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."
Free publicity :)
Tho I personally believe Microsoft's biggest threat are themselves. They sometimes do make cool stuff (Media Player 6.4) but then quicky ruin it (Media Player 7+).
I wonder how long it's going to take Microsoft to figure out that it's not Linux that's the threat, it's open source. Linux is fine, but what do you DO with Linux? Linux is just a platform (like BSD), the other things you do like run a webserver, file server, database all require some sort of software (Apache, Samba, PostgreSQL). Most of the really good software packages aren't specific to Linux.
By even giving away Windows CE, they lose nothing. It is highly outdated, but by getting hardware manufacturers to stick to the MS line of products, their monopoly is secured. Is a device running WinCE more or less likely to ever have Linux drivers?
---
1-800-759-0700
Considering how MS deals with problems, it can't possibly win.
1. MS can't buy the economy
2. MS can't buy Linux
So traditional MS strategies don't work.
I have a Microsoft keyboard, and I find it amusing that the "Mail" button opens The Bat! (and not Outlook), the "Web/Home" button opens Opera (and not Internet Explorer), the "Messenger" button opens Gaim (and not MSN Messenger), and the "Media" button opens Winamp (and not Windows Media Player). *grin*
So Bill saw that opensource and Linux is their biggest enemy, so they opensourced parts of their operating system? Well, I dunno, but it seems like the opensource community has just won. And isn't this what we have been waiting for - more opensource software?
No matter what approach Microsoft takes, I don't see it taking a major blow to Linux. Short of open sourcing Windows, all they are doing is reducing the difference, but the fundamental differences still exisit. Either Linux is NeXT and will take over the world or it is just for us geeks. Only time will tell which of the many theories about linux and how it fits in with the market share are correct.
There sure is. Not only that, but "Linux" -- or rather, the universe of free-software Unix-like components -- is not entirely a noncommercial space. It contains a lot of commercial competitors to Microsoft, such as Red Hat, Zope Corporation, IBM, and so forth -- it isn't just volunteers hacking code for fun. It's these commercial competitors -- not a bunch of random hackers -- who will eat Microsoft's lunch if they get the chance.
("Commercial" is not the same as "proprietary". There is plenty of commerce possible, and existent, in the world of free software.)
It doesn't have to be that way. Because the portability barriers between GNU/Linux and Solaris are low, customers can migrate easily, yes -- but so can good code. For instance, Apache is often thought of as "Linux software" by people who don't know very much, but it also ships with Solaris.
Sun has to compete more closely with free-software systems than Microsoft does ... but Sun can also benefit much more easily from free-software innovation than Microsoft can.
(Of course, portability is not the only reason for this; ideology is, as well. One of the planks of Fundamentalist Gatesism is that free software doesn't do anyone any good. And they call us fanatics?)
Good point, but still, I remember an article on the front page of the business section of the USAToday about Linux a while back. Not exactly my favorite news publication, but obviously there were a huge number of non-geeks reading about Linux vs. Microsoft that day. You never know who's going to pick up the story.
Sun has to compete more closely with free-software systems than Microsoft does ... but Sun can also benefit much more easily from free-software innovation than Microsoft can.
That is an excellent point.
One of the planks of Fundamentalist Gatesism is that free software doesn't do anyone any good. And they call us fanatics?
Oh, Gates has no problems with "free as in beer" - look at IE, for example.
Due to technological advancements, better ways of doing things, old industry is being flushed out.
This includes proprietary software. (isn't that what MS is saying?)
It also includes flushing out the old music industry and more...
So much has been integrated into a larger system of "old business" that as one industry reacts to change other industries tied in integration are as well tugged on.
Note that it's the software industry that tugs on the entertainment industry....
The wave being caused by open source (OSI definition - not MS's definition) is being felt further than just the old software industry.
Economic Environment....
Don't nobody tell MS that there list is incorrect, they will eventually figure it out, when they no longer can ignore their old ways are not working, cause everyone else knows it.
Guess this tells us what MS's next line of irrationality is going to be with the politicians.
"To save our (double speak meaning MSs personal economy) economy you have to outlaw Open Source and then sentance all criminals to have to use our software. A matter of homeland security, you understand...??"
