Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Sends Wakeup Call to Staff
Puneet writes "An MSNBC article outlines details of how the world's biggest software company seems to be facing a technology gap. Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer of Microsoft, sent a memo across the company basically saying that with no immediate breakthroughs in technology coming, and with the Linux computer operating system and a batch of other open-source programs biting at its heels, Microsoft will have to do a better job of persuading customers it has something they need.
. Microsoft must "improve business consistency" so that customers are not hit with unexpected - and unwanted - changes. Also covered by Forbes but in lesser detail."
I'll bet that their innovations aren't technical though, and will involve innovative new licenses :-(
To back up this new push to promote a more customer-friendly Microsoft, Ballmer promised that the company would âoeincrease our advertising budget significantly for all our audiences.â
This pretty much sums it up.
An equal headline and probably more accurate one would be "MS launches new media campaign to portray company as customer-friendly".
All marketing, no real changes.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You known, Perception Is Reality.
More than anything, Microsoft has really hurt itself through it's new licensing plan -- and this with a competitor who offers an initial software cost of zero. That defies market logic -- to raise your prices when faced by a seemingly lower cost competitor. It almost forces the hands of IT engineers (who already face much tighter budgets) to consider open source solutions instead of Microsoft when they need an implementation of, say, an extra file and print server to hold all of the new graphics files generated by the marketing department.
At the end of the day, it is money that makes the corporation go 'round. And, if I can offer my management and users a better solution that costs less money, it is in my absolute best interests to do so.
First he identifies a problem - Microsoft has no new and innovative ideas for improving their products.
Then he comes up with the perfect solution - "improve business consistency!" The best way we can serve our customers is by not introducing any new and innovative ideas to improve our products!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Knowing the "mess" they're in and fixing it has always been one of their strong suits. When they released Windows 3.x and found lukewarm support by WordPerfect and Lotus, they admitted it and took a course of action to correct it. When they realized they were too late in jumping on the Internet bandwagon, they admitted it and started development on a browser to compete with Netscape. Now, they realize that they are falling behind in the security and "features people need" area and will most certainly strive to correct the situation. So, don't just sit back, point your finger, and laugh; take a good look within the open source world and see what needs fixing.
This could be the announcement of a new dotcomboom :
:-)
The bigggest software company of the world just admits being stalled.
It's high time small development structures came with new things in order to convince the investors to empty their pockets.
Now, if we consider Microsoft's usual tendency to buy interesting startups, then the above-mentioned investors will for sure be there to re-sell them their shares.
Or, of course, I could be dreaming but I hope not : I have some nice new software concepts for sale
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I think that basing your model on purely technological mindset is not really the way to go - sure, technology drives the computer industry, however I believe we're moving to a more fundamental factor in choosing Information Technology:- Lifestyle.
This is what Apple has moved to as their model - sure they provide technological goodies, but the aim is improving lifestyle, not technology for the sake of technology/innovation.
Consider the strategy of providing Music/Movie/Image/Organiser products - Lifestyle products.
Consumers have been fed a steady diet of new gizmo's and gadgets but it takes many years for them to actually *GET* what they can do with them.
Bluetooth is such an example - been around for years, but only now am I using it (the technology) because I need to synchronise my Address Book and Calendar (Lifestyle).
I believe that the industry will gain momentum over the next few years by not plugging a particula technology but marketing Lifestyle Devices/Software using new technology in innovative ways...
-- Dan =)
When I first got into computers around 94-95ish, it seemed like once a week a new technology or use for current technology was being created...
....then once every couple of months... ...and now maybe once a year at best..
then once a month...
And when I think about it, it all seems to coincide with the increase in lawsuits against "patent violators", the DMCA, "intelectual property violations", etc etc. Basically, the big guys are stomping the little guy if he thinks outside the box, and it happens to present a challenge to their technology.
Perhaps Microsoft needs to wake up to this big tech killmachine that they have had a hand it making, and try to reverse some of the damage that it has done. Now people are afraid to issue security warnings for fear they might be arrested for breaking the DMCA...
insane...
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
"What's this? OS X for x86? Let's just start a rumor we're dropping Office for Mac..."
Notice that the single significant tangible move is to increase advertising budgets?
Good luck, Steve-o.
I'm afraid you're facing a stealth advertising campaign that's hard to buck -- the very same one your company rode to the top in the early 80s.
It's the "I can't get signoff to buy the stuff I need, but I can put this together on my own authority and put it into place" ad, the "What do you mean we're already using it? Get it out now. What? We're doing THAT with it? Hmm. OK, maybe just this once" kind of advertising.
