Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says IBM/Linux Their Biggest Threat
krypt0n0mic0n writes "An article at The Register shows that Microsoft sees IBM and Linux as the biggest threats to their market domination. Microsoft's Eric Rudder is quoted as saying that Linux is a "formidable" challenge and that "IBM is our greatest competitor. In the way they sell products and compete in corporate accounts." It goes on to say that they believe the NET server will be a challenge to these competitors."
To defeat Microsoft, dominance of non-M$ technologies in the enterprise area is key.
.NET CLR is either a non-starter (as it's been thus far), or .NET in such a way that business software will .NET, and that solutions .NET applications. The point of .NET is to sell more
If they gain a significant foothold there, their control will be near total, and they'll
have a cash source with which to fund the ultimate destruction of all competetors.
Conversely, if Linux/Unix/Java win the enterprise space, Microsoft will have no new source
of revenue and the encroachment of deskop alternatives (OSX and Linux and BSD) will
eventually destroy their financial base.
It's important to ensure that the
that quality, truly open source, implementations exist on non-MS platforms. Whatever they
say, Microsoft wants to control the uptake of
really only run on their platforms. They're not producing a public standard for the sake of being
good corporate citizens. They're going to try to ensure that they're the . in
that would have gone Java will go their way on their software. There's no incentive to have
real competition in server platforms for
copies of windows, SQLServer, and Visual Studio.
Funny how that's all they talk about now, who their competitors are.
I make these: http://beatseqr.com
We've done it! We've captured the MS brain bug!
Doogie puts his hands on it.
"It's... It's afraid!"
Crowd cheers.
The Internet is generally stupid
Microsoft: What virus will you choose next?
Anyway, with that said, why wouldnt they consider Linux/IBM (why is IBM first in the headlines?) a threat, doesnt linux have the largest chunk of the server market?
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
I thought the systems were supposed to be useful, not just purchased. The headline shows corporate greed, once again.
I would like to see a headline like "Microsoft is concerned IBM and Linux may offer more consumer benefits".
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Humm... Before, we were a cancer. Now, we're a puppy. Well, that's a step up... I think.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Let's all get in our good old Way-Back Machines, and travel back in time... Does anyone remember that joint venture product IBM was putting out? OS/2, version 1.3...then later version 2...and Warp, etc..? For anyone whose been fortunate enough to really work with any of the old OS/2 products, you'll remember that when correctly installed and configured, they're still a very rock solid product. Not much the same can be said for most of the current M$ products, save perhaps Win 2k.
:- While our "friends" and M$ could sell sand to a man stranded in the desert, sometimes the products they rush out aren't as solid as we'd like them to be.
The difference between these two corporate giants is that they really are opposites of one another. You see, IBM -can- make good, rock-solid products...however, they couldn't market themselves out of a wet paper bag.
I can see how M$ would be threatened. If IBM learned how to market things, they could be a formidable player.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
"Linux is free like a puppy." I've used Linux for years and it only occasionally craps on the carpet or chews my shoes. Now Windows on the otherhand...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I find this rather ironic since Microsoft's big break in the beginning was to be able to create MS-DOS for IBM.
In further news, the sky is blue.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Microsoft's Eric Rudder is this years winning of the "Blatantly Obvious Award" for those that point out the obvious two years after it was first obvious.
This really isn't news. Just MS admitting to it (after everyone else already knew it).
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Microsoft has to become a major player in enterprises services. If they don't they won't be able to sustain their past growth rates. The OS is rapidly becoming a commodity, now that win 2K is stable enough that that most people don't need to upgrade ever again. Win 2K already does what most people want and more, so the only way to continue to grow is new markets.
That everyone already knows. Microsoft is doing all these interviews to paint a picture that .NET really is ready for the enterprise world of 24/7 computing. Back in 98 MS commissioned some company to prove SQL Server was good enough to run the NY EX, but everyone in the RDBMS business knows Sybase ASE run the stock market. Is it possible that if MS can't get it's act together with .NET, that they have reached their peek?
