Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Microsofter Rick Belluzzo Prefers Linux
keird writes "I'm sure you all remember Belluzzo being pushed out of Microsoft earlier this year. ComputerWorld has a short, but interesting interview with him where he talks about why his new employer, Quantum uses Linux in their appliances." From reading the interview, Belluzzo seems to be pretty amicable to whatever will get the job done, and in this case, it's Linux.
This makes for a bit of a change since a long time ago when he destroyed SGI by persuading them to drop MIPS and IRIX and move to Windows NT.
Be careful about clicking on that link. I didn't, but take a look at it before you click on it. It appears as though it might redirect you to a site other than msnbc.com.
Wow, Linux is being used in a product that Windows isn't even targeted towards. I don't think that Microsoft cares too much if linux is used in these types of devices. Especially when they still own 95% of the desktop market.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm sure you all remember Belluzzo being pushed out of Microsoft earlier this year. ComputerWorld has a short, but interesting interview with him where he talks about why his new employer, Quantum uses Linux in their appliances." From reading the interview, Belluzzo seems to be pretty amicable to whatever will get the job done, and in this case, it's Linux.
"Rocket" Rick Belluzzo is also the man responsible for SGI's disastrous attempt to drop IRIX and MIPS in favour of x86 workstations running Windows NT. He also dropped the uber-groovy SGI cube logo for the lame "sgi". His "reward" for almost destroying a competitor was a cushy job at Microsoft. SGI have yet to recover and it's by no means certain that they will.
Does Linux really need supporters like this?
Try to go to Quantum and see th e nice little error message you get. You'd figure for a company that is using Linux in their work, they'd get the web guys on the stick and fix that.
In the interview he states:
Do you think Linux will be an obstacle to an effective partnership between Quantum and Microsoft? If Microsoft gives us a better idea and a better alternative, we could change.
I'd say it's pretty likely that MS will use a carrot-and-stick approach to force him onto Windows. Quantum is looking for a big deal with MS and with a high-profile ex-microsoftie singing the praises of the competition, I'll bet there's a threat that the deal will fall through: that's the stick. MS will probably also offer Quantum a much-discounted price on embedded Windows NT: that's the carrot.
In the end, Quantum will do whatever they need to do to help their bottom line. (not that I blame them.) If the deal with MS is worth more than the cost of Windows licenses, they'll be on Windows before you know it.
I was going to say, isn't this the guy who used to be CEO of SGI and sold out all kinds of IP to M$ and moved the company to NT shit a few years back? We all know the financial problems that surfaced for a once great company after that. I get the feeling that this guy would sell his own soul for a few extra bucks, much like Bill Gates has.
Aren't you supposed to be on your honeymoon? GET OFF THE COMPUTER, MAN! :-P
Informatus Technologicus
Yes, use what will get the job done. People (pro-MS/anti-Linux, anti-MS/pro-MS, repeat for Solaris, Mac, BSD...) get so blinded by their allegence to one type of technology they don't realize or refuse to accept that there might be something better out there for a given use. Sitting on my desk right now I have machines running Win2k, OSX and RedHat 7.1 all of which I use for different tasks. Could I use just one OS for all my tasks? Sure, but I perfer to use what works best in a given situation.
Exactly! Read the story and i think the prefer is kinda lame. He says in it he'll use whatever works and right now Linux works. How is that preferring? It's like saying Casio preferrs to use WinCE on their handheld XXX.
It gets rather irritating to see headlines every day about a couple of people converting. Must every little action in the Linux community be treated as a major milestone?
I like linux, but honestly it is not the best OS in existence. There is no perfect OS in this world, although some would have you believe different.
Rather then always point out the same ridiculous arguments that Linux is better, Windows sux, open-source is better then closed source, why not just accept that people use what they need to get the job done? Yes both OS's can do the same stuff, but I can do certain things 10x faster in Windows then linux, and vice versa.
Announcing every day that people some people are converting really seems pointless when almost all the desktops come with Windows. Consider this, if you wait till the end of the month and announced 10,000 people converted to linux, Microsoft could do the same and say that since there were 1,000,000 desktops sold in the month, 1,000,000 people chose Windows. My point of all this.
WHO CARES! Let people chose on their own, don't advertise every single person, because the general population doesn't give care.
"We have determined that your Web browser and/or computer's operating system may not support the navigation system of Quantum.com. We recommend that you either upgrade your Web browser to the most recent version or use our site map to browse our site."
