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 It might make more sense for Microsoft to combine a bunch of things as "#1: Our Outdated Business Model".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.
Coincidentally, when I clicked the view comments link, a large advertisment for Linux.com appeared under the article.
Mr. Torvalds, Mr. Cox, Mr. Stallman.
I lay the blame solely on you!
(Good Job, and thanks for everything!)
How nice of Microsoft. That's like someone asking for a steak and being given in-flight peanuts. Maybe a glass of water, too.
It's a start, I guess.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
1. They ignore you
2. They laugh at you
3. They fight you <----- YOU ARE HERE
4. You win
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
...to the products that Microsoft actually does well at.
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.
-Rusty
You never know...
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.
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+).
On one hand, MS is losing sales ... on the other, MS doesn't look like the monopoly that it once was. Maybe this will get some of the DOJ and politcal heat off of MS?
There is no spoon or sig.
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.
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.
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
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....
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'm quite surprised that Linux isn't #1 on the list of threats. I don't think Microsoft has too much to worry about individual use of Linux, but rather companies switching to Linux to avoid paying the hefty licensing fees. And I don't think lowering the price of CE will help much. As I stated, the threat's with companies getting fed up with licensing.
I don't think opening the source code will help much either. It costs a lot to get the code, you aren't allowed to recompile it, and you're probably bound by a bunch of other restrictions.
If I were Bill Gates, I'd be worried sick about it and I would probably have nightmares about giant penguins chasing me with pitchforks.
/usr/bin/complain >
"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.
Or slipped off the stage into the front row.
There goes MS's board of Directors. Next week the interns sit up front.
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.
Watch what comes up with, say, an article about spam. Slashdot has been tailoring ad placement for some time. (Not that that's a bad thing.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
And the flames rose higher and higher, and a million emails were fired in anger...
Script kiddies and geeks, UN*X gurus and bearded free-software prophets all sharpened their r00tkits and compilers and started beating louder and louder on the war drums...
Gee, I love the smell of FUD in the morning... It smells like... like... Victory! =)
[and all of this is said with tongue firmly in cheek, of course!]
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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
This is just MSFT trying to act all big, oh pshaw, Linux, one can hardly muster a whim about it. Well, it is a tried and true method. I mean, at Coca-Cola back in the day, they barely even considered a little startup called Pepsi. They mocked it internally, thinking that they were the big guy and the "P-cola" would never amount to much. Of course, when it gained steam by targeting a younger audience, they panicked and launched "New Coke". Yeah. I think we know the rest of that story.
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.
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.
"Dancing Steve" Ballmer has to be on that list somewhere. What's his number?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The CFOs name is John Connors, coincidence, I think not! Time to Terminate boys.
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!
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...??"
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!
No, that's just what Ballmer does in his pants everytime an entire city chooses Linux over Microsoft. Hell, if it were my job, I'd be doing that too.
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.
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.
"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.
I thought Microsoft's products were more #2 than anything else.
and to know that Microsoft thinks that Linux is more threatening than you by a long shot. How sad.
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.
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.
I still prefer the taste of Dr. Pepper.
(-1, Irrelevant)
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 rest of the story is that coke still holds a tangible advantage (about 10 percentage points) in the US market while it has about 90% marketshare in the rest of the world. So, while Pepsi may be a big company, Coke still isn't really threatened by it.
Time makes more converts than reason
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.
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.
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
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.''
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
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.
> 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.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
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
When the economy is in recession, it is shrinking. Because the U.S. economy is not shrinking, it cannot, by definition, be in a recession.
It's not growing as much as all of us would like, for sure.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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.