1. Pay lip service to "not being a monopoly"
2. Avoid antitrust investigation/litigation
3. Profit (using anticompetitive methods)
Remember that at most company the techs dont make the decisions.. I work in an itdev shop and we had a PM come up to us and demend we screap of linux/apache web server and replace it with IIS because he like some of the widgets...
We have still not finalized the penalty phase. So now that MS has "true competition" the DOJs
proposal makes perfect sense. MS has been pushed aside in the onslaught of the IBM/Linux OS machine.
While the sarcasm light was on, let's face it, MS announces nothing that does not benefit them directly. If they are claiming IBM/Linux is a threat it is because they need to be seen as having a competitor.
Now the question remains "Why?"
Yes, implementation always costs money. GNU/Linux is no different from any other operating system in this respect. But why is nobody in the media pointing out that *implementing and maintaining Microsoft software is similarly time consuming* and that, over any reasonable period of time, it's *at least as costly* as Linux? By allowing these constant references to "Linux being free like a puppy", and by not responding with incredulity, we're aiding Microsoft. It might seem obvious to you and me that the spin is silly, but journalists appear to be buying into it -- and so will potential users who are already frightened by the concept of arcane shells and incompatible office documents.
The true benefits of Linux need to be restated - as well as being 'free', it's also robust, powerful, usable. I'm concerned that these concessions by Microsoft are really just new forms of attack upon Linux - attacks that are potentially more damaging than the previous tactic of ignoring the operating system completely, since they play to the concerns of non-technical users (and management).
Thousands of happy Linux users can -- and must -- attest to the fact that Linux just works better for a large number of tasks. The ideas that it's more difficult to use well and involves more effort and money to deploy successfully are simply untrue, at least on the server market.
I was at a tech show a few months ago, and saw an IBM Linux demo by an IBM guy.
He made a big deal about how much money IBM spent on linux development, and how they made it back within a year.
He also said that they were going to port *ALL* of their products to *ALL* of their hardware lines at a point in the futire.
Think of the implications of this. You can buy an eleventy thousand dollar site lisc. for Microsoft Whatever 2004 and a support contract with Microsoft, or you can buy a $40 copy of RedHat linux and a support contract with RedHat.
That is quite a competitive standpoint for linux in general...
"Rudder said in 2003 Microsoft must ensure .NET becomes the preferred architecture for application development. To achieve this, Microsoft must convert millions of developers using existing versions of C/C++ and Visual Basic onto .NET versions of the company's languages."
So, I should stop writing C/C++ code that will compile on practically any architecture in existence, and switch to Microsoft's proprietary version that will limit my users to a single vendor's platform? The advantage to me as a developer is what exactly?
-- "We need to build a vibrant and healthy developer community. That's the lesson Linux has taught us. Having people to help. Knowing where to get questions answered," Rudder said. --
M$, open up some of your source code. That might help.
...we were supposed to call it GNU/Linux, not IBM/Linux. Let's hope RMS isn't reading /. today.
do not read this line twice.
Ford announced IT'S biggest competitors were other car manufacturers.
Duh...
Who else makes OSs for PC architecture.
Well, I may be in the minority, but if the CFO (my boss's boss) came up to me and said "I think we should use IIS because it looks pretty," I'd call a meeting and help him to understand why a web server shouldn't be chosen based on screenshots. In the end I'm sure I'd have my way because I'm the one with the expertise and he knows that... I read a lot of "Until the president comes up to you and says the wants you to use X because he saw an ad for it in X magazine..." on Slashdot, but I really don't see any of that at my work. Am I really in such a minority?
doesnt linux have the largest chunk of the server market?
depends which server market you are talking about.
...and in other news, Stallman is demanding that IBM henceforth refer to itself as GNU/IBM...
In my experiece with managers it alomost seems like the logic is "It must be great, look at how much money they charge for it!".
blah blah blah....
drightler@technicalogic.com
So if you have two solutions, one based on Microsoft, perhaps not the best tool for the job, but it has some TCO numbers to make a decision, and you have another solution based on Linux, with great technical data but no long term financials, then guess who wins?
