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."
to outsmart perspiration.
Developers, developers, developers, developers.
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!"
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. If linus never ports it to palladium related hardware, then linux will effectively be dead on x86 and will scare IT managers away from Linux because they do not want to invest in another os/2. Very clever strategy. Since palladium will be in the cpu and bios itself, I wonder if it will even be possible to turn it off?
http://saveie6.com/
That can be seen running around, screaming: "Give it to meeeeeeeeeee!!" in an MPEG file that has been mirrored all over the world... =)
Who can take anything Ballmer says seriously after seeing this movie clip? Certainly not Linus Torvalds, that's for sure!!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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!
Na, not that way, they are going to do it the Valentine way. "I'm not proud," Valentine said, as he spoke to a crowd of developers here at the company's Windows .Net Server developer conference. "We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers ... Our products just aren't engineered for security."
Translation: We'll outsmart them by making them think our product sucks, then we'll surprise them with... oh wait, our product does suck.
Can all fish swim?
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"
--
Edsger W. Dijkstra
Less is more !
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
don't
think
so.
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
And it's not even noon!
What are they posting next hour?
"Bill Gates mixes whites and darks in washing machine -- turns socks blue!"
Yep... we'll outsmart Open Source.
You see, we're going to order this rocket sled from Acme...
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
"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
The Visual Studio IDE integrates everything wonderfully, integrating a really slick editor, a world-class debugger, and a high-quality compiler.
I'm not sure exactly what compiler you are using but the C++ compiler is truly terrible. Besides that fact that they are using an outdated version of the STL libraries, the compiler will let all sorts of crazy errors through that gcc will catch. For those of you who use VC++, I would encourage you to set aside perhaps 2 weeks where you compile both on VC++ and gcc. You'll be stunned at the number of errors that gcc will catch but VC++ will let slip through. Lord only knows what the VC++ compiled code is actually doing...
GMD
watch this
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 personal opinion is that if they're running scared, then they will be with regards to servers. Not the desktop.
Disagree with me all you want, but you don't see vast numbers of people jumping the Windows ship to run Linux with Gnome or KDE.
However, you do see them moving off IIS and onto Apache. Which is what I think they'll target with their campaignes.
"slapper" springs to mind. Yes, IIS has plenty of its own, but Microsoft's advertising budget is far higher than that of Linux's and therefore they'll reach more people with their voice.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Does anyone have a good collection of copies of and/or pointers to good Microsoft quotes like Herr Valentine's? I've been thinking that it could be very useful in the coming FUD war to have lots of their own words to use against them.
A year or two back, some MS exec was widely quoted as saying something like "Our products are designed for functionality, not for security." I've since been very sorry that I didn't keep a copy. Anyone know who, where, and when this was said?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Consider this:
From an MVP
If you read some of the code you will notice that there is the ability to run SQL of your choice on the page.
For those not ASP literate the line is this:
The problem is the "Request.QueryString("id")". He is injecting what he gets from the querystring right into his SQL and then running it. That is a HORRIBLE security flaw, because a bad person could inject some SQL to destroy his database.
Its kind of ironic because how to remove this type of attack was the topic of the Security column
There are two main thoughts that run through my mind when I think about competing with Open Source and the IBM model. The first is that, the main problem with competing with Open Source is that it's always faster to copy than to innovate. It may take years, multiple focus groups and millions of dollars to produce feature X or behavior Y in some commercial product but after that it usually takes a fraction of the time for that feature or behavior to be replicated in competing products. This is much compounded by Open Source which is also typically free (as in beer) thus undercutting the original innovators. A good example of this is commercial Unix and Linux.
In such an arena, it seems inevitable that the only way to slow the inexorable march of Open Source is to resort to Intellectual Property. So far no one has done this to any significant degree (the MP3 patents don't count because they are a different issue) although there has at least been discussion amongst Linux kernel hackers about patent liability which will only continue given the proliferation of software patents and the more features that various Open Source projects copy from their proprietary brethren. It is food for thought.
