Bruce Perens Canned by HP

bmarklein writes "Bruce Perens has been fired by HP for "Microsoft-baiting". This was linked in part to the HP-Compaq merger, since Windows is now a much bigger part of HP's business."

Comments

Microsoft's dominance

[DamnYankee]

This shows the reach and depth of fear that Microsoft's monopoly can instill in even the biggest and baddest companies on the planet.

I doubt that this came from a purely internal HP-Compaq decision. The forces that be in Redmond probably played a role.

What is Bruce on to next?

Re:Microsoft's dominance

[rknop]

This shows the reach and depth of fear that Microsoft's monopoly can instill in even the biggest and baddest companies on the planet.

How? You think MS told them to fire Perens?

How about this for a try. HPQ makes millions and millions selling Windows only things. MILLIONS. They probably lose money on their Linux divison- but even if they are profitable, its not to the degree (because of scale for sure) of the Windows division.

You go on to answer your own "how". Microsoft doesn't have to have Bill call up Carly and say "fire that Perens bastard" to have a bully-like dominance that causes other companies to dance to its tune. The very fact that Windows is so dominant and that Microsoft is so huge is what prevents true competition from getting a foothold. Microsoft doesn't need bully tactics, they can just carry on like a normal monopoly and everybody will feel bullied anyway. (Of course, we know that Microsoft does in fact use bully tactics; witness them telling Dell that Dell wasn't allowed to sell OS-less PCs.)

-Rob

Re:Microsoft's dominance

[ryanvm]

The very fact that Windows is so dominant and that Microsoft is so huge is what prevents true competition from getting a foothold. Microsoft doesn't need bully tactics, they can just carry on like a normal monopoly and everybody will feel bullied anyway.

Just to be the devils advocate (saying that is how you keep from getting modded as a troll around here) - did you ever consider that perhaps Perens' MS bashing was hurting HPQ's bottom line?

HPQ probably makes 1000x times more selling MS-loaded computers than Linux-loaded systems. Perens running around telling everyone how insecure MS software is probably doesn't help them move those MS-loaded systems now does it?

Who knows, if Perens had spent less time MS bashing and more time evangelizing open source maybe he'd still be at HPQ.

Re:Microsoft's dominance

[pajor]

How about this for a try. HPQ makes millions and millions selling Windows only things. MILLIONS. They probably lose money on their Linux divison- but even if they are profitable, its not to the degree (because of scale for sure) of the Windows division.

HP makes loads of money selling linux workstations and rendernodes to the special effects industry. I keep a close eye on the tech of the special effects houses, and HP has almost all of the contracts (accept for one or two by IBM and Rhythm and Hues chose some company I never heard of). Granted, they don't need Bruce Perens for this, but "they probably lose money on their linux division" is just trolling.

Corporate economics

[mwber]

HP needs a big cash inflow to survive. Microsoft currently supplies that. Linux currently doesn't. Case closed. Corporations tend to think of themselves of amoral money-making ventures, and often, with huge companies like HP, any overtures to supporting open source are simply PR moves. PR moves are usually less important than simple cash inflow. If the inflow is going to disrupted by PR (like Bruce Perens), they just chop it off.

Re:Corporate economics

[Bilestoad]

Microsoft is the world's most profitable company because they ensure that their partners (who create machines that use Windows) survive. Microsoft wants everyone to survive so that there is always price war in the hardware sector. The more competitors there are the lower prices get. So yes, they make money by giving it away.

Read joelonsoftware.com - he has an excellent article about the complements of products. Essentially, if you drive down the cost of a product's complement (as a PC is to Windows) you sell more and make more money. Another example, MP3 players sell like hot cakes because it's easy to get free music.

Re:Corporate economics

[mshiltonj]

Corporations tend to think of themselves of amoral money-making ventures

That's what they. We would *all* do well to never forget that. I like Red Hat, and I support them, but they *are* a corpration. So is VA Software.

It is never advisable to place any trust in a corportion.

Re:Corporate economics

[eXtro]

Corporations care more about profits than on whether they're fucked by Microsoft. They make more money by putting up with Microsoft's demands than they would if they took a stand against them.