Microsoft knows the power of that publicity very well. It's what led PCs to prominence and the power of IT (Whoops! It was MIS back then) staffs to shrink.
The Ballmer response: Microsoft will have to do a better job of producing software whose benefits are clearly apparent to customers
... And for the fun, since it's been talked about much recently : M$ has some 10% stake in SCO :-)
Most of Microsoft's value-add has been stolen^h^h^h^h^h^hcopied or acquired. MSDOS ? bought from the Seattle Computer Company. Windows GUI ? copied from Apple, itself borrowed from Xerox. Flight Simulator ? bought from Sublogic. Stacker ? bought from Stac, etc etc
No, Microsoft doesn't create software. It just borrows, enhances and markets better. That memo Ballmer sent means "guys, it's time to look out there again and see what we can copy/purchase and claim our own innovation".
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The article says that Ballmer plans to "increase our advertising budget significantly for all our audiences". Does anyone else see that as treating the symptom rather than the disease? The point of the article was that Microsoft doesn't seem to have anything to persuade people to buy its products, so instead of INNOVATING, they're going to "persuade" people that they need Microsoft. The problem isn't that people don't need Microsoft, the problem is that Microsoft isn't creating anything new and exciting in the computer world... and increasing the advertising budget by all the money in Fort Knox isn't going to change that.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Ballmer is well known for blowing a lot of hot air, so it's often hard to know What Exactly He's Really Saying.
My translation is that he's saying Microsoft is appearing to reach either an upper asymptote or a maximum (with decreases to follow) in terms of company growth, revenue, etc.
I'm inclined to believe this translation based on his recent failure in Munich to stave off a large scale Linux desktop deployment and on his large sale of MSFT stock "to diversify his portfolio".
"Provided by the management for your protection."
No you don't. Not if you're sensible. How many times has Microsoft been lambasted for getting a half-done product to market and then patching its worst parts? He's saying they're trying not to do that. Nothing about it having "too extreme" changes.
... and more draconian licensing schemes are making customers re-evaluate their need for Microsoft Products.
And that says it for a lot of people. Seriously, I would be using Windows right now if it wasn't for their licensing scheme.
And it's not because I don't want to pay. In fact, I have 10 Windows licenses sitting unused (came with my MSDN subscription). Of course, that's not totally true because sometimes I use them when I need to develop on that platform for a customer (I run it in VMware). However, I don't use Windows as my primary OS.
It's a sad state of affairs really. Windows works a lot better with my hardware (laptop, firewire, etc.) than Linux does but Microsoft scares me away. This is giving Linux plenty of time to catch up, and it will eventually.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Their last bout of screwing their customers with Licensing 6.0 and the sneaky underhanded tricks they pulled with Media player and other "upgrades" by silently adding insane clauses in the EULA they slit their own throats.
I have shown MANY people the EULA's they "agreed to" and all of them have been outraged to the point that they are seeking alternatives and have ZERO trust for microsoft.
Hell I know a few people that bought Windows 2000 to downgrade their XP machines based solely on the licensing and "copyright violation prevention measures".
There is a way for microsoft to get back on top. but Ballmer and anyone who thinks like him will never be able to do it...
The era of bullying your customer into submission is coming to an end. and until they realize the basics of doing business... they will start to slip faster and faster....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That defies market logic -- to raise your prices when faced by a seemingly lower cost competitor.
The music industry is doing exactly that.
With a lot of corporate customers moved over to the newest Microsoft Licensing formula, Microsoft is feeling the pressure to put up with what they have promised. They have been putting very little in the pipe with regards to updates with their latest products.
Mind you, they have put out Windows 2003 server, but as far as new features, it lacks in that departement. There are still organizations who are just recently migrating over to Windows 2000 server.
So, to make up for the technology gap, they will market over the gap. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
No, that wouldn't work. Microsoft depends on high growth for stockholder returns, and partly to pay its salary bill. Operating systems and productivity software are a saturated market - they own it, and with flat PC sales, it's not expanding. Worse, they're about to have their lunch eaten by Linux.
They have to spread out, and hope that todays money-loser turns into tomorrows next big thing.
Second, drop product activation. No one likes being treated like a criminal.
Unfortunately enough people are that it makes sense to try and maximise profits by clamping down on it.
The real purpose of product activation is to stop friends and family from sharing copies. If Microsoft's software was lower in price, (see my first point) people would simply buy their own copy.
What price should it be?
Fourth, stop with those outrageous deals to stop Linux
Yeah, this one would be nice :) But I can understand why they do it, it's like a snowslide, all it takes is a few blasts and the right place and the whole thing starts sliding. They know this.