The second thing that comes to mind is that Open Source is shifting the balance of power from software developers to software consultants. For companies like IBM with huge consulting divisions (their Global Services division is at least thrice as large as all of Microsoft) this a great boon which they are willing to sacrifice a lot of software development to gain which explains their intense support of the Linux and Apache projects. To compete with this, I believe large software companies will have to use similar tactics including providing more source code to customers, making more software available free of charge and providing more extensive consulting services. Of course, this would significantly change the landscape of the software industry. Open Source and Linux would indeed have changed the game.
Disclaimer: This post is my opinion and does not reflect the thoughts, strategies, intentions or opinions of my employer.
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.
The one thing you're missing is that in 99% of the cases, Linux/Open Source doesn't have a bottom line they have to meet. Since the (vast?) majority of programmers working on OSS projects are donating time, there's no need to pay them. This translates into better project planning because they're not always worried about meeting deadlines that their jobs rest on. Not to say that OSS isn't stressful, just that you don't have bigwigs worried about their jobs because a deliverable wasn't met.
I'll admit, I like VC++ and Office for most tasks. However, after attempting to configure an NT/2000 box as a DNS/Web/FTP server that I can remotely manage, I will take Linux anyday. On my first attempt it took me roughly three days (~12 hours) to install and configure a box with 2 websites both DNS'd through the box with an ftp server and some basic user recognition on the web site. This was without ever having done it before. With NT, it took me weeks to figure out how IIS worked the first time, let alone trying to figure out how to do remote management and multi-user functions. When MS comes up with an easy multi-user OS that has literal plug and play (read: like RedHat's rpm or Debian's apt-get functionality) packages, give me a holler.
--trb
Right-o, because, as we all know, no communities based on shared interests and goals ever existed before the open source movement came along.
Too many open source advocates have the bad habit of overestimating their own signifigance and underestimating everyone else. That's probably why most people don't even know what Open Source is.
I crack up when I see the "Developers" line. Let me compare thee to Linux (which will represent the open source community as a whole), MS development environment:
COMPILER:
Linux:
Many compilers for many languages. Free. LCC and GCC for C, G++ for C++, Eiffel, *ML, more than I want to go through. If you want, you can also buy commercial compilers like icc.
MS:
Killed most compilers for their platform (except the oddball ones) by squashing them with their own. Visual C++ generates pretty tight code, but you're just screwed if you run into a bug with it. Oh, and it costs lots of money. Most compilers commercial. Mingw/cygwin exists but not supported well (MSDN support bitterly hates both).
DEBUGGERS/DIAGNOSTICS:
Linux:
memprof, debauch, debug mode on malloc, gdb, strace, ltrace....many, many, many more. These were the ones I used on my last small project. All these are free, and there are many more.
MS:
Um...ntinternals put out regmon and filemon. Apparently MS puts out WinDBG for free, though I haven't used it and apparently it isn't too popular. No free high level debuggers. Few diagnostic programs for already compiled code.
DEVELOPER SUPPORT:
Linux:
Email the developers for the kernel, libc, SDL, XFree86, or whatever library or kernel bit you're working on if you find a weird corner case or bug. Get response, bug fix, patch. Most exchanges between core developers documented on publically available (and searchable) mailing lists, so usually you don't even have to email. Lots of IRC channels of developers who are interested in talking about their work.
MS:
Guess at what's going on underneath the covers, most of the time. No source to look at. Some newsgroups, mostly for higher level problems. Can purchase extremely expensive (though usually effective) MSDN incidents.
SAMPLE CODE
Linux:
Tons. Usually, if it runs on Linux, you can see the code. If you're using a library and you find an unclear bit in the documentation, you can take a look at the source.
MS:
A fair bit, in certain areas. Game developers, in particular, have built up some web sites that have lots of snippits. Usually hard/impossible to get library source code.
