Slashdot Mirror
OSS Officially On Microsoft's Financial Radar Screen
seldo writes "More news from Microsoft's latest quarterly filing: according to eWeek, Microsoft says it may have to lower its prices in response to competition from open-source software. From the filing: "To the extent the open source model gains increasing market acceptance, sales of the company's products may decline, the company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and operating margins may consequently decline". This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft, and if it happens, it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!"
Most definitely: It is good to not have a monopoly controlling a market.
perl -e 'printf("%x!\n",49153)'
By forcing Microsoft to release polished and well documented code at a reasonable price, OSS has pretty much achieved its goal.
OSS is doing to Microsoft what Microsoft did to Netscape.
BWAHAHAHAHAH!
Before the muppets start talking about products can't compete with free, remember support costs, staff costs etc etc.
One element on margin is that it is estimated that Microsoft work around the 30% mark, while IBM work around 7% and are booking multi-millions in association with Linux. So this means that Microsoft will be reducing their margin, not becoming unprofitable.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
for a copy of Lindows perhaps it is the linux distibutors who need to lower prices.
EGG, the Electronic Gamers Guild
This was quite expected from Microsoft. For example, StarOffice/OpenOffice have quite successfully grabbed some ground off Microsoft Office.
This is mostly because of the very low cost of StarOffice, or no cost at all in OpenOffice's case.
--
PR... nothing more than PR...
It's not that they're wholly unaffected by the advance of Linux, but this statement should be bundled with others they use to show that "We have brutal competition... really!"
It was about time.
The thing that pushes ppl to Linux and Open Source is the price. Depending if MS lower its prices too much, it may cause a lot of ppl not to consider OSS software at all.
Who would want use and a disgruntled OS if they may get nice box, nice gradient buttons, stylish consistent GUI for a reasonable price?
Maybe it forces OSS software to evolve from merely copying proprietary functionalities to actually improve users' life in order to make a differentiation. A reason for ppl to use it. For now, it's price.
Microsoft has to put everything they could possibly think of that might conceivably cause the stock to go down even slightly in there, otherwise they could be held liable by their stockholders.
So while it's certainly nice that they finally have to publically announce this as a possibility, it really doesn't mean anything. I've seen some wild things in quarterly and annual reports.
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
So this is why the Microsoft Home Of The Future has no bathroom. They can't afford it anymore. Sweet.
Animals are most dangerous when they are cornered.
Expect to see this beast with its hackles up, coming out fighting.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Here's my scenario:
First, MS Office revenues will be hit and hit hard. OpenOffice does almost anything MS Office can do and it is not more difficult to upgrade from Office97 to OpenOffice than it is to upgrade to OfficeXP. - But a lot cheaper.
Only after an organization has successfully converted to OpenOffice, we will see full conversion to Linux.
Now we'll all have to see what Microsoft does without the hefty MS Office sales... Maybe XBox-gamers will have to pay a lot more because Microsoft can no longer afford losing millions over millions on it?
"OSS Officially On Microsoft's Financial Radar Screen"
First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
- Gandhi.
This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft, and if it happens, it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!"
...Now if Microsoft interpreted the OSS threat the way they should and decided to counter it by open sourcing their stuff... THAT would be a major win for the OSS (by definition)!
Sigh. Since when was lowering Microsoft's prices a major objective of OSS?
This is *not* a big win. Contrary: it reduces the perceived difference between OSS and MS from a consumer's perspective and may even force Linux vendors to lower their prices and thus reduce their revenues.
How to compete price-wise with free software? Microsoft may turn into a largely service-based company (like IBM seems to have done) than a product-oriented one. Who knows. Three cheers for OSS giving Microsoft something to sweat about.
This is really quite analogous with what happned when MS's cheaper solutions began to eat the Unix market from the workstation up.
At first, MS's main advantage was price, but gradually they innovated(*) and re-engineered so that their product was always high enough quality to attack the next layer up -- from word processing platform up through file/print server to heavy-duty servers and workstations.
Now MS are being eaten from below by a new generation of even cheaper systems. Like early MS systems, these open source offerings are both derivative and weak except for their price advantage. However, a price advantage is enough to secure a foothold, and over time open source systems will be strengthened and will begin to innovate and will be able to take over better and better MS-held markets.
In about 10-15 years, the cycle will probably start again, taking us another step further from the days of monolithic systems and proprietry hardware/os/support lock-in (which is where we were at before the Attack of the Killer Micros, young'uns). It's all good.
(*)Rather than freaking out and writing posts about 'M$' and so on, why not go outside and get some fresh air?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Did the writer of the article really mean to say this:
[snip]That sobering outlook follows the bleak picture [snip]
I love OSS, but just think...
OSS wins and almost all the servers and desktops are OSS. Then the companies that "bought" into the OSS, get annoyed that Linus is not releasing the fixes quick enough. Forks start appearing left right and center and suddenly every company has its own sponsered Linux distro.
Mr Gates waits patriently in the wings waiting for chaos to reach its peak before finally saying..."Well there is a reasonable, inexpensive option for your OS problems, you know?"....(thinks to himself "once more the wheel of fate turns in Bill's direction...mwhahahahaha!")
"I kill you! You no good 56'ing!"
Linux was on the space shuttle, and look what happened to it! Linux proliferation will only cause more disasters. Fuck linux!
Don't talk crap. NASA uses embedded BSD for their critical stuff. Anyway, the disaster was a hardware fault, not a software fault.
At my university (www.unbsj.ca) there are posters everywhere that advertise MS products for 90% off of the 'estimated retail price'.
But who wants XP anyway?
I suppose the continuing sluggish growth in the US economy has nothing at all to do with it either. Isn't this the same sort of argument that the RIAA used to explain the drop in CD sales? "The competition from free sources is reducing our sales!" In fact, slow growth in the economy impacts all kinds of sales, including Microsoft's products.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
A translation for those not fiscally inclined.
*large puffs of smoke appear, and a talking face begs you*
"Gosh darn it! Open Source is digging into our revenue. Lord knows that Open Source will be the down fall of all things good, look whats happening to our profits! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here** I mean, we weren't really price gouging before, we were just looking out for our stock holders. Now our profits are going to go down because we have to lower our already, really, really, really fair prices or else we won't keep market share. It's unfair competition! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here**"
***second translation***
"G*d d*mn this sucks, we have to compete now, we just can't buy Linus out. So much for our past competitive strategy"
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Now they have a taste of what they did to Netscape by giving away IE. What goes around comes around.
From reading the eWeek article my guess would be that Enterprise customers would be the likely candidates to see a price drop. Microsoft makes their money in Client Access Licenses (CAL) and that is where Open Source comes in. I am sure that Microsoft is beginning to "feel the pinch" of Linux and other Unix variants stomping on their money making juggernaut! I read an article awhile back comparing the costs between an IBM Z Series mainframe running Linux and Microsoft software running on some boxes (probably Dell), but what was shocking was that the CAL's for Exchange for 5000 users with something over $250,000! Somehow I do not think that "Joe Six Pack" is going to benefit from this at all! That is where Microsoft will more than likely make up their losses to big customers.
every 2nd /. article has a .NET advertisement. That is to of to say that /. is an OSS targeted audience forum. Anyway Andover need to survive one way or another, and it's not by paying editors to write articles, but to just link to them externally.
I'm guessing the Halloween papers will get a mention somewhere in these posts too - Redundant. And so what is OSS is on the M$ radar? Their attack against OSS thus far has proven ineffective. If anything it will be against the Apache project.
Ouch that is a pretty bad showing in the server market. A few more quarters and you can write that division off as a loss leader. I think this year so far we have bought 8 Linux servers and 0 Windows server. I guess everyone else is moving the same direction.
Got Code?
I legal filings with the SEC, you have to list the kitchen sink of all the things that anyone might possibly think could ever go wrong, no matter how completely unlikely. If you don't yu open yourself up for later suits.
This comment doesn't mean MS thinks there is a threat, but tat their attornies think that they could be sued if they don't say this, or if thjey takes steps to beat open source and those steps have any impact on earnings.
This is about not getting sued for doing what they need to win.
You know, like the MPAA or RIAA???
Their association is falling down on the job... nobody's suing over this!!!
Do you like Japanese imports?
felonious kingdumb of payper liesense hostage ransom stock markup FUDgePeddlers. what did you eXPect?
va.msn.?net? (VAST)? that's a gooed won.
don't look for the dinosaurs to slide gracefully into the tarpits, as they will be hauling DOWn many other specIEs with them.
MS's business model is finally starting to wear out. Their using OSS as the excuse for declining revenue when the real reason is they're not quick enough on their feet any longer. They are attempting to villify us folks.
Despite all the comments on here about Slashdot readers, their Mum, Dad, Grandmother, Aunt, Uncle and kids using Linux on the desktop - I don't think the desktop users are making any significant decreases to sales of Windows XP just yet.
A year down the line though, who knows ...?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
when was the last time you paid for a MS product? You just "borrow" the CD from somone right?
--My sig is bigger than your sig--
This is the last demostration (if anyone has ever needed it) the MS's pricing is over the "minimum profit", i.e. is acting in a monopolistic manner.
Apple iProduct. Non importa cosa sia, lo comprerete!
Microsoft will more and more trying to convert PC users to closed-systems (Xbox/Palladium) in order to maintain its strong margins.
If they achieve to convert a critical mass of users, their monopoly stronghold will be even more problematic than now.
I don't think OSS is making a big dent in MS revenues - it's still virtually impossible to buy a new PC without windows pre-installed (and pre-licensed).
Instead, I think MS is suffering from a lack of innovation. There is simply no compelling reason for corporates to upgrade their software anymore - Windows 2K is fine for business use, they don't get anything in XP other than support problems. You might upgrade Office to be able to read other people's files, but there are precious few "must-have" features to differentiate the current offering from Office 97.
The most significant reason for users to upgrade in the recent past has been MS's change in licensing policy - signing up before the deadline gives "free" access to upgrades for a limited period. I know that many corporates bitterly resented this pressure. However, the next version of "Windows for Servers" keeps getting pushed back, and many corporates are only now upgrading their servers from NT4 to W2K - not to take advantage of new features, but because support is being withdrawn.
