Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer: "We'll Outsmart Open Source"
An anonymous reader writes "Micorosofts Steve Ballmer is spouting off again in this ZDNet UK article. To an audience of Most Valued Professionals in London, he says 'We'll outsmart open source.' Among other things, he also says 'Linux is a serious competitor.' We've known ever since the Halloween Documents that they have been running scared, but this looks like a prelude to a whole new round of dirty tricks. It also looks like damage control for the statements of Microsoft's Sr. VP Brian Valentines last week."
I said this once on newsforge but it's worth repeating:
The way to beat free software is through the psychology of value. "You get what you pay for." Us free software guys like to think that we are the exception, but business guys think it's true. And they'd rather pay lots of money for the backing of the Microsoft brand name than get an OS which they perceive as a "college kid's project" for little or no money. The reality is different, and we know this, but it is the PERCEPTION that counts.
Between Beowulf and MOSIX, Linux pretty much has low-end clustering sewn up. It's at the cutting edge. Microsoft will beat Linux at clustering in the business sector, by creating the PERCEPTION that Windows NT clusters are reliable (even if it takes a huge support infrastructure just to tell the MCSE monkey to reboot the damned machine) and that Linux clusters are somehow less reliable because they lack said support infrastructure. That is my prediction.
When it comes down to technology, Linux wins. When it comes down to people's feelings, and perceptions, and their sense of security, Microsoft wins because they can afford to hire the people and purchase the companies necessary to make it happen. In the end, it's people's perceptions that really count... not the technology.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
What's even funnier is imaging the thousands of Microtemps caring about their jobs enough to make better software than open source software.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I always thought that one area where MS has an advantage over the typical open-source application is that their developers are all on salary. So when marketing (or whoever makes the decisions) determines that there should be an integrated spell-checker, someone will code it up because that's what they're paid to do. As opposed to the open-source problem of finding someone who wants to do it.
Let's face it, lots of the little things that make an application "full featured" in the eyes of the typical home or business consumer are a drag to code.
Technology like clustering would be better in Windows than Linux eventually, said Balmer
Intimidating.
"We will beat Linux on clusters."
Good luck. There's a lot more researchers doing distributed Linux work than there are on Windows, though I'm sure MS is blowing lots of money on it in their private labs. Windows is not great for a headless cluster machine -- lousy remote administration, high CPU/RAM overhead, not the best performance, costs more.
As for their distributed filesystem beating Linux...well, might happen, but they're building on a database (overhead implied), whereas Linux has the excellent AFS (openafs and arla implementations, both free), Coda, and Intermezzo, plus some other fringe ones. All the filesystem people I know (CMU is a big distributed filesystems research place) do Solaris or Linux...not Windows.
Microsoft is considering extending its shared-source initiative
You don't get it, do you, Microsoft? Seeing the source is the smallest benefit of open source to your customers. *They* mostly care about less immediate license costs, and (the biggie) no vendor lock in in the Linux world. Open source strongly facilitates this. Your NDA and smartcard supported limited shared source program doesn't interest these types in the least -- especially the NDAs, which are designed to *increase* lock-in.
For nine years, the company has designated users with particular skills -- usually seen by how often they intervene helpfully in newsgroups -- as "most valued professionals". Currently there are about 1,200 MVPs, half of whom are in the United States
Whee. Linux never needed a formal system for this because it already happens. Stop by any of the channels on irc.openproject.net. You can get hours of real-time help...not just one lousy newsgroup post. Good luck on this one, MS.
"We do not anticipate offering software on Linux. Nobody pays for software on Linux."
Hell, I'll bet there's a lower percentage of Linux users pirating *any* Linux software than there are Windows users *pirating Microsoft Windows*! The only reason anyone pays is because MS does aggressive business audits and has OEM deals.
The big issue there [with IBM], he said, was a reluctance to accept legal liability for open-source software.