I think nearly all TCO studies have flaws, but like it or not, it's a big factor for enterprise decision makers.
Hopefully, now that analysts are doing TCO on linux solutions, this will all change.
It's all part of their evil plan, you see. They're going to issue "competitive" products, and then while the IBM and Linux worlds are bent double, laughing their asses off, they will come in and take over the world.
Wait, hasn't that already happened?
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
we also have to keep in mind that microsoft is simply saying that among its competitors IBM and Linux pose the biggest threat...but that doesnt mean that they pose a big threat.
:)
It is good to see IBM and Linux getting recognition for the quality/low cost services they provide.
It's a good step for linux, but a long way to go
proxy
However, Flessner articulated Microsoft's response to Linux. "Linux is free like a puppy. It looks free but when you get all the pieces around it, it doesn't work out so free. There's a lot more than I/O and memory management to make up an operating system."
Whereas Windows is like a puppy that you can only take to one vet when he gets sick, and it is the same vet everyone else is taking their puppy to. And the vet has a very busy schedule, he is deaf and blind, and tells you that the puppy got sick because of something you did. Even though the vet sold you the puppy knowing he was sick. And the medicine he finally gives you for your sick puppy to cure his barfing gives him the shits.
What a dumbass analogy. They still don't get the concept of Free vs free, do they?
Libere, Gratis, Linux
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
is that they'll never be happy, even if they DO become a complete, unchallenged monopoly. Too much is never enough in their eyes.
Its like this wannabe punk rocker from around my parts who showed up in a BMW whining about how his parents just wouldn't buy him the Jag.
Why do so many corporations have such a hostile view of peaceful cohabitation in the marketplace, even among direct competitors? I mean, if you're churning billions of dollars through your coporation ever year, and making your CEO and founder the richest man on the planet in the meantime, doesn't that signal that you're in a good place and you don't necessarily need to release the hounds on everybody who comes tiptoeing across your lawn?
.. uh, well, because, because, last time, when they bragged about something to their benefit, they were just lying, yeh, that's the ticket! Lying!
Keerist, why this lame acceptance as nonto ni verdad when everything else they say is a pack of lies?
For the record, I do my utmost to avoid M$ products, because (a) they are buggy as all get out, (b) they are like working with a straight-jacket (do it their way or no way), and (c) their business ethics suck major toad warts. But it's kind of annoying seeing all the bashing that goes on most of the time, then this where suddenly their word is gospel.
Infuriate left and right
I'm just amazed how many "upgrade to XP, upgrade to XP, never mind the costs upgrade, trying anything else wouldn't be fair" - comments I see when somebody states that he is running Win9x.
Yet, I agree that the next Windows webservers will have a hard time. Not really because of the track record, more because they don't offer any additional value for their price tag.
If that was their business plan, they wouldn't be where they are today. How many times have you heard the phrase ... "the next Bill Gates"? A lot, presumeably! Why? Because he's been the smartest f*ing businessman of this century. He may use anticompetitive tactics and smash competitors, but that doesn't make him any less business-smart.
That single report did what 2 years of lobbying by me wouldn't. 2 days after they recommended seeking alternatives I was directed to begin loading Apache :) Today we use apache and IBM websphere, and IIS require a SVP approval and a rigorous security exam :)
:)
Following that incredible success story, a linux development team has been started and they are working on SAN connectivity issues now. The age of M$ computing as a server solution is coming to a close. They 0wn the desktop still but I don't support those
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The community wrote loads of software, from IP-stack to KDE in short time, Microsoft needed much longer to create Windows and they still had to rely on OSS code for IE and their IP-stack.
Linux is backed by IBM, Sony, HP and pretty much any other IT-company on the planet with combined revenue of several 100 billions per year. Microsoft has only 20 billions per year, which is a lot, but still not much compared to giants like Sony and IBM alone, never mind about their combined strengh.
Now, who is Goliath and who is David?
Microsoft is afraid - and because of very good reasons.
