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 It might make more sense for Microsoft to combine a bunch of things as "#1: Our Outdated Business Model".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.
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+).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Also, do we really need the hyperlink to www.microsoft.com in the article?
It's so we can slashdot Microsoft.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
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).
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.