving upgrades seems to be games, and MS seems to be further stagnating that by shifting games like Halo to the XBox. If a PC version of "uber-Halo" required a P4 2Ghz & Windows XP, gamers from here to Osaka would be selling their livers to get on board, economic downturn or no.
So Linux? A tiny dot in comparison.
shut up man
...they'll keep losing ground to Microsoft...
When did Linux even have ground to lose? I find it funny when people say that Linux has "lost" or "is losing" "The Battle" (tm). It's not like they've been duking it out since the beginning of time. Linux-on-the-desktop is a relative newcomer to the scene, and despite the ups and downs of the various Linux companies, the number of Linux users has continued to grow steadily.
As far as I know, Linux has never lost any ground. But then, at this stage, there isn't really much ground to lose. Let's have this discussion again in 10 years when (let's make a hypothetical situation) Linux has 90% of the desktop market and Microsoft suddenly makes a comeback, pushing Linux to 89%. I would consider _that_ to be loss of ground, not anything going on presently.
Linux can't be losing ground because it's not even playing in that game.
Linux will always be there for anyone inclined to put it to use (unless it's outlawed as a terroristic tool). Windows will go the way of the dodo the minute Microsft pulls the plug.
Microsoft is playing a second neural circuit game based upon "territory", where for them to win, someone else has to lose. (And for them to lose, someone else has to win).
The people who truly get open source aren't even concerned with such matters. The develop what they have a need for -- and share the results with others. Everybody gains in that scenario -- except people who aim to profit by creating spurious shortages by controlling a resource.
As long as Gates can make Linux look like a threat, he can continue to say that Windows is not a monopoly. These "leaked" memos are intended for the courts, not the general public.
I'll believe Linux is a serious threat when Bill Gates tries to crush it like a bug.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
It comes down to senior management, and most execs are non-techie. Much microsoft advocacy is down from a primarily business perspective, much nix advocacy (especially Linux) is done from a primarily technical perspective; until nix vendors do a better job fighting Windows on the finance, marketing and media battlefield they'll keep losing ground to Microsoft, irrespective of the technical merits of the products involved.
Red Hat markets primarily to CFO's.
The basic issue is that people are migrating the majority of UNIX servers to Linux and Windows (Telecom being a major exception). Linux is picking up some of this market share and Microsoft does not like this. Microsoft has worked so hard to beat UNIX and when they win, along comes Linux to take away their prize-- server monopoly.
BUT-- businesses are no fools. Many prefer a heterogenous environment despite interoperability problems because it provides an exit strategy from a single-vendor solution.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yeah, you're right. Totally unrealistic. Is everyone ignoring the last part of the memo?:
Finally, there's the Ameritrade team. Lloyd Arrow and team lost initially to Linux in the design phases by getting vetoed by the CIO, even after winning on all other merits. After several months of schedule slips trying to implement Linux, the Ameritrade CIO resigned. The account team was back at it with the new CIO and within a month were ready to deploy Ameritrade's most strategic apps, their Stream Quotes Servers, on Windows 2000. This is a key win and will expand from 5 servers to 100's of servers as the service is rolled out to all of Ameritrade's customers. The win demonstrated our business agility and shorter time to market over Linux.
Sounds to me like Linux cost at least one guy his job. Not to mention the Windows solution was up and running in one month, according to this. Since it's an internal memo, they'd have no reason to lie, either. Anyway, if you're going to get all excited and take one portion of this memo as Gospel, you might want to keep reading before you toot Linux's horn.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Uhm.
Why are we being directed to read a private memo? Does a company not have a right to talk privately within itself?
Slashdot likes to act like a privacy advocate, but then you promote stuff like this.
Boo.
When I demo linux to a business.. I need to show them more than 'look you can open a word document'.
If you try to simply show them a desktop, you may lose.
I need to show them how one fairly cheap server can handle remote desktops with all the neat features using a bunch of crap PC's. I need to show them how it will be much LONGER before they need to upgrade their PCs to run new applications. I need to show them that, instead of upgrading all 20 pc's in their network in a few years, they will only have to add a new server (and even keep using the old one as well).
And I need them to actually SEE this working, because otherwise they don't buy it.
Then I show them how, oh, you have expansion plans? Well when you add 20 more staff, with this system, you don't NEED to spend a couple grand on each person for a computer.. you can buy terminals from so-and-so and just drop them in.. and they will simply work.
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
Microsoft has clearly stepped through to the fighting.
In a sane world, without a neurotic behemoth convinced that its survival depends on the erradication of Free Software, what MS does doesn't matter to linux one bit.
However, the parent poster brings up an excellent point. Microsoft is, in fact, everything I've described above. While obviously limited in their technical innovations, they have proven to be extremely tencacious and creative in coming up with practices that kill anything they perceive as competition.
They'll try with linux. They'll try to shape their contracts and the law. They'll try to shape public opinion. They'll try technical trapdoors. They'll try anything they can. That's how MS works: use any means necessary to kill anything competing.
