Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Names Linux its Number Two Risk
Jorkapp writes "Microsoft has officially moved Linux up to the Number 2 Risk to the company (With Economic Environment at No. 1). Bill Gates has taken the threat very seriously, and has identified Linux and non-commercial software as 'out there and very pervasive.' In response, Microsoft has dropped the price of Windows CE and opened the embedded OS to developers. This will not only allow developers to view and modify CE, but also distribute software incorporated to the modified code."
Isn't Microsoft just making more and more people aware of Linux and how good of a Windows replacement it's becoming? Seems sort of counter-productive to give your #2 threat a lot of free publicity. Doesn't seem like the sort of thing a huge company would tell the public. But hey, I'm not complaining.
Linux is part of the "economic environment". It might make more sense for Microsoft to combine a bunch of things as "#1: Our Outdated Business Model". I'll just hold my breath for that to happen.
Microsoft has officially moved Linux up to the Number 2 Risk to the company (With Economic Environment at No. 1). Bill Gates has taken the threat very seriously, and has identified Linux and non-commercial software
.NET. I don't think he meant Open Office vs MS Office, tho'.
What he actually said was "Linux and non-commercial software" (emphasis mine). The question is, what is the greatest threat to MS - Linux vs Windows? Or maybe it's NetBSD versus WinCE. Or SAP/DB vs SQL 2000. Or Java vs
There's a lot more to "non commercial software" than just one OS kernel, you know. Also remember that Linux is a bigger threat to Unix vendors than it is to MS, because the barriers to migration are lower. I would be very surprised if Sun didn't consider "Lintel" to be its #1 threat.
We are now up to Gandi's "They will fight you" stage of revolution.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Both are making lists of their worst enemies.
Luckily Microsoft just can't use real weapons to beat them. They will have to make better products for cheaper price.
Competition is good if there's no weapons involved.
for a very high % of business users (80%? 90? 99?) the only justification left for using windoze is the Office suite. OpenOffice is getting closer every day to being a true replacement, and as IT and department managers come to realize this, Linux on the desktop inside the corporation may become reality. The savings for most companies will be hard to ignore, allowing them just to purchase sloth products for those who truly need the OS to run non MSFT applications. But that means secretaries, administrators, middle managers and the like can be switched. Does one really need XP and WinWord to write a memo?
I predict that very soon MSFT will have to lower substantially the cost of Office, further eroding its margins. Better start cashing in Bill.
Actually the article refers the no. 1 risk as:
The Economy!! How can the economy be a 'risk'??
Okay I see... Economy bad--> People find MSware expensive --> People start to think --> discover MS is lousy despite all Gartner reports --> read Slashdot --> get to learn about this thing called Linux --> adopt it...yes!
All risks lead to Linux!!
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
"What people tend to forget is that there are gatekeepers in the open-source community, too"
This is subtle but very, very important. Open Source "gatekeepers," like Linus, only get the job of gatekeeper because they are the most popular. And there is nothing stopping anyone else from releasing their own version and taking over the project. However, non-Linus releases must COMPETE with Linus' releases for MINDSHARE based on MERIT. This is truly an evolutionary process.
MS is simply the gate keeper because they have a monopoly. There is no competition based on merit, no evolution takes place. If MS is the default gate keeper, what you contribute automatically belongs to them. Congratulations, you are now the most poorly paid employee at MS.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
I'm curious is they are batching apple in with this in any obscure way.
I think apple is a much larger threat to M$ now than they've ever been do to os x and the attraction of developers they've been able to aquire over the last few years.
I switched six months ago and have been encouraging a lot of others to do the same.
I'm also curious what the next big app. that directly threatens M$ will be- I'm sure keynote was just a starter!
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
If Microsoft would stick to hardware, such as keyboards, mice and joysticks, elements that Linux and the Open Source movement, and Free Software Foundation has no interest in, Microsoft would soon realize that their only competition is Logitech.
:->) and put Palladium on it, that could cut off Linux entirely, since this XXBox would be $150 for h/w and s/w would be $50 per year!
Actually this is not funny at all - I'd say Insightful.
Let's realise that Linux is successful 'cos MS divided the h/w folks, and that led to competition and commodity pricing, at the same time market aggregation.
In a way, MS not getting into h/w is good for Linux. OTOH if they make a modified XBox, say XXBox (what about XXXBox
Be careful what you pray for!
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
It's interesting to note that Windows can't become that much more advanced. It seems to me that it has reached a point were there isn't that much use in upgrading anymore. Like the word processor or web browser there aren't that many innovations people are longing for. Personally, I still use Win2k and I am quite happy with it. Given a choice, I even prefer it over XP.
At the same time, all Linux has to do is play catch up (becoming more user-friendly and so on) to seriously threaten Windows in the next few years. Being free, it is quite competitive.