One of the parent corporations pointed out that his company gave HP a 1/2 million dollar contract because of there linux support. This doesn't indicate that HP makes significant money on linux. I might find a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, it doesn't indicate that I'm better off searching for money on the sidewalk rather than giving up a life of leisure and taking a paycheck from The Man.

Motivations.

[Some guy named Chris]

"I'm not just going to sit back and be a quiet engineer. I have a two-year-old son and I don't want him to grow up in a world that is less free." -- Bruce Perens (from the article)

I once had someone I admired tell me that "You shouldn't live for anything you aren't willing to die for". I've tried to incorporate that in my decision processes. Clearly, Bruce believes his child, and his freedom is more worth living for than his job at HP.

I get his motivation, I understand where he is coming from, and so, I can relate to him, and less readily dismiss him as a zealot, crackpot, or trouble maker, which is sadly the case with some other prominant free software advocates.

So, Bruce, thanks. You have my respect, even if you haven't got a job.

Re:Motivations.

[Bilestoad]

a) what do you expect from HP? They're a company trying to make money (that's what companies do). They don't have the luxury of political pointmaking while doing so. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. Bruce's responsibility was to help. Instead he thought he should be changing the world. Sucks to be Bruce.

b) what do you expect from HP? A company that has been sliding into corporate mediocrity for years, now run by an idiot with a degree in medieval studies who preserves her private jet complete with hair stylist while laying off thousands. Are you really that amazed that someone was fired for stepping out of his box?

Re:Motivations.

[killmenow]

Their responsibility is to their shareholders.

I get so sick of hearing this. Here in America (don't know so much about how it is elsewhere) we are indoctrinated to believe a company's sole responsibility is to their shareholders. The only thing that matters is ROI for the shareholders, blah, blah, blah...

It's bullshit on a grand scale. While companies do have a responsibility to their shareholders, they also have a greater responsibility to the world at large. But nobody wants to admit that because then all those morally questionable (if not outright unethical) activities designed to reward CEOs and the Board of Directors while fscking the employees, environment, and basically the rest of the world would no longer be "questionable" at all; and then they'd lose all their money and power.

Just because companies in the US routinely act as though their only responsibility is to shareholders, it doesn't make it so.

Now, before you go thinking I'm a leftist nutbag liberal socialist <insert label here>, I understand and agree that companies are usually formed for the intended purpose of making a profit. That's all well and good, and making a profit is a wonderful motivator. There's nothing wrong with profit.

I'm just saying the belief that companies have no responsibilities to anyone other than their shareholders is wrong and a company whose sole purpose is to make a profit is incorporated for the wrong reason. It's unfortunate, but I believe the mantra of the modern American CEO (as said best by Daffy Duck) is:

Re:Motivations.

[mvdwege]

On the other hand, a point I was trying to make in another post in this discussion, is that it's about integrity.

A company may try to do the best for its shareholders, but the point is that they don't realise that integrity is actually good for the shareholders.

A lack of integrity will earn you the distrust of the market, and that is bad for the company, and bad for the stock price. In fact, it is my personal opinion that the current low consumer confidence in the U.S. (remember that consumer spending drives the U.S. economy) is due to low corporate integrity.

HP/Compaq touting their support for Linux on the one hand, and firing a major advocate on the other shows their lack of integrity, and is ultimately damaging for the company. They better hope Microsoft is good for them, because that's all they'll be left with if they continue on this path.

Mart

Re:Motivations.

[renehollan]

For the sake of his child, I hope his adversarial ways don't prevent him from meeting his parental obligations.

As the father of a two (and nine) year old, and a free software advocate, I can see the conflict of interests here: do you sacrifice short-term comfort for long term principles, when it affects other people, particularly, one's offspring? I suspect being in a position to have to make that choice is one reason that RMS does not want children, ... or a mortgage, ... or the usual trappings of a comfortable life.

One should always try to stick up for a principled stand, as much as possible, and not put one's self in situations where that has to be compromised. When finding one's self having to compromise one's principles so one can feed, clothe, and house one's family, one should try to get away from that situation, as fast as possible.

I vaguely remember some famous speech about "chains resting lightly" and chosing "death" over the loss of "liberty"... some guy by the name of Henry, I think.

While we are not all so free, noble, or principled, as old PH, that does not mean we should not heed his words and strive to live by them.