So, while OSS is undoubtedly snapping at MS's heels, providing a much-needed alternative and nibbling away at the revenues, the bigger problem is that historically, Microsoft have taken ideas developed elsewhere and "embraced and extended" them. Right now, there are precious few radically new ideas to embrace, and the only way for MS to continue to grow their revenue is to find new must-have features. In short, they need to innovate under their own power.
Welcome to the real world, Bill....
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
No perhaps Joe will get to keep his job since he is mearly a line worker. Joes IT dept saved 1/4 million allowing Joe keep working. For most companies software is a total write off. Now what if marketing takes that 1/4 million and uses it to market some actual product. Now perhaps a few more Joe's get hired. In a down economy it is all about bang for the buck
Got Code?
You guys are suckers. He's not feeling *any* competition from open source. He now has to pretend he's got competition in order to keep the government off his back.
va lairIE's source forgerIE? could happen. what with lairIE's payper so far in the pottIE? fuddles could 'buy' the hole source forgerIE, for less than a billyun, in phonIE monIE, that he's lifted from US.
could happen. tell 'em robbIE.
Really, I don't see how Microsoft lowering their prices could be good for anybody but them.
Well, it would save a whole lot of people a whole lot of money, so I guess that IS good, I guess. But really I see Microsoft just strengthening their foothold, which is bad for everyone in the long wrong.
Imagine if Windows cost $25? Instead of Joe-Blow doing cartwheels to get around XP Activation, they'd just buy 3 copies, one for each machine.
Imagine if Windows cost $9.99? People would buy copies for their mothers, friends, families, etc, just to "free them of those stupid problems they have with Windows 98/ME".
The fact is, Microsoft could probably still make some changes internally that would allow them to profit off of Windows if it sold for almost nothing, and THEN what would open source have to bank on? Moral righteousness? HAH. That'll sell.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Customers start asking them to port their server stuff to Solaris and Linux.
I don't believe Microsoft is being greatly harmed by this. There is no way to truly damage so large a company in any quick or irrevocable way.
However, I do think that this is a good thing. Microsoft has always done business how it wants to without regard for competitors or allies so much as they were stepping stones to greater profit margins and superior dominance.
I will be both amused and relived if OSS's success forces Microsoft to reevaluate its obviously predatory practices. I might even(loosely) suggest this is much like the situation with RIAA. Software is changing when it comes to how some things are done. Microsoft must either adapt properly or miss the boat.
If they miss the boat, no great loss. Greater competition can only aid technological development and further thrust down Microsoft's prices.
Kalen D'arrie
Haven't they always said, that starting the minute StarOffice lowerd their prices back then, StarOffice had lost? Wasn't it reasoned, that after a year, sales showed, that StarOffice was Dead.
And now they do the same?
Well, at least it means that adopting some kind of OSS will reduce your TCO (by lowering the price of your Enterprise-deployed-desktop-operating-system).
Apple iProduct. Non importa cosa sia, lo comprerete!
This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft
No it isn't, it's just financial boilerplate text that the lawyers bolted on. It's to cover their asses in case anyone tries to file a class-action suit against them if their profits fall. I used to work for a NASDAQ-traded company, and we had this crap in our quarterlies all the time. You have to enumerate every possible risk to your business, even stuff like we operate in country X and there is a risk of an earthquake, which may materially affect our revenue in that market, blah blah.
Nothing to see here, move along...
You gotta be kidding me! This reminds me of the old joke... a US Navy Carrier sees a big blip on the radar, and sends out of the radio:
"This is the USS Big Ship to unidentified target, please change course." The response comes back:
"That's a negative, Big Ship".
"We are a Aircraft Carrier from the US Navy. Now please change course!"
"That's a negative, Big Ship. We're a lighthouse"
For chrissakes, OSS has got to be the biggest stack of rocks sitting on MS's radar that they've had in a long, long time.
-- james
... or less then OSS is dead (unless it really starts embracing the making of Win apps). It's a lesson the music industry may learn as well if they want to truly end the Napster Clone Wars.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
That's the most successful troll I've ever seen! +3 Insightful? Look - the guy just said that OSS has no chance against microsoft, and it's time to quit - we've reached our goal.
Either that, or the moderators really do find that insightful. I find it a bit - well - flameish?
That is all.
Last post!
of phonIE evile marketeering won0won.
Special offer: Save 20% on Sales Leads
Grow your business with great savings on targeted sales leads.
Director's Chair: Jeff Riley Find new customers with targeted sales leads. For a limited time, we're offering bCentral's Sales Leads at 20% off the regular price. Select leads to meet your own demographic criteria -- from a database of more than 14 million businesses and 250 million consumers. The bCentral Sales Leads database is compiled and constantly updated by InfoUSA, the leading provider of business and consumer data.
Sign up today! This Sales Leads offer is only available until Feb. 27, 2003.
Reminder: Traffic Builder offer expires soon.
If you want to market your business for less, you still have a week to sign up for bCentral's industry-leading marketing suite, Traffic Builder, for only $179.95 a year. That's a savings of $70 off our regular annual plan (regular price is $249). This offer is only available to subscribers of the bCentral Bulletin -- our way of thanking you for your interest in bCentral.
The Traffic Builder marketing suite lets you get your site listed on top Internet search engines and directories, create professional-looking e-mail marketing materials and display your ads on the Web's largest banner network.
This Traffic Builder discount for Bulletin subscribers expires Feb. 11, 2003.
-- Jeff Riley
General Manager, Microsoft bCentral
Tips & Advice
* Why you need a disaster recovery plan
* Be your own lawyer and save money
* Spy on your competitors: 4 steps
* Annoyed by cell phones? Get over it
Offers & Promotions
* 20% off targeted sales leads
Find new customers with targeted sales leads. For a limited time, we're offering bCentral's Sales Leads at 20% off the regular price. Select leads to meet your own demographic criteria -- from a database of more than 14 million businesses and 250 million consumers. The bCentral Sales Leads database is compiled and constantly updated by InfoUSA, the leading provider of business and consumer data. Sign up today! This offer is only available until Feb. 27, 2003.
* Market your business and save $70
Get Traffic Builder today, for only $179.95 a year. That's a savings of $70 off our regular annual plan (regular price is $249). The Traffic Builder marketing suite lets you get your site listed on top Internet search engines and directories, create professional-looking e-mail marketing materials and display your ads on the Web's largest banner network. This offer is only available until Feb. 11, 2003.
* bCentral Business Card
Get the card with a high credit line for business leaders like you. The bCentral Business Card offers a low introductory rate, generous business discounts, complete online account management, premium services, worldwide acceptance and no annual fee.
* Get local news alerts
Reduce the amount of time spent searching through multiple sources of national media, and focus on the local news that directly affects your business. Receive 8-10 breaking news articles from any of our 41 LOCAL business journals, delivered via e-mail every weekday as a free service from American City Business Journals. Sign up and stay informed.
News & Information
* Surviving dot-coms poised to catch next wave
* Global epidemic: cell phone abuse
* More threatening than hackers: Employees
Back in the day, computer users like me were power users. You can compare us to the car afficionado, but to Joe Blow, a computer is a tool that helps him browse websites, instant message, MP3s, porn, whatever. Back in the day I enjoyed BBSing and posting in forums thru my 9600 baud modem, back then Joe Blow didn't have a computer.
What I have noticed throughout all this is people use certain things as tools, once they can't do what they want to do, they will find another way. With the advent of XP, windows hasn't become easier to use. I have a hard time figuring out how to do what. Desktop sharing? WHat a joke that is. What about Media PLayer 9, all that drm crap is going to make things HARDER on people. MS is not making the computer experience any friendlier, they are siding with the corprorations that are against the people anyways. THIS is what will lead people to Linux, software that people want, not corporations.
MS is becoming desperate because they KNOW they made bad choices and OSS is going to bite em back. Not today, not tomorrow, but SOMEDAY. THem lowering the price make no difference, ultimatly its going to be what the people decide they want and not be told what they have to have.
I couldn't care less about the price, and I think the majority of OSS users isn't motivated by the low price. Hell, I can get windows for free just as well, just talk to my l33t h4ck0r neighbour kid and ask him to burn me a copy. The price argument is old & tired: get off it!
Even companies don't or shouldn't use OSS for it's price; dozens of researches have shown that the TCO (total cost of ownership) for windows and e.g. linux don't differ that much. They should use, as should individuals, OSS because they believe in the OSS philosophy and because the OSS style fits their own style of computer usage.
For me, it's about these things:
- From kernel to application, I can see exactly what it's doing and why
- If it doesn't work the way I like it, I can change it or try to find someone who already has
- I'm not a newbie, I know computers and I don't want to be treated as such
- If the configuration changes, I want to be the one who does it, not the OS itself
All these things add up to a package microsoft can't compete with, even if it would cost me more, not less that propriety software. And I wish everyone would stop hoping every last computer user starts using OSS, because it's just not going to happen, and it's just not necessary. Some people want ease-of-use, and others want power. Just so.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
I was sure that I read somewhere that the price of the software isn't an important factor in the total package, and thus the free-ness of Linux was irrelevant. Let's see, what company was it that was saying that over and over?
Liberty uber alles.
First they tell me their primary goal is increasing security. Then they allow me to buy twice the bugs with the same bucks. Something's wrong.
Signatures are for stupids.
Wake up! OSS IS already competing with software backed by a large company... that's what the article is about :)
(all prices are "unreasonable" when compared to zero/null/nothing)
I just don't get it. How in the world is it that Microsoft thinks they can get away with making themselves look like the poor little orphan knocking on the door at night during a Christmas Eve blizzard? Oh poor, Microsoft...we have so much money in the bank that we just won't make it...and with this Apple settlement...blah blah. Bah Humbug to them, I say!
I am unsure that this is a good thing. I think you all should be a little skeptical too.
Why does anyone want to see Microsoft go down the tubes?
Sure, they have been overcharging us for their OS and office software for years, but it isn't like the money didn't go to good use. After all, most of the features that we see in OpenOffice and other useful apps for Linux came from ideas that were original or at least perfected (I use the term loosely here) in MS apps.
Sure, I love the GNU project, Linux, and OSS in general, but would we even have a target to hit with our free software if we didn't have a company like Microsoft to chase after?
I hate to see the mob mentality take over with this 'Linux vs. Windows' stuff rather than contemplate what a collapse of Microsoft would really mean to us (as developers, users, etc.)