GENERAL DEVELOPER COMPETENCE:
Linux:
Many new programmers, but most are interested in technology for its own sake and doing cool things with it, so learn the system inside out. Some accessable very skilled systems developers.
MS:
Many, many Visual Basic coders. MS dug its own grave with Visual Basic. Very low barrier to entry, very difficult to scale above a certain height ("Well, you *can* do this advanced thing in Visual Basic...you just need to also know how the underlying Win32 API works and how Visual Basic chooses to interact with it"). Some contractors that should be shot before calling themselves developers (I remember an expensive contract with a GUI-coding-tool using developer at one company...). Some competent ones, as well.
APIS:
Linux:
Some UNIX cruft. Usually, APIs are pretty clean. Emphasis is on keeping things clean for the many developers -- if something is unclear in gtk1, fix it in gtk2.
Windows:
The most godawful APIs in the world. Win32 is so full of cruft, poor conventions, inconsistent conventions, and unnecessarily complicated *crap* that it's amazing. Most advanced MFC programmers end up having to interact with Win32 as well to do certain things that MFC can't do. Has some great snippits on MSDN, along the lines of "Do not use this argument, as it represents a security risk and has been obsoleted. Some developers may wish to use this argument for backwards compatibility with Microsoft CSPs."
OS CAPABILITIES:
Linux:
Pretty much if you could want it in an OS, it's there. I've yet to miss something (well, Linux *does* need disk priorities on processes for scheduling, but Windows lacks them as well).
MS:
No fork()? Damn, that was a pretty convenient syscall. How about file deletion...can I delete or move an open file? No? Nuts. As for the registry...well, it's one ugly, giant unregulated hack that lots of programs directly modify and end up screwing up all sorts of stuff. The number of times I've seen borked file associations because a program was writing straight to the registry and prevented Explorer from reading or coping with the file association is ridiculous.
I could go on, but the point is that any MS claims of being ahead on making life good for developers are absolutely ludicrous. The *worst* thing about Windows, easily, is doing development for it.
May we never see th
"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.
If I were running Microsoft, I would focus on the ability to produce finished, refined software that results from having massive numbers of developers on payroll - control over goals and marketing-directed development allows a large corporation producing closed-source commercial software to produce certain kinds of results faster than the Open Source slowly-rolling-ball approach. In other words, it takes time for major Open Source undertakings to gain community momentum, and even longer for Open Source projects to develop user-friendly polish, when more common, non-developer users get involved and start driving development with feature requests.
Microsoft also needs to deal with the fact that they sometimes put consumer demand in the back-seat to their own interests and big business interests in general. NOBODY demands DRM. Pushing it down people's throats is a major mistake. No endeavour yet has been successful at getting people to adopt a technology with DRM capabilities or any such non-feature "security features". In the future this may become a drag on the bottom line with Palladium et. al. losing popularity. It's hard to convince Joe Sixpack right now that Linux is cool and he should be using it. If Windows becomes so crippled by DRM and "security features" that Linux (or some OpenBeOS-alike or other Open Source OS) can serve as the basis for a fully capable operating environment for desktop PCs, the bottom line will suffer.
Outsmarting Open Source is really more a matter of keeping in touch with what people want. Frankly, MS has done a good job of this in the past, cutting many corners, and infuriating many developers, but they have gradually improved the Windows platform - with Windows XP they have started down a path of backtracking on their advances, getting a bit too high off the hog with their monopoly. If they are trying to outsmart Open Source, they need to go back to thinking about what users want, and not what the MPAA and RIAA tell them they need to get securely in bed with them, so they can jointly 0wn the set-top box market and media-on-demand markets they have their greedy eyes set on.
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.
In a parallel story by InfoWeek:
Microsoft pushes on in server OS market
By Stacy Cowley
September 24, 2002 9:18 am PT
LINUX IS THE only serious threat to Microsoft's increasing dominance of the market for server operating systems, according to new research from IDC.