Well, fuck me senseless. MS must be planning on accepting legal liability for their own closed source software. Hot damn. I've wasted more times fixing problems that their software has caused than I can count. Windows Updates that bluescreen and render a computer unbootable. Crashing Office installations. You name it. I've been wrong about MS all along! They're going to come through and actually support their software! Tech support will be free, not expensive "incident-based" issues! Woohoo!
May we never see th
I agree with you in many ways on the client side. I disagree strongly on the server side however.
This daft Terminal Services, or Remote Desktop or whatever that won't allow multiple sessions on the same username. 'tail -f whatever.log'? Impossible on Windows without extra software. Little things like that are getting vastly overlooked.
However, on the client-side I have to say I'm with you for most of the way. We part company when you describe Mozilla as 'not even semi-close', and serious technical authors will laugh at your description of Office (there's a reason FrameMaker still exists...), but on the whole I agree with you.
Visual Studio IDE integrates everything wonderfully, integrating a really slick editor, a world-class debugger, and a high-quality compiler.
Yes. And it's all going .Net. And this is where the carping about Mono and DotGNU and whatever else should cease - getting a viable .Net environment on to Linux means you can start using Microsoft's tools to target Linux platforms. Then you get the best of both once more - good client tools from Microsoft, good server tools from Linux.
Cheers,
Ian
"The big issue there, he said, was a reluctance to accept legal liability for open-source software. Ballmer said"
Last i checked any software from MS it did contain a nasty EULA that prevents me to take any legal action now matter how much the product was faulty. Its really ugly to pretend that they themselves give any when the never do and use that as an argument against linux.
I think we are really in for a spin against linux from Microsoft. The bad news for them will probably be that since their trust account is completely drained none will listen to them. The more they spin the more they tend to look like bad loosers.
To lay so much effort on making all competition look bad indicates that their own products doesnt have enough value to compete.
HTTP/1.1 400
Microsoft is considering extending its shared-source initiative, currently limited to large users such as governments and universities, to MVPs. This would give them smart-card access to much of the Windows source code, he said. There will be a decision on this in the next couple of months, said Lori Moore, vice president of product support services at Microsoft. "There are many options on the table," she said. "There are many ways to be more open, and we are reviewing ideas."
Can I bum a sig?
My guess is they want Linus to write linux for a palladium system so they can send him to jail or sue and end up killing linux
The "code" needed to run Palladium will be released under the BSD license.
It seems to me that the BSD license allows BSD code to be incorporated in a GPL product because the original BSD code is freely availible. This covers any legal problems.
As far as technology goes, the user decides what code to run, Palladium only tells you the code is unsigned and reccommends against running it, but the user still makes the final decision.
As currently explained it will be both legal and technologically possible to run linux on a palladium box. The only question is if you want to.
Looking at NTs heritage (Dave Cutler et al) from VMS, which had transparent, reliable, cick-ass clustering 15 years ago which is unmatched until today this is a pretty sad statement.
Mind you, I'm not doubting your statement. It just shows that M$ aparently threw away all the goodies in exchange for "usability" and a string of pretty crappy lowest common denominator wizards.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I'm in this community and I share my code with others (in newsgroups and published articles) all the time. No one is anti open source, not even Microsoft. Ballmer is just an idiot who doesn't always properly define open source. Microsoft is anti-GPL, and they also want to protect the intellectual property that they've spent billions on. However, when it came to .NET, they released the source code via the Shared Source license (not true OSS, I know). Because of the nature of .NET they felt it made business sense. And that's what it comes down to. Complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense. Look at Apple. They don't open up OSX - they'd go out of business. But they did embrace the concept to an extent with Darwin. It's all about balance and not about extremes.
I just have to say again, that I'm very dissapointed in your post, the moderation of it, and the lack of intellectual honesty. You may hate MS, and all things MS, even us developers. But to make the blind assumption that the community is a bunch of closed source bigots is just as bad as myself making the assumption that Linux is hard to use without ever even trying it. We have a strong community that shares ideas and code all the time - we just don't base our businesses on that philosophy.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I really don't care is Windows dominated in populatity: Unix dominates in thing I care about - scalability, reliablilty and security.