Microsoft's real biggest threats come from the inertia of their own installed base (that they're beating into submission with Software Assurance 6) and from potentially adverse legal rulings against them.
IBM/Linux is a certainly a plausible-sounding competitor.
While I love Linux, open source, etc., I don't kid myself for one minute that MS is quaking in its boots about IBM and Linux.
It's more along the lines of a PR statement (one that some Linux zealots will go along with) to make it sound like:
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Whereas MS is like a pedigree puppy: very expensive to buy, very expensive to maintain, and prone to all sorts of very exciting diseases caused by generations of inbreeding.
--
E_NOSIG
It is real simple what Microsoft is doing here, after years of domination, the courts on their collective asses, they have found an out.
They scream as loud as they can "LINUX AND IBM ARE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM!". In one very quick and slick move they have created a competitor that really is not one, but on the surface looks huge and has teeth. The much touted Linux OS, and the big bad IBM has come together to give us a run for our money. I can hear it now "See we are not a monopoly, see we have to do all this evil things to be competitive!".
This gives them a nice trump card to play in court, and in the public eye.
Ho well....so much for that idea.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
oh yeh, all those IBM think clients out there running Windows CE, with back ends on NT boxes... oh yeh, there's Lottttssss of those...
the next computer revolution is going to slap you upside the head and you wont know what hit you...
... hi bingo
With the support of BIG BLUE, they might have a chance. When I read this article, the demise of LWN, and from Forbes.com (ala slashdot feed) ' "Other firms such as TurboLinux that had filed for IPOs eventually canceled their plans. The Nasdaq Composite has shed three quarters of its value since March 2000, and for the Linux stocks, the fall has been even harder. Cobalt and Andover.net are gone, swallowed up by Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) and VA, respectively. VA itself now sells for under a buck per share, and founder Larry Augustin last week gave up the CEO job (he's still the chairman). His firm has changed its name to VA Software, and its media contact person declined an interview request for this story "because we're no longer a Linux company." ' I wonder wher the focus is.I ask why are the root and fundamental Linux proponets hitting the pavement and knocking on doors?
IBM is choosing Linux, and doing what other companies have failed to do: Compete directly with MS on their terms...with MONEY. This competition is at the server level, but in time perhaps with adequate funding and a focus on applied resources, perhaps inroads will be made in the next few years to challenge Microsoft on the desktop. Microsoft now sees this threat, and recognizes that IBM has a new tool in their arsenal to take on MS. Bundling pieces of Linux in their corporate high dollar solutions is a fiscally prudent move. Additionally, with the fundamental state and nature of OSS the IBM team has a wider variety of Eyes & Hands on developers that are providing pro bono service. Definitely a great bullet for promoting this type of integration with the bean counter!
So what does this boil down to? IBM has a recognized threat to MS server market. The ball is in the hands of IBM to push this, or the path to the Linux desktop will meet the fate of OS/2.
Just my
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
What I find most amazing, and downright stupid is that:
No sooner had the computing industry cast off the yoke of the IBM monopoly, they took on the yoke of the Microsoft monopoly. They didn't learn.
This bothers me in another way, to compare it with politics. In the US we've had a culture of democracy that has survived for a long time. Hopefully the current challenge posed by money will be rebuffed again, like at the last turn of the century. But in other nations where there hasn't been a culture of democracy, they're having a difficult time adopting on. Indeed countries seem to keep falling back to strong-men ruling.
The computing industry grew up under the thumb of IBM. After casting off IBM, it promptly got under the thumb of Microsoft. The computing industry has *never* existed in a normal, fully competitive marketplace. Let's say we're getting ready to cast off Microsoft in the next few years. Intel has been second-fiddle to Microsoft as part of the WinTel duopoly for years, so is it now time for Intel/HP to take the driver's seat? Have we still not learned?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Microsoft has a lot of branches that make losses and their stubbornness concerning XBox (it's so clear that it won't topple PS2, yet they keep pumping money in it without the remote chance of getting it back) will cost them fortunes.