That's Moz1.2 folks.
sigh...
ZERO
Aha! But isn't that the great thing about slashcode? The 'squelch' controls? I'm not too worried - 10 smarteygeeks can easily outmaneuver 10,000 idiotic trolls.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
How's that for a candid look inside MS's culture? The guy likes to work with people, likes to talk to people and doesn't explode in an irrational fit when someone says "Linux." No wonder he didn't fit in.
Buy the President
If you really are a proponent of 'the best tool for the job' dogma, you would want to sort out your web site (isn't that a tool?), so it doesn't ask me to upgrade the latest version of the most advanced web browser. Ugrade to what - IE?
"I'm Rick Belluzzo and I'm the former president and chief operating officer of Microsoft Corp."
www.linux.com/switch
Wow, Linux is being used in a product that Windows isn't even targeted towards. I don't think that Microsoft cares too much if linux is used in these types of devices. Especially when they still own 95% of the desktop market.
Oh, Microsoft cares all right. But they are fighting an uphill battle against free-and-open in that space. MS has lost a lot of ground to Linux there, is continuing to lose more, and there's really no hope of a comeback.
Actually, those componentized versions of windows were very much the right idea, and Microsoft had an advantage there for a while.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
Palm, Handspring and Sony control 81.1% of the market. Compaq, Casio, and Dell (newcomer) combined, control 12.6% of the market.
Firstly, Dell's PDAs just came out and lowered the bar to even or lower than Palms (for a much, much more feature rich system). Secondly, your numbers are a tad out of date (not really that surprizing). Here we can see that PocketPC currently has 30% of all sales (the "market", if you will), versus compared to 48% for Palm. A tad different from your numbers. This was before Dell virtually halved the price of a PocketPC PDA.
Secondly, the "bloated and more expensive" is an outdated argument as well. Firstly something like the Toshiba e310 or e740 represent among the smallest PDAs available, yet they offer tremendous power. Dell's new PDAs, starting at $199, offer incredible value. And what's with the "proprietary" nonsense, Palm fanboy? And Palm ISN'T? Oh, right, proprietary=Microsoft in Slashdot speak.
Rick started at HP and at point ordered 350K engines from canon. He then later went to canon and apologized to the workers who were being laid off. For that screw-up, HP promoted him to being in charge of HP' desktop computers, where he merged the unix desktop and desktop system together. He managed to kill the Unix desktop, while saying that he would build it up. When his division was headed down, he went to SGI, where he did his best to destroy irix and SGI. He left MS when their numbers are starting down (yes profits are up, but numbers are down). Now, he is at Quantum, where he has sold off half the company, and it was running Linux. MS is knocking on the door. Guess which road rick will go down? I predict that Quantum will be gone in about 2 years or less.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
All too much these discussions become one big linux-commercial (or even some kind of holy war between Microsoft and GNU/Linux users). I guess the man is right when he says use the right tool for the right job. If the GNU/Linux OS on one point will satisfy your needs better than a Microsoft OS use is. On the other hand if a Microsoft OS fullfils your needs, use it too
Why can't we all just get along?
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
It's pretty likely that since they're working on embedded systems, that they don't include any of the GNU tools. So Linux (the kernel) is the right thing to say.
If I worked for Ford and drove a Ford, then Ford fired me what do you think I'd be driving?
I was working for Microsoft and I made a ton of money. It was good money but then I realized I could make even more money by working for Quantum. So now I work here. I think they use Linux here. I had a rough discussion with Steve Balmer before leaving. ... bummer....
I am Rick Belluzzo and I am the former chief operating officer of Microsoft.
You can't handle the truth.
I remember SGI was trying to get into the big internet server market.
In those days, and somewhat before, SGI already had a big chunk of the Internet server market. Not for small sites, or for providers who host small sites, but for giant sites like Travelocity. As far as I know, Travelocity still runs on IRIX.
The NT thing was an attempt to get into the broader desktop workstation market. SGI saw which way the wind was blowing, but they reacted the wrong way. They sold complete PCs-- clunky, overpriced, and incompatible. That business model completely failed for SGI, just as it failed for Intergraph a couple of years later. (And it then failed for SGI again when they bought Intergraph's workstation business. What goes around comes around, I guess.)
It's a shame that SGI couldn't have figured out a way to put Infinite Reality on a PCI card-- and sell it for $5,000-- in 1997. They might have owned the professional workstation graphics market, and maybe even the low-end gamer market, by now. Instead, though, they got the idea in their heads that system bandwidth was more important on a PC than interactive graphics performance. Which just turned out not to be true.
