Slashdot Mirror
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Hey Bruce, why not run for congress?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
We just bought a half million dollar linux cluster from them. We bought the cluster pre configured and ready to plug in. We told the sales people if it is not linux we won't even think about it. The interesting thing is that we blew off another half million dollar purchase with them because their solution did not support linux. So to make a long story short they gained half million because of linux support but the lost a half million due to non linux support.
What makes me nervous is that Microsoft might have threatened HP in some way as a partner. They obviously wouldn't want a partner promoting their product with internal factions insulting it. For that matter, HP 's argument might be that it's hard to sale your product, loaded with Windows, when you have vocal employees talking about security and usabiltiy problems.
Can I bum a sig?
Can you name one corp. depends their life on Microsoft has not been fucked by Microsoft in the end? How may companies had to choke up unfair deals where they had no choice(ref. anti-trust cases).
Come on, a corp. has to find its own way of existance, not lean on another corps.
I don't want him to grow up in a world that is less free.
Unfortunately freedom declines as population grows - when you have a family on a farm with the nearest enighbor 5 miles away you can pretty much do as you please, if you screw up something, it doesn't hurt anybody but yourself and family. When you're crowded into a tight city neighborhood with a family 20 ft away you are very restricted in what you can do, how much noise you can make, what times you can do what, where you're children can play, what they can play at, what buildings you can put up, etc., all regulated by local ordinances.
As population density grows, freedom of mobility decreases (Private property! Keep Off!). Similary, as more people become dependant upon intellectual 'property' freedom of information decreases, so expect mandatory copy controls and policing on electronics devices.
Just facing the facts in the brave new world.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
But... you are being naive if you think the list you describe in your parody doesn't exist. I have been in meetings (not in the computer industry, but the principle is the same) where such things are discussed. Every successful business does indeed do that sort of thing. Given the threat that Linux poses to Microsoft's revenue stream, it would be foolish of them not to hold such discussions.
sPh
Firstly, if HP decides to drop Linux, then his job is necessarily obsolete. In other words, it would be in his own best interest to keep Linux afloat at HP.
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.
Thirdly, his longer term "career" prospects would almost certainly have been harmed if he had appeared anything less than a free software zealot (because he has staked this niche out as his bread and butter--just look at his resume).
Fourthly, maybe he cares for his popularity more (made almost exclusively through his position) than his job.
I, at least, don't see any reason to necessarily ascribe any noble purpose to this man, especially given the kinds of behavior that I've seen from him in the past. If a priest got fired from the Catholic church for maintaining and flaunting a theological position (esp. one that he was long associated with), then would you necessarily presume it was because he was principled or because he might have had some thing other in mind? The point is simply that just because he surrounds himself in something that is "not for profit" or "noble" does not make his own personal ends any more noble.
Look at the history of OpenMail, for example:
- When OpenMail was first released, they had a Windows NT version in the works. Microsoft told them to knife it because it would threaten Exchange. They did.
- When Linux became popular, OpenMail began another rise. It was about to become prominent again, and possibly threaten Exchange again. This time, Microsoft told them to kill the product completely on all platforms. And they did.
Now that Perens guy is a nuisance. He makes too much noise, so Microsoft told them to fire him. Of course, they did.I have no respect for a company that is such a pushover, and certainly no respect for a company so tightly bound to Microsoft.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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 merger was bitterly fought and hard won by Carly Fiorina vs the old guard of the company. It got ugly and personal. Fiorina is under extreme scrutiny and pressure to show that it was a good idea to buy CPQ. If HP management perceives that there could be any problems with M$, even if there isn't really a threat, they have to do something, because they cannot afford any missteps with Compaq.
So, to answer your question, even if HPQ theoretically has more leverage with M$, management is not in a position to use that leverage because they cannot afford to be seen as battling M$.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Hear, Hear!
A good way for you to point this out to others is to mention that governments give corporations the permission to be corporations, on the presumption that they will benefit the society. The people who run the corp. get protections not allowed for individuals. In exchange, society at large can and should expect that corporation to benefit society.
