Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Wants to "Stomp Linux" Using MS community
StefMeister writes "According to this article on CNet, MS wants to fight Linux by using their community support (of course by community they mean the few guys they personally know and who make money using their MS knowledge). My favorite quote of the article is this one "Linux is not like Novell, it isn't going to run out of money--it started off bankrupt, in a way.""
Where in this article does Ballmer say he is going to "stomp Linux?" Nowhere! Journalism 101 people! Don't fight FUD with FUD!
PDHoss
======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
Obviously one editor has no idea what the other is doing. Can we not have back-to-back stories about the same article? That was like, yesterday.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
But we've got nowhere to go but up....
What's your damage, Heather?
What a FUDfest! Well, folks hopefully have seen the Register story on this. A couple of comments.
Technology like clustering would be better in Windows than Linux eventually, said Ballmer: "We will beat Linux on clusters. We can't beat them on price, but we have to add value."
Given the current market for Beowulf, I don't see MS competing on clusters, especially with "add[ed] value."
Asked by one lateral-thinking MVP whether Microsoft planned to offer applications software on Linux, Ballmer said no, adding that the big issue was a reluctance to accept legal liability for open-source software.
"We do not anticipate offering software on Linux," said Ballmer. "Nobody pays for software on Linux." Even StarOffice, sold by Sun, was originally a free product, he said. And IBM, arguably the No. 1 player in the Linux market, promotes Linux to big users, but does not actually sell Linux: "It's weird. IBM says 'Hey British Aerospace! Buy Linux...from SuSE.'"
StarOffice did not start out as a free product, iirc. And as for IBM promoting Linux, how is that any different from HP and Dell promoting Microsoft. And does the first paragraph, as the Register asked, mean that Microsoft accepts liability for their own software?
I'm kind of offended by the "few guys they personally know and who make money using their MS knowledge" line in the main post. There are a lot of advantages to Linux or ANY coding system in use today. So Linux has a very large and vocal community. Does that mean you have to give people another reason to dislike you by flaunting it instead of just appreciating it? There are a lot more M$ coders out there than you think. Just look for the .asp pages on sites both small and large. [insert joke about hacking them next here]
--- Don't be a player hater: I meta-mod ALL negative mods as Unfair.
These people crack me up.
They have to turn everything in life into a business.
"In a way they started out bankrupt"
You have to have debt in order to go bankrupt.
A social movement is not a busness. There is no way it could have been bankrupt. Stop trying to spin business terms where they don't apply.
Microsoft probably started more bankrupt than Linux. They were a business, and they probably had alot of debt. This is how most businesses start out. You get a little funding to start (if you can't pay it back.. you're bankrupt).
How is MS going to end up bankrupt? Do you really think this, or are you just hoping because you hate corporations?
[FromTheMorning]
They should stomps the annoying Bugs in their software before stomping the competition with FUD... A better product always sells by itself, especially in a monopoly situation. They could have an happy userbase and a more pro-microsoft community by doing so.
RIght now they are focussing their energy in stomping both consumer (DRM) and market rights, stomping competition, and stomping whatever or whoever dares to say something bad against them. This is such a waste of energy only a PR departement with too much staff can afford.
Stupid yet annoying bug to give ONE example out of probably 1000+ that people could bring up:
Since windows 95, when I'm dragging a huge folder, explorer STILL doesn't display the remanining time correctly, saying example 2 minutes remaning, and then 388432 minutes (and going down by 600 minutes every 2 seconds), I mean, for god's sake, 5 years later, 3 service pack later, windows 2000 *STILL* has that bug. This is one dumb example, but imagine all the bugs that you don't directly see.
So please microsoft, don't focus on the few users you don't have, focus on making your current userbase HAPPY so that they aren't bleeding off to your potential competitor as soon as they get a chance or get too fed up, because THIS will cost you.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
I think you are confusing "value" with economic cost. There is a difference. If Microsoft makes it so clustering takes less time, with better monitoring and configuration tools than the current Linux tool set, then they have created better value. Yes, it is going to cost a hell of a lot more, but if your Boss wants a cluster setup by tomorrow, and you only have a Windows Admin on hand, what is going to be more valuable to him? Value is created when something is offered that makes the job at hand easier, faster, more maintainable, etc.
Note: I do not disagree with you that the cost is going to be much much much higher in a Windows cluster.
Who is John Galt?
