Slashdot Mirror
More Mayhem From MSFT's Mundie
Cally writes "Further embarrasingly lame FUD from Craig Mundie of Microsoft. This time, he claims the GPL is at odds with 'commercialization' of software, without which the government gets a smaller tax take. Looks like he's really talking to legislators there ... He also knocks the Sun-led Liberty Alliance Passport SSO service as 'this notion that the world should be offered an alternative.' An alternative?"
If GPL is as bad as Microsoft says it is, why do they keep drawing attention to it?
I mean, come on, when you continue to talk about something, the idea survives, where as if you ignore it, most of the time, it will just go away.
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
>" [it seems silly that the world] [sic] ... should be offered an alternative"
What kind of twisted capitalism is Mundie cheerleading here?!
"Old man yells at systemd"
The gov't still gets its cut.
It gets it from all the companies that have higher profits because they aren't paying the Microsoft tax.
The article is pretty short, and I can't help but wondering if any of his statements were taken at all out of context. For example, the "should be offered an alternative" statement seems pretty silly for MS to take - after all the monopoly allegation problems, why complain that there is a movement to have a Passport alternative? One would think that the presence of other central authentication database standards would allow them to continue to tout the "we are not dominating" stance.
It's especially disengenuous for MS to complain as Passport is/will be included with every MS OS, whereas the Liberty Alliance one will have a hard time making it in the Windows world.
GPL knock is classic MS though - "free software cannot make money" is their normal approach and is almost hardly newsworthy.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Because the general public expect such things from what is essentially a marketting droid. Granted he has a technical title, and can speak the speak, so he *must* know what he's talking about? Dah?
And the general public also expects someone just as zealously over the top to say similarly ludicrous things about Microsoft. They will offset one another, and in the end, people don't care. They just want to have fun, and get what they want when they want it.
They'd like the internet to be nice and easy, and they do not want to enter passwords to things. They do not understand, and do not care about security. They only care about not getting things stolen from them, or being cheated.
In the real world, who takes care of thievery and fraud? Yes, the police and the government. So why can't the police and the government *do their jobs* and keep the normal people safe and secure online too?
Well, sure you and I know why, because we generally know how things work. Normal people do not. And they don't care.
From the article:
"If there is not commercialization there, a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services. If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do," said Mundie.
The less taxes part is laughable. What about the billions in licensing fees that would be saved if open source (especially something truly competitive with Microsoft Office) truly flourished? This would result in greater profits and thus more tax revenue. Mundie obviously didn't point that out.
I am not a GPL advocate. I like the GPL and also believe that open source and closed source commercial software can co-exist. Let the better solution for a given problem win. Mundie is however spreading some serious FUD.
GPLed code helps my company's bottom line, but we sell "ancillary services", in our case, mutual funds. If you only wanted to count software license vendors, shoulda said so in your question.
"If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do,"
The idea that open-source software would stop innovation and development is ridiculous.
Right now there is both commercial and open-source software. There are all sorts of liscenses. There is innovation on all fronts.
Different teams for both closed and open source projects are hard at work. I don't get how if more people start developing for open-source software that development would stop. Open source developers do not need investor support on the same level as commercial/closed source teams. People code open source because they want to.
And respect is a big commodity on the internet (as discussed here on slashdot), especially in open-source circles. If Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, or any other distro pay employees to code for Linux, they win a lot of respect from users of open-source. Even Sun has figured this out and pays people to work on open-source projects. In press announcements, these companies seem proud of open-source support; they don't seem like they are trying to hide it.
I think Mundie's comments might apply to the scope of Microsoft losing out, but not software development in general.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
>It gets it from all the companies that have higher profits
>because they aren't paying the Microsoft tax.
Actually, you're making a lot of sense. If my company has $100, it could either keep it as profits, in which case the government gets (say) $30, or it could spend it on Microsoft stuff. Not all of the money that goes to microsoft is taxable, say only 30% (I recently estimated MS has a 29% margin). So the government gets only 30% x $30 = $9.
In other words, if you are in The Land Of Microsoft, where the government gets revenue ONLY from Microsoft corporation, and no other corporation exists, he's right. In the real world, it's the exact opposite of the truth.
So who's getting fooled by this hogwash?
Marketing-driven companies end up over-marketing their products. Engineering-driven companies end up over-engineering
Sorry, comparing political philosophy to software licenses isn't really fair or quantifiable. Microsoft can't do much other than get businesses more concerned with IP than community. Unfortunately they are really the only company making money from operating systems, but they want to convince that their model works for everyone. If the latter were to catch, companies would do less open development.