For most corporations (especially lately) society has only asked for economic growth from them. It is entirely understandable that a company would forget or try to minimize their other obligations (federal government, irs, state government, SEC, etc..) Especially since the people's voice to businesses is largely through the government and courts which are themselves often swayed by money.
Bravo for calling out this oft-quoted fallacy for what it is.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
Stop selling Windows to HP? Let's not get crazy here! MS still has to turn a profit, they aren't going to just cut off their largest partner cold turkey.
Raise their prices? Yeah, maybe a little bit. But, keep in mind that one of the strengths of the HP/Compaq alliance is all of the corporate accounts that they have. MS knows that they need to own corporate computing; if they push HP too hard, they force HP to find a solution to the problem by pushing more open source solutions out the door.
And I wouldn't be so quick to discount MS's fear of judicial backlash if they act in an overtly anticompetitive manner. MS is still trying to cut deals with the DOJ, so they have some concern about the issue.
Sometimes you just have to hold on to people who know the emerging markets, even if they do not share the same ideology.
True, but lots of corporations don't believe this. Profit in modern corporations is like God in organized religion. Large corporations say they're about Profit, but they are really about maintaining the corporate culture. Anyone who isn't a true believer must go.
The corporation I worked for was, for the most part, staffed at the line-management level with mindless functionaries. We would piss away hundreds if not thousands of dollars every week for the sake of doing things the company way. We'd bend over forward time after time after time to accomodate repeat customers who were losing us money by the continued presence of their job in the store. Why? Because corporate culture demands not profit, but accomodation and competition. Don't piss anyone off! Don't let them go to the other company! If it were about profit, we would have sent these problem customers to the competiton. They could have crippled our competition in no time at all.
(I'm not pro-profit in any big way, but I do think that a genuine profit motive makes a company a better member of its community than corporate culturalism, by way of ordinary free-market forces. I think it's sad that ruthless profit-mindedness would actually improve the current situation.)
Or look at election workers. I saw some on television the other day after local primaries and they were jumping up and down like little kids because their candidate won. That wasn't about believing in and striving for an ideal, or doing an important job; that was about Our candidate won! Yay!
I feel that over time, this culturalism percolates to higher and higher levels in any given social structure. Without some kind of check against culture becoming the end instead of the means, soon the entire institution in question is run by these tribal idiots. At this point, the people serve the culture instead of the culture serving the people.
Ellen
mods metamodded as "Unfair"
I think you're pretty far off in your understanding of the parties.
These are anti-capitalistic, since capital is a lever of ability, not a measure of it.
Exactly what does measure versus lever have to do with ANYTHING. Libertarians believe in Capitalism, because Capitalism is one of the expressions of freedom (i.e., private ownership, etc). And by the way, a true Libertarian does NOT believe in complete "hands off" of Capitalism, if you think that.
Greens (and Democrats) are socially liberal but economically centrist
GAH!! Greens are NOT "economically centrist". They are usually far-left socialists. Democrats are usually left-to-far-left on economic issues, "left" being defined as more government control, high taxes to support social development and regulation. To be fair, some Democrats are "centrist" in their beliefs, but that's somewhat rare in my experience (in particular, the party is definitely well left).
Republicans are socially conservative or even authoritarian
"Authoritarian"?? You can probably find some authoritarian Republicans, just like you can find authoritarian Democrats, but it's unfair to shed light on the fringe Republicans unless you're also going to include the Democrats. However, it is true that the religious wing of the Republican party is socially conservative, defined as wanting certain elements of morality put into law. I do not include abortion in that, by the way, because abortion is a human rights legal issue, not a social issue (gay marriages are a social issue).
Republicans promote the status quo, are anti-progressive, [...] and pro-monopolistic
That's just flat-out wrong and bigoted. Sorry. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that into non-pejorative terms and we can discuss it rationally.
[Republicans are] pro-capitalistic
That is true, and in-line with Libertarians, although Libertarians are farther along the capitalism axis.
I venture to say that most Libertarians are far more likely to vote for a Republican due to economic issues that to vote for a Green or a Democrat for social issues. Most Libertarians realize that economic freedom is the most important freedom.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Disclaimer: Although I work for HP, these are my personal views and not those of my company.