Office politics are more important than business?

[mvdwege]

...or integrity for that matter?

Funny. Compaq (now HP) is running large ads in the trade press touting that they were the first major company to support Linux and Open Source.

Now they fire a major advocate? Sounds like the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Oh, wait, that's what those corporate types mean that a merger brings synergies and the opportunity to eliminate redundancies.

Well, so far HP/Compaq sounds like a typical merged company: the power politics of the officers of the originating companies are more important than anything else. They'll either spend 5 years trying to get their shop integrated (meanwhile facing dwindling market share), or they'll undo the merger, with the usual corporatespeak (divestiture, focusing on core business, spinning off unprofitable divisions) that all come down to 'we screwed up; please don't hurt us!'.

</cynism>

Mart

Re:Bruce says...

[cioxx]

It makes sense for Bruce, though. If HPQ is shifting away from Linux and toward Windows, why would they want to keep a bunch of Linux guys around?

Why shouldn't they?

Simple example. It's like CIA getting rid of their resident Arab intelligence advisor, to replace him with some professor from US. It's a bad strategy.

Sometimes you just have to hold on to people who know the emerging markets, even if they do not share the same ideology. Especially now, in a hostile economy, with all the stock market distress, companies are careful not to overrun their budget, and looking for ways to cut costs. What better way to save few million dollars than to replace Windows 2000/XP with Linux. You kill 2 birds with one stone. Increased stability + cost efficiency.

Furthermore, HP/Compaq are in the hardware business. As long as they sell their plastic boxes the investors will be happy.

Dell = 1
HP/Compaq = 0

thinking matters

[tanveer1979]

" I have a two-year-old son and I don't want him to grow up in a world that is less free."

If more people thought this way, the world would really be more freer.

tells us a lot about HP

[g4dget]

Companies like IBM have a large contingent of people that loathe Microsoft and aren't afraid to speak out about it, yet IBM seems to be able to deal with both Microsoft and its customers just fine, and IBM is able to deliver a wide variety of systems. In fact, from a customer's point of view this is good: if a company has Windows, UNIX, mainframe, and open source people inside it, it is much more likely that advice and recommendations from the company will be based on technical considerations, rather than whatever is available. With a company that only bets on Microsoft, you already know the answer to any of your questions is going to be "Microsoft", whether that makes sense or not.

If HP is so threatened by a single person like Perens, they must really be in deep trouble. Apparently, The New HP is trying hard to become The New Unisys. Too bad--DEC and HP used to be nice companies. Compaq just keeps eating up one company after another, digesting them, well, and you know what comes out the other end.

Re:tells us a lot about HP

[Slime-dogg]

When you have something like Big Blue, M$ is not necessary for profit. In fact, I'll bet that IBM makes less money on their Windows machines than they do on anything else.

For a company that's been around for ages, one that is rock steady, you just can't mess with them. IBM can do whatever the fsck they want to, Microsoft knows this and prefers not to bitch.

Re:tells us a lot about HP

[g4dget]

Civilized monarchs, back when they still had such people, would consider it a sign of confidence, style, and good behavior to hire and pay people who disagreed and argued with them. They also found such people useful to have around because they'd get them thinking in new ways. Some of those people were fools (their job title, not their intelligence), others philosophers. HP needs some good fools and some good philosophers if they want to make it.

Non-sequitor

[swb]

After it bought Compaq this year, the combined company became the largest single buyer of Windows for personal computers and data-serving computers, and thus more dependent on Microsoft.

I don't get it. If I moved from n to 1 on the list of a vendor's customers, why wouldn't I see increased leverage with my vendor? The story implies that being the number one customer of Microsoft is tantamount to losing leverage ("more dependant")?

It's a semantic argument to be sure, but regardless of what Bruce said about Microsoft you would think that they wouldn't want to damage their reputation with their number one customer, would you?

Or is this all about MS playing Dell and HP off each other?

Re:Non-sequitor

[ChaosDiscordSimple]

I don't get it. If I moved from n to 1 on the list of a vendor's customers, why wouldn't I see increased leverage with my vendor? The story implies that being the number one customer of Microsoft is tantamount to losing leverage ("more dependant")?