They also know timing is critical. Windows only has so long, eventually it will be a liability rather than an asset. Eventually it will be cut off from them as a revenue source and by that day, if they haven't diversified enough, it's game over. No more Redmond.
They have time to do that, but it's hard. Stuff like MSN, the Xbox etc shows they in this for the long haul, as well they might be. So they need to buy time, because they don't know how fast things will move once Linux becomnes truly viable.
Sixth, I could go on and on and on. But since my boss expects me to work for money, Iâ(TM)ll quit here and let others post some suggestions.
Heh, my boss too, so one last one - unfortunately being nice to their customers isn't going to turn Microsoft around, it's far too late for that. They have to leave Windows before it drags them down with it, and until they manage that it's a race against time.
First, Microsoft should dump all money losing divisions. As I'm sure everyone here has heard, Microsoft's OSes and Office products generate over 80% profits, which the company uses to fund losers such as WebTV, MSN, the Xbox, et
These are all long term goals for microsoft. IE didn't make any money. Still doesn't technically, but MS gained a LOT from having their browser as the one with the largest market share. I mean would most people visit msn without it? These things might not make money today, but they might tomorrow - and unlike most businesses MS can sit on something and wait and see for a LONG time.
Apple may be marginalized, but they're the ones on the consumer end who keep building the bridges Microsoft has to walk across. No new technology coming forward? Apple built their own with the iPod. They were late to the game with iTunes, granted, but iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD are still leaps and bounds ahead of any competition in terms of ease-of-use.
The "digital hub" strategy they're embracing is working very well for Apple. The only problem, natch, is that digital camcorders (and camcorders and DVD burners) are still too expensive to be casually embraced by most consumers. But then, prices are getting lower all the time -- simple digital cameras under $100 are easy to come by, and used iPods can be found on eBay for as low as $100-$150. Apple knows that people are doing less and less with their personal computers but more and more with the other "computers" around them, and constantly works on ways to tie those peripherals to Apple's hardware and software.
What Microsoft ought to be throwing it's money towards, then, is building easy-to-use consumer software that consumers actually *want* to use, not because they're gimmicky but because they're easy to understand. Media Player is a good start. Their video editor needs much work, and integrating it with the ever-cheaper DVD burners and VideoCD writers could only help them.
Then let's try some new ideas, just to see if they take off. Skip the Tablet PC thing; build a cheap (like $50-$60) e-book reader that people can actually afford and will want to own, then get the magazine and newspaper publishers to sign on. Try to really integrate webcams and IM. A Flash-format animation creator for under $50 so people can make their own cartoons. They don't have to give this stuff away with the OS, if they make it cheap enough to buy separately. (I'm keen on that $50 price point, which is the most your average consumer will spend on non-profit-making software.)
Microsoft is, IMO, so bent on keeping the business markets that they've all but neglected their consumer market. Aside from some pretty colors, self-customizing menus and Apple-chasing software hacks, they've not done anything new for the home market since Windows 95 was released. It's good for them to spend time building tools that developers and managers want to have, but it helps their image immensely to add the stuff home users would want to have -- even if they don't make as much profit from it.
It is happening. They have no compelling products anymore. They have no compelling business model. They are faced with A. do the same as they have always done (won't grow the market share) B. manhandle future and current customers some more (at this point the customers are pissed and won't take it anymore) C. spread some more FUD or manipulate companies like SCO to try to destroy Linux et. al. (won't work either). They should indeed break themselves up... they are unwieldy and non-competative. I find it so laughable that they think they can innovate a "quantum leap in computing" that will put them ahead of all competitors when they've never innovated anything in the entire history of the company. MS software by definition cannot be ahead of everyone else due to Draconian license and activation measures... ahead of everyone else means unencumbered user experience among many other qualifiers... I'd certainly sum it up by saying they'd have to make the user feel like they not only have a choice but that their software is the right choice...and still on equal footing in terms of resources spent to make such a choice.
---rramble...
At one level Microsoft has so much cash in the bank that it could live off the hump for years and years and years. They identified the problem: lack of a recurring revenue stream, and the need to sell more OS/Office licences to create revenue.
There are two solutions for this problem:
1) Develop a strong services and solutions offering, where business will trust you with their IT and pay lots of money for good service
2) Invent a way to squeeze recurring revenue out of your installed user base without offering anything substantially more
IBM chose (1), Microsoft chose (2).
