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!"
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!
Considering that the Palladium standard requires that the BIOS allow Palladium to be deactivated, I would say that it's more than possible.
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?
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
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..."
Which, of course, will only apply in the USA. The rest of us will be safe, for a while.
Stick Men
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You do want him to go away right?
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 |
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.