Ironically, SGI now has the ability to put Infinite Reality-class graphics on a PCI card. The Fuel uses V12 graphics (which are comparable to IR in a lot of ways) on a modified PCI bus. Unfortunately, the world has moved on, and it's too late.
I write in my journal
Yes, use what will get the job done.
No, don't just use what will get the job done. That's engineering at its most primitive, but you can do better. What about the next job, that may be similar? Will it get that job done easily? Is it maintainable? What about when it stops getting the job done in a couple years, after you're gone? Can it be fixed? What if the "job" changes? Deciding whether or not these are issues, and whether or not a solution addresses these issues, is something engineers should think about.
All that is still just things related to the specific computational task you expect the solution to perform. There are tradeoffs beyond that space that, despite being an engineer, are valid to consider.
Other questions, like is the ability for the solution to get the job done dependent on one company? What are the costs of dealing with that company? Will I be locked in to using that one company's products? If that company stops supporting my solution, what are my options?
I'm not saying you're wrong that people should consider more than one solution, and use what is appropriate. I'm just arguing that "getting the job done" is not the only thing that should be considered, and that as a result what appears to be blind allegience may not be.
For example, Venezuela's government is considering more than just "getting the job done" when they decide to use Open Source. The mandate to use it across government is based on those non-technical aspects of their situation that can only be satisfied by open products. It's not blind allegience, it's pragmatism -- the same engineering tradeoffs made in our jobs every day -- based on more than just technical aspects.
Or for myself, I simply value Free in my software where I will take a Free solution over non- even if the Free doesn't -technically- perform as well.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, that each situation may be different and the decision should be made not on what tech you like, but on what is best. I'm just saying "best" can be based on more complex things which seemingly drive out other solutions as if they are not considered.
The enemies of Democracy are
This is the same guy who became CEO of SGI and was in negotiations with MS almost the entire time he was there, then gave no notice to SGI when he quit.
This is the same guy who supposedly told the SGI board of directors that "It's too hard to be CEO of SGI" after running the company into the ground in an amazingly short period of time.
This is the same guy who "helped" SGI lose a significant part of their already niche market by forcing the company to switch platforms away from what they did best.
I wonder how much MS is paying him for what he's doing now? But I'm not bitter.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
I think this proves they were lying in every concievable sense. There is already a product available which will componentize Windows 98/98SE/ME, and the same company is working on doing the same with 2k/XP.
If I could get away with as much prejury as Microsoft, I'd be able to do all sorts of fun stuff.
"I accuse you of robbing the bank!"
"It's impossible for me to have robbed the bank!"
"Oh. Very well. Here's a slap on the wrist(With a healing rod) and a few bucks for your troubles."
It's been a long time.
D'oh! My HTML is gone!
www.litepc.net is the evidence.
It's been a long time.
From the interview, when asked how his style, while at Microsoft, was different from others:
People outside the company liked working with me. For example, if someone raised the subject of Linux, I didn't jump up and scream. I said, "Talk to me about why you like Linux, and let's talk through this."
This is telling. IMO, if 'linux' is a scream-inducing word at Microsoft, then the company must be really scared. After all, screaming is an irrational, emotional response that doesn't lend itself to effective problem-solving.
'Intellectual Properties' are uncontrollable in the wild. To base an economy on them is just stupid.
Yet Quantum's site launches a popup window to tell Mozilla users their browser may be incompatible. If they are going to use Linux, shouldn't they support the popular Linux browser?
Here are the relevant paragraphs:
"Q:Would you consider yourself a Linux advocate now? A:I consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively. And today, for us, that certainly is Linux because it's free; it has a good modular design; you can modify it to meet your needs. There is nothing else that can meet our needs like that.
Q:Do you think Linux will be an obstacle to an effective partnership between Quantum and Microsoft? A:If Microsoft gives us a better idea and a better alternative, we could change. Our customers, by and large, don't really care what the operating system is. That's what's different about an appliance -- the customer really doesn't care what the components are."
It doesn't say he prefers Linux or thinks it is inherently a better solution; it says they're using Linux right now for certain (very valid) reasons and nothing else has those advantages, but if a better idea or alternative shows up from Microsoft they could change. Which is exactly how he should act: technology-agnostic.