Microsoft's share of new server operating environment license shipments grew from just under 42 percent in 2000 to nearly 49 percent in 2001, IDC of Framingham, Mass., said in a summary of its recently released "Worldwide Client and Server Operating Environment Market Forecast and Analysis: 2002-2006."
On the client side, Microsoft's already overwhelming 92 percent share crept up to 93 percent in 2001. IDC analyst Al Gillen attributes the company's continued growth to its licensing programs and to customer transitions from older Microsoft products to its current software.
Click Here for the rest of the story.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Read...we do not want to be bound by an open source license...that Linux Zealots will try to interpret anyway they feel proper to steal our IP...in order to do serious work in the open source world we need to use open source tools(and Libs) which would then bind our products by open source license rules...
Before you Mod me down I don't agree with him, but thats what they are thinking after all...
I will say however that they are right in a way...
if the OSS licenses were a little less restrictive and the community a little less over zealous there might be a bit more commercial initive. Unfortuantely, the way the community seems to see tihngs is, you used and open source lib, or other tool, to make your software...we demand the software be open sourced....
Sorry if its unpopular to say so, but that is how they think, and damn it I think they are actually justified...
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Internet Explorer is the best browser today? Do you not use any sites that produce popups or something? Do you never block cookies or ads from a site? Are you not concerned about any of the holes that keep being shown in it?
As for Office beating LaTeX, Office has always been much easier to use and LaTeX has always produced higher quality output. That won't change unless Office moves to a whole new font and layout architecture. Knuth is still years ahead of the competition in quality.
You like Visual Studio? It's really slick editor is a joke to people that use emacs, its "world class" debugger may well be good but not *that* much better, and it has a decent compiler, but lacks lots of other supporting development tools like the whole GNU suite.
May we never see th
I'll bet you that some Microsoft programmers support Open Source and even work on it for kicks in their spare time.
Of the four people that I indirectly know that work at Microsoft, three prefer using and developing for Linux (one has a Tux doll in his cubicle at Microsoft), and only the least competent one doesn't know or like Linux (but he's also a Visual Basic programmer, as opposed to the others).
It's hard for MS to *find* competent developers that dislike UNIX. UNIX was designed to *be* a developer's baby.
May we never see th
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.
If I were a Microsoft employee I'd be a bit worried that the #2 man in the company has such an appalling grasp of economics. Open source/free solutions are nothing but added value. You start with a box of electronics which is worth nothing on it's own (unless making irritating noises is worth something to you), you install linux off a CD you downloaded for free, and presto, you have a system that can be used for work and recreation. Value value value.
The only way Microsoft products will have any value compared to open source/free is if they can do something that open source/free products can't do (crashing twice a day, taking 15mins to boot up, and having more security holes than my underpants aren't exactly unique selling points). Microsoft would have to start innovating to sell their bloatware (today, pretty coloured GUIs != innovation). How likely is that?
Personally, I reckon open source/free software could clean Microsoft's clock in about a decade if more work was put into educational software and entry-level programming tools. Get linux in schools! Schools'd rather be spending their money on library books and heating than licenses. They are the softest targets in the world for increasing the mindshare for open source/free software, but the effort going into office productivity apps (a market Microsoft has got sewn up tighter than a gnat's chuff) dwarfs that spent on educational gubbins.
Microsoft only exist because of kiddie hackers who could transform Windows 3.x into a working system and install hardware for nothing as a favour. Otherwise all the refunds to users forced to return that unusable heap of shit would have killed the company like the MSX fiasco should have. If all the kids who keep PCs running around the world for nada were brought up on linux, rather than windows, they'd be selling those solutions to the grown-ups and bringing them into the workplace as they grew up themselves.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
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
The Shared Souce Initiative has gone worse than expected. Microsoft seems stunned that noone wants to look at thier source. Perhaps it is because any enhancement you make to the source code, Microsfot owns... the company gets stronger and better, by things you do. If your a Database Vendor are you going to make Microsoft more dominant, so they can put more money into MS SQL. If you are a media company are you going to enhance media capabilities so they can put you out of business with Media Player?