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.
:->) 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!
Of course, this is also why MS is successful; if they had tied themselves to a single hardware vendor who was therefore also capable of selling with fat profit margins and little competition, many more of us would be using Macs right now.
OTOH if they make a modified XBox, say XXBox (what about XXXBox
They've already got the equivalent of Palladium on the XBox, and it's already been cracked. The XXBox would be cracked too, as will Palladium for the PC. In order to make Palladium work, even if they had magic reverse engineering proof hardware, Microsoft would need to only sign software that is 100% free of exploitable errors. I doubt they could write software like that themselves, much less expect everyone else in the world to write it, if they still expect to sign other companies' software to maintain a facade of market competition.
Large forces and trends ultimately win; like the desire to be free. MS has simply begun to recognize that the inputs required to overcome the market's natural forces will soon exceed the outputs. this is partly due to an increasing realization that consumers have become satisfied with existing technology.
what will MS do? they have hundreds of very talented programmers, incredible distribution & support capacity, not to mention $30 billion in cash. after all, customers simply want the outputs of all that technology.
if MS would embrace OpenSource as another input to its products and add credibility and customer service they would have an incredible value proposition.
i predict an MS-Linux release in 2-3 years.
Yes, many Linux distros are good desktop OSes. It's important to realize that the UNIX aspects of it are why we geeks use it.
I'd rather have Linux with no dos/windows/macintosh emulation on a nice UltraSparc than Lindows on a PC, even if that latter had a perfected fork of Wine installed.
I think that Microsoft knows they can't best Linux in the server market, where buyers are more educated. They are more afraid of losing bundling with the smaller PC companies. How many people are running a $199 Walmart C3 with an illegal copy of Windows?
As for the Windows CE source, where is it? If they expect us to pay money to work on their code for them, they are sadly missing the beauty of OSS.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Not really. Big companies aren't going to switch from a mostly-closed OS on commodity hardware to ANOTHER mostly-closed OS on SINGLE-VENDOR hardware.
Ask yourself why Linux is growing and Apple have lost so much market share over the past decade. Macs have Office, IE, ease-of-use in abundance. Linux has none of them, but is roaring ahead.
Moral: Apple is not, despite the zealots, all that brill. They're OK, but that's about it.
Actually, in my physics department, we use Linux, not because it is GOOD ENOUGH (?!?), but because it is the ONLY acceptable solution for what we need to do. For scientific computing, (or security, etc., etc.) it is the best option, not "good enough", and certainly no comparison with outdated programs from MS.
Microsoft doesn't let anyone but itself re-compile the code to Windows
I may freely build my Open Source executables, along with any changes I've made to it.
If re-compiling Windows where an option, the DRM and Palladium would not be possible.
I'd say this was insightful, too, but for far different reasons.
:) and I am switching for reasons that are not based solely on price!
I use nothing but Microsoft mice right now. I used to use Logitech exclusively, but mad the switch to Microsoft mice when I found that they just did NOT die. They were easier to clean, more rugged, more reliable and, in the end, cheaper!
I know what kinds of tricks they used to make their mice more convenient (i.e. changing the OS to make it harder to use 3rd party mice and give their mice advantage) but that really didn't have anything to do with my decision. They made a quality product at a reasonable price. They competed and won my business by doing it right.
On the other hand, I am in the process of moving away from Windows and to Linux. I have used Windows since 3.11 but Linux offers advantages that Windows does not (surely I don't have to go into those advantages HERE
Now, that's what's insightful about this: if M$ wants my O$ business, they better compete! They better offer things that convince me to use Windows at a price comensurate with the value they offer, not with what they think they need to make. If they won't compete and instead concentrate on just crushing Linux, they will continue to lose my business! They cannot stop me, individually, from using Linux. I have the source!
Could this be the start of an embrace-and-extend campaign?
Until '94, Gates thought that the world would be connected by MSNet and that the Internet would fade away. When he realized he was wrong, they began implementing extortionware/IP.
Maybe they will offer some of their key technologies on Linux, but only if the user loads some type of software drm module. I dunno, just speculating.