My point wasn't that he doesn't think Linux is a good solution, but that Linux-ites want to hear how great Linux is and how it is much better than Windows. So this rather mundane piece gets spun to make it seem more like he's a Linux advocate/convert.
Good points in your last paragraph, and I agree -- it is important to remind people that Linux is a good solution.
-Thomas
I just looked at a Quantum Guardian 4400 NAS device recently.
It's a 1U rackmount system with four IDE drives, a custom motherboard that sports a 1Ghz PIII and two onboard gigabit ethernet controllers, usb, a serial port, and two onboard promise IDE controllers.
The NAS boots linux (a 2.4.18 variant) off of some kind of flash chip and then uses linux's software raid and LVM to manage the drives. The drives are formatted using the XFS filesystem
You use a small self-contained java application to initially set the IP address, and thereafter you can use a web browser to administer it. It has features up the ying-yang, including various backup options, automated updates, failover, load balancing, and synchronizing with peer NAS devices. It supports a full suite of filesharing protocols and has quota support, access control, etc.
You can even enable an SSHD server and log in, although I haven't been able to find the root password yet. I don't know if quantum will provide it willingly or if you will have to aquire it yourself.
I benchmarked it's NFS performance against similar configurations we've built in house and it is well optimized for latency and bandwidth in the ranges allowed by gigabit ethernet. In particular there were no lengthy pauses that we sometimes see on ext3-based systems.
I was impressed with how well they were able to polish the box and make it appear that so many different, complex filesharing subsystems and features were seemlessly integrated.
Apple certainly could have used the Linux kernel and much of the GNU software rather than BSD. Which by the way, you are incorrect in stating that it was based on FreeBSD. Only with the newest darwin release (used by OS 10.2) is it actually based on FreeBSD code. Previously it was based on a much older branch of BSD and Apple brought in some features from FreeBSD.
In any case, the point is that if Apple had used Linux and GNU then they would have to release their modifications to GNU utilities and Linux under the GPL rather than taking BSD licensed code, modifying it, and releasing the changes under the more restrictive APSL. They would still have been completely free to run their own windowserver and other proprietary software on top of Linux.
What exactly is it about the GPL that seems to just scare the shit out of most commercial developers? Please quit spreading FUD about how we should all make our code "free in the truest sense of the word" under a BSD license. The arguments have been gone over several times, and the only thing I've ever gotten out of them is that as a free software developer I'm supposed to be a charity to everyone in the world. Sorry, that's not how it works for me-- I expect in return for showing you some of my code that you show me some of yours.
The site travelocity.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris 8.
The HTTP server, sure. The actual applications are running on lots and lots of SGIs. If I remember correctly, Travelocity was buying a few new 32-processor SGI systems every quarter for several years.
I write in my journal
He never actually says he likes Linux better. He says: " consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively. And today, for us, that certainly is Linux ..."
/. headline says he "prefers Linux." I'm sure it will say that same thing when this story is posted over the weekend....
Of course, the
-- Hobbits suck!
What exactly is it about the GPL that seems to just scare the shit out of most commercial developers?
The part about how you have to give away your source code for free to anybody who asks for it, even if you so much as link to a GPL-licensed library at compile time. I'm pretty sure that's it.
Besides, who needs the headache of working with the GPL when there are perfectly good BSD-licensed alternatives available? That's why you see commercial (and widely used) operating systems incorporating BSD code, but not GPL code.
I write in my journal
this is just my understanding of the grandparent's post and the GPL versus the BSD license. i don't intend to start a flame war, ok? if i'm wrong, correct me. it's the only way i'll learn... if a large company was to do what with linux (under the GPL) what Apple did, they would invest a signifigant amount of cash into development costs to produce a desktop focused, user-friendly OS. under the GPL they would have to release their source. this would put competitors at an advantage and also allow a free release of their OS making it difficult to profit. for free software and open-source developers the GPL is great. it allows us to learn and grow from the existing codebase. but for a publicly traded company, it simply does not make sense. why would i spend money on OS X if i could get all the source for free? or for that matter if another company could get Apple's source (Apple is only an example) and produce a similar product which they release for free. again, if am i wrong correct. but this is why i think the BSD license is more attractive to commercial developers.
Q.Would you consider yourself a Linux advocate now? A.I consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively. And today, for us, that certainly is Linux because it's free; it has a good modular design; you can modify it to meet your needs. There is nothing else that can meet our needs like that.