Markets stop working correctly in the presence of a monopoly. Microsoft has monopoly power over sales of Microsoft Windows (that's what copyright does). Compaq/HP doesn't see any feasible options other than Windows. HP on its own had significant profit in other areas: printers, scanners, calculators, and other hardware. Compaq increased HP's investment in Microsoft Windows driven computers and made HP more vulnerable.

I can't help but think of the similaries to addictive drugs. The bigger a customer you are to a pusher, the more dependant you are on the pusher.

Re:Non-sequitor

[sphealey]

I don't get it. If I moved from n to 1 on the list of a vendor's customers, why wouldn't I see increased leverage with my vendor?

You are living on a space station. You purchase your oxygen from the largest oxygen vendor. He is in fact the only one big enough to supply the needs of the majority of those souls you are responsible for. You are also the oxygen vendor's largest customer.

What happens if you get into a dispute with the oxygen vendor and threaten to cut off your purchases? If worse comes to worst and you do stop buying from him, he might go bankrupt. On the other hand he might not - there are a lot of people who need to breathe. You on the other hand will certainly die.

That's the problem the OEMs face when dealing with Microsoft.

sPh

Re:Non-sequitor

[analog_line]

It's more a measure of the influence that the incoming Compaq people are having on HP. Compaq, overall, was staunchly a pro-Microsoft computer maker, far more than HP ever was. Compaq's lifeblood was machines running Windows 2000. HP had other irons in the fire, and could deal with a more tepid relationship.

When I was working there as a consultant, pro-Microsoft propaganda was everywhere. Sure, there were plenty of Linux people working there, but it was really under the radar. Microsoft was the party line and woe to anyone who would challenge that too vocally. Yeah, Compaq didn't mind if Linux ran on their machines, but they didn't really put a whole lot of effort into it. IIRC, Microsoft bought an obscene number of Compaq machines during the time I was there. There was also a massive Windows 2000 migration push at the time, which may have been related to it.

I've posted regarding this before, but I think it bears restatement. There are an AWFUL lot of strong personalities in what used to be Compaq, hardened by a bitter internal war during the days after the Digital merger. Large caliber bullets didn't fly, but there was a whole lot of political fallout, even when I was there long after the merger (for about a year, from summer 2000 to summer 2001 before the consultancy I worked for laid me off). The "HP Way", as laid back as it's projected to be, I believe, cannot stand up to the hardened take-no-prisoners warriors at Compaq. Sure, alot of people at Compaq are going to get laid off, but sometimes you have to sacrifice your own men in a battle to win a war, and I would bet that's how the Compaq people see it, a war to save their way of doing things, and in the end, their personal employment.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bruce says...

[Clover_Kicker]

>Where I work, stability and cost efficiency has
>nothing to do with our choice of OS. We need
>something that will run all those damned legacy
>apps we still have left over from the DOS 6.22
>days. It's so much easier, it seems, to accomodate
>these old apps then to replace or upgrade them.
>A lot of other big companies probably stay on
>Windows for the same reason.

OK, that's the client side, but you could still start turfing NT/2000 in your server room.

HP/Compaq (or Dell or IBM) would love to sell you some servers.

Re:NY Times Link

[hyacinthus]

"I know the "NY-Times Free Registration" horse is dead, but it would be nice to warn users that it's a NY Times link....Just so we don't bother."

Yeah, who wants to bother with articles in one of the oldest and best newspapers in the United States, just because they ask for a user name and password and haven't ever sent one word of junk mail to registered users. A reputable journalistic organization like Slashdot would _never_ do something like that. F**k the bastards at the New York _Times_!

hyacinthus.

(P. S. If it weren't for the _Times_ supplying a good fraction of Slashdot's reportage, so-called, there wouldn't be terribly much interesting to read here.)

Re:hmmmm....somehow I am not realy sure about that

[TheGreek]

So you based this *entire* project one one operating system? Not based on whether or not it does the job properly, with a minimum of downtime or hassle, but exclusively on whether or not it runs Linux?

You're fucked. Cash your chips in now while you still can. You have no business being in charge of the computing infrastructure of a company.

Completely backwards!

[wind]

After it bought Compaq this year, the combined company became the largest single buyer of Windows for personal computers and data-serving computers, and thus more dependent on Microsoft.