Also, the community has ported Linux and the BSDs to tens (hundreds?) of hardware platforms, while Windows failed on everytime they tried something other than x86 (PPC, Mips, Alpha and IA64 in a few years, you will see it)
Microsoft is in a strong position because they control the OEMs. However they charge a bigger percentage every year, it's really just a matter of time until the Microsoft-tax becomes unbearable and OEMs start jumping ship - wait, Walmart already sells Windows-less PCs.
In addition to that, only 35% of their money come from product sales, the rest is gathered through financial tricks and tax deductions with gullible investment money being Microsoft's single most important source of money.
As soon as investors start asking questions (we just had Worldcom, remember? And Enron of course) this whole scheme might topple over and Microsoft will lose most of it's income and WILL START MAKING LOSSES. Also most employees will be pissed because THEIR income (which consists mostly of stock options) will only be a fraction of what it used to be. Microsoft is a house of cards and if XBox or Worldcom doesn't crush it, something else will. It's just a matter of time, it won't work much longer.
See Bill Parish' page for more details.
You really want some reasons that companies use IIS and not Apache when they upgrade.
#1. InterDev - They can hire 3 point and click monkeys to one coder that knows java well.
#2. Older code - They don't want to change what they use now. They would require whole coding projects to start over scraping what they have.
#3. The Lead Developers would cry, because they are not near as productive in (c, c++, java, php) as they are in vb, vbscript, and InterDev.
#4. Problems, they already have 99% of them worked out on nt40/2000 in their environment. They know it, they love it, they don't want to change it. They don't want the headache of changing code, OS, and all the problems and man hours that go with it. Just to have a "free os". They don't have the programers, they don't have the talent, and they don't have the downtime to do it.
#5. No one likes change.
#6. The CIO is a SQL/IIS old school user. You can't change 3000 hours of programing in ASP/SQL/XML into PHP/MySql/PERL/XML/CGI and not have a huge huge cost. More than anything you will ever see in savings from a system os. Plus you get all the problems...again.
Then again, what do I know I am just a gimp.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
yes - MS buys technologies and groups them into one big package that plays nice with itself - which is what many people want
"Linux is free like a puppy. It looks free but when you get all the pieces around it, it doesn't work out so free. There's a lot more than I/O and memory management to make up an operating system."
Buffer overflows? Charging enormous amounts per seat ? Subscriptions? Stuff like that?
Well, you can tell him that Apache now has a larger market share than IIS...
Reminder: find a new sig
Like everybody else, (including themselves, oh sweet irony, [M$ killed minis from DEC, InterData, DataGen and others, who were moving in on mainframes of the time, {now my G4 laptop pushes more MIPS than the Crays did,}]) MS needs to see/remember what happens to upstarts who always seem to want to move up the food chain (prices paid are better at bigger corporations/ projects/ etc.,) and who disregard the competition that's crawling up their butts pimping something with a lower TCO (even a few bucks a crack makes a REAL difference when you roll out a few million at a crack.)
:-)
How long until banks with a few hundred (US) or thousand (US/Canada/rest of the world) branches, meaning they they already have Unix boxen (NOBODY runs SERIOUS, mission critical apps on M$,) realize that their apps can run for less TCO (M$ ain't free./ it ain't even cheap,) on Linux boxen?
Is M$ scared? (I can smell the scorch marks in Redmond's short from here in NYC.
Bully Gates will retire from a company as morallt and fiscally bankrupt as Enron, WorldCom or Data General. Its a good thing he's not leaving a thing to his kids.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Oops, sorry, I didn't realize you're not working there anymore. Oh well, good for you.
Reminder: find a new sig
It seems that what Microsoft perceives and what Microsoft admits (except throught leaks) are two different things. Microsoft must consider the threat from Linux and IBM to be about over to admit this. Here's how it works. A number of articles and opinions spring up stating that Linux is dead or dying or not a threat. Then Microsoft says that Linux and IBM are their toughest competition. Investors see both stories independant of each other and think they are so smart to discover that Microsoft's greatest threat is not really much of a threat. They then invest becuase little is more powerful a motivator than your own, original, brilliant idea. This way, as it play out, Microsoft is seen as either crushing it's greatest competitor or, if things don't go its way, Microsoft is simply seen as battling a worthy competitor. Either way it demonstrates that Microsoft has _competition_ which is all too important for public relations. These guys are not to be underestimated.