I can only see Linux gaining territory in the future, while Windows has everything to loose. If Linux attains a critical mass where game developers start making games for it, I will probably switch. And I bet I wont miss Microsoft one bit.
Bill Gates has all the reasons in the world to feel threatened. I mean nobody expects to pay for any of the software you download anymore. The market is becoming increasingly eroded as it only takes one good free alternative for everybody to choose that one over the one that costs money..
Will code a sig generator for food
WinCE may or may not be close, source-wise, to actual Desktop Windows of any flavor, but doesn't this raise the spectre of copyright violation? If WinCE source becomes easily available, Microsoft will soon be able to run around accusing all kinds of Open Source projects of stealing their stuff. Never mind that none of it may be actually useful... Just the possibility of being able to stall OSS projects might be enough to persuade Microsoft to start down the same road as SCO.
Linux and non-commercial software as 'out there and very pervasive
Remember, there's open source software available for Windows. Quite a lot of it actually. Open office clones are more of a threat than an operating system kernel (which is what "Linux" is).
How exactly is this insightful? It's a baseless flame and nothing more. Some of their stuff is good (you'll have to pry powerpoint from my cold dead hands) some is crap. The same is true for open source software.
Download my free songs!
Makes me wonder if Microsoft isn't on their own list of risks. ;-)
But seriously, the article stated that "The general economic environment is risk and driver No. 1," he said. "Linux and non-commercial software is risk No. 2." That means that the top risk to Microsoft is something they have no direct control over. Now we all know that a company as big as Microsoft DOES have an effect on the economy in some respect, but there's nothing that they're going to do on their own to pull the country out of an economic slump. If there was, they would have done it by now so that people would buy more Microsoft products.
So that means that out of their list of the top five risks, the #1 risk that they can actually compete directly against is Linux and open source (and other non-commercial) software. Now doesn't that put things in a bit more perspective?
-Through the server, over the router, off the firewall... Nothing but 'Net!
Quite the contrary - they ran up the bank account during a time when they were open to huge potential legal liability. Now that this is behind them, they're looking to pay out dividends to their shareholders. I wouldn't be surprised if they use some of the cash to gobble up a good-sized software firm as well (Peoplesoft? Siebel? One of the supply chain players?).
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
For me, this kind of thing is my Number 2 reason for liking free software (Number 1 obviously being, well, freedom).
Free software sets the level for what people can do without help from companies. So, if a company wants to sell me some software, it has to demonstrably do something that I can't do for myself (with free software).
By forcing companies like Microsoft to lower prices, rethink strategies etc, free software improves condition in the industry, even for those that don't use it.
Microsoft is attempting to spin the situation even in admitting defeat, by referring to Linux as "non-commercial" software.
Open source software is, of course, "commercial" software: it's at least as good as closed source software, it's used by many commercial enterprises, and it's sold commercially.
"What people tend to forget is that there are gatekeepers in the open-source community, too," he said. "It's not a free-for-all. On every one of the open-source projects, there are two or three people who are the gatekeepers. And you have to make a pretty good case, accurate and technically astute, to get them to allow changes. That's how it should be."
interesting; they assume that no one would ever want to make a modification just for private use. yes, there are gatekeepers in the open software world, but only if you wish to get your changes committed to the "official" distribution. with shared source, since you aren't allowed to compile, the source access gets you diddly squat, whereas with most OSS, you can actually benefit from being able to modify the code. you don't even have to make your changes public if you never distribute that changed program.
i guess that gives us insight into their model of customers: dumb users with a minority of dumb developers.
This is FUD intended to align "Shared Source" with Free Software/Open Source. The main difference is of course, that if you disagree with the so-called "gatekeepers" (what a weird analogy), you can just take the source code and run (make a fork).
You can not do that with "Shared Source". And Microsoft knows that. And most of us here know that. But Microsoft hopes that many people will not see the difference (or won't care).
Microsoft's strategy is scaringly obvious.
Their number 1 risk should be their own security holes.
*cough* Slammer *cough*
Then Linux.
If that's the case, victory needs a shower.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
The DoJ be damned, Microsoft was never a monopoly.
;))
The simple monopoly test: Were you forced to use Microsoft products?
That's a resounding no. True, almost all vendors sold computers with MS products preloaded. Not because they were forced to at gunpoint, but because they were reaping a monetary advantage from doing it.
In truth, at the time of the accusations, there was BSD and Linux, which you could of course, install on your computer at any time. Ignoring the differences between x86 and Apple hardware, there was indeed Apple OS as well. I believe BeOS was still kicking back then, too.
OS - Not a monopoly - check.
Now, for applications. We'll go with MS Office for this one, since everyone's familiar with it.(tm) Did Microsoft hold a monopoly on office suite software? Nope. Lotus Whatever, StarOffice, blah di blah. Just because everyone else in the business world used MS Office doesn't mean Microsoft had a monopoly - there *were* other choices.