If it's not one thing, it's Steve's Mother
Like all those companies and people out there are gonna go from superior os's/apps to the pile-of-shit slowass crap that OSS stands for...
DREAM ON you goddamn nerds
Businesses are willing to pay for value delivered. They are not, however, willing to be raked over the coals, especially by someone who is making the profit margins that Microsoft makes in an economy that has everyone else scrambling to make a buck.
Add in the costs of continual upgrades -- required by Software Assurance, BTW -- and the hardware to support them, and the lost productivity due to bugs and security flaws, and we have some unhappy campers out there.
OSS alternatives mean that Microsoft will have to lower prices, probably to a level lower than pre Software Assurance days. Customer anger and memories mean that it may not be enough to keep some of those customers from going away for good.
Navin: Frosty, I'm no good at this.
Frosty: Aw come on Navin, you're doing fine.
Navin: I've already given away eight pencils, two hoola dolls and an ashtray and I've only taken in fifteen dollars.
Frosty: Navin, you have taken in fifteen dollars and given away fifty cents worth of crap, which gives us a net profit of fourteen dollars and fifty cents.
Navin Ah! It's a profit deal! Takes the pressure off! Get your weight guessed right here! Only a buck! Actual live weight guessing! Take a chance and win some crap!
We have found the enemy and he is us. - Pogo
it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software
So - is the OSS movement about crushing Microsoft now?
I didn't realize that the OSS community was at war with Microsoft. I thought it was about making good software, and keeping the source open...
[Connection closed by foreign host]
As shown in previous reports, Microsoft's only profitable areas are the products directly threatened by OSS. The other Microsoft activities are currently losing money and are being propped up by profits from Microsoft's OS and Office products. If those products are going to achieve lower margins, then will the ventures losing money be cut? And if so, any predictions on which ones they will close first?
"I've come back to you, at the turn of the tide...."
Is it just me, or wouldn't Richard stallman make a killer Gandalf? I mean, the look and all....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
What are you talking about!! You most certainly can say that guns are bad!! Their only purpose is to kill people/living things. You could argue that they can be used to protect people, but ultimatly the aim is still to kill the criminals, and don't give me any bs about just disabling criminals thats not what guns were designed for.
-The ignorance is unbelievable.
X'D +10 inspired.
Is there anybody left on this planet who can keep a straight face when they read the sentence "This new security initiative, known as the Government Security Program, is designed to 'address the unique security requirements of governments and international organizations throughout the world,' Microsoft said. "
Not even Iraq would feel secure...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
...It may just kill off a lot of the incentive for people to switch to Linux.
/. are pretty experienced computer users, people who are willing to spend the time to carefully tweak Linux to their own satisfaction and spend the time to chase down proper Linux hardware drivers.
What would happen if Microsoft suddenly cuts the pricing of a legal copy of Windows XP desktop editions by 50% or more for everyone? Because Windows is vastly better-supported in terms of hardware support than Linux, sales would definitely increase quite a bit.
Yes, Linux is cheap when you get the personal edition distributions, but when you have to spend time to tweak it to support the latest hardware, plus the fact a lot of the latest hardware lack Linux drivers, the result is a potentially frustrating experience for non-experienced users. I think a lot of people don't realize that many of the posters on
Other than IBM, which has hundreds of products in totally different sectors (services, mainframes, hardware, software, T-shirts), Microsoft has only two profitable products (Office and Windows) that strongly depend on each other.
So if IBM looses earnings from, let's say, Websphere because of Tomcat, their overall margin will hardly be affected.
If Microsoft looses earnings from Office because of Staroffice, they are in severe trouble (especially because most people only buy Windows to run MS-Office on it).
Very interesting indeed. I think the whole honeymoon binge on technology can finally be considered over by conventional standards . . Microsoft, being the biggest pillag . . err, I mean player in the software market stating that they can no longer, in effect, fist fu@# the customer with impunity signifies the beginning of a new era . .
. . What this era is, I have no idea . . but It'll be feature rich, thats for sure! . . umm. . yeah . .
The Monopoly routine was getting a bit old.
Of course this means that 90% of the population who don't know any better will go out and buy more MS products - once again locking them in as desktop leader.
What we need to see happen is a healthy acquisition of Linux for desktop users by a good number of major corporations. Once the ball gets rolling it will be hard to stop.
The real drag slowing down the process is our IT desktop support people who have gone from troubleshooting problems down to the expansion card level - and editing the registry (yuck I said the 'R' word) or manipulating configurations, to managing vendors; Once a problem occurs the kneejerk reaction is to remirror the machine, instead of fix it. These institutional changes to the job makes adoption of Linux difficult at best in large corporations.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
OSS is happening. Whereas I've read /. forever now and worked at a place that was 100% microsoft, my corporation -- worth $1.6 billion -- is replacing ms office with Open Office and Exchange 2000 with Sendmail/Squirrelmail. This all happened at once when our dollars got thin due to the current economy. I can't get approval for a waste basket let alone some $20,000 to add some 350 Exchange licenses. Microsoft has drained us dry. Yet, we still have 350 people needing email. I offered Squirrelmail as a solution and my management was all over it. These were the same folks that scowled at me for mentioning the word "linux" in the recent past.
Here's the scary part for you Microsoft: management now understands -- despite what techrepublic tells them -- that no licensing fee means (get this) 'no licensing fee....'
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Yes, it's called Congress. MS & friends simply buy whatever market conditions they need.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Altough it is nice and warming to see that MS may have to lower their insane prices i dont feel that happy. If this is true then Linux is really in the line of fire from Redmond. The ones who have proven time and time again that nothing is too evil or shoddy if it helps remove competition.
I think we linux users should brace for an attack like nothing before from MS. They will use any meens avaliable to sustain their high revenues. A slight fall of the revenues and MS stocks will likely fall like a ton of brick. Considering how much stocks is owned by staff in all levels i presume there is an enormous internal incentive to thwart linux in its cradle.
We should have a central site documenting every shoddy move and backdoor mudshot contest from Redmond HQ. I assume that would be some horrific reading on a site like that pretty soon now.
HTTP/1.1 400
The concern over possible decline of sales and earnings shows where MS' focus is-- it's all about the money, honey. Now, I'll admit to you that I first tried Linux because of what it would cost me to set up an all-Windows network for my SOHO, and I didn't feel like paying $1000 just for Win 2k Server. So the "free as in beer" aspect has been part of what motivated me. As I continued with Linux/Open Source, however, I have come to appreciate the difference from proprietary software in terms of the very different SW development model, and the "free as in freedom" aspect of the licensing. As a developer, this freedom has lured me away from the MS world and toward the open source arena: I feel that it is just a better way for people to do their computing.
In addition, MS keeps ratcheting down the freedom of its software licensees (does the concept of "customer" really exist for them?), and their platforms have, unfortunately for them, become the target of a lot of worms, viruses, cyberattacks, etc. that have raised questions about their commitment to security. Their cavalier attitude toward security problems, and the fundamental flaws in Windows that they won't even acknowledge, should raise eyebrows. I don't think there's much chance that MS will collapse, for they seem to find a way to milk the dollars out of those who are caught in their clutches. What open source might do is encourage MS to change their behavior toward their customers, so that they really care about their product instead of the almighty buck, or shilling for the music or movie moguls.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
they were better, but MS practically gave the software away till they controlled the market, then prices went back up. lets not let history repeat itself, stay with linux. think of some device, from ipod's to xbox, to alpha's theres a linux port for it.
SimonTek
I have been thinking for a while about what would constitute a significant Nelson "haha" moment for the OSS crowd with regards to Microsoft.
We've been saying for years that OSS will hurt Microsoft. And it's begining to - it is making it very difficult for Microsoft to conquer and dominate the server space. But it hasn't done any real damage yet. I think that a good moment for the OSS crowd to celebrate is when Microsoft's revenue goes into negative in comparison with the previous year for three consecutive quarters, i.e. they stop growing. (I'm not an economist - if there's one reading they may be able to suggest a more suitable moment) That would be a real significant moment - moneymen hate no growth, even if profits are still silly. (Microsoft's revenues per quarter can be seen here.
So, guesses on when this will be? My personal prediction is that the Nelson "Haha" moment will occur Q3 2005. It could be sooner - I remember IBMs problems back in 94(?) took everyone by surprise.
This has nothing to do with what the common citizen is thinking.
This is because of governments such as Germany's opting to mandate open source instead of mandating using the best available package, regardless of what that is*
* = Could be OSS, could be MicroSoft, could be a proprietary UNIX, could be Mac, etc.
"competition works!"
Not competition.. but COOPERATION. It is free software what we are talking about here.
Lintel, wow. yes people, linux is out of the closet (well, not the server closet, but . . .. ). this is the kind of marketing term that needs to be used like crazy. sure, its a bite on WinTel, and it is just the thing to speed adoption
unfortunately, if you're using AMD that would make the platform LAMd. well, take the good with the bad.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
But the real question is:
What OS is running the software for that radar???
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
Most people already pay for Windows for each of their machines, whether they want to or not. I certainly have a Windows license for each of the dozen PCs that I have, and only one of them actually runs Windows.
So, your notion that people use open source because they have to pay for Windows flies in the face of reality. People use open source software because it simply works better for them.
Depressing for Microsoft, isn't it, that people throw Windows away even though it is pre-installed and they have actually been forced to pay for it and wouldn't incur any additional costs by just using it.
They fail to say though that, apart from alienating good chunk of their larger corporate/govt user base with Software Assurance program, new licensing model was the main revenue generator on a Windows front. I sincerely doubt that they would make a profit here if they haven't basically forced customers to re-purchase what they already had.
I wasn't surprised to see findings from Meta Group. Meta's report on Windows/Linux TCO was commisioned by Microsoft and, according to it, running enterprise on Windows was much cheaper than doing it on Linux, of course. The most intriguing Meta's finding was that the software cost (including CALs) amounts to only 2-3% of the TCO (which is utter crap) thus rendering $0 cost of the Linux software irelevant. This SEC submission, however, tells us that Linux/OSS is making huge dents in Microsoft's profit margins, so they have to cut prices and consequently shareholder's profit.
The whole report looks just like very lame excuse to sharholders, if you ask me. But since nobody asks me, I'll just shut up.
Pick One.