I think we mostly agree, however, I still feel that this is usable as an advocacy piece simply because of the fact he is asserting that Linux is best solution for his company. But, I admit part of the interest I derived from this story was definitely due because of whom the comments were attributed to. Which, addmitedly, is mostly sparkle value.
I personally like hearing stories like this, since they help me in my efforts to promote to my company Linux solutions.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Sorry, I know this is way off topic... but I've gotta get this off my chest.
Why do so many people hype the idea of Linux on the desktop? Linux has survived (and grown for nearly 12 years) simply by appealing to a niche market of computer enthusiats who didn't want to play ball w/ the big guys.
In those (nearly) 12 years, non-enthusiasts have seen that they could put this particular product to use as a development/admin/server tool. Meanwhile, the enthusiasts have continued to tinker, modify and play w/ their "toy" (I do not use the term "toy" in a derogative sense!) to the point that it has become an alternative to computing standards (i.e. Windows/Mac OS).
But, that does not mean that the burden of responsibility to change YOUR feelings of computer use falls into the hands of the Linux development community.
If you don't like the way Windows works -- contact Microsoft. If you think that the Mac OS is too/not enough something or another -- contact Apple. Vote w/ your credit cards. Don't demand that Linux eradicate your unhappiness with whatever system you've chosen to use in the past. It 'aint gonna happen.
Look, in the long term, 12 years is an awfully small amount of time for a hobby project to become what it is today: A very robust operating system w/ practical applications for software development, systems administration and networking solutions. It also happens to make a damn fine desktop for someone willing to put the time and energy into it. But it's completely unfair to expect the hard working development community (who rarely sees any compensation -- other than kudos from their colleagues) to create a perfect desktop environment for every technophobe on the planet.
If you want the perfect Linux Desktop solution -- Take the time to learn to do it; that's the beauty of Linux. If you don't have the inclination to do that, then hire a (team of) Linux developers to design one for you. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the show.
Computers should be useful. Using computers should be fun. Linux is useful and fun. Where's the problem?
----
#SickNotWeak
Thank you! Finally someone around here who just wants to know what the deal is instead of spouting off ill-informed opinions.
You are partially correct and partially wrong, just like the parent to my post (the great-grandparent of this post). Yes, the GPL requires that one release the source under GPL to anyone who receives a binary (in practice that means everyone, including competitors). But you have to understand that the GPL specifically stops at the linking level. That is, if I combine my code with GPL code then my code falls under the GPL. Now the LGPL is a bit different. The LGPL actually will allow me to link non-LGPL code with the LGPL library/libraries so long as the end user can replace the LGPL portion with a newer version such that he can fix bugs in it. In practice this usually turns into dynamic linking, although technically one could provide an archive file of everything except the LGPL library and allow users to link that with a newer version of the library to produce their own executable with the newer version included.
So, let's say I start a company called Orange computers and I take GNU and other free software, make it into an easy to use desktop system and sell it. The big question is: Do I have to release my code? The answer is actually REALLY simple. /IF/ my code links with GPL code, yes. If I link with LGPL cdoe I must allow the LGPL portion to be replaced. If I don't link with any (L)GPL code, I can do whatever the hell I please. So let's say I improve some GNU utilities like "ls" and "find". I'd have to then release my modifications under the GPL. And if I improve glibc (the GNU LGPL C library) then I must release those modifications. But if I write software /using/ glibc or gtk or gnome libraries or any other LGPL libraries then I do NOT need to release my code. So in short I merely need to release code that I have built other code upon. I do not have to release the code for the entire system just because I included some (L)GPL software along with it. In fact, Apple (and friends)'s claims that they use BSD because they are afraid of GNU is a complete and total lie. Hmm.. does anybody remember which compiler the BSDs use? Oh yeah.. GCC which is GPL software (and the earlier versions were in fact written mostly by RMS). Indeed, the original NeXT system used GCC as well.
Did Apple release their changes to gcc? You bet! Did the fact that they built everything using gcc and included gcc along with proprietary software on the developers CD require them to release all their code as GPL? NO IT DID NOT.
So in short, I am extremely sick of the BSD bigots claiming the GPL is viral and evil and that we should all switch to BSD. I don't doubt at least some of these (supposed) BSD supporters are Microsofties trying to give the GNU project a bad name. The sad reality is that GNU is the only chance that programmers and users have left. Look at the alternatives. A bunch of people spreading lies about how the GPL requires all software to be free of cost and how the only way to make money on software is to bet the farm on Microsoft. Look at how many software developers now have to retool from VB to C# because Microsoft on a whim has decided they should move from one really really shitty quiche-eater language to a halfway decent quiche-eater language. At least with GNU you aren't fucked when MS decides they don't like you or that MS needs to change its strategy.