Essentially, Microsoft has had to make the concession in order to rally their own troops to fighting Linux aggressively. To continue saying, Linux is worthless and not a real credible answer, is to look like you have your head in the sand. The Munich deal made them realize that Linux is no longer being used to just squeeze a better deal out of MS, but people will actually implement it if MS doesn't come up with a good deal up front. I think that is what surprised them: they probably never believed that Munich was serious about putting in Linux.
They've simply been hoping that this point would never come, when they had to actually acknowledge Linux as a serious competitor (and not just for anti-trust reasons; they would call a Vic-20 viable competition in order to get DOJ to leave them alone).
I don't care what others may say; this is probably the most significant victory for open source to date. I think that Microsoft opening its code to modification and redistribution is unparalleled compared to previous inroads made by open source. True open source evangelists would probably say that although the impact this may make is small, what it says is certainly not; Microsoft has budged in its previously-unyielding attitude toward closed intellectual property.
The Economy!! How can the economy be a 'risk'??
Okay. Let me explain it to you.
The economy is starting to show signs of getting somewhat better. This is bad, because people will begin to spend money again. This means some money will be spent on computer upgrades. This means that vendors of non-Microsoft products might see an improvement in their business. This is bad.
When the economy is bad, this is good for Microsoft. Microsoft can weather the storm just fine. But vendors of competitive products might go under.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The rest of the story is that coke still holds a tangible advantage (about 10 percentage points) in the US market...
My intention wasn't to say that Linux will destroy M$, but rather that in the final analysis (assuming this well-worn analogy holds true), initial size doesn't necessarily matter and it will come down to a matter of personal preference. And a "tangible" advantage of 10 points is a lot different than a near-complete monopoly.
IBM just needed a ice-water douche to remind them: "Hey, we're a services company. We've always been a services company, and we always will be." Now they can sell/customize/support something that they don't even have to write the core of, bonus!
Selling all that Big Iron just confused them for a while.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
In a down economy, the next cool thing better be cheap! and online! and be really useful! ...did I mention cheap...
Remember Bill made his money selling STOCK in something cool and using legal contracts to keep the ball rolling. MS as just a software company with profit is a dime-a-dozen [look at what wall street did to IBM with profits!] They have to be cool to justify their stock price or the whole thing collapses.
Linux doesn't have to do anything but be itself. What it's always been...get the picture.
In the article they state the number one risk is the state of the economy, and the number two risk is open source.
I would argue that Microsoft's number one risk is actually the free spread of information over the internet. This is something that can not be controlled (yet).
In the old days IT decisions were made with very limited information. Possibly Gartner group published recommendations, maybe from reading trade journals that were several months out of date.
A popular saying was "well nobody got fired using [insert company here] products". It was all about risk management. Go with the biggest baddest company, and at least you're protected in some way if things blow up. That was the theory.
With easier access to information folks are realizing that this theory doesn't always hold true. When the latest windows/exchange/internet explorer vulnerability is unleashed, now you're just part of the bigger collective that is screwed.
It becomes harder for companies to do damage control when the facts spread quickly and undergo so much analysis by people not on their payroll.
When the internet functions as a self regulating corporate BS filter, then it becomes the biggest single threat to Microsoft.
If there were no alternatives to Microsoft, the economic environment wouldn't matter much, would it?
That is actually a very good point but I would take it one step further. The economuc environment and saturated market are THE reasons for Licensing 6.0. Licensing 6.0/Software Assurance is an attempt by Microsoft to maintain an economy of scale in a stagnating market. They know that without Licensing 6.0 they will be unable to invest as much time and work into the further development of Windows.
Along comes Linux.... Now Licensing 6.0 doesn't look so hot to the corporate customer. Nor does product activation, etc. There are parts of these practices that actually *detract* from the use value of the software. So regardless, Windows becomes more expensive as time goes on.
So the real problem is that Linux restricts Microsoft's reactions to the economic times in ways that no other competitor can.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Sure ... coffee with cream and Nutrasweet. And some might say that human progress will end when the computer's name is "Skynet" but that's a discussion for another day.