This is like bragging about climbing the "tallest" mountain in Kansas.
M$ is down and weakened. Their public opinion is in the toilet. They're rapidly losing their marketshare overseas as countries see value in technological independence. The word "Linux" appears at least a half dozen times in every issue of financial newspapers. The MS Office cash cow is shriveling up due to (finally) useful free office suites or equivalent software. Hailstorm flopped and .Net is still vaporware. And WinXP sales have been lackluster because well.. who needs it? -- especially when the economy is down and businesses are rather looking for ways to save.
And yet, ironically, the Open Source community seems to have somewhat fallen asleep in the midst of the imminent success of our dream: a world dominated by free, open, community-built software where the user / consumer no longer gets screwed at every opportunity. Now, I'm not talking about the major projects where developers have kept up their excellent work. But it's many of the sidelines projects that have ground to a halt. And somehow it seems as if folks aren't 'scratching their itches' as much these days. What happened to the break-neck progress we were making on all fronts? I have a growing list of needed feature-adds, bug fixes, new apps, etc. that is now impossible for me to keep up with on my own. And many are seemingly abandoned projects.
What happened to the faith in the Open Source model? Why aren't programmers in the US going after careers doing Free Software? One would think now is as good a time as any, especially with the industry in a rut and jobs so scarse! It's so blatantly obvious and yet hardly anyone is taking up the opportunity. For Open Source to win the day, we need to become the next generation of consultants--a new breed that actually supports the software because they can with the code.
Listen and listen well: Software is NOT a PRODUCT. People need to get over that idea and realize it is an outdated model from the prior tech boom. So if you're a geek looking for a job doing programming, that means you shouldn't be looking for a "software company" in the traditional sense. Instead, look for service-based companies that get paid to scratch the itches of their customers. Or start your own consulting firm with some buddies. Get connected in your local community and then move outwards according to capacity. Start organizations to coordinate development of needed free business software. I can't even begin to count the number of businesses I've heard of that are thoroughly fed up with the proprietary custom packages they use currently. The market is there for the taking!! It's time to go for the kill!
No, Microsoft is their own worst enemy. Between their new pricing stategies, extremely restrictive licenses, and the general loss of useful features, they are their own worst enemy. They have given the world compelling reason to turn to Linux and IBM.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein
"There's a lot more than I/O and memory management to make up an operating system."
Translation, they accept defeat on I/O and memory management efficiency and go on to claim that an OS needs a good flying madonna to be complete?
Talk about changing the topic of discussion.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Microsoft Says IBM/Linux Their Biggest Threat. Maybe they read this article. While the thrust of it is Carly Fiorina, and HP, it does mention how IBM is using Linux against Microsoft. Never forget, IBM is big brother!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
"When my mother can install Mandrake like she installed XP, then I might agree with you."
I think that Linux does have a long ways to go before it is widely adopted as the preferred desktop environment. However I don't find anything difficult about Mandrake's installation.
The CD auto boots and if you select the default install its completely automatic. You do have to swap the CD's as the installation progresses but other than that just accept all defaults. How could XP be easier than that?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The open source community can already do this. All that needs to be done it implement a JVM that is Open source. Like Kaffe, only current. The problem with this is that of course, nobody wants to do this since it's too easy to just use Sun's implementation of the JVM. That and Sun's implementation is actually very good.
The open source community would have to reimplement all the APIs that sun has created. Much of this has already been done. The open source community wouldn't control the language, but I bet that if some group created a JVM that was as good or better then the Sun one, then Sun would listen to the users of the OS JVM.
You can argue that the OS community will never 'control' the language and Sun can always just go and change it, but so what? If the implementation of the JVM is good, then what does it matter? The mono implementation of C# will not be exactly like the MS implementation, I bet they will have different bugs in the implementation, but it won't matter at the end of the day if their implementation is good.