My choices arn't in line with most consumers: Example
Consumers choose McDonalds - I choose local mom and pop resturaunt.
Consumers choose Toyots - I choose GMC trucks.
Consumers choose WalMart - I choose REI
Consumers choose Microsoft - I choose UNIX
Consumers choose surburbia - I choose the city
Consumers choose Disnyland - I choose backpacking, climbing, sailing, foreign countries.
Your choice. Make it well.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
You've got to be kidding me. SPECIALIZING in directory issues? Assuming "issues" means.. problems, it's a sad fact that there are so many issues with Active Directory that one of these highly praised MS "MVPs" can actually SPECIALIZE in fixing them. Thats like specializing in DNS administration. Wow, I think i'd shoot myself in about 1.5 days at that job.
One thing I think is a misconception about open source software is that it is done 'for free'. Certainly a proportion of it is, but if, for instance, you look at the linux kernal list, you will see that the vast majority of contributors are actually employees from big companies.
Before, I think Bill&Steve thought that Open Source software was crappy, so they kind of ignored it or mocked it. Now they realise that it isn't crappy, but they think they can defeat it because they believe that it isn't created by people who are getting paid (directly or indirectly) for it. I think this is a real misconception.
Business users will never take open source seriously as long as people use phrases like "Micro$hit^H^H^Hoft" and others rate it +5 insightful.
Interesting: they aparently are abandoning their whole total-cost-of-ownership argument. Balmer states, "We cannot price at zero" and "We can't beat them [Linux] on price" - thus implying that Linux's price is zero. Quite the opposite from "it costs you more in the long run!"
I think they are just starting to realize they can't beat them. Outsmarting some of the smartest developers on the planet is going to be very difficult. We don't need marketing, we have word of mouth. It's proven itself time and time again that word of mouth is more important than any advertising campaign ever ran.
Microsoft will change their "Strategy" claiming they will win with it each time they do it. In reality, it's showing Microsoft doesn't really know what to do with it. They'll pull BS lines, about IBM and liability, but in reality it means nothing.
I think the last strategy Microsoft will come up with is writing quality software, which is the real reason why most people switch I think. At that point, I hope it's too late for them. They've had their time in the spotlight, they've helped and done their part evolving computers to where they've been. They are a dinosaur now, desperately holding on by using yesterdays flawed technology and attempting to purchase innovation. Not to say I think Microsoft will ever go away. It's going to change drastically though.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
"You get what you pay for."
But that's the beauty of Open Source / Free software -- you can pay for whatever level of support and brand name you want. You can choose to get everything for free, or you can get a million-dollar support contract -- or anything in between. This is the truth, and I think we've done a fairly good job of getting that perception out there -- and of course IBM's advertising dollars help too.
People like you scare me. Why talk as if palladium is already going to take place. If you recognize it's existance then you give it more credibility. If you can actually think of something like that then you even give it more credibility. Ignore it and just like any other bad technology it will die. DiVX (circuit city style) etc etc etc.
Internet Explorer is -- bar none -- the best browser today. Mozilla doesn't even come semi-close.
Excuse me? Does IE have tabbed browsing? No. Does IE block pop-up ads? No. Does IE have mouse gestures? No. Is IE infinitely configurable? No. Is IE slower than Mozilla? Yes.
What can I do in IE that I can't do in Mozilla?
The fact of the matter is that M$ has hardly added any features to IE since they won the browser wars. Mozilla has added tons of new features in each release and just keeps getting better.
This space left intentionally blank.
I'm going to assume that you've tried Linux and its apps for more than 5 minutes before posting your message. I'm sure it didn't cost you a dime to do so.
.NET costs over $1000 for retail licensing. The company I work for spent about that much for the set and they even get a discount.
What trust fund do you live off of to be able to afford the 'reasonably priced' apps you described. You mentioned the following classes of products: OS, Office Software, and IDE.