Consider the phases of IT: firstly there was the traditional IBM phase where by far the largest cost was hardware, even allowing for teams of people writing in-house software. This characterises the period up to, say, 1980, and by 1990 IBM was almost dead on its feet; secondly there was the phase where commercial packaged software was a major part of IT decision making, starting with putting Lotus 1-2-3 in front of decision makers, and continuing through the Windows/Office age. This phase was characterised by the PHB saying "I want 10,000 computers running Wordperfect and Lotus".
Now we are into the next phase, where both hardware and packaged software are commodities within a solution or service. This is why companies such as EDS, CSC and IBM (and smaller players in this market) matter more than Microsoft. If Ballmer thinks that some new technological gizmo will get people spending again then he's wrong: there may well be a lot of individual buyers for new toys, but neither the business desktop nor my mum need or want a new killer technology. They need, and already have, a working toolset to send email, browse the web (and use web enabled applications) and create documents. Essentially we have now commoditised the information rather than the software (yes, I know this process isn't complete, but it's under way).
Now the good bit: Microsoft has so much cash that it needn't deal with this issue for years yet. IBM got into deep doodoo before reinventing itself. Microsoft is showing the signs that it expects to spend several years yet digging the hole in the same place.
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Why can Windows 95 and Windows ME run DOS applications better than Windows 2000? Are you really so clueless that you cannot understand a simple product line history?
I'll try to use simple words for your benefit.
Windows ME is a direct decendent of Windows 98, which was a direct decendent of Windows 95, which was a direct decendent of Windows 3.11 and DOS 6.2.
Windows XP is a direct decendent of Windows 2000 which was a direct decendent of Windows NT 4, which was a direct desecendent of Windows NT 3.5, which was a brand new product. Windows NT 3.5 was not based on DOS.
The two product lines are generally refered to as Windows9x and WindowsNT. The 9x line of systems contains a lot of legacy code back to DOS. It can thunk to real mode and often does. When you run a COMMAND.EXE shell in a Win9x OS, you really are running DOS. Code thunks to real mode and can call real BIOS functions via. software interupts.
When you run a COMMAND.EXE (Not CMD.EXE) shell in WinNT, you're not really running DOS. You're running something that is a lot like DOS, but it is really running in a virtual x86 machine. You can't thunk directly to the BIOS from inside this machine as software interupts get caught by the virtual machine and redirected via. NT. So its not really DOS, it just tries to act like it.
I'm sure I've lost you in this vastly over simplified explanation, but I figure you can't possibly be any more clueless after having read it.
Now, if you'd said say, extensions to Win32 across the Win9x and WinNT product lines causing incompatabilities, you might have been onto something. Not much, mind you, but a better bet than trying to talk about Windows compatability using DOS as an example.
MS has been trying to figure out a way to stop the upgrade cycle for some time now. They've been looking at software rental and time limited licensing.
In 1999(ish), customers wanted to keep Office 97. It did everything they needed.
Microsoft wanted people to buy new software. They crammed all the features they could into Office 2000, but aside from making Clippy easier to get rid of, people weren't compelled. It wasn't until Microsoft refused to sell Office 97 licenses that Office 2000 sales really picked up.
OpenOffice has a competitive edge here. As long as the Win32 api sticks, or Linux is ported to modern CPUs, you will always be able to put OpenOffice on a new machine.
So, Microsoft needs to be competitive (long term... short term OO is unnoticable). Microsoft needs revenue. Customers need to write, read and share information.
.Net offers them this ability, and their new licensing offers them this ability. If they supported fat client software with the tenaciousness of IBM (e.g. Office 97 will be supported until some nutty year like 2020 and the file format will always be supported), or if they went to that screwed up ASP model with .net, they can lock customers in to regular fees, but they can also offer continual improvements and pay-per-use features.
People hate the upgrade cycle. Where I work, we're only deploying Windows XP and Office XP because Microsoft will eventually drop support for 2000.
I think you've got it backwards. Switching hardware is exactly when people switch OSes. Sure, geeks like us slashdotters might install a new OS every week, but not the average user.
I don't think I could get the average user to let me erase try something new on thier existing PC. But, walk in to a store with a mac and put them at the mouse. They'll find an office app, a browser, and their chat clients. It works, and support comes with the purchase. That, they might do. That's why GNU and BSD systems need to be installed on machines when they are bought, then they can start posting real desktop numbers.
Don't get me wrong, I use Gentoo and OpenBSD. But I have no delusions when it comes to moving my parents or friends from windows. The only way I could do it _now_ is with apple.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
i think joe sixpack isn't the problem
all they do is using their computer for surfing web and writing letters
the problem is the user between geek and sixpack
he wants to do things himself say install a printer, software, install new graphic card drivers maybe even replace his graphic card
but he has no deeper knowledge of the system
for this user linux is to complex to do such tasks (in sufficient time)
it is the point where windows has the biggest advantage to linux
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
Do I think M$ is going to just engage in marketing? No, I don't. M$ will move with the times - when they can't drive them. They blew off the Web then came back with a vengeance.
