Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer on Windows Server 2003, Linux
no_demons writes "Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, has given an interview to CNet about Windows Server 2003 and Linux. He claims that 'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'. Discuss." Also in the news: two critical security vulnerabilities (MS03-014, MS03-015), and this piece about Windows 2003 mentioning that Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.
So just because the basic design is old, it's not "innovative?" I think this guy needs to spend more time with his programmers!
He claims that 'our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community'.
Microsoft is trying to develop a command-line only server.
Isn't this a little backwards?
void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
What I think, is the open source community needs to work more on marketing, documentation, and support. I believe that's the area that is lacking the most. Probably one of the best ways to education people on linux and open source is to get it in the schools. Kids usually tech their parents how to use computers.
Go calculate something
Example:
We created the SMB file server specs, and we didn't have the fastest one around, which was embarrassing. So we took our performance team and said "your mission is to make ours twice as fast as this other one on the market."
I understand this to be the admission that Samba was faster than any SMB server MS had in the past, right? See, this is competition at work. Granted, Microsoft tried to discourage people from competing (in the SMB case, by making small changes to the protocols with each release, I believe. Correct me if I my wrong, please) but the Samba team still came out with a better product.
I expect that by this time next year the Samba team will be saying "yeah, we got a faster SMB server than the one in Windows 2003, but hey, they ASKED for it! Do you remember that S Ballmer interview?"...
They want support, they want assurance, they want compliance with existing standards
All of which FS/OSS offers at competitve prices, which is much better deal than you can get from MS. Btw, you get no assurance with MS software -- all software licenses explicitly deny any assurance. So that's just fuzzy buzzword thinking on the part of stupid executives who don't really know wtf they're talking about.
As for support, that is purchased at competitive rates which are much better than anything you can get from MS. Furthermore, you'll get better support, precisely because there is competition. On a personal note, I get better support for free from Gentoo Forums than I get from Gateway for $300.
The benefits of using FS/OSS also scale very well, in that the more computers you use an FS/OSS product on, the more money you save, compared to using MS NT/2k/XP/2.003k. Oh yea, and there's also the fact that you don't have to worry about hundred-million dollar extortion-attempts from the BSA. These benefits -- though providing the most savings for large companies -- are extremely crucial for smaller companies.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
And they can fsck themselves, because I never ASKED them to look at us (or me in particular) as a competitor to Microsoft. I (and many others like me) write code 'cause it's fun, because we can fill a niche, or because we just need to scratch some itch we have. Taking down the Microsoft was never a primary goal...
Frankly, with all this poiticization of "Open Source", I feel a strong desire to distance myself from this "movement". I much prefer the days when Linux was just Linux and people used it 'cause it was useful, not for some ridiculous philosophical or political reasons.
Actually, OSS is very much based on capitalism in it's truest sense. Capitalism is based on the inalienable right of ownership. If you contribute to the kernel, you own your contribution and nobody can take that away from you. There are rules dictating what you can DO with your contribution but you are still very much it's owner.
By contrast, communism is based on the lack of ownership. The BSD license is a borderline example of this since it makes it very easy for someone to revoke your right of ownership with even the slightest modification to the source code.
On the other hand, Microsoft is a good example of fascism since you never own but rather license their software under their strict terms. Your are forbidden from doing anything with their software without their express consent.
There's your politics lesson for the day, now go troll elsewhere.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Exactly, Microsoft is a mature company that is not likely to experience the astronomical growth that they have had in the past. There's nothing wrong with that, Microsoft makes a big fat pile of money.
Unfortunately, Microsoft employees aren't really focused on Microsoft's business, but rather they are focused on the MSFT stock price. You see, a great deal of their personal wealth is wrapped up Microsoft stock, and they want to see that stock go up. To Microsoft management and employees the idea that Microsoft is not a growth company is the highest form of blasphemy. You see, their Price/Earnings ratio still has them pegged as a growth company. If the market decides that Microsoft has stopped growing, then their stock price will drop so that their P/E ratio is much closer to 10.
Microsoft could kill Linux tomorrow simply by dropping their prices. Microsoft has profit margin to give. However, this would almost certainly trigger a market realization that Microsoft is done growing. To most Microsofties this would be the kiss of death for their own personal finances, and it would put a serious crimp in Microsoft's business plan. After all, Microsoft makes a great deal of money investing in their own stock, and they also use MSFT stock as a primary motivator for their employees.