Windows XP, Office XP, and Visual Studio
Out of the pocket, you can't compare apples to oranges here. For the features MOST PEOPLE use in an OS (surfing the net, games, etc.), or Office package (write letters, balance checkbook in spreadsheet), or IDE (whatever they feel like doing if they're technically inclined to do so) only comprise the basics of the functionality. Why should I spend $299 for Office XP just to write letters if Open Office will do what I need?
I would wager to say that 80% of the home PC owners with an MS Office package don't use more features than is outlined in a beginner's training course (some people need training for Microsoft products, too). With that knowledge, they can use Open Office effectively.
If the highly advanced portions of the MS software is 'better', then I say go ahead and buy it. But if you don't use those advanced features, you wasted a whole lot of money. All you've done is made a decision that lacks common sense.
I'd rather spend my $1000 on a new PC or a vacation.
From first hand experience, XP did little for me after an upgrade. I was required to have 2GB free space to perform an upgrade from 98. The upgrade used ALL of that 2GB of space. I had to get a new hard drive because 2GB was all the space I had left. Great value, huh? XP plus an additional cost of a new HD. Although I notice a newfound stability in the OS (about time Microsoft), all I really see from the 2GB of junk that got installed is a bunch of eye candy. A 2GB installation of a RedHat or Mandrake installation gives me a plethora of software to play around with to discover the many things a computer can be used for.
I'm just glad I didn't spend any of my money for the upgrade. This was on my work PC. I support an existing application within the company, so I have little choice. But I can do without the upgrades, and instead, use Linux at home.
I didnt understand where breaking the law and smart got together? Microsoft has been able to hold their monopoly by deceptive and sometimes even illegal practices. If anyone calls that smart then go thank your local drug dealer for being so successful in snaring youngsters into drugs.
Where did our society start mixing the terms sucess and smart up? You can be smart but not successful and vice versa.
The sole reason linux is even popular is the fact that something completely free and protected against slaughter by stealing code by the GPL is the only thing able to compete in this monopoly market.
Had the market been healthy we would have had something completely different for an OS and probably different hardware too. x86 is really lame hardware that should have been scrapped in the 90's.
HTTP/1.1 400
You do want him to go away right?
Your post started out as a really good comparison, but devolved over time into a
"this is what Windows doesn't have" rant.
Not that those points aren't well taken, but it it doesn't address the fact that most people don't really want to know the details of whether and how one thing is better than another. They just want to be convinced that it's "good" or "better" or "really good", whatever that thought process takes for em.
And I don't mean that in your standard "they're just not smart enough to see things scientifically" way, as there are plenty of brilliant people who just don't like taking stuff apart and putting it back together, digitally, mentally or otherwise.
He's saying
"We'll outsmart open source"
and not
"We'll build better software than open source"
or something like that.
Like Cringley said in one of his pulpit pages a while back. It's all about winning, not providing better value for customer.
His choice of words is a slap in my face as a customer, and I'm not even an open source activist like most of you guys seem to be.
I'm no fan of Uncle Steve, but unless I'm missing something, he himself didn't use the word "outsmart". He said "We have to compete with free software, on value, but in a smart way." ZDNet inexplicably translated this to "outsmart", and the anonymous poster takes this one step further to "We'll outsmart open source."
Sloppy and dumb. Keep right on lowering your standards, everyone.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
> Look at Apple. They don't open up OSX -
> they'd go out of business.
How would Apple go out of business? Everyone who wants to run OSX needs a Macintosh, and each Macintosh needs OSX.
Take a look at DRM. Microsoft has already won.
1. Build DRM into operating system, and patent operating systems with built in DRM.
2. Convince content providers to ( hollywood, music industry, government, service businesses ( health care providers, insurance companies, etc ) ) to protect their IP with DRM.
3. Lobby government to make it illegal to manufacture computers without DRM built in.
4. Threaten computer manufacturers until they build DRM into their CPUs (as Intel and AMD have already both stated they will. Apple will follow when MS threatens to stop making MS software for them if they don't ).
5. Lobby government to pass law to make it a jailable offense to possess tools to allow you to get around copy protection ( DMCA ).