I support and encourage competition. Apple ships homegrown products with thier OS, but they in no way try to use an unfair advantage.
It is more than Source, and it is more than "creating" a community. You need to have a real community of people who trust the company/code/operating system they are working with. Capitalism is divided by the Landowners and those that do the labor. Who is willing to do Microsoft's Labor to have thier own fruits crushed?
You do want him to go away right?
Microsoft has 90% of the desktop market, but enough just isn't enough for them. Their hunger to assimilate every last person on the planet is insatiable. If your tastes or working styles disagree from theirs, there is just no room for you. Microsoft's hunger for market domination is pathological. I suspect that they really do know deep down that their software is just an incoherent collection of marketing-driven features inplemented in a haphazard manner, and it scares them to think that the public at large realize that; that's why everybody with a brain needs to be assimilated before they can create resistance.
What Microsoft just doesn't get is that different people have different preferences. People use Linux not because it's cheaper in some absolute value metric, but because they like it. To Microsoft, "value" means more features, more buttons, and more conformity in terms of appearance. To many Linux users, "value" means fewer features, fewer buttons, more configurability, and standards compliance at the API level. Microsoft can't add that value to Windows; to achieve it, they'd have to subtract stuff from Windows, a lot of stuff, and they can't do it.
Sorry, Ballmer, but unless Microsoft gets the government to mandate Windows, you'll have to be satisfied with 90% market shares. And they may even go down as Linux (for better or for worse) steadily and unstoppably adds your kind of value--as an option for those who want it.
It is hard for microsoft to lock out open source with the product mix they have. They only succede now because they were early and managed to win, but they no longer can compete on features, price, or IBM granted monopoly. (Though they can dictate hardware specs, something that is worrying to me)
Once you have a working version of a word processor nothing much changes. Once in a while the spell checker might need an updated dictionary or import filters for you compition, but open source can get them too. What new useful features can they add. There might be a few, but most fail the useful qualifier, and the rest are useful only to a small group. If you are in the latter group there is a chance that only open source will consider it worth the bother to add your feature, and then only because YOU can hire whoever you want to add it. (your choice to open source it or not unfortunatly)
Remember software is easy to copy. When an architect draws up house plans carpinders need to build it, which takes a team of four, 2 or 3 months, each house. With software once it is built, copies can be made easially. Open source is even easier than closed because it is free so they don't have license keys or the like. Open source: one person can put it in the default install CD, and once it works put it on all workstations in theory, closed source takes just a little longer because you have to handle license keys and legal issues, but still nothing compared to the house.
Once something has the features you need and is free, it has a compelling argument to switch. I do not see how Microsoft or anyone else can keep coming up with new features that are compelling enough to be worth the cost.
I have already switched to Kword. I admit that it still isn't nearly as good as MSWord, but it is good enough, and free. Many computers are coming with WordPerfect installed because it is cheaper, and most home users won't see a need to switch so long as the import/export filters work right.
It may take 100 years, but I suspect that for software that everyone uses, you will soon find that only free software is used. Only the software that is used by few people, or changes often will survive. (tax preperation for instance)
from the article: While Ballmer stopped short of advocating Microsoft's old "security through obscurity" policy, he pointed out that publicly posting bug fixes often prompted attacks. "The hacker waits till a fix is posted, then writes an attack and sends it out," he said. Such attacks are based on information in the fix.
In related news, I've noticed that the more dishes I clean, there more there are to get dirty, so if I don't do the dishes, then there won't be any clean ones to get dirty, and I'll be saved a lot of work.
c-hack.com |
Uh, Microsoft was dominant on the PC long before there was Linux. However, every year Linux use grows. So far this growth has been moderate on the desktop, but it will continue to grow just like it has on the server side.
Microsoft has always been bigger than Linux, and yet Linux continues to progress at an amazing pace. And since Microsoft can't buy Linux out, nor can they bankrupt Linux, they can't use their standard tactics. Total World Domination :) is only a matter of time, and Linux has plenty of that to spare.
