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?"
I'm not sure if I'm right on this or not, but Mundie reminds me of the classic "misdirection" ploy.
Woot w00t w007.
In 2001, MS payed *no* income tax because they were able to deduct the value of employee stock options and 401k plans.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I am an IT manager at a technical services company. I just had a call this morning from Microsoft-Great Plains (the 4th one in a week) wanting to come in and demo their product. I told them no, we don't use Microsoft software. The salesman laughed as if he didn't believe me and made a remark to the effect that our company would soon be out of business due to the software we run (or do not).
Alternative software save our company money, time (money) and offers us tremendous flexibility with our workflow. Why do I want to pay Microsoft $2,000 a seat for licensing when I can get the equivalent performance for approx $400 a seat?
Rhetorical question, I know.....
This guy seems to think the world revolves around Microsoft. Suffice it to say, the government suffers more when a dropout president cuts its revenue stream than when an American corporation pays a little less in taxes because it can't compete (fairly) in an open market.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
"If there is not commercialization there, a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services."
:P
Please raise your hand if you develop software for a living; that is, you support yourself and/or your family by developing software.
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.
Folks, there is room for both free software and commercial software in this world, made obvious by the point that a lot of us (including myself) work on commercial software during the day and work on our own interesting free products on our off-hours.
Those who create free software often do so to fulfill a personal need. Those who create commercial software do so to fulfill not only that person's needs, but other people's. Not all software needs to be commercialized (Eric S. Raymond's point of view), and not all software needs to be free (Craig Mundie's point of view.)
They are both right to some degree. What you have to figure out is where you lie in this continuum. Do you want all software to be free (thereby putting yourself in the awkward position of having to find some other way to support yourself), or do you want more software to be commercial? Most of us are probably somewhere in the middle, and I don't think we need to hear anything more from Mundie or Raymond on this -- we just need to make up our own minds. We gain nothing from flaming the extremists.
Thank you, drive through.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
It won't come to that, though, because I'll spend the money that I saved avoiding expensive software on something else. The government will get just as much money. I'll have the software I need and whatever other nice things I bought with my saved money.
The only party that doesn't win in this scenario is the world's richest man.
How can they be any more anti-competitive than saying remaks like this:
"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."
Of course there should be an alternative... that's what makes market economies work! As if people should just be happy that MS is there to do things for them... how dare they even think of having alternatives to MS technologies!
-nate
I see GPL'ed software as a great way for companies/individuals to access good software/code that may be outside their specific domain (i.e. not their business focus)
The most succcessful GPL'ed projects are mostly infrastructure/tools (OS, compilers, editors, servers, etc...). Many, many companies use these tools, but do not sell them. If they can acquire them for free, or at a low cost (i.e. cost of adding a required feature) then they have made themselves more competitive. Using/contributing to GPL'ed software is a way to reduce costs and enjoy the benefits of group contributions).
MSFT's stance is that infrastructure (OS, servers, compilers, etc..) shouldn't be free because it reduces companies' who build these products ability to compete.
MSFT tactics are the same as those employed by Dictators/Unions/Music Industry/other groups who are threatened by progress (social and/or technological).
I went to the World Congress web site, looking for more context to the comments, as I agree with erasmus_on above that it seemed likely that there was more to Mundie's statements than reported. Unfortunately, there is next to zero content at the site -- it appears to be more of a junket than a conference (I'll admit that this may be common.)
What I did find interesting is the last paragraph of Mundie's bio, pointing out that he was on the team at Data General that were working on the Fountainhead Project, the bad guys in Kidder's The Soul of a New Machine. This is confirmed by a Red Herring article.
One can just wonder at the FUD that was sent between the two parts of DG, as Mundie was first stretching his wings...
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
As a developer, I want to get paid for code I write, especially in the case of a proprietary application. For example, say you write an application that.. oh I dunno.. figures out car payments based on a number of different variables. You should be able to close that source code and sell your application to people, since you put in the effort to write it. I don't think any developers in slashdot will disagree, we all have families to feed.