Worst Case Scenario:
--------------------
All online media is protected by DRM. Computers can not view any intellectual property on the internet without running a DRM compliant operating system. Running a non DRM compliant operating system on a computer with built in DRM violates the DMCA. Microsoft owns the patent on DRM in operating systems, so any competitor has to pay microsoft for the right to include closed source DRM code in their operating system.
A lot of the things necessary to make the above happen, are already in place.
It doesn't matter if Linux can compete with Microsoft on a technical level. Microsoft has billions of dollars to spend on lobbying the government for new laws, and with their monopoly power can threaten other businesses to support their DRM standard. They also have powerful allies in Hollywood and the RIAA, who both want microsoft to succeed with this vision.
Time to wake up.
We've known ever since the Halloween Documents that they have been running scared
I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft is unconcerned with Linux and rightly so. When you run Linux, you have to be very paranoid about what scanner or digital camera or video card you buy. We've all been there. There have been slashdot stories about it. The bottom line is that the fundamental differences between Linux and Windows and MacOS are very few, when it comes right down to it. But switching from Windows to Linux, assuming you do more than just download MP3s and browse the web, is a big pain in the arse. The restrictiveness that comes from not being able to walk into Best Buy and get whatever it is you want--application, game, new video card--is frustrating. It isn't worth dealing with unless the alternative gives you something that's way, way, beyond what Windows gives you in a tangible way. And speaking as someone who runs both Linux and Windows, that isn't the case.
wasen't microsoft just at the linux world convention to prove to the liunx community that they weren't against them?the only "dirty tricks" that linux pulled was being cheaper, faster, better, and more efficent.
who cares
;)
MS's business model shouldnt exist.
They let use a piece of software that you purchased, only under their conditions...giving them as much control as they want to claim in a EULA...and of course without owing you anything by way of merchantibility.
I wouldn't mind software licensing if companies were actually held responsible for holding up their end of the bargain.
Personally closed source is useful for a couple things: custom applications on strange platforms for strange devices that some company may have already developed and is selling that meets your needs. And, extensions of that idea.
A whole lot else can be met with opensource. Almost every small business can be run with an entirely opensource setup. Small business is the major brunt of America's economy. Personal users are even more dificult for the penetration and learning curve...but as the young computer saavy grow up and the old computer illiterate die, we will have a mostly computer literate society.
Personally I think any small business can do very well and save a boatload of money by hiring a consultant to setup some boxes, install required software and go. No more licensing fees. None of that crap. Got a problem? Bring back the consultant, hell youd need a few fulltime MCSEs anyways. Need an app not made? I vision a work-for-hire opportunity for programmers, maybe with some sort of middle-man.
Who knows. Anyways, I'm all for copyright, Im all for protecting your created code...but I'm also all for customer service. And MS dicks its customers, and shouldnt be allowed to do that with the leverage of their existing monopoly. Companies should have 0.00000 rights.
NEWSFLASH: Automakers unite! Now one conglomerate of a company, they buy the propane industry and switch to propane. Refuse warranties on older vehicles claiming its lifecycle is over. Now what ya gonna do? I hope the govt would step in eh?
It's been said over and over, yet it needs to be said again, that...
The whole idea is get enough public services requiring Palladium/DMR on the client side and refusing to talk without it, that nearly everyone will turn it on for one reason or another (some service they value more than their privacy). It won't matter that you _could_ turn it off at the bios, because you won't. You'll need it turned on to accomplish at least some tasks that are important to you. You absolutely won't be able to turn it off by default and enable it only for certain sites and services. It'll be an all-or-nothing at boot time, and unless you like rebooting a lot, you'll just have to turn it on. At least that's the orwellian DRM future.
But it's a chicken-and-egg problem... nobody will require use of Palladium clients until nearly every potential customer has it, and with enough publicity (hopefully) a lot of people will abstain from "upgrading"... just like the market rejected divx discs.
Microsoft probably hopes to keep their 90-95% market share and simply discontinue 2000, (today's) XP and everything else that isn't Pallidium, and prehaps even auto-update most NT/2000/XP systems to have Pallidium features.