Most of the rest of the people couldn't give a rat's ass what OS is on their computer as long as it works. Now that Macintoshes are both a good deal and affordable, OS X will be popular in that group.
However, StarOffice and OpenOffice run on MS-Windows, OS X, Linux and others -- without the bloat, security problems and incompatibility problems bundled with MS-Office.
Even without all that above, License 6.0, software-as-subscription, DRM and DMCA pretty much ensured the demise of MS-Office.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
No, it isn't. Most people who run Linux have already paid for Windows when they bought their machine, and they still choose to run Linux.
Who would want use and a disgruntled OS if they may get nice box, nice gradient buttons, stylish consistent GUI for a reasonable price?
Because a bit of eye candy isn't what most computer use is about: it's about getting work done.
Maybe it forces OSS software to evolve from merely copying proprietary functionalities to actually improve users' life in order to make a differentiation.
Linux is plenty differentiated. Its built-in POSIX support, package management, kernel features, and network transparent window system alone make it vastly different from Windows, and vastly superior in many applications.
I do think that OSS will start to bite into MS' profits fairly soon, but I'll believe in the price cut fairy when the prices actually drop.
This warning is only part of a required filing. There is a section in which they have to discuss every plausible risk. Look at the 10Qs from other companies and you will see similar risk discussions.
It's not virtually impossible to buy a new PC without Windows pre-installed. I can look in my newspaper, and see ads for brand new PCs that don't come with Windows, or any other OS at all. You can buy the PC and install what you want on it. And there's always buying a "new" PC from parts on Price Watch and assembling it yourself. Then you can add whatever OS you want. See, it's not that hard to find a PC without Windows on it.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
Imagine if we would have had OS/2, GeOS, BeOS or why not some other os that never could get off the ground because of the applications barrier and MS hard fight to keep applications from being cross plattform? I think it in my case has to do with the fact that i have loathed their bad quiality since windows 95 wich really was annoying. They have had a bad habit of realeesing alpha versions as sharp and has dragged the quality of software down to the ground.
Office isnt the inventor of office applications. I have better apps that are simpler and easier to use for my Mac from 95 and there arent many things i cant do on those that i can do in MS Office.
Many of you youngsters are blinded because you havent seen the alternatives. Because of the monopoly the only alternatives visible today is the free ones but the arent by far the only ones in existence.
HTTP/1.1 400
Get your history right.
Netscape were the ones who started giving away NS for free, and were very open about it that their intention was to grab a monopoly-like market share in browsers, when MS was still charging money for IE. MS's decision to make IE free was just paying them back in the same currency.
Netscape were also the ones who started adding non-compatible features in an attempt to make everyone migrate to their browser sooner. The first non-standard features in IE's "version" of HTML were just an imitation of what NS was doing.
But of course, when MS won the battle, it suddenly was "poor Netscape" because they were the smaller party as well as the losers. That THEY were the ones who started with the monopoly-grabbing techniques and tried to clear everyone else (not just MS) off the field, didn't (and still doesn't) matter.
Or do people have such short memories that they don't remember how it really went?
... or anything, sometimes. Consider a big company's servers - these things are absolute monsters of the computer world, costing tens of thousands with all their hardware RAIDs, multiple processors, gigabytes of RAM, incredibly fat network connections (bonded gigabit ethernet's a favourite)... and double that for the back-up system.
Compared to that the OS cost is next to nothing, so they will use the best. They don't factor the cost into it, if the task at hand is best served by NetWare or Windows 2000 or OpenBSD or whatever they'll use that. The fact that people even consider using, let alone actually do, use open operating systems on these machines is testament to the strength of Open Source.
Look at the ultra-high end server market. That tells the true state of the OS game. And Microsoft are struggling.
-Mark
In a two or three years time, you will get a free windows CD including MS Office with every computer magazine you buy.
.Net spellchecker service.
To make money MS will try to sell you services instead. E.g. they could remove the spellchecker from MS Office and offer a pay per use
So the difference between Microsoft and OSS companies like Red Hat will be much less in the future. They will both try to sell you services. But a true OSS product will have the advantage of being user modifyable.
Microsoft used the free as in bear concept to beat Netscape on the browser market, now they get a spoon full of their own medicin. Except that free as in bear as well as in speak makes it a lot more potent.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
...sales of the company's products may decline, the company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products...
Wow, if this sort of brave new thinking catches on, there might be cheaper compact discs from the RIAA and lower movie ticket prices from the MPAA!
Microsoft really *DOES* innovate, after all! And to think, the previous "best practice" by other companies was raising prices by collusion and suing the dissentors!
Is STILL a closed source Microsoft product. They could give away Windows for free, and I still would not use it as my OS of choice. Day to day I still try to understand why people continue to use Windows when all they ever seem to do is complain about finding spyware and viruses on it and having to reboot it constantly. For all I care, Microsoft can continue to ignore the entire OSS movement, it still does not change my opinion of them one way or another.
-Cnik
so you're running linux but you bought a computer from Best Buy? I thought Linux geeks were smarter than that. I only run windows and I've never bought a computer with an OS installed on it.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
This is not big news. Companies don't want to be sued by shareholders if their business goes bad, so they mention everything they can think of that might hurt them in their SEC filings. It's just an ass-covering exercise.
In fact, this is from their last quarterly report, in November:
Finally, a reason to like OSS... cheaper Microsoft products!
1) Go read a history of UNIX / M.I.T / Stephen Levy's "Hackers" book. Then you'll understand people were giving away software long before they had any ideas before making money out of it. Selling software is a newer idea... 2) OSS/FSF/GPL exist purely to protect the rights of those who *choose* to distribute software freely to continue to do that, to allow them (and anyone else) the ability to use and modify that software and to ensure that nothing is hidden behind proprietary standards. 3) Microsoft *sell* software. They are not innovaters, just damn good at repackaging the ideas of others and marketing it - or just buying the company that innovated it in the first place. They can, and have, used Open Source software ideas in their own products but, then, that's what it's designed for. (Yes, when you Windows people venture to the command line on your Windows boxes, whenever you "ping" something, you're using software that originated from the dirty, disgusting free software movement.) 4) OSS does not give a damn about Microsoft "competition". OSS/Linux/FreeBSD users, who probably have experience with Windows, might hate Microsoft (yes, I'm one of them) because of their business methods, rubbish software or simply because it's "cool". But OSS was there long before Microsoft as a defence against predatory practices from UNIX vendors and will be there long after. 5) Microsoft reducing the cost of their products / turning Windows into an operating system / sticking Gates' head on a pole outside 1 Microsoft Way might slow down the migration from Windows to OSS but it probably won't do anything whatsoever to those already using / developing OSS software. 6) Microsoft cannot buy OSS because there's nothing tangible to own, they can't stamp on OSS because it's too widespread, they can just continue to spread FUD as they've always done. End of OSS lesson...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I'm suprised that so many of Slashdot readers agree with open source as a business model. Most slashdot readers work in the high tech industry in some form. As the profit margins reduce at software companies, the ir ability to pay for tech support and engineering is reduced.
Even if you work for a non-tech company, you would be affected. If the tech companies are not hiring, then that increases the competition for those jobs - reducing the pay.
The software industry has really been a major cornerstone of the US economy and open-source has the potential to really take the wind out of it.
How about this site?
:(
I would have linked to Eric S. Raymond's site, but he is apparently changing web hosting services, or renaming his machines - and all links point to a dead locale...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
This is not PR. This is CYA. (Otherwise called "Cover Your Posterior".)
Companies have to disclose anything that might materially affect their business to both the SEC and investors.
IMHO, it is high time that Microsoft started realistically stating how much of a threat Open Source is. It's not like Open Source is going to hurt Microsoft in the next couple of quarters. But it is a long term concern, which means something of interest to investors.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Hang on a minute.
One minute Supreme Court Judge oops, sorry - forgot she hadn't been paid yet, Judge Collar Cotelly comes out with her "Open Source is not a credible alternative to Microsoft" during her verdict and the next minute M$ are moaning that OSS is forcing them to push their prices down.
Surely this is indicative of the fact that either CKK didn't have a grasp of the facts of the case or other factors were at work during her writing up of the outcome.
Whatever, both scenarios surely show CKKs verdict to be flawed and any lawyers wanting to rack up another big bill should start packing their briefcases immeadiatly. And this time can we have someone who actually understands the terms monopoly and level playing field?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Their prices are already so overinflated, they could sell everything for 90% off and still make a good profit.
It doesn't matter though... I wouldn't use their products if they sold them for $10 with a $50 rebate.
This is just a ploy by them to blame the suffering economy on OSS. If they can get the politicians to look unfavourably on oss, then maybe they'll be more symathetic to "struggling companies" like them who are beeing oppressed by the GPL.
Bah...
Microsoft currently has around 30% market share. A recent Gartner report which I saw (not sure if it's publicly available - I couldn't find it) predicted that by 2008, the server market will be split roughly 50/50 between Microsoft and Linux, with other OSes being only minor players (and Sun out of business). From the MS perspective, this means the future is looking quite rosy - 30% to 50% is good growth.
Given the direction things are heading at the moment, that sounds roughly right to me, although of course a lot can happen between now and then.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
What does Open Source win when Microsoft lowers its prices? If they are competing, then Open Source will loose, since Microsoft software is clearly far more better. If they do compete, only people who win would be consumers, users, customers, not Open Source. Open Source can not go below zero, so they have to work more to offer something that can attract users. At the end Microsoft lower prices not to loose, but to win. Another flamebait slashdot article.
And at the risk of my precious, precious Karma, I'll go out on a limb and say that I *like* the happy fisher-price XP look. But everybody's different. This is just aesthetics, and you can skin it however you darned well please. How the default skin for your OS's window manager looks is by no means a good way to judge an operating system.
To paraphrase your quote, Linux looks like some kid ate a box of blocky, bitmapped alphabet characters and threw up all over the screen. And then proceeded to toss in a couple dozen icons drawn by his retarded brother. Plus, in a user-interface nightmare, every distro feels the need to put 15 apps that do the same thing on your "start-like menu", whether it be your control panel or a word processor.
But hey, I like Linux, too, and it's not too tough for me to ditch the extra apps, fix the retarded fonts, and replace the icons with something slightly more consistent and less "giant smelly foot and poorly-drawn envelope."
Style is irrelevant to functionality, as long as you can reconfigure it. Which you can.