However, there has to be a difference between the Operating System and Applications for that OS. Making the OS GPL'd makes sense - it evens the playing field for all developers, and forces there to be competition among applications. Let the best apps win. Competition, of course, leads to better products for consumers. Unfortunately, Mundie's NOT talking about applications, he's talking about Windows, an Operating System. And the scary thing to remember is that Microsoft takes applications, and ties them to the OS and claims that the application is part of the OS. (Internet Explorer being a famous example). If Windows "loses" to Linux, as I think it inevitably will, then Microsoft's applications such as Office, etc, have to compete with products such as KOffice and StarOffice and MS's market share will go down.
"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,"
Not really. Instead of writing Windows Apps a lot of companies would just write Linux Apps. If no one ran Windows, would it stop Blizzard from writing, say, Starcraft 2 for Linux? No, of course not. The only thing this effects is companies that develop Operating Systems, and more specifically, Microsoft. Keep in mind Microsoft tries to blur the distinction between OS and Application. If you can't sell an OS, you have to sell support. Application Development is a whole different world. You're not selling a system, you are selling a tool for a system, whether it's a browser, text editor, IDE, or a game.
"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"
Yeah that's capitalism, Mundie. Competition always breeds the best products for consumers. Or would you like it if everyone still drove a Ford Model T because there was no competition? Of course, we already know you want everyone to only run Windows and Microsoft Applications on windows. Or perhaps, Mundie isn't so sure about the superiority of his product?
Also, for MS products like Netscape, Lotus-1-2-3 were just tools to 'utilize' their 'product'. They figured in their infinite wisdom that by not licensing the tools, they could sell their product for a better margin. Well, we learn from the best. In order to sell our product for a better margin, we need to lower our licensing. MS - out you go. Did I say we don't sell software for a living?
There's the rub, I don't want their damn service. I want a product. With a service you pay & pay forever. I'm not willing to pay that long. I'll buy a product that I can do with what I want. I pay for my RedHat box set and they don't bother me. Our company recieved a letter from MS threatening audit etc. Good Luck! not a windows box in the place!
This dork is making it sound like Linux and the rest of Open Source don't stand a chance because they are not commercial (e.g., closed source) and therefore cannot mature and develop.
But wait!!
How is it that Linux and the rest of Open Source have gained so much ground in so little time? Mundie claims it can't happen, but the truth is that it already has. Open Source development has outpaced closed source, not in theory, but in fact. Mundie can make all the claims and suppositions he wants to, the truth of what is actually happening is showing a different story.
On the other hand, I say that Open Source needs Microsoft. The new XP licensing scheme has generated more business than I can handle; meaning I am going to have to hire someone to keep up. And I need Microsoft for comparison and contrast, but mostly for comic relief; every time someone like Mundie makes an ominous announcement or poorly thought out invective declaration against Open Source, my customers get a jolly laugh (laughing relieves stress, you know) because they have all been dragged down the NT road of promises before switching to Open Source and they know the truth from experience.
"Look at the funny clown mommy. Why is the clown so angry?"
If there is not commercialization there, a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services
In other words, it removes a very substantial reason for Microsoft's existence.
If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed,
And let's see here... investors now support most open source projects how exactly? He seems to be suggesting that the only real development is that which occurs when investors are involved. This guy needs a clue. Seriously.
They do not understand, and do not care about security. They only care about not getting things stolen from them, or being cheated.
Other than keeping them securely, how do you go about preventing getting things stolen from you?
In the real world, who takes care of thievery and fraud? Yes, the police and the government.
But the world would be so much more peaceful if things weren't able to be stolen in the 1st place. It is not the government's place to close the front door of my house when I forget, It is not the government's place to turn off file and print sharing through my modem when I forget, and my ISP shouldn't have to block incoming port 80 - if I wanted nobody to connect to my web server, I'd turn it off. It is, however, corporations' place to provide "Joe Sixpack" with software and services that don't share all his personal details and files with the entire world.
Follow me
Communism in the 1950's was an alternative to the American capitalist society, and the American government were opposed to it because wide support for communism would threaten to undermime the democracy of the United States.