That just might work for them if they do is very quickly, before gnome/kde/linux and macos-x gain more market share.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
If Microsoft put as much energy into creating quality software as they do trying to "outsmart" the competition, Linux wouldn't be such "a serious competitor."
This is a nice idea. The only problem is that the users of Linux 'LOVE' their OS. I've never met anybody that 'LOVES' much less 'LIKES' Windows in any of it's forms. That's one big hurdle to overcome Monkey Boy!
Because the world is a better place thanks to BSD, maybe?
dare, I do not agree with your assumptions, and hence with your conclussion.
.NET features state of the art innovations for large XML document handling, and in Mono we will have an extremely hard time implementing your XPathNavigator-based XSLT. Even with reference implementations (like Daniel Veillard's), this is a truly advanced piece of code. We can emulate it using slower, more inneficient mechanisms, but we wont be able to perform as well as Microsoft's .NET XML implementation.
Linux is just starting to make inroads in the enterprise and critical application markets, say it became useful in 2001. This is the area that has been dominated by Unix since 1986. So it took us "only" 16 years to duplicate the enterprise functionality of a Unix operating system.
Sometimes copying is easier than innovating: but achieving total compatibility -which can not be ignored- is a massive task. Wine has been cloning the Win32 API, and it is one of the most ancient projects from the Linux community: it was there back in 1996, and we have still not managed to clone the entire Win32 API. Yes, copying certain things are easy, but achieving the compatibility is a completely different matter.
Am going to give you another example which must be closer to you: the Xml implementation in
I rather see Microsoft stay on the innovation track, than go into a legal battle against Open Source projects.
Proprietary software has some advantanges, and open source has different ones. Open Source is making some inroads into a Microsoft-dominated world. And I do not see anything wrong with having more than one operating system in our day to day environments: it promotes open standards, it promotes well written and well documented reliable solutions, and ultimately, it allows the consumer to choose a solution that is right for him.
Miguel
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. "
:)
--Ghandi
This quote seems to fit the situation with MS and
linux more and more.
We will outsmart OpenSource....
... (yes most of this also runs, if not exclusively, on windoze).
Read as:
We will outsmart, PHP, Perl, MySQL, OpenMosix, Apache, Audacity, Crystal Space, MiKTeX, SDL, Vega Strike, X-Tractor, FileZilla,
Or:
We will outsmart freedom and choice.
Somehow, I don't see it. Then again, a lot of money can buy a lot of laws....
moto411.com
As usual, Ballmer is either lying or deluded. I recently fielded a call for a large Wall Street company that is deploying IBM software for Linux. Considering the size of the lunch tabs picked by the IBM sales person, I can tell you this is not a small contract.
IBM sells complex, expensive products such as DB2 and WebSphere for Linux. These pieces of software are certainly not free (nor open-source) and they seem to sell very well.
Please don't start a flame war against the closed-source nature of DB2. That's not the point. The point is that Ballmer does not have a clue.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
You are describing the home PC, and you are absolutely right: Linux is far away from mainstream here for all the reasons you stated.
The enterprise is another story. On the server end, Linux is already well placed and gaining installations. And why not? It's stable, secure, robust, and free from nasty licences and restrictions.
On the desktop, they're getting there too. Windows will always be a better desktop OS, but the *gap* between a Linux desktop and Windows is narrowing all the time. Add to this the advantages of customizability, licencing (again), and the fact that corporations tend to frown on users installing their own new "scanner or digital camera or video card" into their PCs, a Linux desktop looks like a great platform for a corporate desktop (after it matures a bit more).
And, of course, the enterprise is where the real money is made by Microsoft (not the home users) So, I disagree with your statement: Microsoft is (or should be) *plenty* concerned with the advancement of Linux.
Bottom line, I expect *many* large corporations will be MS-free within two years. At home, it will happen more gradually, but the increased penetration at work will slowly drive home installations, too.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Ultimately MS will probably kill Oracle, Borland, and a few others. In doing
so, they will eliminate thousands of software engineering jobs which enable
people to write open source software in their spare time.