So, I expect that the bad of lame and FUD-filled marketing campaigns will be coupled with some attempts to make actual, serious improvements. I don't expect any of them to be that original, but I expect them.
M$, being on the top, doesn't have to try as hard to stay there or react as quickly as others. I'd say they know that.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I doubt highly that ordinary Linux folks would buy a MS product when they can get similar functionality, not to mention compatibility, through open-source software.
I think the best thing that Microsoft could do is to work on XML-based, open-source, document, spreadsheet, and presentation formats. Then they can work on making their software the best in the world, which is the ethical way to gain dominance in this sector of the software market. Forcing everyone to use your software just because it's a proprietary format and you need to work with other people isn't right.
Here's the thing. With their "Trusted Computing" Platform, all the bugs have to be ironed out before shipping, otherwise the chain of trust is broken. After the first bug, it is no longer Trusted Computing, but Fairly Trustable Computing.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
"...companies have turned to Linux and other open-source software programs, seeing them as cheap but adequate alternatives."
I'd amend this to say companies find that Linux and Friends aren't just "cheap but adequate." Instead, we find on the server side that they are cheap, rock solid, effective, and simple. In my opinion, Microsoft does do many things well. But MS continues to believe that "featurization" is what companies want, and that corporate types will see additional features as being worth additional time, trouble, and money. What MS might finally be seeing is that more feature-laden, more trouble-prone, and more expensive is NOT what we're looking for. Open Source code should serve as a model for Microsoft, at least in the back office, because it's written by geeks, for geeks. And, obviously, it works.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
you have to wonder whether he thinks some of the changes are too extreme and possibly of little value to the user."
Or it could mean Microsoft's waiting for Apple to release its next version of OS X, so they can, um, compare features and come up with new "innovative" products. Yeah...
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
How can this statement be true if:
1) Sun Java, by many developers admissions, is one of the most poorly written technologies in this day and age?
2) One of the biggest Drawbacks for Distributed Transactions is not the Operating Systems mentioned above but the limited protocols available for the Distributed Transaction Model to use? This is an issue on all operating systems on the market.
3) Interoperability will continue to be a roadblock for years to come?
4) Solutions like these and any alternatives are restrictive in it's archetecture?
5) No matter what the OS, language, or application is, resource conflicts will still be a major problem in this model.
6) Many of the current applications used in the Distributed transaction model are old, outdated, and are an increasing liability to the problems inherent in said model.
7) Scalability. There is no mention of this at all. Even the link above implies a single server architecture.
8) Ease of Development. Even you mention above that Java Classloaders are a hard thing to grok. How are Developers to create an application with such a complex language to wade through?
The problems and limits with the Distributed Transaction model is hardly an OS or a programming language issue. It's a much, much more broader issue that needs to be recognized and addressed.
No one can say Unix/Java is much better at Distributed Transactions when it's in the same boat as Windows Operating systems with the same strenghts and weaknesses.
Dolemite
_________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
How many times has Microsoft been lambasted for getting a half-done product to market and then patching its worst parts? He's saying they're trying not to do that.
He's saying that.
How many times has Microsoft said one thing, but then...
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
If MS spent their time focusing on making their software better instead of trying to destroy everything else, they probably wouldn't have any competition. They have the skills and resources to create the best product out there, but they never do it. There's something wrong when a software company has more attorneys on it's payroll than programmers...
It sounds like everything being asked for could be done with something like a customized Knoppix. As you say, a friendly set of utilities for lightly customizing the final disk would be nice. If the parent in question has a spare PC that meets a minimum set of requirements then chuck in a nice friendly "Permanent Install icon" on the desktop. That would sidestep the repartitioning issue pretty handily.
A less heavy handed approach would be something like those FOSS cds for Windows we heard about a few months ago. Put the Windows ports of some schoolwork relavent projects on some CDs and hand those out.
Well if they keep redesigning the GUI for each release of Windows, adding in more annoyances like Messenger (which they make hard to remove for the less IT literate people) then their future isn't looking too rosy.
With Linux you can upgrade to the latest kernel and stick with KDE2 if you want. You're getting the latest drivers, security and performance enhancements but you're maintaining a familiar front end.
In fact you can install various GUI systems on one machine if you want, giving users the choice of which one to use.