Sheesh, nice rewrite of history. "Communism was just a peaceful movement that was hammered by the jack-booted thugs of a jealous, threatened United States Government."
You conveniently leave out the fact that the Soviet Union oppressed its citizens (which is instrinsic to Communism, not in philosophy, but in implementation), and also leave out the fact that the Soviet Union was highly expansionistic. The Soviet Union as an "evil empire" was an understatement, if anything.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
To use Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar point of view as well as Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning... , as well), Windows has less and less sale value, while operating systems (including Linux and Windows) have tremendous, and ever-growing use value.
Microsoft depends on the sale value of its operating system to generate the revenue necessary to fund its continued research and development. Linux depends on its use value for futher adoption and enhancement from the community that uses and supports it.
If all goes according to ESR's and SN's predictions, operating systems will be free, unless some provide compelling value, above and beyond the capability of other free operating systems. My point is, there will probably be no room for commercial operating systems in the near future.
I think you're right. There will be room for both free and commercial software. Microsoft will just need to focus on software that can still be productized and sold for profit. Windows will likely soon not meet that burden as Linux continues to make progress.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
OK, down with evil comercial software. It is evil and stupid to make people rework everyting every two years so you can sell them a new word processor. It is evil and stupid to intentionally obsolete older equipment for the same reasons. Money spent on waste is a drain to the economy as it should be spent on more important things like education, roads and all those other things that bring people joy and make the world better. The new Intelectual Property Service Economy is supposed to eliminate waste, not create it.
Microsoft's notions stand most of the above thought on their head, and it looks like they are going for regulated monopoly status. Why else would this blithering idiot be shouting stuff about the death of this view of comercial software in terms that he hopes legislators will pick up on? He's hoping that dumb laws like SSSCA will save his outmoded and failing company from extinction. I'll quote him for fun:
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.
I'm sorry, that's got to be the dumbest thing I've read all year. Like the US government will die, Universities will shut down and all IT will shutter to a halt if MicroShaft can't make money.
Now back to you:
Having said that: Any company that touches GPLd code with a 20 foot pole needs to ferret out the zealots in their midst.
Thanks for inviting a witch hunt, but I think it's going the other way. As M$ grasps more control, as the BSA breaks more people, as it all costs more and does less, M$ IT is taking a well deserved beating. The simple fact is that Microsoft is no longer competitive, has never been innovative, and is now too risky (both viruses and BSA hastles) to be tollerated. People who advocate Microsoft "solutions" to problems are going to be seen as stuck in the past, clueless or bribed. You would do well to start learning software that works rather than contincuing to work software that sucks. You will not be able to blame others for your failure as the choices on M$ platforms goes to zero. As the next wave of viruses, expoits and auto updates wracks your company, you will be held accountable.
Don't confuse my advice about software choices you should make with the forced extortion Microsoft plans. If you are dumb enough to continue your relationship with Microsoft, so be it. Choice is good. Latter I can say, "I'm so happy you failed," as you are so obviously malicious. Microsoft however would like to eliminate all choice by law.
How many Slashdot stories have their been now crusading against some GPL violation or another?
Name one company or person that has been ruined. There are many software comapnies that have been ruined unfairly by MicroShaft. Since judgement was rendered, it's a matter of public record. Many more smaller companies have been ruined by the BSA, individuals have been ruined, even public school systems have had hundreds of thousands of dollars extorted from them by a company that has obviously not been harmed. Ask yourself why a company with $9 billion would have to steal $250,000 from imporvereshed schools systems like Los Angles and Philidelphia. I don't have to hide my copy of NVI and that's one of the reasons I use it.
For all of the talk about the GPL and commercial software being compatible/I>
They are not compatible. Comercial software restricts your rights. Free software seeks to replace comercial software. No one is going to force you to do anything, but you might feel stupid running expensive, insecure, privacy violating software, when technically superior free alternatives are available. In that way, the makers of restrictive software are doomed.
...you try this trick, but your head collapses because there is nothing inside.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.