I really don't mean to sound trollish, and I'm definitely not flaming, but this is rather stupid. I will give up everything, never touch a computer again, and join the circus if Microsoft can kill off IBM, Oracle, Sun, and the others.
Microsoft is not that big. Microsoft is not all powerful. Microsoft is dependant upon the OEM dealers. Dell, Gateway, Acer, Toshiba, etc. If they had another option for an operating system that was better than Windows (I mean actually better, not "It can do most the stuff, pretty decent") than MS will be history.
If Linux wants to beat MS, that's what they do. Build a unified windowing SDK, that's much better than Xt. Build a unified system SDK, for socket communication and all that. Finish Wine. Then, MS won't be able to stand a chance.
However, I bet we'll see MS come out with a Linux kernel before we'll see a unified Linux architecture adopted as a standard.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Just a loose set of thoughts with regard to this article. I don't have time to arrange them into something more cohesive. I use the term Linux to generically apply to complete distros with a desktop environment:
;) )
The quote from Ballmer at the very end of the article may be a harbinger of things to come: software is not consistently profitable. The very fact that Ballmer considers it weird that IBM would tell a company to buy software from someone else indicates that the "playing field" is changing. Sure, IBM isn't at the top of the game anymore, but I think you may start to see more and more companies abandoning the software business for more profitable fields like embedded devices and other dedicated systems that we haven't yet dreamed of. The whole problem with computers right now is that people actually have to "interface" with them in non-intuitive ways. But that's a different topic...
In Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning there was Command Line", he says that it is the fate of software to become free. Commercial UNIX gave way to free UNIX, Microsoft Word now has a respectable challenger in OpenOffice.org, etc... Or at a deeper level (the concept level as opposed to the product level), GUIs have become so inexpensive compared to the original Xerox systems that some are free: XFree86 + GNOME or KDE. I believe his observations are correct. The OS market will continue to become less profitable if the "movers and shakers" aren't always looking for the next "great thing".
The only thing propping up Microsoft right now is the Office suite and to some extent Internet Explorer. To take this crutch down would only require the provision of a application that uses a totally new and better approach to achieving the same results. No one has done it yet. But again, I digress... (
My point is... that Ballmer's comment about "Added Value" above Linux should really be about finding the next "killer app" that Windows has and Linux does not. This ensures that more people who follow that path of least resistance will choose Windows every time.
These victories are short-lived however. As soon as a concept is out in the open, it's fate is to have reproductions and innovations built around it. Witness: Apple popularizes the GUI that Xerox couldn't move. Microsoft immediately responds with their first release of Windows. Mosaic begat Netscape who begat Internet Explorer... (at the concept level, not the business/profit level).
Look at the music industry. In 1994 the Spice Girls came on the scene and were hugely successful (opinions about their music aside). So what happened immediately after that? Knock offs. Tons of them. None with a chance of making it as big as the original, even if the original was not as good as the newer acts. To a certain extent, this happens in the GNU\Linux\Open Source world more than it should. But, undeniably, there are some ideas that just can't be improved on. So, what do we do? Look ahead and occasionally check the other runners next to you. When I say look ahead, I mean look for new approaches at the user level not the system level. These are real differences that the user can see, feel and experience. Of course, this is assuming that you are interested in moving Linux out to "Joe Average".
Microsoft can't outsmart "Linux" since there isn't any one model to take down without some heavy handed help from the governments of the world. At the moment, they aren't doing to well in that arena either... Linux will be around until something better comes along. That "something better" has to be completely different compared to Linux and provide features that Linux doesn't have. However, it should also still be free. That is where Microsoft will never be able to compete.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
My company has been using a product on HP-UX for the past ten years to do real time tracking and interfacing with embedded systems on our our production lines all around the world. This is a mature, beautiful, reliable beast that we use with either Oracle on Solaris or DB2 on our 390's.