Am I the only one who thinks this is just ass-backward from the way you'd expect things to be in an open market? So, HP/Compaq becomes MS's biggest customer. Back in the olden days, it would mean that *MS* would quake in fear and bend over backwards not to piss off their biggest client, lest they lose their business. Nowadays, it appears to mean that HP/Compaq needs to be careful lest they upset their vendor.

It's ridiculous. And, frankly, it should stop. Too bad short-term shareholder value has to take precedence over long-term strategic planning (like finding a way to get out from underneath MS's thumb).

Re:Completely backwards!

[Lumpish Scholar]

Am I the only one who thinks this is just ass-backward from the way you'd expect things to be in an open market? So, HP/Compaq becomes MS's biggest customer. Back in the olden days, it would mean that *MS* would quake in fear and bend over backwards not to piss off their biggest client, lest they lose their business.

That's like saying the biggest cocaine addict should get respect from his dealer.

If Bill called Carly and said, "Sorry, seems there's a problem with our agreement with you to license Windows. We're very earger to work things out, but I'm afraid you're not going to be able to legally sell desktops, laptops, or servers running Windows until, oh, say, January. If you think Linux is so hot, why don't you try selling Linux systems at Best Buy?" ... if that happened, HP stock would drop to $0.01 in about five minutes, and Carly would be out of a job in less time that than.

That's the exaggerated version (and would violate the terms of the proposed DoJ settlement); but subtler variations work, too. Microsoft controls HP's oxygen supply; and Dell's, and Gateway's, and ad infinitum. Only IBM has a committment to Windows plus a large line of non-Windows products to fall back on.

And that is why Microsoft is a monopoly.

Re:Completely backwards!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is.

What's also bakcwards is that they didn't fire him along time ago for baiting a business partner. Either that or make it really clear that HPQ makes a ton of money because of MS and he can tout the benefits of OSS all he wants but he's not allowed to bait MS or knock them.

There is something to be said about competeing with someone by showing the good things about your product rather than the bad things about theirs.

Re:I don't.

[ergo98]

Secondly, his job was probably questionable at best, more PR than anything else, so his firing may very well have been inevitable. In other words, he had nothing to lose. In fact, he may have been fired, in actuality, because he was a waste of resources.

Bingo. I find it ridiculous that people are so quick to question corporate PR at other times, but they all truly believe that HP hired Bruce on to "challenge them". No they didn't, and it's the height of naivety for anyone to actually parrot that line. They hired him to get karma points from the open source community, hoping that Jimmy the Linux evangelist who works at some random company would put HP first and foremost ("that place that hired Perens") when considering a new server box, etc. I would wager that they found that the open source community is much more fickle and "disloyal", and quite honestly much more penny pinching, and that the desired outcome did not come to fruition.

I don't know how much Bruce was getting paid (though I suspect that the number is quite large, especially considering it in today's technology environment)

Topsy-turvy world

[hey!]

Quoth the article:
After it bought Compaq this year, the combined company became the largest single buyer of Windows for personal computers and data-serving computers, and thus more dependent on Microsoft.

The logic of this is exquisitely twisted. Hp-Compaq is now by far Microsoft's biggest customer, so the logic goes, Microsoft has the most leverge over them.

Excuse me?

I think anybody who doesn't think that Microsoft's use of monopoly power needs to be severely restrained needs to think this one over. How can there be competition when companies fear a vendor so much they can't even flirt with the competition?

Backwards...

[MrWa]

After it bought Compaq this year, the combined company became the largest single buyer of Windows for personal computers and data-serving computers, and thus more dependent on Microsoft

Does this not seem wrong to anyone else? Sense when does the supplier dictate the terms and not the largest customer? This, more than anything else I think, demonstrates that Microsoft has gone from being a viable solution for decent software to a company that needs to be reigned in.

The problem now, though, is that market forces will have to accomplish this. We already know that the government is incapable of stopping Microsoft from doing what it wants. Short of breaking the company into two or three parts, things will continue the way they are.

Re:hmmmm....somehow I am not realy sure about that

[TheGreek]

It's not possible to argue against Linux? Not to be an ass or anything, but FreeBSD is just as malleable as Linux, and has the bonus of not falling under the syphilis of software licenses.