The truth of the matter is Microsoft was (and still is) no more than a very large and rich corporation that carried out (and still carries out) some very shady (and likely illegal) dealings.
I am glad they're slowly getting what they deserve, but I don't kid myself about Microsoft having been a monopoly, or that the DOJ and politicians ever placed any heat on them.
The DOJ may have wrongfully convicted them of being a monopoly and using their powers for ill, but then - where were the penalties?
A slap on the wrist isn't a penalty, it's the equivalent of giving your wife a slap on the ass. Both parties involved enjoy it. (Or at least, they should, unless you're some kinda prude.
Second, I can't believe you say you like Win2k better than WinXP. Perhaps in a geeky "I like to do everything for myself, no help please" type of way, but for the general user (and the people who buy computers nonetheless) they want to be able to just plug their new digital camera in and Windows to be able to install the correct drivers and even pull up the correct program to download their pictures.
In terms of usability, Microsoft needs to play catch-up to Apple, but Linux needs to play catch up to MS. In terms of security, etc. Microsoft (if implemented correctly, ie. not everyone is given admin rights!) is par for the course. I will guarantee that if Linux were the market leader, you'd see large amounts of virii for Linux as well. Many times it's the admin who doesn't update/secure it properly who's to blame -- not the OS.
I agree with you mostly, but there will never be a plateau in technology. Not until my computer's name is HAL.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
The site he lists in his sig should be a poster child for junk science. Not only is it utter rubbish, but it's spread is totally irresponsible and COULD cost someone their life.
Actually, even GPL allows that kind of distribution. I can sell you GPL'ed code (and source) and not give you the source if you don't buy it, since I'm not distributing the product before you buy it :)
If one limits the redistribution, then it's no longer Free Software. I'd like to know what use is having the source if you can't compile it. There's now way to know if something was added or removed or changed before the compile. I assume they allow recompile of Windows CE though.
Also, MS is missing the most important part in OSS world. True, there's always someone that says what goes in and what doesn't, but you always have the freedom of forking the project! That's part of why it works. If the original project likes what the fork produced, they can later be merged again.
I don't consider the price to be the main issue. After all one develops a project one is hoping to use. If there are arbitary limitations to that development, I consider it much more important problem.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
Looking at the current state of the economy, I'd say that their concern may rather be that they own too much of the said environment.
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Err, not quite -- mplayer2.exe _is_ version 6.4.
To tell the truth, their $40B in the bank are one of their problems now.
The market economy works by circulating money. If these 40B are not circulating they are a burden. Microsoft has, until now, found a way to take the capital and turn it into a good return.
Now they have saturated the niche. It's becoming harder to get the big returns they (and their shareholders) are familiar with.
In a perfect world they could simply say "screw the returns" and invest that money on good technological advancements, even ones that don't give a so good return. But on the US economy that's not an option; if they did that the investors would take the money and invest it on something with better returns.
Funny thing is that I looked at that website and it reminded me of the reasoning that religious zealots have on the subject of evolution: "You say that all live evolves through evolution, so show me the missing link between monkeys and humans. You cannot, so this proves that God, and not evolution, created man."
Also, a lot of the quotes (which can quite easily be torn out of their context) are some number of years old. A lot can happen in a few years of scientific research.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
As far as private computers at home are concerned, I wouldn't expect a significant part of the population to switch from Windows to GNU/Linux. OS X is a much stronger competitor of Windows in that area. It seems that mostly people with a special interest in IT and OSS are using Linux (often, they know several operating systems). Sometimes, they can convince "normal" computer users they know to use Linux, as well, but I don't believe that this way of spread can result in a massive rise of the number of Linux users.
One important reason is that the difference in price doesn't matter so much for private users. Of course, Linux is free, but most users - and "normal computer users even more so" - usually want to have a convenient up-to-date distribution on a DVD or CDs, and if you buy new versions from time to time, Linux won't be much cheaper any more.
That is, of course, very different for companies and institutions, even if they always buy the latest version of their distribution, they can use it for an unlimited number of computers. Therefore, I think it can be expected that more companies and institutions will use Linux (of course, some can't because they use specialised software developped for Windows, but many can), cities like Munich or Schwäbisch Hall are a show what might happen in many other places, as well. Then, many people will get to know Linux at work, and because they get used to it, many of them will also use it at home and recommend it to others, and educational institutions will have to deal with Linux "because that's what you will be likely to see at work".
I think that if Linux is going to take over a significant share of the desktop, it is probably going to happen in such a way. The grassroot movement for Linux is quite strong, but I don't think it can reach more than a few per cent of the population if companies and public organisations choosing Linux to save money don't play their role.