... no sir. Eventually it will but not for many centuries. I meant that Microsoft was plateuing. What has changed in the last few releases of Windows? Answer: not a whole lot. Win98 is Win95 with bug fixes (and not enough of those.) Win2K is just the Win98 GUI laid upon the NT core, and XP is just an extension of that. Whoop-de-do. And the much-vaunted stability of the successor OSes based upon the NT kernel is just duplicating what Novell and the various Unices accomplished long ago (and the latest Netcraft uptime surveys indicate that Microsoft isn't there yet!)
I never said that technology (with a capital T) was plateuing
The problem (for Microsoft) is that for twenty-five years application developers have been refining and polishing software to do what most of us want to do most of the time. And, I might add that that they've gotten pretty good at it. The reason that users and corporations are balking at continually "upgrading" their software is the the cost/benefit ratio of new Microsoft releases is much poorer than it used to be.
For example, when Windows '95 was released, what was it replacing? Why, Windows 3.1x, of course, that drain-bamaged loosely-named "operating system" whose only reason for existence was to assuage the Mac envy that was growing by leaps-and-bounds among the Microsoft faithful. Win95, on the other hand, offered significant useability enhancements over Win3.1. Let's just say, it was actually usable: to Joe User the difference was like night-and-day. Granted, under the hood it wasn't that different, but from the user's perspective, it was a worthwhile upgrade.
Furthermore, the long-term Microsoft practice of simply adding dozens (nay, hundreds) of largely useless new features to their applications to make them more marketable is beginning to fail. In other words, feature-bloat and code-creep will carry you only so far. For example, Office 97 already does everything that the VAST majority of users will ever want to do. Consequently, spending significant amounts of capital "upgrading" to, say, Office 2000 is hard to justify, unless your product evaluation cycle indicates that there is some specific new capability that you need.
That is what I meant by "plateuing". And the effect is becoming more pronounced all the time, as big customers are refusing to swallow Microsoft's forced upgrade policies and buy the latest-and-greatest just because it is available.
I like Win2K because it does what I need. WinXP has a lot of GUI glitter, but it serves little purpose other than to make it sell better to the uninitiated (who gauge an OS's value based upon the number of colors presented simultaneously) and use more processor time. Keep in mind that I like glitter (that's what I do for a living) but I don't it see as a rationale for selecting an operating system.
Plus I don't much like XP's license agreement.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This story needs to be put in context with recent developments and crowing about Windows being chosen over Linux. The biggest story out of this surprising admission is that analysts and large organizations are starting to recognize the value proposition of Linux and Open Source, as described in the rejected post below. The most telling comment is in the quotation in boldface, which lends support to Mitch Kapor's predictions.
Microsoft Ranks Linux its Number Two Threat
While most media are focusing on Microsoft's growing sales and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 replacing Linux servers based on the June 2003 Netcraft survey, (also at SMH, but disputed by the Register) there's a more interesting story to Microsoft's latest earnings report and conference call. Speaking about the top five risks for Microsoft, CFO John Connors said, ''The general economic environment is risk and driver number one. Linux and non-commercial software is risk number two.'' The recent Munich win for Linux is partly credited for making Microsoft take Linux and OS software seriously. Said one analyst about future threats, ''People are underestimating Linux on the desktop. They're going to be surprised at how quickly Linux's threat will be an issue on the desktop.''
Well, maybe so, but there are limits to how effective any code base and methodology can be. There are reasons to suspect that the Microsoft approach will soon or has already reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of value added per unit effort. It can always be made better, of course, but that doesn't mean it can always be made better fast enough.
Even if true, this doesn't mean Stallmanesque pure open source will win either. I think a hybrid model (see OSX) may be the best. The point is less about morality or motivation, and more that Microsoft's high-pressure release-first fix-later approach has left it with a huge, bloated, unrepairable code base.
Look again at your analogy. You can add motors to your 18th century boat and make it faster, but it's not going to win a race head-to-head against a modern speedboat designed and built with modern methods and materials.
I can't believe you say you like Win2k better than WinXP.
I have seen my mother-in-law try to switch to XP from W98 to manage her photography hobby. The switch seems to have gratuitously confused her. In the end she is marginally less effective. As for me, when I get roped into support tasks for her, I have to deal with a smarmy and aesthetically revolting UI.
