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.""
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.
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?
*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.
> A social movement is not a busness.
And linux is not a social movement, it's an operating system.
Seriously, I'm sick of all the lame typecasting based on what OS happens to be on my box at any particular time.
Right now I'm running Windows 2k, working through some bugs in a custom DCOM object. So I guess I'm a corporate sheep. In an hour or so I'll be working through some fortran code in unix. Then I'm a greasy peace loving hippy.
If you want to brand yourself, go ahead. Keep me out of it. It's just as lame as the 'nintendo vs ps2 vs xbox' crapfests that 12 year olds have on irc.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
What I find sad about it is that its quite obvious that the people who edit this site don't bother to actually read it all that much. Now to give credit where it is due, most of the other /.ers haven't noticed the dupe as they are ranting and raving just as they were yesterday about it. I've only seen three comments mentioning this thus far.
What makes this really bad is the fact that it was CLEARLY pointed out yesterday that Ballmer and perhaps others were misquoted in the referenced article. On one hand you guys complain about the FUD Microsoft spews yet on the other you obviously have no problem doing the exact same thing yourselves. (Hint: Never take read anything from CNET or ZDNET literally - their articles are usually fluffed up).
Now on an ontopic note - MS' Developer community drawves the size of the Open Source community by at least a few hundred if not a thousand fold. They generally have a richer centralized repository of information and technical knowledge (MSDN) to draw from and their development tools are widely considered to be superior. They also sell a platform which offers the best chance for close to 100% market saturation.
Laugh all you want - but it sounds to me like the man has the right idea. Afterall its not like he said, "We are planning on leveraging the power of our preceived monoply to crush the oppositionary force known as Linux". No he actually said something along the lines of, "By continuing to foster a rich developer community as we have in the past we can make sure the bulk of the talent is writing code for Windows and not Linux".
Whine all you want but that sounds legal and fair in my book.
J
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
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?
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
Essentially, thought, Ballmer says "United, we'll stomp on Linux"
Who was he speaking to? MS MVPs.
So he's saying that MS CORP and the MSMVPs need to unite, and that after they are united they will stomp on linux.
First problem: Uniting the MS MVPs to MS.
Second problem: Getting MS and the MVP to do some stomping (regardless of what is being stomped). That would imply that MS and the MVPs would somehow be "in-step". I wonder how many MVPs will actually dance that dance.
Third problem: Stomp on Linux? Are they going to download distros and pile them in the street and physically stomp on them? Ahh, of course not, it's figurative. They are going to fight them. But how? Are they going to buy them out? Nah. Are they going to try to make their system so much better that linux will seem to be the "worst" alternative? Yes. That's what they meant. But what does that really mean, making their systems so much better? I think it means compete. So microsoft is saying that it will compete against Linux and the developer community behind it. But what does that mean? I mean, Microsoft the monied MNC needs help from MS MVPs to compete against a non-business run by a bunch of volunteers?
This brings me to my point. Ballmer essentially feels directionless. MS is financially directly being impacted by the GNU/Linux operating system and the various distributions. Yet there is no one company to compete against. There is no company to compete against. There is no way to underprice linux until they can't pay their devs and go BK. There is no way to advertise better than linux since MS can't buy word-of-mouth, and word-of-mouth is the best form of advertising. So in effect MS is losing sales and there's nothing they can do about about it.
But MVPs can. They can do the word-of-mouth. These people recommend solutions to large and medium customers. MVPs are are consulting comapnies, solutions providers. They can be the MS advocate and Linux bad-mouthers.
Except that there are more Linux Zealots (and I use the term endearingly) than MS MVPs.
So in fact ballmer hit it on the nose. Together they will stomp on Linux.
Of course, Linux will stomp right back... But that's another story altogether. Goodnight children.
"Piter, too, is dead."
"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?
Your self-righteousness is amusing.
And linux is not a social movement, it's an operating system.
Are you kidding me? Thousands of developers worldwide spontaneously volunteer millions of hours into a collective pot, the fruits of which eventually rival the biggest software companies on the planet. Sounds like a social movement to me.
Right now I'm running Windows 2k, working through some bugs in a custom DCOM object. So I guess I'm a corporate sheep. In an hour or so I'll be working through some fortran code in unix. Then I'm a greasy peace loving hippy.
Straw man. No one is making judgements about users based on what OS they are running on their desktop. The claim is that you can't try to discuss the development model of Linux based on terms that only make sense for businesses (such as "bankrupt") since they simply don't apply (there is no entity involved that can have assets or debt).
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)
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.