And anybody who is interested in making choices about what kind of software they use should care
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
This memo talks about "winning" customers from one platform or another. Reading through the posts here, I see lots of people saying how they got "wins" by switching some server to Linux from Windows or UNIX or whatever.
This is the wrong strategy. This is playing by the rules Microsoft want to set. How about we follow the lead Linus sets and just do our thing and improve over ourselves, and not worry about what MS think.
If peoeple are wise and insightful enough to use Linux over other solutions, let them reap the benefits. Otherwise, lets not waste our efforts cramming success down peoples' throats. If they want to suffer with Windows, let them. We'll still have the superior operating system, and their increased costs will enact Darwin's laws.
We will lose if we play Microsoft's game. They have it rigged against us. Concentrate on code... write software, not marketing pamphlets.
Why bother.
> Whatever happened to Linus saying Linux doesn't care what MS does?
I'm not Linus.
His sentiment is laudable, and I too subscribe to a live-and-let-live policy wherever others are willing to play by that same rule.
But Microsoft isn't willing. They have a long history of paranoia about having any other product competing in, or even adjacent to, their 0wn market space, and an equally long history of killing off those products by fair means or foul.
Idealism is nice, but realism contributes more to survival. Beat your swords into plowshares and you'll find yourself plowing for new masters.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It took me a while to put my finger on exactly why this article--and many of the responses to it--annoyed me, but I think I have it now.
You know that Ghandi quote that people who take Linux a bit too seriously love? The one that begins "First they laugh at you..."? The wisdom behind those words is that once you become an active participant in a so-called "battle" of this type, then you have lost. The quiet revolution is one that eventually bubbles to the surface because it is _honest_. People going about their lives, doing what they believe in, is a powerful thing. It is more powerful that calls to arms and out-and-out zealotry. In fact, the latter often tends to get people away from what it was they believed in in the first place; they get swept away by the grandeur of the "war," and no longer represent their original ideals.
Linux was interesting when it was the honest bubbling up of what was perceived as a better solution by some people. Now that there has become obvious and pointless fighting between Linux users and Microsoft, it isn't Microsoft that has lost...it is Linux. All this energy devoted toward hating Windows, talking about Microsoft, putting down XP, and as a result a large, large segement of Linux users have become these aimless zealots who don't even know why they use Linux any more other than to crush Microsoft. And as such, Linux has lost.
Large projects require extensive planning before pulling the trigger. They also require nearly perfect execution.
I have no inside information about Ameritrade, but in my career, I have been on many projects, including some disaster. I have been one to come in after the failure, and clean it up. I have also been responsible for causing failures. You learn from it, and move on.
You forget one thing: Some people see linux's rapid development as a BAD THING. I know, it doesn't make much sense, but alot of "pointy haired bosses" seem to think that the constant betterment proces of Linux will CREATE work to be done by their IT staff. In some ways, they are right. If Slashdot posts an article saying "there's a security hole in [bind/sendmail/samba/name-your-service-daemon here]" Now (they think, anyway) there's 8 hours of IT staff time spent updating that service and patching the hole, then dealing with the user issues the patch/downtime will generate.
I've been through this at my job. Tracking usage at a university library:
Me: "Y'know, if we used linux instead of NT, we could track users better, and more easily generate the usage report you want...." {envisioning a simple perl script to scrape the samba logs)
IT manager {read that as "pointy-haired-Boss"}: "I'm not fond of linux. There's so many bug fixes that have to be looked at constantly. It's got poor security"
Me: "NT has even worse security, and there are no fixes released for it..."
IT PHB: "That's not the point... The point is, we won't be wasting all that time installing Linux's patches."
Me: "So you're saying you want to just ignore the problems and stick with windows?"
IT PHB: "Don't you have some work to do over in the business building?"
Later, behind my back, he told his manageroid underlings what I said, and his overall response was: "No-one ever got fired for deploying Microsoft."
Not only does linux need to "get better" and not only does it need to "appel to the suits" but it has to do both with such blinding righteousness that it can't be ignored. In other words it has to be FREE (speech), CHEAP/FREE (beer), and EASY.
Yes, but if the Halloween documents were truly leaked intentionally for that purpose, it may have backfired on Microsoft pretty badly. A lot of people started taking Linux more seriously after those documents were released - Microsoft basically was seen to acknowledged Linux as a serious competitor, apparently in private and not just as a courtroom claim.
From a marketing perspective, this sucks for Microsoft. This latest memo does something similar. The more frightened Microsoft gets, the harder they squeeze to "eliminate" Linux, the more customers will slip through their fingers. I presented at a meeting yesterday in which I explained to two CEOs - one of a business with 300 employees, and one with annual revenues in the billion dollar range - why we were moving some of their key in-house applications away from Microsoft development products, and they were nodding in agreement. They've heard the news stories. Microsoft can no longer fight the bad PR, except by becoming a genuinely responsible company (and how likely is that?)
It's sort of funny to see the memos plaintively wondering why clients are moving to Linux. I suppose it's tough for Microsoft to admit the truth to itself: "because our business practices suck, and customers are sick of us!"