It's like Dennis Leary says. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife? Fuck that, you covet his wife, his car, his house, because you know what pal, he's coveting every INCH of your shit. The GPL provides a way to ENFORCE sharing of code where a company would normally consider it a potential loss of property. I just hope people wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!
Can't wait to see the MS "spin control" on this one. "Well, when you factor in long term preferences and TCO, you see that what he really meant to say was..."
Your Servant, B. Baggins
This proves that you must remove Microsoft employees from the Redmond campus, with their families, to a safe, neutral location if you want to get truthful answers from them regarding Linux.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
OK, in the interview, Rick said that he doesn't see Linux as giving Microsoft competition in the desktop. And you are right-- most users are impatient and lazy, but I still disagree about Linux on the desktop, although I agree that for now most desktops will remain with Windows.
The basic problem is that although the core operating system is quite capable on the desktop, several obstacles remain--
1) lack of really easy installation/dependency resolution/deinstallation of software. RedHat and Debian have been making great advancements in this area but there is still a gap with Windows. Basically-- if I want to install some application I should not have to go out to sourceforge, search for, and download several packages-- this should all be able to be handled automatically by the installer.
2) Lack of familiarity-- for a basic end-user unfamiliar with any computer, Linux is not any harder today to learn (except for installing software) than is Windows. My parents use Linux and neither has much computer knowledge. Almost everyone I have set down in front of a computer running KDE or GNOME can perform basic tasks, but they feel uncomfortable and don't really know what they are doing. I am sure everyone here can relate to the last time you decided to do something new, and panicked when you realized it was beyond what you knew.
3) OU-based policy enforcement (similar to GPO's in Windows 2000). Linux as it stands right now is probably better for the corporate desktop than NT4. But for a large enterprise, being able to administer all users in an OU, forcing the installation of a set of software packages on next login can be very helpful.
In the end, a corporate desktop is, to its user, just another appliance. Of course that appliance is built inhouse by the IT department.... But the fact remains that it is not poorly suited to that environment.
I suspect that once more corporations start to move to Linux desktops, OEM's will start offering it as an alternative OS. And then it will be strong in the consumer world too.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It's possible I haven't really considered the larger picture here. After reading your post -- and taking looking around (from a different view point), I suppose I can see what you're talking about.
Of course, I also view it from a slightly different point anyhow (running YDL on PPC) -- so I don't often pay heavy attention to the angst of the x86 world. Maybe I should open my eyes once in awhile, eh?
*Opens eyes for the first time*
OMG! Bill Gates is a dick!
----
#SickNotWeak
Rick Belluzzo at different time was a head, and had destroyed Silicon Graphics/SGI and HP. Then he went to Microsoft, did nothing of value but was paid a giant amount of money as a "loan" that was promptly "forgiven", and Rick himself was gently kicked out when the "loan" story became widely publicized.
Both HP and SGI were Microsoft's major indirect competitors -- they were producing large servers along with Sun and IBM, and now neither HP nor SGI have a working servers division, their native architectures are abandoned, their servers are not anymore significant players anywhere. SGI also was a direct competitor to Microsoft in workstation business, now workstations are no longer produced, after a major fiasco with an attempt to produce a Windows-based workstation using SGI technology. Also I am not sure what role Rick Belluzzo played with selling SGI patents and software to Microsoft that is now being used to prevent the development of OpenGL, and leave Microsoft at the controls of pretty much everything 3D.
All this looks like he either was Microsoft's puppet from the very beginning, or that he is clueless moron who can't make a single business decision without being influenced by Microsoft. Since at Microsoft he did precisely nothing, "loan" looks suspiciously like a payoff for this shining example of service that he did for Microsoft while being a trojan horse in other companies.
I have no idea what mentally deficient people can place him into a CEO position anywhere -- and I should better steer away from anything that Quantum will produce under the management of this crook.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
One guy who used to work for Microsoft prefers Linux for some applications. In related news, a former salesman for Pfizer likes to save money buying generic drugs, a retired Ford line worker drives a Toyota, and RMS uses BSD sometimes (yes, the last one is true and verifiable).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Second - I do not to comment on moderation. However, in this case I feel it's important to make an exception. Reducing an argument to absurity is a tool of discourse going back to the days of Plato - hardly troll material.