The policy of our company on using MS IIS and SQL Server is (and will continue to be) "not on anything business critical, and nothing outside of the intranet"
Now, the developer of our application has told us that in two years they are going to stop supporting their *NIX version and they are pushing everyone over to their new app, which is written entirely in VS .NET and requires Win2k with all the .NET server-side and client-side stuff, and hasn't even made it out of beta yet, since we spend half our time rebooting and troubleshooting the box they sent over to us.
When I asked "Why aren't we just saying to hell with their support (now very minimal - less than 60 hours per month), and keep going with what we know works?" the answer is ".NET is the future and it's what the developer is going with.
So it is perception and it is developers, and I am not looking forward to our first implementation of this stuff nex year, because I haven't seen anything yet to prove that it's better than our current workhorse.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
But most of them aren't famous as programmers, but as activists and revolutionaries. Everyone talks about how Linus was a revolutionary when he released his kernel as GPL code and opened the development process to everyone, but you won't see any mainstream magazine talking about his programming skills ("look, he planned and documented every single detail before implementing, wow, what a well designed structure he wrote in foo.c").
Sure, tell that to Dr. Knuth or Larry Wall. I'm sure they will really think you are dead right. Name one developer who doesn't know who Knuth is and I'll show you one developer who is in the wrong profession.
* I consider as "high profile" those who plan and document everything before they implement. You have be be a good engineer to be "high profile" programmer, just knowing C/C++ And Assembly won't make you "high profile".
Uhm, they are high profile because they are well known for their skills? Other wise they are highly skilled. Maybe you need a dictionary too.
Well, you don't have to be a genius to know that what you just said was plain stupid and baseless. If you believe that programming is all about giving interviews to magazines, I'm sorry to tell you that you are confusing "programming" with something else. Is it just me or wasn't "high-profile" programming about good software engineering? I mean, I didn't knew that it was about being "pop".
Yep, you do need a dictionary and maybe understand other portions of writing and debate. Could you please go and attempt to understand that high-profile means that you are well known. Typically it involves your skill at programming and that is why you are well known. High profile is not the perfect developer sitting at home in a dark room never releasing anything they have written to the outside world. It is just you that's confused about this, lets stick to terminology we have all agreed on. When you change definitions of such things as basic as "high profile" you make debate very pointless.
Good back peddle to attempt to change your argument though. "Oh no, I don't have a leg to stand on in the debate of high profile OSS developers vs. high profile proprietary developers so I'm going to change what high profile means and hope he doesn't notice."
Good strategy, in fact, that is very similar to Microsoft innovation. Lets take what ever one else does, and make it our own?
Great job proving my point, I applaud you. Either you are genius and were merely acting as devil's advocate in order to prove what I was saying or you are incredibly poor at debate. Either way, thanks.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
The Trolls must have stayed out past sunrise.
Quoth the article: For nine years, the company has designated users with particular skills--usually seen by how often they intervene helpfully in newsgroups--as "most valued professionals". Currently there are about 1,200 MVPs, half of whom are in the United States.
Wow, 1,200 ultra suckers, is that all? I was sure there were at least 5,000 microsoft trolls at Slashdot alone. Oh well, it just goes to show what a few loud mouths can do to a useful conversation. Has it really been nine years since Steven Barktoo? You gotta love the M$ community where advocating M$ profits is more valuable than code.
Seriously, there are no new dirty tricks here. It's the same old BS that's been used with the MSDN and what not. M$ has attempted to build a community around purchasing their software. Tools developed by those members are shared, but they are routinely broken by M$. If M$ were free, or even just open, a real community could exist. What's there instead, at it's best, is simply a loyal group of ever abused consumers. At it's worst, these folks take their frustrations out on other communities.
You can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. M$ will eventually run out of "developers". Is there realy anyone out there who develops for M$ platforms because they think it's the best platform? Most people who do write for M$ tell me that they "have" to know how to do it simply because of it's prevalance. That's not a situation that can last.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Obviously, Microsoft hasn't outsmarted hackers yet who continue to find security vulnerabilities in their products.
What makes them think they will outsmart Open Source developers? We are all people.