Linux is doing a pretty good job of imploding by itself. All the users and developers are clueing up to the hoax that has been perpetrated on them that linux is stable when in retrospect, it had a filesystem, ext2fs, that was unsafe and corrupted data and filesystem integrity on power failure and crashes and its vm system still isn't robust after many rewrites. It's time we acknowledge that linux has set back the state of computing by 10 years redoing what's already done very well in FreeBSD.
To quote houseparty 2....
Wasnt the link in this Slashdot article essentially saying the same thing?
Linux is a Cancer!
We'll stomp on Linux!
I'm taking my ball and going home!
How embarassing for Microsoft, their CEO sounds like a ranting 3 year old. Time for a timeout.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Better fit, don't you think.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
*laugh* Ballmer only seems to see things in terms of money. It should be painfully obvious that Linux didn't start off "bankrupt", it started off free, which is hardly the same thing.
Quoth kalidasa: StarOffice did not start out as a free product, iirc. And as for IBM promoting Linux, how is that any different from HP and Dell promoting Microsoft.
It isn't, of course -- well, there's one crucial difference. MS doesn't get any money out of it.
And does the first paragraph, as the Register asked, mean that Microsoft accepts liability for their own software?
They keep dancing around that issue. They have, one the one hand, tried with EULAs and so on to get out of liability -- but they are also starting to realize that that lack of responbility has meant that they release shoddy software and have no immediate need to fix it. But now their reputation for less-than-good software is starting to come around and bite them in the *ss. A symptom is all the buzz that Linux and UN*X is getting. So they are starting to acknowledge *moral*, as opposed to *legal*, liability for their software products ("Trustworthy Computing").
Which could be dangerous, 'cos you can't have it both ways, really. Eventually someone's going to start suing the bejeezus out of them, once some NT-based thing goes blooey and costs someone a fortune...
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
In reading the article I find it ironic that some of Ballmer's statements are similar to practices M$ employed in the mid 90's. I believe it was M$ that provided Internet Explorer free in order to displace Netscape's market share. As for the Microsoft community goes, I would rather use an OS that has been reviewed by many eyes than one that seems to have only been reviewed by the elite M$ few!
Sounds to me like M$ is getting a taste of their own medicine.
The sum of our knowledge today becomes the reference point of our ignorance tomorrow.
He's obviously losing his mind. I'm too lazy to do the search, but there are plenty of articles out there about how Dreamworks, WEGA, and other special effects companies have switched to Linux cluster farms because of price. Their arguments have been that to implement the same cluster with MS or proprietary UNIX products would cost them three times as much money.
"Check this out! It's an active-active SQL2K cluster! It actually works!", said the highly ecstatic SQL Server admin. "That's nice.", said the unimpressed Oracle DBA without looking up from his latest copy of -insert favorite magazine here-.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Favorite quote: "Nobody pays for software on Linux." given as a justification for not porting MS apps to Linux.
I guess I am the only one out there who paid for Oracle on Linux, can't imagine why Oracle keeps producing the new versions.
How about "We won't be porting our apps to Linux because that will kill sales of our less than useless OS" isn't that a bit closer to the truth?
Microsoft thinks that, with a few thousand "insiders" that know what's going on, they're going to "stomp Linux?" That's a knee slapper *proceeds to slap elbow*. While I don't have any exact numbers, I'm willing to bet that Linux has quite a bit more people behind it, whether it's mainstream or not.
/contrib folder? I haven't seen any in my travels...
The only thing MS can do to beat Linux is create a better product. And since their OS wasn't really designed with security in mind (it was designed to be used by the computer stupid masses, more or less), they'd litterally have to start from the ground up. *NIX style OSs have the jump on MS in many different areas, including 64bit architecture support, value for your buck (since Linux is free, it's a much better value, even if it lacks the major apps Windoze has), and even technical support (just scour the net, someone somewhere will be glad to help if they can).
Their "community" is bogus. Nothing more than just a bunch of higher-ups whom MS deems are suitable to be "in the know." The Linux community is just what it says it is. Regular people (not just higher-ups with keys to the executive bathroom) can take it upon themselves to learn what they want about it. And what makes up a community? Regular folks. Granted, it's regular folks with IQs higher than average and technical know-how, but regular folks all the same. From the geek in his/her parents' basement to Linus himself, and all points in between. Each, in some form or another, is welcome to take Linux apart and contribute whatever they want to it. With MS, the buck stops with Bill and company. When was the last time you saw a Windows CD that had a
Is it just me, or should Steve Ballmer be doing stand-up at wee-tiny coffee bars and little improv theaters? All his malarky is making me laugh, and that's about it...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Um, am I to take it the "stomp Linux" in quotes implies that Ballmer said this?