Even leaving aside the licensing and spyware aspects, I for one definitely strongly prefer older version of Windows to XP, and have no plans to move any of my Win9x boxes to any current Microsoft OS, nor to purchase any Intel boxes with any version on XP on them in future. I have occasion to run Win95, Win98, Red Hat, and Debian, but mostly I use OSX, sometimes with a Win98 VirtualPC.
By the way I have nothing against decent MS software. Excel is nice, and if it weren't a security risk Outlook, (which has some great features to outweigh its cluttered design) would be very appealing. I recommend MS Entourage on OSX + Palm as the best PIM combination at present, despite the many things I like about iCal. On the other hand I think MS Word is garbage and a curse on humankind. It cannot be repaired. The underlying data structures are too broken.
mt
For example, working for a small, university library, I have to deal with a small budget in a shrinking economy. I would love nothing better than to switch over to Linux. However, we still have a few programs that we rely on that requires Windows. Now, if our vendors were to write their programs for Linux, then the switch would be a real possibility. A pipedream? Maybe, but then again a lot of things started out the same way and are now not only a reality, we have come to depend upon them (e.g. computers, cell phones, etc.)
Oh, and I just can't leave this post without something funny, and considering the wording of the topic, it screams for this one.
Number One, I order you to take a Number Two. -- Beavis
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
It seems to me that it has reached a point were there isn't that much use in upgrading anymore.
Good point. People upgraded from Windows 95/98 to Windows 2000 and marvelled at how stable it was in comparison. Wouldn't it be ironic if Microsoft finally fixing the largest stability bugs became the #1 driver behind people not upgrading anymore? "Why should I buy Windows 2003 when Windows 2000 doesn't crash anymore?"
(Note: as a techie, I don't think Windows 2000/2003 is exceptionally stable. It still pales in comparison to most Unices. But compared to Windows 9X it was a big step forward.)
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I have said before on Slashdot that if someone like John Carmack were to build a highly efficient (non-bloatware) GameOS based on Linux and write his Quake games for it, there would be an overnight mass exodus from Windows.
To have an open source OS with REAL major league games support would be nirvana. No memory sucking apps lurking in the background, just a nice clean DirectX style (OpenX perhaps?) API and top notch driver support (proprietary or otherwise but DEVELOPED for open standards).
Make Ogg Vorbis for audio, OpenGL for graphics etc. part of the OpenX standard.
And when you're finished playing games, each game exit routine drops you back to a normal GUI desktop environment for your normal computing tasks.
You could have competing (but OpenX standards based) distros that would try to eek as much performance out of the game kernel as possible.
Give me that and I'll ditch Windows 2000 tomorrow.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
The thing is though, Linux has been around for ten years and well known in Tech circles for at least that long. I'm not some über-hacker and I've known of Linux since the 1.0 days. If there is a Tech firm out there that doesn't know Linux I can't imagine that MS calling Linux threat number 2 will make companies jump to develop for Linux.
If you want software for a company all you can use to cause it's development on Linux is demand with money. "I have a need for your software but we're on Linux now. You'd get my money if you ported to Linux otherwise I'll use some other product." That gets their attention.
-
> I wonder how long it's going to take Microsoft to figure out that it's not Linux that's the threat, it's open source.
Err, how about when Linux zealots realize that MS is just playing to their vanities. Where exactly is the great Linux desktop rollout? Sure, there are inroads to the server-side of things, but Linux is also pushing out Solaris, not just NT.
Why would MS list linux as their #2 threat is they don't mean it? It answers a couple important questions:
1. Why do your products cost so much?
Umm, Linux.
2. Are you still a harmful monopoly?
Umm, no way. Linux. Its killing us!
3. How would you compare OSX to Windows?
Umm, Linux. Linux is everything, haven't you heard? I don't even know what "ooosssexxx" is. Sounds like porno. Next question!
etc.
Microsoft needs a real enemy to play off its "evil empire" image, preferable one that isn't really a desktop threat like Apple. You guys are falling for this hook, line, and sinker.
Not to mention I still cannot see how opening CE is a "reaction to Linux." Opening advanced server would be a reaction to Linux.
MS didn't get where it is by playing fair or by telling the truth. This article is no exception.