Anyone can write the tools to run java code, the only limitation is that you can't actually call it 'Java' with out Sun's blessing.
"The .NET runtime is seriously cool technology. Sure, the motivation for creating it may be sinister, but who really cares? .Net is simply a better mousetrap and MS should be rewarded."
How should we reward them? By sticking our willy into their better mouse trap and letting them slam it shut maybe?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Wow, people's ignorance and lack of perspective continually astound me.
How many versions did it take for Windows to make money? 4? What about Microsoft Word? What about DOS? Come on, guys, Microsoft has never succeeded on the first try, but they have pretty consistently gotten the last word in eventually. Because they can afford to keep trying.
Microsoft doesn't give a crap about video games. Video games are merely a foothold. Yah, you just bought an Xbox, so what. Well, with a short download you also have a TiVo-like player. Oh, you also have a WAP with this little wireless card. Oh, and you also have crappy video conferencing, if you just add this wireless camera. Oh, since you've got a WAP all set up running M$, you might as well buy this $100 kitchen appliance for your grocery list, and it will automagically sync to your server on your Xbox, which will sync with your palm.
Yeah, that's a long ways out, but you're crazy if you think Microsoft isn't taking the long view on this.
It wasn't so long ago when Microsoft was telling everyone how open source was going to undermine business and innovation.
Now they've linked to a well known competitor - who is using it as a BUSINESS TOOL, no less. Microsoft's formal linking of Linux to IBM gives open source a boost of respectabilty it probably couldn't get on it's own.
Good luck undermining open source, the new business process.
Define "enterprise software" without being circular. My point is enterprise used to mean a *very* large company but is now a useless buzzword.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Brain-dead easy to install. You can even play Solitaire while you wait...which won't be long, considering the entire distro fits on one CD-ROM.
.ISO for Amethyst is available for download, so you can sample it for absolutely free.
It also works a lot like Windows and is skinned to look very much like XP. Once Open Office is a part of the general distribution it will be even easier and more like Windows. The
http://www.lycoris.com/
(no, I don't work for them)
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
It would make a good anime.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Mandrake 8.2, Lindows and Corel Linux (+ Xandros beta) are each very easy to install.
The key is not ease of installation. Rather it is having versions preloaded and just as easy to purchase as for Microsoft. Sure, WalMart will preinstall Mandrake or Lindows for you. They will even ship with no OS. But, that is only via their web site. And, many buyers will not shop that way. They want to see and touch just before they take out the wallet.
So, it will take linux pre-loaded for most people.
The corporate market is very different. There IBM could help but is not doing so. And, SUN has suggested it will offer a linux based desktop system but it is still slow on the draw. And, HP will preload Mandrake on a few systems but not the one most likely purchased by the ordinary consumer.
How can you help?
Talk to some or the local computer stores in your area. Suggest they offer Lindows, Mandrake or the upcoming Xandros preloaded with OpenOffice or StarOffice and actually do some price sensitive advertising. Bait and switch is not a nice thing to suggest. But, a very low cost PC with OS and an office suite can be half the price if Microsoft's prices and software are avoided completely. Even putting StarOffice or OpenOffice on an MS box is a start.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
But, wait, I thought they were trying to sell the gullable on the notion that .NET isn't going to stick you into a Windows-specific situation. Now they claim .NET is a way to fight Linux - but that would only be true if .NET and Linux won't be able to play nice together. Do they mean .NET won't actually be so cross-platform after all? Okay raise your hands everyone who didn't se *that* coming.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
'Right' does not equate to 'ethical' or 'moral', but yes, anything which survives for an extended length of time, despite changing market/social conditions, *is* doing something right.
American-style republicanism has shown itself to be a relatively stable ruling strategy, just as feudalism and monarchy have -- and just as benevolent dictatorship *hasn't*.
IBM isn't as l33t as all the new startups, but they'll still be around when 95% of them have gone to the wall.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
Or, to put it more succinctly: "Windows is only free if you pirate it and your time is worth nothing."