Now of course you can change back to the older style GUI in XP, however things are still slightly different even after you have done that.
The reason why not is their corporate vision of WINDOWS EVERYWHERE ...
...
... I've been doing this gig for over 10 years in different jobs. In one job we had an e-mail application, needed to support Mac, Windows, and Unix/X11 (in 1992), and chose the XVT toolkit. In other, well, I was at Mainsoft for two years developing a Win32 toolkit on Unix/X11. We had unix boxen from 20 different makers (1994-1996) so that we could cross-compile and support lotsa unices. And lately I'm working at javasoft watching what it takes to support J2SE on three platforms.
Yes, they could do it. It wouldn't even be terribly hard given the software at http://www.mainsoft.com/ (where I used to work; and once had the priveledge of helping to port Internet Explorer to Unix). By "not terribly hard" I mean it won't be a cakewalk, but it wouldn't be nigh-on-impossible.
A reason for them to provide software everywhere is - they're a software company, so why not look to distribute their software everywhere they can? But let's consider this for a moment
a) Who's in control
b) Cost of cross-platform development
By controlling both OS and Application (and by fiat controlling the hardware design), they get to be king of the mountain. They're calling the shots. If they were just another application developer, wouldn't the OS/Hardware makers be calling the shots? The OS/Hardware makers might be seen by Microsoft as their competitors, whose market they're selling into, and the OS/Hardware makers might do things to screw Microsoft.
Kinda like what Microsoft does to other application developers today (since Microsoft is controlling the OS/Hardware that other app developers have to sell into).
As for cross-platform development
There's a lotta cost, lots, in both money and people-labor, to support lotsa platforms.
In a way the world would be simpler if we just used one computer OS/hardware platform.
But, I'm typing this on my Mac OS X computer because I find the Micro$haft feeble attempts at software to turn my stomach inside out. And I work on Java. The people of the world also need freedom of choice, and a one-size-fits-all won't work.
- David
"Trustworthy Computing" means that suppliers (primarily Microsoft) can trust it, not the owner or user.
Longhorn will break everything, which is a feature they'll have a real problem selling to end-users without an enormous helping of new value somewhere (and possibly even then). By which time, the Linus Torvalds World Domination Programme will have caught up with them. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Admit that your security problems are a direct result of your insistance in violating the #1 rule of software design: YOU NEVER MIX CODE AND DATA TOGETHER. You have specifically engineered every product you sell to be scriptable. STOP IT!
For years Apple has had AppleScript, an extremely powerful scripting language. Almost every worthwhile Mac application is scriptable. In all the years that AppleScript has been around, how many times has this been exploited? Once, and it was a pretty poor job.
The problem is not the scriptability of Microsoft's products, it's just that they chose to make it a gee-whiz feature and get it out in the marketplace, instead of taking the time and doing it right.
~Philly
Uhh, you do realize that the "course of action" that they took to correct their own defects were to break interoperability and strike up OEM deals to rub out the competition, right? It goes back to before Win3.1 to the DOS days. They shut out DRDos, a superior product. This is well documented. As is the fact that Windows 3.1 reported false errors if you tried to install it on DRDos instead of MSDos.
So no, the Open Source doesn't need to look to Microsoft for any examples on how to fix things. We need to look at them for reminders of what NOT to do.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Well if they keep redesigning the GUI for each release of Windows, adding in more annoyances like Messenger (which they make hard to remove for the less IT literate people) then their future isn't looking too rosy.
:)
With Linux you can upgrade to the latest kernel and stick with KDE2 if you want. You're getting the latest drivers, security and performance enhancements but you're maintaining a familiar front end.
Um... What? On one hand you're saying that the "less IT literate people" find it too hard to remove things like messenger and then you're suggesting that these same people should move to Linux because they can use the same GUI even after a kernel upgrade?!
If these users can't figure out how to disable messenger (a check box), I doubt they're going to be able to figure out how to upgrade the kernel.
We will sell no WINE before its time either. Hell at the rate they are going, Linux will be running windows programs better than the present release of windows.
I think it is no small exaggeration that the folks at Samba understand CIFS better than the folks in Redmond do. It's only a matter of time before the executables are the same way.
About the only way Longhorn is going to sell big is by doing something completely different. About the only way it can be completely different is by ceasing to support what already exists. If it breaks everything that exists, you cease to have any advangtage over Linux. Indeed, since most Unix apps can be simply recompiled for Linux, you are at a disadvantage.
I think they are going to stretch Longhorn out as far as they can. Let the folks who bought Win2k and XP get a few useful years out of their systems, and then introduce this radically different and wholly incompadible new way of processing. And pray you can keep the customers locked in through licensing inertia.