The purchase prices of these systems pails in comparison to the support costs. If, for $250,000, you can purchase a package that allows 5,000 employees to be even marginally more productive, then the purchase is a no-brainer.
I'm not saying that Exchange will necessarily allow the employees to be more productive, nor am I saying that there are not "Open Source" solutions that are less expensive yet also productivity-enhancing. All I am saying is that, in the big scheme of things, $250,000 is chump change.
In Microsoft's case, they are following the SEC's guidelines like many other companies. This is a change for many companies. In Microsoft's situation, we have seen these very recient changes;
Years ago, they should have issued dividends...now they plan to.
Decades ago, they should have broken out each division of the company and discussed profits and losses in each...now they do.
Decades ago, they should have discussed all reasonable impacts on thier profits for each division...now they acknowledge open source.
Don't think this is a new thing for them. Open source has been a potential impact on MS's profits for a couple years. The only thing that has changed is that MS must acknowledge it as a possibility. If they have suffered an actual loss due to open source, the SEC will pressure and eventually require MS to report the loss after it has happened. As of now, no loss is obvious. Microsoft is speculating and has not acknowledged a loss due to open source -- yet. f they did not point this out, it could be the basis for a future lawsuit if a loss occurs.
Thank the SEC, though late themselves, for doing things now that force transparency...that forces some information into the open so we have a better chance to judge on merit not PR.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Same could be said of the overwhelming majority of open source products - they merely copied someone else's already successful software. Not trying to troll, but Microsoft has done a little innovating - take Visual Basic, for example. Unless I'm mistaken, VB was the first programming tool which allowed programmers to build applications with a click and drag GUI interface.
Amen to that. I alerted one of my frieds to the latest licensing issue with Turbo Tax, because I knew he used it. His response: If I am unable to install my old copy because I got a new computer, I'll just go buy another copy of it. It is only $25, and you should buy a new version every year anyway.
Now he is a smart guy, and he understood that it was not cool, but for $25 he didn't care. Bottom line is, people don't care that much about "freedom" when it comes to software. Fellow geeks, step back for a second. Step away from everything you know about computers and Open Source ideals. Most people don't think about it like you do. Most people don't think about it at all. You can try to explain it to them, but chances are they won't care.
I was talking to the guy who was installing my dishwasher this past weekend. He asked what I did for a living, and I told him I worked in software. His response was to ask me what kind of laptop his wife should buy. She wanted to get a Dell, but he thought she should get an Apple because she is a schoolteacher, and schools used Apples. I said Dells were good, but he wanted a recommendation of exactly which one to get. *sigh*
People don't get it. And that is OK, I don't expect everyone to get it. But people want convenience, not freedom. How easy is it to get a laptop from Dell? They make it SIMPLE, yet it still wasn't easy enough for this guy. We talk about wanting one with Linux, or no OS on it, and this guy couldn't decide from the few choices that they do have.
Microsoft would probably increase their sales if they did drop the price of Windows to a reasonable level, just like record companies would sell more CDs if they would do the same. And I am not saying this just to get a cheaper product, because even if Windows XP was cheaper, I still wouldn't buy it. But I know a lot of people that would.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Everybody seems to imply, that price is the only reason to chose Linux. This seems to be a quite American point of view. Like the 99c 72 oz coke maybe. This doesn't change the fact, that some peoples choice has nothing whatsoever to do with price.
Some very good reasons to stay away from Microsoft products
XP! period. What Microsoft attempts here is nothing less then turning computers into a dumbed down version of cable television. All under control from Redmond and/or the content industry; but certainly not under your control.
The registry. What I really, really like about Unix based systems is that virtually everything is configured via a straight forward human readable (well except sendmail maybe) file. Lose or corrupt the registry and have a nice day I say
Stability! Once a unix based system is configured and runs, it usually runs with very little maintenance and doesn't tend to piss on your shoes, just because you installed some software via supported means
I could provide you with half a dozen more very viable reason why I chose a non-microsoft OS. Price is most certainly not among them.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Slashdot is reading way too much into this. It is common knowledge in the financial industry that 10-Qs are little more than a way of management teams protecting themselves from shareholder lawsuits. It is common practice to state virtually every conceivable risk, no matter how unlikely it is, no matter how far beyond control of management it is to minimize that risk, no matter how unlikely a different investment is to minimize that risk, etc..., so that management cannot be so easily sued if, god forbid, that event actually occurs. Unfortunately in our overly litigious society managements teams have been destroyed financially by frivilous lawsuits like that. In any event, as a result of all of this, it is really a mistake to read anything into 10-Qs. The shear volume of all the disclaimers and the generalities that they must make prevent management from being able to make an honest assesment of the far more likely threats; they get lost in the clutter and in the generalities. They are practically pointless to read these days. In other words, this is not proof that MS takes OSS seriously.
As stated in several other posts, the SEC filing enumerates risks to help Microsoft avoid lawsuits if their profits fall.
That isn't to say there isn't the opportunity to make their nightmares come true, however. Open source has made great progress... but we need to push harder.
If you're a developer, try freeing up a few hours a week to work on an open source project. Got technical writing skills? Those are needed as well. If you can do nothing else, just keep spreading the word.
The power of open source is in the large number of people applying their talents in their areas of expertise. Decide to become one of them.
Businesses are willing to pay for value delivered. They are not, however, willing to be raked over the coals, especially by someone who is making the profit margins that Microsoft makes in an economy that has everyone else scrambling to make a buck.
I'm wondering if businesses are seeing this as an unavoidable costs. More specifically, I'm wondering if Microsoft created shockwaves through the budgets in IT departments that has led to some degree of the recent outsourcing and off-shore employees.
Mr. Softie knows he's gonna take it in the rear
eventually, despite OSS. See numerous online
references to accounting practices.
This announcement is merely a FUD injection for
investor relations benefit*
"Hey, frost tops, your grandkids are screwing you",
financially speaking.
Speech Broadcast by Prime Minister Winston Churchill February 9, 1941
"This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft, and if it happens, it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!"
Mod as troll... whatever... But I can not for the life of me comprehend that statement. Competition is defined as: The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry. Check it yourself. It's pretty hard to compete with free. And if you ask me is the opposite of competition. What would you do if you ran a hot-dog stand and the guy accross the street started giving his away, along with his recipe? You would eventually go out of business. You would still have many who bought your hot-dogs, but no longer enough to sustain business. OSS can never be good for business in the long run. It can cause some good changes up front, but in the end it can not be good for business overall.
That being said, I run Linux on several machines, and really like the OSS movement for the most part. I am just worried on the effects it will have in the end, several years from now.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
What OS is running the software for that radar???
:)
Knowing M$, it's probably BSD...
Either that or it's the same Radar they used to kill GEOS, OS2, etc and it's running on Xenix
Sure, and I didn't dispute that. But there is actually also plenty of open source innovation: many computer science research results are first released in open source form.
And much of what open source developers now copy from Microsoft and Apple is stuff that Microsoft and Apple actually first copied from earlier generations of open source software.
Not trying to troll, but Microsoft has done a little innovating - take Visual Basic, for example. Unless I'm mistaken, VB was the first programming tool which allowed programmers to build applications with a click and drag GUI interface.
Not by a long shot. Visual GUI builders have been around for decades, long before VB even existed (VB was first released in 1991, and charitably traces its roots back to 1988). X11 toolkits had them before then. The Xerox and Lisp machines had them. Smalltalk-80 had them (in fact, VB really seems like a very poor imitation of Smalltalk). They really trace their roots back to Sketchpad in the 1960's. And whether they are a good idea is also quite debatable.
The Microsoft hit squad will probably moderate this down as a "Troll" as well, but I really do challenge you: try to come up with a single significant area where Microsoft invented something new and different.
---1) Go read a history of UNIX / M.I.T / Stephen Levy's "Hackers" book. Then you'll understand people were giving away software long before they had any ideas before making money out of it. Selling software is a newer idea...
;-) The compiler is probably the biggest reason for me to 'switch'. If I could develop Windows stuff (and see basic windows programming like seeing the source for notepad and calc), I'd probably wouldnt have went to Linux.
What you talk about is the original Unix Way. If every program is a simple single minded program, and somebodt else would like to borrow a snippet of code, why not? And no, selling software is NOT a new idea. It's just another way to pay the programmers on code. And of course, if they open that code up, why buy their product (enter vicious circle)
---2) OSS/FSF/GPL exist purely to protect the rights of those who *choose* to distribute software freely to continue to do that, to allow them (and anyone else) the ability to use and modify that software and to ensure that nothing is hidden behind proprietary standards.
I think you misunderstand standards documents. Standards can be wrote in plain language that describe how something happens. Code is just an implementation of that standard.
---3) Microsoft *sell* software. They are not innovaters, just damn good at repackaging the ideas of others and marketing it - or just buying the company that innovated it in the first place. They can, and have, used Open Source software ideas in their own products but, then, that's what it's designed for. (Yes, when you Windows people venture to the command line on your Windows boxes, whenever you "ping" something, you're using software that originated from the dirty, disgusting free software movement.)
Oh fun. Yet another "I hate MS" person. Get this straight. They are a business. They are in the software business to make money. They arent in there to evangelize, bemoan, or any other religious war that MANY linux users get suckered into. Even the FreeBSD people are worse in that regard. Does "My shit does not smell" make sense to you?
---4) OSS does not give a damn about Microsoft "competition". OSS/Linux/FreeBSD users, who probably have experience with Windows, might hate Microsoft (yes, I'm one of them) because of their business methods, rubbish software or simply because it's "cool". But OSS was there long before Microsoft as a defence against predatory practices from UNIX vendors and will be there long after.
There's plenty of reasons why you would use Linux, rather than Microsoft stuff that would not be "I hate MS" topic.
First, Linux on the servers makes sense because MS has a bad tendancy to break stuff/leave servers unpatched.
Secondly, Linux is coming up to common recognition. I'm just riding the wave so I'll have an edge on the new Linux users.
Third, I cant afford a Legit copy of MS programming suite, so I use GCC. That pisses me off more than anything, cause I remember the days where MS gave away compiliers (Quick Basic) so you could do basic programming stuff. Now, you have to fork over 300$ to get a copy. With Linux, GCC is free, along with all the libs, and additional compilers. And I get multiple CPU compiles
---5) Microsoft reducing the cost of their products / turning Windows into an operating system / sticking Gates' head on a pole outside 1 Microsoft Way might slow down the migration from Windows to OSS but it probably won't do anything whatsoever to those already using / developing OSS software.