Linux commoditizes the operating system. HP recognizes it. Everyone recognizes it. HP intends to capitalize on it and make some money. Many HP engineers use linux on a daily basis. We will always be into linux and free software, if only to give us a bargaining chip with Microsoft!
We understand the reasons Bruce has previously communicated for leaving HP. Though we wish he was staying because he's so damn cool, we understand that he may be better able to follow his dreams elsewhere. Bruce isn't pissed at HP.
HP has a business relationship with MS, but we aren't afraid of them. Business relationships are about making money. If our relationship with MS remains profitable, we will continue it. If our relationship with free software, open source, and linux remains profitable, we will continue it. That's how business works. We're here to maximize shareholder value. If free software remains economically sound (and it will), the community has nothing to worry about.
WD Out.
there is another reason that one would 100% stay away from Microsoft.... regardless of how fscking good their hammers may or may not be... MS legally reserves the right to access and modify your system after W2k SP1.
Period.
Due to the changes in the ELUAs - and MS's propensity to demand more rights to YOUR system when they distribute "bug fixes" - the LLC that we are starting will not, under any circumstances, run MS server software - and after looking at the XP EULA and more recently, the latest w2k service pack EULAs, the lawyers recommend us not ever install the latest SPs. They state that for us to provide what we state - we cannot have anyone in the company running anything better than W2k stock.
Period.
this is because we are starting a security firm - the prvacy of our networks, our data, and our client's data means we must be able to prove the privacy state of our customer's data - while, at the same time, we're making it available to our customers over the internet.
Systems desiring to "call the mothership" and send back to them God knows what, and the mothership sending us God knows what without our consent will not do. So, to make our lives simpler, we're going to stay with Linux, and Unix (including Mac OS X) servers, mostly Mac clients, and for the few folks who just can't survive - we'll let them run Windows up to 2k.
This is what we are going to do.
There are many reasons to NOT use Microsoft software - esp. their OS's - other than simple hatred. If i ever had an application for tons of servers - they would HAVE to be Microsoft Windows 2000 and later free.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I'm Green. I believe in sound economics. I disagree with a lot of the Green Party's economics. They want to greatly increase the minimum wage, which will greatly increase the unemployment rate among those who need employment most.
Why would Bruce Perens be the person to talk to companies about adopting Linux? Is he a CIO? An experienced sys admin? A network admin? A security specialist? Does he have an in depth familiarity of proprietary Operating Systems that's required to accurately compare them to Open Source competitors?
/. has a lot of growing up to do.
Exactly who is Perens? A former maintainer for one of the smaller Linux distributions, ex Pixar employee and founder of the OSI? That's great, but I simply doubt Perens has the experience necessary to be a good advocate - good advocates have a well rounded view of the world and experience in both what they're advocating for and against. I don't think Bruce Perens would make a good advocate, because he has bugger-all idea of what he's advocating against, and very little experience in the kinds of environments where Linux is most successful - the kind of conservative businesses looking at Linux as replacements to their reliable Unix systems, and the Windows `shops' that are looking to add Linux systems to their networks as web, file and print, and firewall/PAT servers.
Somehow I doubt Perens was ever qualified in his job as an evangelist to HPs target market. As such, I don't think its a bad thing they let him go.
Go on, mark me as a troll, and scream at me for being a Windows apologist. As I type this on my RH Null system and prepare to go to work for a company as a primarily Linux based systems administrator, I'll know its bullshit. I'll also know
I'm curious as to why he backed out of the DMCA challenge--usually employees can see their own demise from miles away. Was he just holding onto the small string of hope that by backing off from breaking the DMCA he'd impress his superiors enough to keep him on the job?
:-) (Which is cool on its own, but anyway..)
I find it hard to swallow that Bruce is touting the "ethics" of his position and how uncompromising he is when he chickened out of something he was garnering a great deal of press for to begin with.
As for the article--I don't consider Bruce our leader. There are no leaders. That's partly what's so great about all this. Heck, I don't even know of anyone who follows him. He's just mouthy as all heck..!