Because even though it's in the article headline, Ballmer is never QUOTED as saying it in the article. It is just the author's interpretation of what Ballmer said.
Ballmer gave a very calm, non-confrontation argument (pro-Microsoft, yes, but what did you expect?).
Come on, people would be up in arms if a Slashdot headline wrongfully said "FSF says 'fuck you' to those not using GNU/Linux".
If anyone needs me, I'll be tearing my hair out...
slashdot!=valid HTML
Follow these steps for shoddy journalism: (honestly, can someone please explain the difference between
- C|Net gives a title to an article about Ballmer that uses the word "stomp" as if Ballmer had said it. They don't quote him saying it.
- /. picks up the story (again) without reading it, and further butchers it by altering the title again and attributing a quote that's entirely fictitous but sounds really inflammatory and good, presenting it as fact.
- People who angrily point this out get modded -1, Panties In A Twist, and they disappear into the Troll Pits, and the site is run by those who remain and who don't give a fuck. Repeat from step 1.
Like the demise of Wired all those years ago, it's just really sad. This place used to be a great source of information. It's fallen a long, long way.-- http://frobnosticate.com
"Linux is not like Novell, it isn't going to run out of money--it started off bankrupt, in a way.""
Did he mean fiscally bankrupt? As opposed to, um, someone else who is ethically and morally bankrupt?
You probably shouldn't mistake a public pronouncement for what he's really thinking. He's actually quite skilled at lying^h^h^h^h^hpublic relations.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Compare Balmer's talk with the new foreign policy Bush just gave congress.
With both you have a large seemingly unbeatable force with money to burn that believes it can outspend the competition to maintain a monopoly. This monopoly is widely loathed yet many people cherish the stability it brings. Meanwhile you have a DIY group of individuals who are trying to bring down said monopoly with ingenuity and far less funds.
Not that I think Linux hackers are terrorists IN ANY WAY, likewise I am not condoning terrorists either. I just find it interesting as a comparison.
Thoughts?
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
While this would be a very wise thing for them to do, I wonder if they trully realize that their tactics and strategies in the past are part of the problem. Developers being in the equation also includes the companies that sponser and employ them. Last November, MS commented about its current community that frankly was showing its true colors (meaning there was no loyalty or trust, but merely a wait and see attitude).
Personally, I think they have a LONG way to go in changing their business ethos, otherwise even the best layed plans will turn to crap after a short time (its like giving cars to monkeys, if they don't care or know how to upkeep them then while they will look more sophisticated and advanced to outward observers at first, it will soon become apparent that they were just not meant for devices like that).
When asked about Linux being a platform for MS products, Ballmer answered no. Ironically however, the reason stated in this article is about MS's "reluctance to accept legal liability for OpenSource Software." Does that mean that they have been accepting legal liability for other vendor's software, much less their own? I remember one time last year on the news there was a reporter doing a rundown of many of the "neglected" portions of the DoJ and friends' case(s) against MS. One of them was to establish an open door for end users and companies (especially small ones) who had lost significant amounts of money due to negligence on the part of MS. Have people been getting cash back or free support for MS created problems? (I don't want to start a debate here, most people know that no software is perfect so this assumption is based on that tenet)
Next we have,
Here I had to laugh... some more. This seems to be a window into Ballmer's and Microsoft's way of thinking about software and Operating Systems. IBM is not selling an operating system, they are selling hardware and an entire computing suite/environment. Can someone use RedHat instead of Suse? I think so. Can someone take advantage of the (arguably) more efficient, modular, secure and extensible nature of Linux to tailor it for their own needs? (including scaling BACK to make leaner systems) I believe that is one of the selling points. (I could be wrong, but I have seen a few ads that touted such things recently) I sincerely hope for Ballmer's and MS shareholder's sake that what he said was either quoted way out of context or is just fronting BS. What integration companies (and even just regular non-IT companies) have been moving to non-MS solutions for was to allow THEM to have the choice in the system (among other reasons of course). People don't really like to either be restricted in choices or be presented with only options that force payment for services unwanted and unrendered (I consider services rendered to mean it WORKS).What if, when you went to a grocery you were ONLY presented with "Value Packs" that they had very few differing combinations but all of them had about 70% of the same items between them (the Store Brand(tm)). You might not like the store brand. You may remember using some other brand that you liked and that the store no longer carries it (because it magically became "Incompatable" after the Grocery Store bought out one of the competitor's (of your favorite brand) factory. You may also get tired of finding that the food items are often spoiled, leaking, smashed etc yet in order to get assistance you are actually CHARGED by the Grocery Store. Then you hear about how other small grocery stores (or makers of particular grocery items) are strongarmed into going out of business, accepting only MS as a distributor, or being bought out. Hell, even the local farmers won't look you in the eye anymore because of their shame at being whipped.