If I was Bill and Steve, I'd be selling my shares of Microsoft and planning a quiet retirement in the Islands. This plan has NEVER worked. Anyone remember Atari? How about Commadore? Apple is about the only company I can think of that has pulled not one, but two major technological upheavals off successfully. (Depending on your definition of success I suppose.)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Not exactly, the user accounts dialog retains it's stupid dumbed down XP look and the shares still remain "simple". You can alter a registry setting to use 2000 style shares of course, but that's not so well known.
Log off dialog still looks like XP, if you want to edit the start menu using the Advanced mode (takes you to the directory they're kept in) then you have to wade thorugh another tab or two.
Read this. Longhorn will not be backwards compatible. Windows Server 2003 is not compatible with Windows 2000, so what makes you think they wouldn't further break compatibility? As my employer has found out they are in the continual process of making customers re-write their applications to run on Windows. This continues their revenue stream. Why do customers put up with this? Past investment in Microsoft makes people reluctant to give up. Desktop monopoly is also a major factor.
Developers: We can use your help.
That thing didn't read like a wakeup call at all. And it certainly wasn't something Ballmer will regret got leaked. In fact, quite the contrary...
It read very much like a piece of "sure hope this leaks quick" propaganda.
Everything semi-critical of MS, or anything suggesting that "we have work to do", etc...was carefully worded to be pretty light work, while at the same time seeming honest and responsible. People respond well to those thin veils of apparent sincerity.
The real purpose of the note was to press forward with that same old stuff about the lack of accountability behind OpenSource. Tell us again how nobody is responsible for OpenSource. Lacking a commercial interest, OpenSource is a hodge podge of buggy software built by faceless hackers who have no long-term interest and might even care to purposefully endanger your IT system with notions of anarchy!!
Run for the hills!!!
Yep, sounds like the same old stuff. Been reading that stuff for years. Where else did we just read this a few days ago? Oh yeah, Darl McBride's / SCO's comments...
Soon the Gimp will get some little improvement that will have Adobe shouting the same stuff. Maybe they already should.
[These comments best converted to PDF using GhostView]
That's funny, every time I upgrade RedHat Linux, GNOME has all different menus.
So when Microsoft does it its bad. But when Linux does it it isn't?
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Customers will buy Longhorn for the same reason they've bought all other Windows systems. It will come on all new PC's, it'll break compatibility with older versions, and eventually, it'll get to be too much of a hassle NOT to upgrade.
So what else is new?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
How is it a disservice to use a product that allows us to develop faster and integrate more seamlessly?
Because it makes an important part of the U.S. Government technologically dependent on one corporation (Microsoft). For most things, the risk behind single-source products is fully understood. Why so few people see that in software, I simply don't know.
The computer industry has finally matured to a point where single-source hardware and software is totally avoidable. Several companies make good hardware (HP, Sun, IBM, etc.) and there are many ubiquitous operating systems and application development tools that are very good. For example, commercial UNIX is available from at least five vendors, there are at least three BSD-derived systems, and many Linux distributions. Good and productive development environments range from PHP to Lisp to J2EE, which, conveniently, can be run on most of the previously mentioned UNIX, BSD, and Linux systems.
There is really no good reason to put up with lock-in, anymore, even if it makes things look good in the short-term.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Let's turn that around and look at it from a multi-user perspective. The root user has the ability to upgrade the kernel, and most likely the knowledge (since root isn't given to just anybody!)
But Joe User can still log in to the machine, locally or remotely, and use the GUI that he/she is familiar with, and not even know that the kernel has been upgraded.
However with windows, the newest drivers may require an OS upgrade, and with that comes an upgrade for the GUI and everything else, which is in no way transparent to Joe User.
That's where the point lies, I believe.
If WINE gets successfull, M$ can destroy it in 10 min. All they have to do is to issue a security warning and a patch to M$ office and win2k3 that would let office use a new undocumented system call. WINE would roll over and die.
Like all those SMB changes to kill Samba? But the Samba team just kept rolling with the punches.
The Wine team (and many curious Windows developers) are quite adept are uncovering Microsoft's "hidden" APIs. Your new undocumented system call would be discovered and reimplemented easily.
cpeterso
How strange. As I come from the UNIX world I've always thought the exact opposite: Linux is a well written UNIX and Windows is the cheap imitation that is *still* playing catchup. I feel dirty when I have to use Windows; especially when I'm forced to use beta-quality Microsoft software like their "Microsoft Cluster" crap (which is broken beyond all imagination).