What? So you wanna stick Gates' head to a pole which will speed up Open source?
--6) Microsoft cannot buy OSS because there's nothing tangible to own, they can't stamp on OSS because it's too widespread, they can just continue to spread FUD as they've always done. End of OSS lesson...
!THUMP! What was that? Oh, just the dead horse getting beat.
This is clearly a troll.
/. is owned by ms marketing droids and that moderators are retarted.
If you leave this to a positive score you prove that
it is high time that Microsoft started realistically stating how much of a threat Open Source is
Gee. Good thing they put it in their SEC filings nearly three years ago (hint - search for Linux).
As egad98 said, this is just some newbie reading their first SEC filing and going batshit over it. There's nothing of note here, except to evangelical fanatics who don't understand SEC filings.
Unless I'm mistaken, VB was the first programming tool which allowed programmers to build applications with a click and drag GUI interface.
You're *very* mistaken. The first incarnation of graphical interface builders was probably at Xerox PARC in the late 70s. I say "probably" because there may have been an earlier one that I don't know about. Through the 80s there were at least two different competing Smalltalk development toolsets, each with a graphical UI app tools.
I personally worked with a half-dozen different tools that pre-dated VB. One of the best (*still* one of the best, over a decade later) was the NeXTstep UI Builder. Fantastic tool. Even back in the days of DOS applications, prior to Windows, I used a number of click-n-drag UI tools to build both text and graphics mode interfaces. I would imagine there were some early tools for the Mac as well, although I didn't use them.
In the research world, there have been a number of attempts to build *purely* graphical programming environments, in which you never typed any code whatsoever. The earliest of these that I'm familiar with was completed in the mid-80s (unfortunately I forget the name -- can anyone help)?
So, no, MS did not invent click-n-drag app development. I'm sure that somewhere along the way MS must have invented *something*, but I can't think what it might be.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This one post says pretty much everything that needs to be said in this thread.
Hooray for Open Source!
Down with Patents!
Down with capitalism!
Down with the evil Republic!
Down with engineers getting paid to Program!
Down with private ownership!
Long Live the brotherhood of Open Source and COMMUNISM!!!
HAIL! HAIL!
Now if we can find ways to make the rest of you work for free...we need a new Open Work ideology.
The Anonymous Coward raises a great point. My brother in law is a rabid anti-MS zealot. My best man in my wedding joined the Sun jihad (his term, not mine) against Microsoft.
/.'ers honestly address. Businesses need to make money - that's why they exist. Yet the mantra of OSS is free, open and innovative. I just don't see the full expression of this mantra to be possible in a capitalist economy. On this point, many OS advocates are silent and strike me as a bit dishonest. Or naive.
Both of them have ranted for years about how MS suppresses innovation. They cite examples of how MS embraces by buying out and extends by either shit-canning the competing product or assimilating it into an existing product mix.
My challenge to both of them has been: Show me an example of suppressed innovation. Neither of them have been able to do so.
My in-law keeps telling me that Linux is the future, and that Amiga runs circles around MS. So, finally, in order to maintain credibility in the debate, I used a Pentium 133 to build a Mandrake Linux box.
While I was amazed that Linux would set up on a 133 with 128MB of RAM, and that it ran quickly on that hardware, I was not impressed with the GUI and open source software. The GUI looked like Windows and the OSS GUI had the sophistication of Win3.1! My first response on viewing the GUI was an audible: "This is it? This looks like Windows?" And the OS software had nowhere near the sophistication of commercial products.
Is this because the OSS programmers suck? Not at all. It is because OSS programmers need to eat. Consequently, they devote their best time and energy to the things that put food on the table.
The whole OSS/MS debate is a philosophical battle measured against price and the romance of open-source, self-organizing communities of programmers who do some really cool stuff but who don't have the money or bandwidth to truly innovate.
The key problem with open source software is economic. It's very difficult for people to make a living writing free software with the hope that people will contribute money to the cause. It is impossible to go to the grocery store and take home a cart full of groceries in exchange for job satisfaction or status as an open source programmer. Grocery stores, car dealerships, malls, dry cleaners, gas stations... capitalist bastards all of them. They want money for their products and services.
The only way OSS can flourish in its ideal incarnation is in a socialist economy. OSS will struggle in a capitalist economy because of the nature of competition, purchaser motivations and the basic material needs of OSS programmers and businesses.
In fact, the idea of an "OSS business" is a paradox that I haven't seen many
OSS may find itself on the cutting edge of the Innovator's Dilemma. However, I suspect that there will be market space for both OSS and commercial software. Further, they will balance each other and lift one another to higher levels: OSS will cause price drag on commercial software and commercial software will require OSS to rise to increasing levels of usability. And, though both camps shout loudly that they corner the market on innovation, both will motivate each other to innovate in pretty cool ways.
Fortunately, innovation is a commodity that flows from the limitless expanse of creativity rather than from a particular ideology.
-Everyone laughs at lemmings but no one ever wants to admit to ever being one.
This is the argument AGAINST open source. I'm a company that relies on software to work, that means I want a company that provides effective support. The actual COST of the software is of secondary importance to the cost of support and the quality of that support. This is why IBM doing Linux is a good thing as they book massive revenues offering that support.
THAT is what MS are worried about, not Joe Schmo installing a free copy of Red Hat. Its IBM charging zip for the software and loads for the maintainance.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots.
and then go on to chatter about keyboards and Visual studio. Can you reasonably compare the proffit bassed on M$'s O$ to keyboard sales? The price of VB may pain individuals who cling to M$, but that individual pain does not collectivly match the vast revenues had when big dumb corporations stick Office on every one of their 7,000 peons desks. No, it's true that M$ is using it's O$ monopoly rent to get into other areas.
The fact is that there is nothing new here but failure. M$ gets into each new market the same way, by dumping . The used IBM to make an O$ monopoly then dumped Windoze 3.1 to establish a desktop hegemity. They then used anti-competitive agreements with vendors to keep other O$ out and dumped their office to make familiarity. To this day M$ dumps their software on schools, then turns around and screws them in quater million dollar BSA raids. Their reduction of prices of their vastly inferior "server" software is par for the course but it will not be enough this time.
People are realizing that free makes economic sense. They are starting to see that free software is better software and always will be. Better software does make for a lower total cost of ownership as it eliminates the intentional waste propriatory software vendors are famous for. More importantly, it does what YOU want it to do rather than what some marketdroid thinks it should do and it does it according to best practices. Slammer, Code Red, Nmedia, SirCam, I love you, Klez, la te da te da, the list goes on and on because the closed source, rape the user method does not work for anyone but the vendor.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft, and if it happens, it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!
The original idea of free software was to let the end-user have freedom to do what he or she wants with it. For Gnu, this still is the main goal. OSS (like Linux) focusses more on technical benefits, in other words: having software that works well.
Both OSS and FS don't care at all about the prices of Microsoft's products, except as far as the number of people using their products is concerned.
As an other reader noted, the main reason for people switching to systems like Gnu/Linux is money. Part of the switching people may hear about the ethics of it and join the free software movement. Some may be enthousiastic about the results and join the open source movement. But hardly anyone starts using it because of such reasons.
This is something that I think we should try to change. If we can let people know why FS and/or OSS is so good, then it doesn't matter if Microsoft lowers their prices, since people will decide on other grounds what software they use. So please tell all people you know (and people you don't know :-) ) about all the non-financial benefits of it.
Does anyone like to finance a TV commercial?
Open source as a competing business model?
Micorsoft owns a complete and utter monopoly on desktop users. I haven't checked lately, but I'd be willing to bet that it also owns the vast majority of corporate users as well.
They currently haven't penetrated web serers as much as they'd like, but that's only a matter of time as they bring more and more cash to bear on the matter.
Open Source suddenly "threatening" their business model? Hardly. What better way to hide your monopoly and disguise your financial shortcomings than to claim non-existent competition? What better way to prove in a lawsuit that you are NOT a monopoly? Showing press releases, stock statements, financial records, that all show losses and then linking those to the open source community.
Look see? We don't have a monopoly. We have competition in the form of the open source community who work for no profit!
I'm not a Microsoft basher, but the title of the slashdot article is tantamount to the blind leading the blind.
Mod: 1 Flamebait of course.
They've droped some prices. They will do it again. But the profit is important. So, it will force them to make more money on support rather than on licensing (like IBM does). Finally, they will give up own licensed OS (at least for home and low-end users). I think then we will see Microsoft Linux - one more distro, now from Redmond. Then we may see again the partnership of Microsoft with IBM.
Less is more !
OSS is only making inroads because it plays outside the rules. There is no profit center, there is no company organization, there is no ownership...
It's unhelpful to give credence to the fallacy that Microsoft has "competition".
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
You couldn't be more wrong.
The only time innovation leads to profit is in the first life cycle of a product, i.e. the "creation" of the product. And that's ONLY if the product doesn't currently exist.
After that, continous improvement is how you do it.
How often do the japenese innovate? The answer, they don't. Americans are known the world across as the "innovaters". But what happens after that? American's for the most part don't have the discipline or the technique to make small incremental improvements year after year and stay competitive. That's why they are slowly being force out of nearly every market that makes any difference.
Innovation is overrated. It doesn't bring profit.
First of all, if Linux is cheaper than Windows, that means all the money that MS is NOT making is staying in the pockets of the companies that are using Linux. Why is that a BAD thing?
Second, how can someone make the case that cheap alternatives to a Microsoft product is somehow not "cricket?" Didn't MS run Netscape out of the browser market by giving away IE?
I want to be alone with the sandwich
What you talk about is the original Unix Way. If every program is a simple single minded program, and somebodt else would like to borrow a snippet of code, why not? And no, selling software is NOT a new idea. It's just another way to pay the programmers on code. And of course, if they open that code up, why buy their product (enter vicious circle)
Sorry, I don't see the point you are arguing. OSS software originates from the geek/MIT hacker/hippie (delete where applicable) mentality where by keeping code open, you allow it to be improved upon. That mentality was carried on by Stallman (love him ot hate him) with the FSF and GPL. I was just defining that to less informed people in this discussion.