Although the average slashgeek likes to jump down Microsoft's throat over everything they do, isn't this sort of move exactly what should happen? Aren't things like lowering prices and opening source code some of the long-argued benefits of Linux competing with Microsoft?
Kudos to Linux!
If there ever was a time to ENCOURAGE comparisons between Windows and Linux, THAT TIME IS NOW. You need to consider the audience, people. The audience is NOT GEEKS. It is all of those under-trained, under-skilled folks who still need a computer to do something for them with a minimum of input or instruction.
Microsoft wants those people looking at Linux TODAY, not a year or two from now, when Linux is much better, or when skill sets have improved to make it less difficult to do a proper install.
For every battle against Linux that Microsoft loses today, they will win 20-30 others, because lets face it, the bulk of the people who use computers, both in business and in a personal setting are blithering idiots compared to those of us who know how to use and extend Linux.
Microsoft is brilliant(as usual) in encouraging people to start making comparisons NOW as opposed to later, because if people are turned off by the complexities of Linux now, they are unlikely to revisit the issue anytime soon. Once Microsoft has their dollars, the battle is over for at least a decade.
Some of you folks need to go out and buy "The Prince", and learn a little about winners and losers.
Now that Microsoft has admitted that Linux is one of their primary threats, we can attempt to deduce their opinion of the SCO-IBM lawsuit.
Fact 0: Microsoft could buy SCO for a single day's worth of revenue.
Fact 1: SCO claims that without their permission, nobody can use Linux.
Fact 2: Microsoft knows that Linux is one of their biggest threat to profits.
Fact 3: Microsoft has not bought SCO.
The natural conclusion of these facts is that Microsoft feels SCO's claim has no merit, and will be struck down in court. Rather than buying SCO and expediting the court-case so that Linux can be quashed immediately, they've chosen to sit back and allow the unsettled allegation to stir up uncertainty and dissuade potential Linux adopters.
Note: this doesn't mean that Microsoft considers it impossible for SCO to win the case- only that they don't think there's a high probabilty of victory. They benefit from allowing the FUD to continue for as long as possible before the dice are rolled in court. In fact, there's another way they benefit from holding off the verdict: if some companies deploy Linux and then have their operations interrupted by C&D orders in the wake of an SCO victory, it will discourage future corporate adoption of all kinds of Open Source software.
It isn't Linux itself that Microsoft is scared of: it is deployment of services across a network that linux enables. This means that the LAMP (apache mysql php) approach is really what concerns them.
Does "business value" mean having a bunch of point-and-clickers take over your IT department? It takes a sixth-grade education to get through a Windows Server 2003 patch upgrade. Know how to click "OK" and you've got the job!
What Microsoft is missing is this: unix sysadmin skills have real value, a value tied up in automating business processes. Investing in off-the-shelf boxed products so you don't have to invest in quality skilled IT people is short-sighted.
Get it straight from the horse's mouth: Microsoft Lessons
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
I am very amused this turned into a micro-flamewar while I was gone. I already knew it was owned by the same folks who do 7up. :)
"Microsoft will take some considerable encouragement at the number of sites that have switched from Linux," NetCraft said in the report.
But the server arena isn't really the one to watch how Microsoft reacts to Linux, said Cherry.
"People are underestimating Linux on the desktop," he said. "They think it's all about the servers, and how Microsoft responds there. They're going to be surprised at how quickly Linux's threat will be an issue on the desktop. Linux will get to be 'just good enough' for the desktop faster than people think."
Maybe that will make Microsoft bump Linux to the top of its risk list.
This is what I've been saying since I first saw screenshots of Enlightenment back in 1998. The moment I, sitting in Front of Windows95 and some ancient Explorer, saw
this, I knew M$ would lose in the end. Software wins by widespread use. Widespread use is achieved by public awareness. And, believe me, public awareness is *not* achieved on servers, no matter how much the difference is. Public awareness is achieved on the Desktop. That's the bottom line.
Having seen previews of KDE 3.2 at the LinuxTag I conclude: Not only has GNU + Linux gained momentum but it is close to reaching critical mass.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I think the poor "economic climate" for Microsoft and the "Linux threat" might be connected to each other. People switch to various Linux-based servers and sometimes even for desktop usage since they find Linux "good enough" and perhaps cheaper as well, in the long run as well. And with the current economic climate, price is important and so is the "good enough" factor. A poor economic climate might speed up the Linux adaption and I'm not really that surprised to see Linux that high on the list simultaneously as the "economic climate", since I'm seeing those as connected. Not saying that people will switch back to Microsoft when/if the climate improves, but the Linux adaption might slow down a bit.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If Microsoft openly says that they are worried about Linux regardless of if they are or not, it will make any sneaky businness tactics look like they are simply protecting the company from what they see as a serious threat rather being seen to make sure it doesn't get to a position where it could be.