Shrug. I guess if all you do is play games and use Microsoft Office - you did mention the magic word "desktop" - then Windows might feel like the more polished product.
The problem with SlashDot is a lack of objectivity. A large number of people here seem to want to see Microsoft fall, and interpret any news about Microsoft as evidence of MS's impending doom or as proof of their evil ways. Umm, gee, guys -- take a reality pill, will ya? Some things MS does might be stupid and unethical, but for the most part, it acts just like any other big business. And just like any other business, it wins some and loses some.
In this case, Steve's message is simple: we just shipped Windows Server 2003, and our next big Windows release isn't for several more years. Until then, we still have to make money, and we have to improve our image. Lets do it in every way possible: fix our bugs, fix application inconsistencies, fix marketing and licensing problems, and work hard to advertise our advantages over our competition.
So a question to all those doomsayers: what is wrong with that statement? All companies have up and down times. Microsoft has just come off of two years of lotsa releases (a lot of projects got finished and released at about the same time), and now they're going to hit a few years with no major releases. Steve is charting the strategy for that span of time to make sure that during this time the company is productive.
Two additional points that I wanted to mention after reading a lot of other posts: Microsoft's "innovation" and Microsoft's "doom".
First, there is a continual accusation that Microsoft doesn't innovate, that everything done by Microsoft was done by somebody else first. To the extent that this is true, it is also true of everybody else in the industry: few software companies can actually claim to have invented the program genre that they produce. On the other hand, coming up with a good idea isn't everything -- creating a good implementation of the idea and getting it on the market is a lot of work, too, and Microsoft has done plenty of that. In addition, whatever anybody else says, Linux and related technologies are doing a heck of a lot of catch-up with Microsoft, simply implementing stuff that Windows has had from the beginning. Kernel-mode threading? Windows NT 3.1 had it, as did Windows 95. Fully re-entrant kernel? Windows NT 3.1 had it. Standard printing system? Windows 3.0 (perhaps before, I don't know). Kernel modules, loadable drivers, etc. -- NT has it. It also has COM (messy, but it works) which offers great support for component sharing and interoperability (Gnome is starting to pick up some similar stuff, and CORBA has some similar functionality, but none are heavily integrated into and supported by the OS). A developer can write an application that uses a GUI, threads, fonts, COM, etc. without having to worry about widget sets and without the user having to run "configure" to adapt the program at the source level to whatever stuff is available on the system. Sure, the sharing goes both ways, but don't knock Windows as an OS -- it has a lot of useful stuff under the hood that is still lacking in Linux and even BSD.
Now granted, not all of that stuff is necessary for every user. There is no reason to have all of that running for, say, a static web server or a database. I run my home firewall on FreeBSD, not Windows. This is forcing Microsoft to focus on more advanced features and to provide additional features and functionality for the more complicated scenarios where the extra capabilities of Windows give it an advantage -- ASP.Net, SQL Server 64-bit edition, Remote Desktop for managing the servers, etc. For application servers, complex database apps, desktops, etc., Windows still has functionality that people want that is missing from Linux. Linux will continue to create pressure for Windows to innovate as it picks up on these features, and I think that is a very good thing -- it forces Microsoft to focus on core areas that it might otherwise have ignored (reliability, security, etc.). But at this point, Windows is still way ahead on many features that are very important to me.
So Micro
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I'm fed up that every release of MS software tries to get me to change what I'm doing, or expects me to spend money. They want all ASP developers to move to ASP.NET. And I imagine in 3-5 years, we'll be expected to do the same.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind product improvements, but I don't want to spend my life retraining and reengineering. PHP looks promising, as new things get added, and not much taken away - and if it is, it's for good reason.
Support is a valid issue, but this will change. Troubleshooting a linux machine remotely will never be the hell that troubleshooting a windows machine is.
I'm guessing you haven't used the Remote Desktop feature that comes with XP Pro...As long as the appropriate port is open (something you'd have to do with Linux as well), I can have complete access to my machine remotely, just as if I was sitting at my desk.
Just today at work, I had gotten some troubleshooting advice on getting Outlook to grab my mail from a new Exchange server- I was able to log on, open Outlook, and fix the problem in 2 or 3 minutes.
While it may be easy to access a Linux box remotely as well, it can be just as easy with Windows....Only if you actually use tools provided to make your life easier, however.
And this is a bad thing? I can't wait for Longhorn to come out, I mean, for best results, your going to need a DX 9 graphics card, which means its going to have some pretty spiffy GFX going on in there, which is cool. I'll be honest, all the "scary GUI changes" Microsoft has made over the years has never phased me once.