If programming pays your mortgage, great - and if the software you create is useful, usable and good value for money, I'll buy it! As long as you support it, you keep the code as closed as you want.
I think you misunderstand standards documents. Standards can be wrote in plain language that describe how something happens. Code is just an implementation of that standard.
Yeah, fine but I knew how to "suck eggs" before you very kindly told me how to. What point are you making here?
There's plenty of reasons why you would use Linux, rather than Microsoft stuff that would not be "I hate MS" topic.
Yes, I just covered them also if you'd have read it properly rather than jumping in all emotional... bad software, illicit business practices, "cool factor", all reasons why people might choose Linux over Windows. I admitted I hate Microsoft but I'm no martyr - I've been around UNIX (and Windows/DOS) for about 15 years and found Linux a relatively easy transition. But I never forced myself to use it simply because of a personal MS backlash.
If I could develop Windows stuff (and see basic windows programming like seeing the source for notepad and calc), I'd probably wouldnt have went to Linux.
Erm, why do you equate OSS directly to Linux? There's a heap of Open Source Software on Windows and free compilers / programming tools also.
I cant afford a Legit copy of MS programming suite, so I use GCC.
Ahhh, so Microsoft didn't support you properly as a Windows developer so you moved to Linux. I'll add that to my list of reasons...
What? So you wanna stick Gates' head to a pole which will speed up Open source?
It's called "humour". A flippant, throwaway comment to cover all the bases - namely, it doesn't matter what gestures Microsoft makes, it won't damage OSS. It might slow down migrations but why does the OSS movement care anyway? It survived for years with a handful of hackers...
Apologies for offending the pedantic amongst the Slashdot readership...
Oh, just the dead horse getting beat.
It'd be nice if you joined the same race I'm in first...
How about some rational argument first, then we'll decide who won if that's important to you.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Pigs fly and Hell has frozen over!
Of course, and I highly suspect it, I may be talking out of my ass. -oqti
while i'm sure that some have moved to linux from windows for monetary reasons, i'd assume that that isn't the -only- reason. in addition to making their products cost less, maybe they should also make them suck less.
publically traded companies are required to make public statements (it's an SEC filing, but it is not to inform the SEC, it is to inform the investing public) about matters that have material impact on the price of the company's stock. Rationale for this law: How can you intelligently decide whether to buy stock in Microsoft without understanding their business? How can you understand their business if they keep material secrets from you?
So, if in the future MS has to lower their prices because of this competition, their profits will go down and their stock price will go down. If Microsoft knows this, they are required by law to tell the public. This statement they've made is in compliance with SEC regulations and it helps them avoid shareholder lawsuits in the future, not monopoly accusations.
In the post-Enron (and other recent scandals) environment, the CPAs and attorneys who work for Microsoft realize that they have personal legal liability and they insist that Microsoft tell the truth in the SEC filings. Are the statements in the filing perfect? No, but nothing is perfect.
...I firmly believe we'll see the first release of MSlinux. No-one can deny they have some of the world's most talented programmers working for them, their main problem is simply the code base they're working from.
If the wind of change starts to blow 'due linux' then MS aren't going to sit quietly and die, they'll put together the biggest team ever applied to a linux project and release a distro that will blow RH/MDK/etc out of the water (assuming they survive till then of course). The geeks will still want debian/slackware/etc but MS will create a linux desktop as easy as XP/Win2k for the rest of the world.
Once they're in the OSS game they won't be able to trample all over standards in their usual haphazard fashion because their distro won't be compatible then.
Make no mistake, if linux starts to be where the money is then MS will go there.
You realise, though, that Microsoft is the Nelson of the software world? Reminds me of the episode where the kids in Springfield "take back the street". Nelson has to sign a peace treaty, in which he is allowed to remain a menace to society, but have to stop beating up on the kids. Would be a good deal for MicroSoft too.
But I have to admit using the Nelson "HaHa!" a few times.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
I don't plan on ever buying a computer from Best Buy.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
If microsoft really wanted to beat Linux and all of the other "development projects" out there they would have to do one simple thing, remove the CD protection from the install cd. This would allow for mass copying of the CD's and lock 95% of the desktops for years to come.
For the corporate environment most installs are coming from an image, same for most consumer systems... most everything that is shipped as a pre install was an image... Then for those small companies and the times when a home user does an install the issue is not a server it's installing a plan old desktop... There... unfortunately MS wins. I have not timed it exactly but the last install of MS XP Home I did was at the very most 35 minutes. Now granted I have no clue how long a RedHat 8 install takes but the SuSE 8.1 install I did last light came in at about 45. Even if it was the other way around though... 35 for SuSE and 45 for MS... MS would still have the advantage, why? Because of the hardware support. Current distros are just now starting to be reasonable when it comes to hardware support but still they don't even come close to XP... and as long as this is the case... well... MS will maintain its edge on being the preferred home platform for the consumer (i.e. not us) market... ok enough ramblings... need to finish eating...
Have you thought for yourself today?
I think the day will come when microsoft will give away there OS to individuals, still sell it to businesses(as a somewhat reduced cost) and make all there money off of support and other business products.
I think thats how microsoft could dominate the desktop environment. Hell I don't know why they haven't done it yet.
ehh!! what do you think?
Why do I have this picture in my mind of a 250 pound High School Varsity football player crying while being bullied by a 150 pound nerd with black horned-rimmed glasses and a padded backpack with an ancient Toshiba Linux laptop in it that runs faster than a new ThinkPad with XP pro?
This is what MS' competition had to do in order to compete with MS in the 90's. Look what happened to them.
While I believe that some innovative ideas have not been able to get enough traction in the current PC climate, you can't *prove it*.
"Show me a company that isn't around because of MS". You *can't* do it. FWIW, I had spoken to a few VCs a few years back about some ideas. In every case during the conversation someone brought up 'what will MS do in this arena?'. Is that the only reason we didn't get funded? By no means, but it WAS a factor their thinking. If the fear of MS coming in to your market was a factor in investing, it's a pretty sure thing that *some* ideas which may have had a good impact couldn't get off the ground because of MS perceived dominance or potential threat.
creation science book
I couldn't care less about the price,
I've got some great deals on some good open source projects. I can get you Linux, WITH Apache, PHP and MySQL for only $399. Buy multiple copies and I'll get you a discount. Heck, if you call in the next 20 minutes, I'll throw in a copy of phpMyAdmin *WITH SOURCE CODE* *FREE*! Call 734-480-9961 - we're standing by...
creation science book
You slut
Lame fuck
I didn't necessarily mean to pick on these file formats, I just used them as an example of the trouble that obsolete programs and file formats can lead to.
.DOC format rather than HTML.
WordPerfect is still a viable program and even Word will read the format, but that is only because there are still enough people using it. There aren't many still using WordStar, but from what I remember, the format was mostly ASCII, and my company did write a program that could read them. In both these cases, you are still able to mostly read these files now, but 20 or 100 years from now will be a different story.
I think open source is still necessary, even with open formats, because without access to the source code, you have to rely on documentation. I have never seen a specification that didn't have some leeway for interpretation, so the only way to be sure you can read everything in a file is to see the ultimate description of how to interpret a file format: source code. Look at the difference between browsers right now. Imagine how much worse it would be if the Internet used
-- Pot is safer than Beer
..no cure for cancer.
...what do you know -- competition works!
Uhm....
Competition hardly works. So far, Microsoft has been able to kill everything that would present true commercial competition. Linux had to completely re-write the rules (from Microsoft's perspective) by providing not only binaries, but source, for Free.
Linux is not "competing" with Microsoft. Most Linux folks I know hardly give a damn about Microsoft. In fact, the way this whole affair has gone with me (since 1993) is (from Microsoft's perspective):
First you [Microsoft] win
Then they fight you
Then they laugh at you
Then they ignore you
I think we are in the "Then they laugh at you" phase, in which we realize the fight is over, and that really, there was no fight; it was just us, writing code and letting people know we have something worth looking into.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
So if you're avoiding Best Buy, where do you plan on buying your next x86 architecture laptop computer? Does the manufacturer sell them without Microsoft Windows?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I find it interesting that the debate of "competition" even comes up.
The way I see it, Microsoft can only lose market share to Apple (MacOS X), Sun (Solaris), IBM (AIX), and other companies that decide to sell and operating system. OSS products aren't sold, as such there is no market for them. It's like air. Do we pay for air? Could there be a market for "commodity air?" --probably.
See, Microsoft fails to realize that Linux and it's ilk are not created by some company that can be smacked down. Sure, there's companies that assist in the development of OSS, but they're business philosophy does not revolve around the sale of the software. Microsoft, on the other hand, sinks or swims based on software sales.
Anything that is free will slowly undermine a market for the same type of product. It's only natural. The progression from non-free to free software may be slow, but it's an eventuality.
This is why Microsoft needs to change it's business plan. The hardware end is good. The 'web service' idea may have worked. The pushing of .NET probably won't get them anywhere, but if they offer unique services and products over it... they might do well.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Wasn't that decided with the whole MPEG4/Windows Media licensing uproar?
And there's always buying a "new" PC from parts on Price Watch and assembling it yourself.
Where can I get myself a good x86 motherboard and case, in laptop form factor?
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Desktop Linux ... biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!"
Three of the brightest car engineers from Ford, GM and Chryler met one evening and decided to design and built a new dream car. A car that was more reliable, faster and consumed less gas than any other car in the industry. A car that would show the world! - And the best thing: it was for free!
The oil companies loved it - and promoted it like crazy! If everybody would drive a car then the gas consumption will just sky-rocket! And the oil prizes went up.
And so more and more people got the free car and loved it - and the gas companies loved it and the engineers loved it and there was only love.
The next day the engineers got back to work and were tremendously surprised that they were layed off with 231 other engineers.
On the way home they had to stop at the gas station and suddenly it became clear that they they wouldn't be able afford the gas anymore.
Mmh! what a weird story.
The compiler is probably the biggest reason for me to 'switch'.
I am happy with MinGW, a port of GCC to Windows.
Will I retire or break 10K?
And on another side, there are people who are getting developing governments (and even industrialized gvts) to switch to Linux: once again diverting funds away from an American company.
I guess the big problem with this is that you have governments and industries that are directly benefitting from the mindshare of industialized nations (and probably mainly the USA), and not giving anything back to the US in return (not even good will, it recently seems).