Now would this work? Well it would if people were stupid, the vendors were spineless and short sighted and all around everyone was too busy making excuses and looking for Mighty Big Brother to once again tell them what to do, how to think, etc. (in other words, to save them from their own stupidity)
So, with this in mind... if the IT community (meaning end users, company procurement, developers, etc) let themselves be led into this once again then it will be real hard not to just let them rot in the jail they made for themselves. If MS is interested in technological solutions then they will HAVE to change their internal thinking about strategy and operational tactics. Or, they could just continue to focus more on marketing and litigation... however I doubt that solution will work for much longer. Some people are slowly waking up (sorta like the Matrix I guess...) and seeing the mess they let be made. Hmm, the big flaw in this is not 'the people' it is bureacrats. These empty headed monkeys will be the problem as ever before. They will blindly put foolishly to action, those things that can clearly be seen as harmful for long term capital. The business world has been riding on this forward wave of progress that if said progress shifts (to another market) or begins to depend on Process Improvement instead of raw technical prowess they will flounder and die. That will hurt a lot of people so I hope they will pull their collective heads out of their red-tape puckered arses soon.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
What's an NT server license cost with all the trimmings? Ca. $1200.
So you can build a cluster with Linux, or build a cluster with NT and watch half your money go to software cost.
Which is why NT will always be a loser for clusters.
Honestly, I don't understand the whole "religious wars" as I like to call them. I'm a huge supporter of Linux. Most of the reason is because I feel I can actually offer something in that scene. But I'm not entirely against Microsoft. I have a lot of respect for what both factions are trying to do. I am leaning most of my support towards the linux world though for two reasons: 1) I like to support the little guy and 2) even if Linux were the big guy, the profit to be made from open source is in support, not monopoly. This sorta puts in its own checks/balances -- something that I don't believe Microsoft has the benefit of. What it comes down to is "the right tool for the right task". You're not going to see me doing music on Linux any time soon. Most likely, MAC is still the best for that (throw your bottles now, but it's true from a professional level). For net development and servers, e-mail and so on, I choose linux. Joe-schmoe desktop user won't find home in Linux any time soon. Yes, it's getting there...but it's still far from idiot proof.
A little aside about Open Source vs. Closed Source: There are faults to both, but I believe the Open source model could potentially be much more beneficial to the computer world -- not necessarily to the individual company. That's not such a bad thing though. Anyhow, supposing there's a huge security loophole in a closed source project, the consumer identifies the problem, and the company has to spend time and money to fix the problem. However, that's part of overhead at that point, as the consumer has already paid for the product and a service contract, one would assume. Meanwhile, in the open sourced project, said consumer can report the loophole across the 'net. Someone using the product (not necessarily the company) might be able to fix the problem and offer his code to the company. However, said company should take measures to make sure that the code doesn't open another exploit put in there by the devious programmer (not to say it happens often, but it could).
Meanwhile, the chief benefit of Open Source? Your undies are hanging out in the breeze. So your product is no longer the software...its trust. Redhat, Slackware, Mandrake, SuSE, and so on...how do they earn their money? Trust. People trust them to check the submitted code. People trust their product, no matter how different or similar it is to someone else's product, simply because it's released by said company. That's where competition should lie, in my opinion. Quality, quality, quality. Don't like it? Use some other flavor of the same damn thing. The most will flock to that which has the most quality. Reinstall the uncorruptable medium for competition.
Now say it together: We Love Open Source!!!!
(Coplan needs to go relax now)
Possibly it will be great for OSX. But in terms of revenue, that's not the MS competition. MS make most of their money from corporates, both desktops (more for Office licenses than Windows) and servers.
MS are facing two threats from Linux:
Linux (plus StarOffice) have a ready solution to all those problems, both in terms of price and stability and also in terms of a basis in standards (which is the rebuttal to the MS tax).
Yes, OSX is/can be many of those things too. Hell, I use it to run my network at home, providing all the basic network services to a mix of other OSs. But I'm not a 20,000 seat enterprise, and those guys ain't buying Macs for anyone outside their design/communications departments.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
I'd rather invest my money in a company with fiscal assets than one with moral and ethical ones.
I doubt you'd get any of the former Enron employees to agree with you - or any of the investors, for that matter.