Now I'm no MS Basher. I'll take them to task when it needs to be done, but I'll also praise them when they deserve it. Still, with quotes like the following, it's getting harder and harder to find something to praise about them:
"Rather than form a federation with Microsoft and work with what we had already created, there was this notion that the world should be offered an alternative," Mundie said.
Oh no!!!! An alternative! How horrible that consumers be offered a choice!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
We really should take MS to task over not providing the source code to their products - after all, when IBM first started shipping software for their mainframes, the source code came with it so that the user could customize it to their needs. Where does MS get off thinking it should be any different?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Did you tell him that Microsoft will soon be out of business because they hire salesmen that insult their customers? Did you ask him if his boss knew that he insulted customers by telling them they will be out of business.
Good salesmen are helpful people that can help you solve a problem. Salesmen that just try to sell you something are idiots.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I'm not sure how socialism enters this. Mundie states, in effect, that the world should have joined with Microsoft instead of developing independent alternatives, and that developing open source software is bad for the commercialization of software. "Marx Mrvelous" states that in academia this notion would have been torpedoed as ludicrous, and Mundie would (and should) lose his credibility for making such statements. Now, since both of Mundie's statements are not supported by any real world evidence, and since everything Mundie says has been more or less a Microsoft advertisement even when it's been proven inaccurate, I agree that he'd be laughed out of academia. Socialism has less to do with it than his simply being wrong.
Virg
For those of you who don't have the dubious privilege of paying taxes on your business, let me provide a slightly oversimplified explanation. Unlike personal income taxes, businesses pay taxes on their profits, not on the income that ended up going into operating expenses and equipment purchases. (The big exception is payroll, but that's not germane here.) If I use "free" software instead of M$ software, there's nothing for me to deduct. Instead, I have to either invest the money in something else (thereby stimulating the economy, and passing the tax burden to my vendors) or pay taxes on it.
So do your patriotic duty and use free software!
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Fair enough, but the argument about secondary contributions is so frequently overstated it's nauseating, and usually in the service of public dollars being spent on private moneymaking, like stadiums, corporate relocations, etc.
A partly rhetorical question:
And another one:
To my mind, the obligations on companies, like people go above and beyond the balance sheet of what they consume (raw resources, human resources, physical, social, legal, educational infrastructure) - they are part of society, and have a duty to help others in society, as do the rest of us. So the current climate of heaping accolades on companies because one of the things they happen to need is people to work jobs drives me nuts, as it suggests that having made jobs, companies are off the hook for any more helping out.
Wait, less tax income? That doesn't even make sense.
Look at it this way, a company decides to go the free software way and not pay for anything Microsoft. Lets say they save $2000 doing this, well lets go further and say they use that $2000 to pay thier employees more. That income is of course taxed.
Now lets look at it from the other side. The company spend $2000 on Microsoft products and support. Well, *scratch* that $2000 is going to be written off on thier taxes as a business expense and the government gets NO money from that except the relatively small amount from sales tax. This assuming the company didn't say, order it off the internet, thereby paying NO sales tax at all.
Oh well, just more MS FUD to clean out of my ears
Now, keep your hand raised if you believe that your company could offer the same software that you helped to create as a free, open-source download and still keep you employed.
My company already does offer our product as open source. That doesn't mean it has to be a free download, though. The GPL under no obligates folks to release their derivative works; rather, it forces them to provide source to whomever they do release such derivative works. Hence, we can sell a GPLed product to our (corporate) customers -- we just can't prevent them from redistributing it, and have to give them the source when they ask. The resale thing isn't a problem at all -- the value to our software isn't the software itself, but us -- and neither is the source; heck, it helps them support themselves (in those cases where they find it more conveniant to do 5 minutes of debugging for themselves rather than spend 50 minutes on the phone with us).
The GPL is not nearly so "extreme" as most take it to be. The FSF doesn't necessarily want all software to be free; rather, they want all software to be Free. The two are worlds apart.
"Increasingly we will be writing on our computers like we write on paper," he said.
Who wants to write on their computer? How old is this guy? The keyboard is a powerful tool, much more efficient than handwriting. Maybe Mundie can get me a slide rule to replace the calculator on my computer. Most five year olds could practically fly a fighter jet with the Playstation joystick and we're supposed to use a mono-functional plastic stylus. Current and future generations don't need a digital replacement for the past. Hey Mundie have a kid, borrow a grandchild or clone a niece because the future has passed you by my friend and it ain't the stylus.