... that they cannot and will not change:
#1: They cater to businesses, not to people.
Linux is the exact opposite - it caters to people and not to businesses. Considering that businesses are outnumbered with people by a few hundred million to 1, I see this as their biggest problem. Granted, they are trying to buy legislation that will level the playing field (make it illegal not to be *for corporations*, and Linux will have to change), but for now, they're in deep trouble.
#2: The *need* to make even more money.
Overcharging their customers year after year will eventually catch up to them.. most likely within the next 2 years. Linux is becoming even more user friendly, and continues to gather mind share among college students (who can't afford the cost of (or won't pay for) Windows' systems, even at the student rates). Today's college grads are tomorrows CIOs.. and they will talk with the CFO's about the massive savings that Free Software brings to the table. This doesn't bode well for Microsoft.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
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
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.
Do what Apple did with OS X but use Linux instead. Ignore X-Windows and any kernel development that is made you release under GPL. Now Windows will still be a proprietary system (like OS X) but they will have a system that scales, is secure, cost them next to nothing to develop (the base OS like darwin) and will be very competitive with any Unix variant free or not that is thrown at MS/Linux (no GNU necessary as there is no GNU/Darwin/OS X) or better yet just call it MS Windows/NX.
If MS did this it would kill, Linux, OS X, Solaris (and all the Unix variants). Granted this is just my opinion but realistically there is nothing to stop them from doing this. Hell even better yet just take the Linux code out there, freeze it and make your own MS Linux Kernel fork and that will REALLY piss some people off, but there isn't a damn thing they could do.
Being an OS X fan I hope to hell this never happens but beware of your fears (as this is one of mine!).
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.
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?
We've bested Steve's Ballmer's spaniard and we've beaten his giant. Like we didn't see a battle of wits coming....
Compare and Contrast
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
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."
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.
But that in fact is one of free softwares greatest advantage! Self Selection
Consider this: people who like to do something are generally better at it than those who dont like to do it. (they like it because they are good at it, and they are good at it because they like it)
In a salaried developers time he may find himself working on pieces that hes not thrilled about. In a free software environment, the developer is always working on whatever grips his interest.
When someone comes around to wanting to do a spellchecker for free software, its damn likely theyll do it as well as they can, with no mind to deadlines, manager politics, or the other things theyd much rather be working on.
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
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
Compare and Contrast
:)
See what I mean?
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/
An exercise for the AC...
... but most estimates put the proportion of all code written in-house at companies other than software vendors at over 75%.
Here are my points:
---
OSS doesn't make sense in the reseller market (the one Microsoft is in)
As said previously, why spend millions making software when it's out there for free. If Microsoft makes the best product in the world and sells it for $300 with the source under an open source license, someone will just take the code, maybe modify it a bit, and derive their own product, presumably selling it for less.
---
but it makes sense in the support market.
Read.
---
Example is Red Hat. No, they're just under being profitable
From Red Hat's website:
"In an increasingly difficult IT environment, Red Hat delivered a profit and generated positive cash flows for the first time," commented Matthew Szulik, President and CEO of Red Hat.
I conceed, I was a touch out of date.
---
but they aren't catering to the large market
From Entrepreneur.com:
"Linux was the primary OS for 27 percent of the server operating market at the end of last year"
Again, I'm a little out of date, but 27% is not the kind of market share that Microsoft has (41% from the same website). I phrased "catering to the large market" incorrectly, but I think you get the point.
---
I should also add that it's estimated that over 70% of development occurs in-house and not for resale.
From opensource.org:
---
Programming will collapse if software has no market value
Very unlikely. Code written for resale is only the tip of the programming iceberg. It used to be said that 85% of all the code in the world was written in-house at banks and insurance companies. This is probably no longer the case
----
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but I figured that someone asked for links, I might as well offer them for those who show a real interest (and don't have their heads up their asses).
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Invention is 99% perspiration. He delegates the inspiration to others.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
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
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.