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 It might make more sense for Microsoft to combine a bunch of things as "#1: Our Outdated Business Model".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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.