I guess I have no real point, but it seems that OSS is somehow a communist operating system, and will not benefit us (the industrialized world) in the long term.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
He also gives a lot of it to charity.
I know you don't want to hear that. And rather picture him wiping his ass with $100's and counting gold coins in a dark lit basement.
Sorry guys.
perhaps poorly worded, but not revisionist. Microsoft made sure that it was easier to use IE, by giving it away with the OS. Hence, no need to go out and get Netscape, then install.
My mom could use windows with no knowledge whatsoever of computers, I bet that would be impossible with linux. Oh and if you want to update XP you click update windows, when was the last time you saw the average user and figured they would be able to recompile a kernel. Give me a break, linux is a server OS,and it's really good at that. Why try and pretend it's something else.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
The dolphins that show up on a nuclear subs radar. Are as much a threat to that sub as Linux is a threat to Microsoft. Sometimes I notice ants before I step on them as well.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
It's more than PR--it's CYA for the directors, officers, and auditors. It's a very long way of saying "Don't sue us if we screw up", just like all other corporate financial statements.
Paraphrasing a quote (by whom, I forget): an Operating System, by definition, does nothing.
The point being, an OS is a platform for applications, which do the work.
MSWindows notoriously bundles lots of applications into the platform, so it doesn't really count as a bare-bones OS.
Ideally, there would be one OS as a middleware between applications and hardware. Then applications could be platform-neutral. Linux is the closest thing we have to such a definition. Unix tried to be that, but it fragmented into vendor-specific releases. It's yet to be seen whether Linux does the same thing.
See also: difference between a Linux and a Distro.
Yes she could upgrade from 2000 to XP you click a button and it does everything. It keeps all your settings and even most of the drivers, but it doesn't need to because 9 out of 10 drivers it already has.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
I love kde, I live innovation, I feel like freebsd is a close friend or familty member, but microsoft makes the widest range of _solid_ products. They get their fingers into every last bit of marketplace, and they aim to do it well.
Windows is slightly boring, but that's why my freebsd box sits next to it. When I have problems with zope, I read the source. when I want zope up quick and running fast, I put it on windows. WHen I want to get my design document for my senior project done, I do it on windows. When I want an industry-superior real-time audio application running on a state of the art driver sbstraction layer, I comply with ASIO on WINDOWS. fact.
I love facts.
-P
FAce it, them closed source coding fools cannot compete with open source when it comes to security, ie.. their current incentive {and mandate from the department of commerce}, is to put out weak code and allow people to exploit their machines. If you try to "secure" their product by reverse engineering or decompiling their code, you've violated the terms of the shrinkwrappy.
They cannot compete on price either.
It might be worth while to have a windows box up, if you've extenisively setup an opensource firewall box that disables ms's snoopware capability, perhaps then microsoft may become worth while to have.
--I said perhaps..
This is not really signifigant news. When preparing to post financial news, publicly held companies (as part of the "full disclosure/safe harbor" process) are required to state any risks, however remote, that may impact future earnings.
Some smart lawyer in Microsoft's legal department probably said "Hey, we'd probably better start quoting open source software as a possible financial risk to avoid shareholder lawsuits in the future."
This is probably just typical legal boilerplate stuff, not any signifigant change in MS's assessment of the impact of OSS.
Let's see now:
Microsoft gives its browser away for free vs. Netscape who sells it, MS wins - Slashdot cries foul.
Microsoft sells its software vs. OSS who gives it away for free, OSS wins - Slashdot says "competition works".
Hello? Anybody home?
http://www.emperorlinux.com/
Wow, what a charming fantasy land you live in!
Click a button my ass. Stop being so simple - learn more about computers and software before you spout nonsense like this.
is that really a serious question? I find it hard to believe that you actually think that best buy is only source for laptops. It isn't.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Troll?? It's the simple truth. I can't see a single new product developed in MS's offices, and I note the people calling this comment a troll aren't providing any counter-examples. Quite telling, really.
"I don't like what he says, but I can't disagree... clearly he's a troll!"
I'm with you, g4dget... and fuck short-sighted simple moderators.
Yes she could upgrade from 2000 to XP you click a button and it does everything.
Okay, I'll bite. I have Windows 2000, I want to upgrade to Windows XP. I don't see the button, guide me through the process please, I'm expecting to have to click once.
I meant only that Best Buy, like 99+ percent of sources of laptop computers, sells only whole computers bundled with Microsoft Windows.
Posted without bonus.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This data is old, but I have real time data that showed a Win98 400Mhz Celeron PC runs HOTTER in Win98 than under Linux. This appeared to be due to WinDoze not suspending the processor in idle state where Linux did. You could see a jump in the junction temperature when you moved the mouse. I gathered a lot of cool graphs, but they belong to my former employer so I'd have to get permission to post them... One of these days perhaps... I will compare WINXP with Linux to see if the Windows OS has fixed this yet. I just imagined two big firms in Phoenix... one running Windows OS, and another Open software. One pays higher utility bills to run all those computers overnight, as they are consuming more power in the idle state... plus all the heat they generate needs air-conditioning. I think an argument could be made that Linux pays for itself in lower air conditioning bills... of course we need new thermal diode data now don't we. -- Ross
Ross Youngblood
I sometimes think that MS consciously makes Windows obtuse and strange in places, just to keep people off guard. That way, all they have to do is claim that Linux is hard to use and support and the average user will go:
Even if they have a heart attack, it's still one less person thinking about using Linux.OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
All this talk of "people don't need to upgrade to Office XP" is pure nonsense.
:)
As far as I'm concerned, WordPerfect 5.1 did all I needed done in terms of word processing, and I'm sure OpenOffice would do fine. But when your boss is sending you phone lists as Excel XP 2004 attachments, you have no choice but to upgrade.
(After all, she probably got that "free" with her new laptop...)
The MS upgrade bandwagon will go on, perhaps even faster...
</pessimism>
On the other hand, the competition _is_ good
The blurb on this story seems to take a victorious approach to Microsoft losing profit/revenue. The OSS movement should only see a statement mentioning OSS as a victory if Microsoft mentions increasing the quality of its products as a reaction to OSS, not in matters of finance.
This was the final straw driving me away from M$. While beta testing Windows 98, I thought those pop-up help things when you hover over the close button, etc. were extreamly annoying. "I know the button closes the window you idot computer" I often shouted in my mind.
Then something happened. For no apparent reason, two weeks into testing Win98 Beta 2, those annoying things stopped popping up. I thought, "hey, that's not so bad after all. It's given me two week's 'training' and stopped bothering me." I even sent in a report to Microsoft saying that this was a great feature.
Microsoft seemed to interpret that as a bug report, and the next beta through to final release never stopped annoying me.
The release version, on top of that, included all the junk on the desktop that I told the installer not to install, and there was a new problem with suspending on my notebook computer. I had spied a FreeBSD 2.2.6 CD-ROM set in the bookstore recently, went out and bought it, and Microsoft never saw that machine again.
when linux run virtualdub then *everybody* will switch...
Aha! Corporations' newly found fear of the securities lawa may be doing some good.
This is only a CYA "risk factor", of course, to protect MS from lawsuits based on hindsight. Nevertheless, it is still a telling concession.
But fundamentally, isn't it the case that MS really CAN'T compete on price without distoring their entire business model? Maybe they should state that as well!
Yes, and if you roll further down in the SEC reports, you'll see that this really does translate to Windows and Office. Regardless, you'll find that these are only profitable due to monopoly rents. Everything else, like MSN, SQL Server, xbox runs a loss. As the install base shrinks, revenues will shrink geometrically.
It's not really surprising that there are so many Microsoft shills posting, it takes attention away from other monkey business, like fulfilling punishment for breach of contract with Sun over Java. What is surprising is that any and all pro-Microsoft posts are getting +5 these days.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Yes, and if you roll further down in the SEC reports, you'll see that this really does translate to Windows and Office
Interesting how you make this entirely unsubstantiated claim, and then claim that everything else runs at a loss. Care to back this up? Care to point out the section of the SEC filing that supports this absurd notion? Oh, of course not. Who needs proof?
It's not really surprising that there are so many Microsoft shills posting, it takes attention away from other monkey business, like fulfilling punishment for breach of contract with Sun over Java. What is surprising is that any and all pro-Microsoft posts are getting +5 these days.
That's right we're all Microsoft shills. Indeed, about 97% of desktop users are Microsoft shills. Everyone who moderated me up is Microsoft shills. Everyone who agrees with me is a Microsoft shill. How is that tinfoil hat working out for you in your land of fantasy?
You have some actual facts to back that up?
Looking at your posting history I can see your bias screaming through though...You're a flaming anti-Microsoft zealot. I suspect that you're actually Richard Stallman undercover...I mean who else would post something like this. Oh Richard, you're so dreamy!
do nerds/geeks really go to best buy for anything other than DVDs or blank media? I once bought PC speakers there because it was a Saturday and I wanted them immediately, didn't have time to wait, but that's the largest purchase I've ever made there. I don't even buy CD-R there anymore, I go to Office Max instead.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
What is it with you boneheads -- EITHER Windows OR Linux -- Macintosh OSX competes in this space, too, and has FAR more installed desktops than Linux.
A) easy to install
B) easy to upgrade
C) major apps are available
D) rock solid, no crash OS, when set up correctly.
E) good selection of peripherals and video cards
F) Passes the "Mother test," mentioned above
G) Hardware is long lasting -- many Macs from the 1995 era are STILL running as competent workstations in production shops TODAY.
While I agreed with many of your points, this one glared at me as political and not well founded:
" They are starting to see that free software is better software and always will be. "
Is MatLab no longer worth the cost because of SciLab? Can XCircuit w/ SPICE compete with OrCAD/PSpice? R is a wonderful program that I use regularly, but it cannot compete with SPlus--or some of the other statistical packages--for a lot of tasks. OpenOffice still isn't Good Enough to be "better than" MS Office for all users,
We choose software because it does what we need and, sometimes, the free replacement doesn't do that.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
The world is your exercise-book, the pages on which you do your sums.
It is not reality, although you can express reality there if you wish.
You are also free to write nonsense, or lies, or to tear the pages.
-- Messiah's Handbook : Reminders for the Advanced Soul
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...