Do you have MSFT-stock or what makes you wish they were no house of cards?
"The next Bill Gates" referring to the next rich guy in the computer business....generally not referring to his business tactics =P
Yeah, that's a long ways out, but you're crazy if you think Microsoft isn't taking the long view on this.
Calling me crazy won't make any of your wild claims true.
Fact remains that XBox is a typical SHORT-TERM design. An Off-the-shelf design. (Low development costs, high production costs) If you want to know how a long-term design looks, look at PS2.
Microsoft, the domination (aka monopoly) will.
And lawyers and courts will have nothing to do with it.
Fenris was a little puppy also, a cute little puppy that the gods in Valhalla took as their pet..
To describe Microsoft's upcoming kanine experience as "scary" and "unpleasant" is a gross understatement.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I agree completely. Currently, my employer uses several million dollars worth of IBM hardware to do data processing that could just as easily be done on a Win2K box costing a few thousand. Why don't they switch? One word: reliability. IBM knows what Microsoft never figured out: build a rock solid, reliable platform, and you'll never have a problem making a profit. Regardless of how reliable MS claims their products are, their track record says otherwise, and no one where I work is eager to bet their career on the empty promises of Bill Gates and Company...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
But of course that one has been changing. The worst seems to be past us, because while the WinModem drivers for Linux aren't open sourced, and neither are the drivers for nVidia cards, at least Matrox and ATI have opened their hardware somewhat.
Then of course Palladium appears poised to finish closing hardware specs.
Microsoft's every effort is to make sure their products are not commoditized, and that the rest of the industry's are. (where it helps them)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"It goes on to say that they believe the NET server will be a challenge to these competitors."
Microsoft's servers are based on per-site licensing. IBM's aren't, Sun's aren't, HP's aren't. As long as Microsoft plans to beat out the Linux/UNIX vendors in the long run, they need to find a way to give up on overcharging companies that want thousands of simultaneous connections, which means Microsoft has to go into the hardware market, or make Active Directory and Exchange somehow worth the cost and pain.
Umm, there's rather a lot of excellent open-source java work out there. Sun may not have released their JVM source code, but they're not the only ones writing VM's - check out Kaffe for a GPL version. The truth is that the java and perl worlds don't overlap a lot, but we just moved our shop from perl/mod-perl to java servlets and jsp's (Jakarta struts) and it's been well worth it. Java's not going to disappear anytime soon!
Energy: time to change the picture.
Aren't there a few open source ones out there? Have you tried compiere?
ERP is a bad idea for a mid size business though if you ask me.
War is necrophilia.
Actually, there are quite a lot of these. The US economy (and don't forget, there are very large economies outside the US) is surprisingly huge. Trillions of dollars. The total worth of US companies is vastly larger than Microsoft's available cash AND capital. MS, as rich as it is, couldn't buy very many companies before it was out of liquidity and leveraged to the hilt. Sure, they might be able to buy out the odd company, but they are nowhere near as big economically as people seem to intuit. Their market power is very large. This comes from their monopoly on OS distribution. Take that away and they are just another software company. Very successful, but with no "magical powers."
As much as I like to bash Microsoft (and believe me, I do), they are just another economic actor. They are not out of all proportion with the other giant US companies. (As to whether most of the wealth of the world should run through less than a hundred gigantic corporations, well, that is another question).
For the record there are some commercial linux based accounting packages out there. I don't know if they are acceptable by your german regulations but they do exist. Having said that I say no big deal. Let the people who need german compliant accounting use windows. That market is too small to be filled by open source but large enough to be satisfied by commercial software.
War is necrophilia.
I'm not sure open sourcing Java would be quite that good. Sun has top notch engineers and they don't take shortcuts. ... Sun didn't cut those corners. .NET.
That's why I'd bet on Java rather than
I think that over time, Sun will open Java more and more. It's not (yet) ready to be thrown into a free for all. In any event, there's IBM to keep Sun honest.
Without being circular.
Enterprise software is that which can view SAP as smallish.