Please cite examples where competent Windows administrators who kept up with Windows patches were stymied by a Windows problem that kept mission-critical systems down.

For every example you provide, counter-examples can be found for Linux. The VM upheaval in early 2.4 (so-called "stable" series). The ext2fs corruption in early 2.2 (once again, so-called "stable" series).

Anybody with blind faith to The One True Operating System doesn't understand very much about computing at all. Yes, Linux is malleable to the point of silliness, but why make a new hammer out of clay when Microsoft and IBM already have steel hammers that are have a much longer, and more proven, track record?

Re:Free market, anyone?

[jefu]

It is often said :

"A corporation has no soul to damn and no body to kick" (variously "kill", "punish").

This comes from the Baron Thurlow, the Lord Chancellor of England in the 1700's and as far as I can tell (http://www.xrefer.com) the full and correct quote is :

"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like."

Or you might prefer this from Ambrose Bierce :

"Corporation: an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

More at http://www.endgame.org/primer-quotes.html. These quotes (naturally) apply to HP, to MS, to Dell, Red Hat and so on

Re:Hi

[Jeppe Salvesen]

I am happy you will be consulting, if the article is correct. With the governments looking into adopting Linux, you will not be out of work in a while.

Besides, being "fired" for speaking your mind is IMHO the best way of losing a job.

Re:hmmmm....somehow I am not realy sure about that

[DNAGuy]

For the most part, you're right. However, many companies end up with large management infrastructures designed for one platform or another. Also, IT departments tend to be trained on a handful of platforms. For every additional platform a company is required to support, significant additional cost may be incurred. For example, perhaps the poster's company already has all of its web apps running on an Apache/PHP/Linux platform. They may have decided that it does not make sense to support an additional platform for their n'th web app. In this case, a requirement of "must run on Linux" might be more reasonable.

The devolution of HP

[jmichaelg]

This appears to be yet another step in the devolution of HP. HP used to be a world leader in so many areas - calculators, printers, computers, cpus, medical equipment, lab equipment, etc.

However, since the founders died, the company looks to have been taken over by managers who are primarily interested in their paycheck, not the well being of the company. For example, one of the driving factors behind the Compaq merger was the fact that Carly got a $70 Million bonus check if the merger went through. Lord knows what she would have earned had the Price-Waterhouse acquisition taken place.

The corporate logo "HP Invent," alludes to an inventive spirit at HP but unfortunately, that spirit is the spirit of HP-past. I've seen exactly one interesting idea come out of HP in the past 2 years and that was a cooling device - not something that'll generate billions in sales. Carly was a History major at Stanford so she's obviously got some smarts. But they're the wrong kind - she doesn't have the technological background to recognize really good technical ideas when she sees them and so must rely on her staff to evaluate them for her. The inevitable "what does she want to hear?" filtering takes place and in that process and HP is all the poorer for it.

The next time the HP board goes looking for a new CEO (like in the next 18 months maybe...), hopefully they'll choose someone who not only has some sales smarts but is also technologically competent. And perhaps, if they've learned anything, the compensation plan will reflect the CEO's effect on HP's bottom line, not how many pointless mergers the CEO steers the company through.

Perspective

[Martin S.]

Libertarians are FAR closer to Republicans than they are to Greens or Democrats

Libertarians can be social, economic or both. A true libertarian would be both and believes in equality of opportunity *both* socially and economically. A true libertarian is Darwinian. These are anti-capitalistic, since capital is a lever of ability, not a measure of it.

Greens (and Democrats) are socially liberal but economically centrist, as such are only half way off a true Libertarian on one axis, the economic, and very similar on the alternate social axis.

Republicans are socially conservative or even authoritarian; this is at least half off the social axis. Republicans promote the status quo, are anti-progressive, pro-capitalistic and pro-monopolistic, again at least half way off a true libertarian.

Therefore Green and Democrat are certainly closer to a true libertarian than republicans.

Morality and Profit

[airship]

Why should owning a share of stock relieve someone of all moral responsibility? If I make a buck by killing babies and selling the tanned hides as lampshades, that's just plain wrong. If I own a share of stock in a company that makes money for its shareholders in the same way, I am just as responsible. A corporation shouldn't be held to less strict standards than an individual.