Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft at the Tipover Point
David Gerard writes "In the wake of Microsoft's first flat quarter, The Inquirer brings us The IT Industry Is Shifting Away From Microsoft - Linux is being taken seriously, Microsoft is not trusted and our favorite monopoly is finding it harder and harder to compete with 'free.'"
You know what this means right? We've backed Microsoft into a corner, so now it's going to pull every dirty trick in the book to get it's profits back...
;)
No, really, I wouldn't put it past them... Wonder what technology area they're going to monopolize next? Tivo looks prime for the picking...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
...is not far away! If they can make money off it, tehy will make money off it!
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6582
It's an extended holiday, and any opinion peices you see during these days are little more than weak efforts to fill a quota. I would also assume that this article was posted on slashdot to fill a similar hole.
So it's not much of a monopoly is it?
------
Sig
On one hand, I'm breaking out the wine for a little celebration. On the other, this is the Inquirer we're talking about guys. I might save the bottle for when a reliable source follows up this story.
it'll take time until Microsoft actually lose money.
I however believe they could develop, then enhance (read: "embrace and extend") their own version of Apache like cnet (before RedHat) did with Stronghold and sell this special Apache/NT...
This would for sure seduce any PHB even though it is not guaranteed to be better than the others ports.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Ha-HA!
I don't think it's bad if MS gets pushed down to the same level as everyone else. The only way then that they'll drag themselves up is by releasing consistently good software, good services, decent pricing, and not forcing SameOldCrap on their licensees.
There's only two things that can happen with MS reducing marketshare:
1. They'll keep reducing, keep producing the same stuff people dont want, and go bust or continue sitting as a minority player in the background - it'll be good riddance to a bad company
2. They'll learn to improve, and we'll once again have the good microsoft we did in the pre-1999 days
To be fair, does Microsoft's flattening revenue have to do with "open source" taking their marketshare, or is it because many customers are quite happy with older Microsoft products and have refused to sign up to the recent licensing agreements? I know a couple of very large corporations whose desktops are NT 4, and they're only grudgingly finally upgrading to 2000. This same thing can be seen with countless users continuing to use Office 97, etc -- Given this, a flattening or declining revenue stream seems obvious.
My limited experience with the .NET framework made me want to slit my wrists with a spoon. You're talking about a product that makes J2EE look like a good idea.
Good luck changing the tide with that.
Office and Windows rely on being ubiquitious to drive sales. Every free copy of Word that goes out there, every stolen copy of Windows, serves to cement Microsoft's monopoly in place. When people now have to think in terms of Windows and Word as a paying proposition, the relatively high prices for Windows and Office suddenly become a factor. Free is pretty good, but Sun seems to be making money off of "reasonably priced."
This is my sig.
i see what you're saying about possibly breaking out the Wine a little too early...
the article was a little ruthless if you ask me.. of course i want opensource to prevail.. but i don't see it happening anytime soon.. companies will only need to HIRE more Linux guru's which will cost them money.. when the could just buy something like MS 2003 server.. its sad but true... they dont give a fuck about opensource movements.. they just want to save money... licensing is a bitch though with that MS 2003 server.. the only downfall really.. and plus the fact that its MS.. haha
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
On the web server this may be true. In Germany it is even > 89% Apache.
But Microsoft still is strong in the Desktop market. Soon KDE 3.2 will be released and as Linux quickly matures on the desktop I don't see a reason why it will not be the default plattform in the enterprise desktop market.
Only software patents can stop Linux now, but today software patents and patent privateers harm Microsoft (eolas, SPX ecc.). But Microsoft performs well in the armsraise.
Sure, Microsoft will die away. It's only a matter of time.
...Microsoft is dying.
The editorial points mostly at Microsoft's failed offerings like MSN and Xbox, saying that the 80% profit numbers for Windows and Office can only sustain the failed products as long as Windows and Office remain profitable. It suggests that Linux and GPL'ed office products will erode that 80% profit number.
The "failed" products aren't a problem: that's exactly what big business is supposed to do. When you've got a product or two that bring in tons of money, you throw lots of money around trying to invent other moneymakers. You know that your main product or two will eventually run dry: that's no surprise, and that's why you continue to throw money at other ideas trying to come up with the next big moneymaker.
Most of these other sideline products (MSN, Xbox, smart phones) will fail. But that's not unexpected: most small businesses and startups fail. This is what big businesses do: fund R&D trying to come up with the Next Big Thing to replace their current revenue stream.
It's the same thing Microsoft did with Office: initially, they were an OS-only company. They got into Office because they needed to diversify, just like every big business did. Office started as a pretty crummy product that got routinely spanked by both WordPerfect and Lotus. But given enough time and enough money, Office became a profit machine. Microsoft is actually pretty lucky to have two dynamo products in the market at once.
Think of MS like 3M: could 3M survive simply by producing Post-It Notes? No, they have a huge amount of diversity and R&D running to find the Next Big Thing. The more products you throw at the market, the more chances you have of staying power.
What's your damage, Heather?
with the money and market share that M$ has, this is just a silly pipedream.
The real issue is will microsoft be willing to change. Will they lower the cost of using their products (server, SQL, exchange, Terminal server.. etc etc)? If they don't they will crumble. However, if MS decides to adjust prices and licensing to something reasonable, Corperations will contine to use it.
...won't kill the evil empire. They still own the desktop. Linux still is more a threat to proprietary Unix variants. If Microsoft lowers the pricing, drops the activation and force-fed dependencies, they could rule the desktop for quite a bit longer.
Long before Windows 95 there was OS/2. A far better implementation of a GUI interface. Stable, powerful and good looking. Better than Mac OS was at the time and far better than Windows 3.x and it didn't crash all the time.
:)
To be accurate you have to say that Microsoft has *never* actually created anything new. They are not innovators, they are remarketers of existing technology. Period. If you look at the history of the company, they have purchased, stolen or borrowed everything they have. Bill Gates didn't "invent" DOS, he bought it. He didn't "invent" Windows. He didn't "invent" Word or Excel or Powerpoint or Access or Front Page or... Remember Word Star, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, etc. ? Those were all forerunners of the Microsoft products and they were all better. The reason Microsoft took over was because they had the marketing behind MS-DOS and once they had their stranglehold on the OEMs with that it was just a matter of time before the rest happened. IBM REALLY screwed up there. Digital Research had a better DOS but didn't have the marketing at the time.
My point is that Microsoft has not done anything that someone else didn't do first or even better. It's too bad IBM didn't have Bill Gates in their marketing department. We'd be much better off than we are today.
Oh wait - we have Linux now so maybe not!
Have you hugged your penguin today?
> This is the beginning of a growth period for Microsoft that is on a whole different scale than the last one.
No, I don't want to buy your MSFT.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What can i say ? The bigest battle is ahead and I dont think Microsoft is a weak oponent. Yet it has power - so lets hold on and write good software :)
The IT Industry Is Shifting Away From Microsoft
We are talking about the IT industry here, servers and so on. I find that Linux is the one more popular in this field. Apache is running over 60% sites, according to netcraft. Now, most of them are probably running Linux or another UNIX. And as for your Anyone who thinks Open Sores software is coming anywhere CLOSE to Microsoft popularity needs to have his head examined. Check it out! Apache is open source and more popular than MS's ISS. But you are right, Linux is not very close in the popularity of Windows on the Desktop.
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
This is slashdot . Anything predicting , suggesting , or talking about the end of microsoft is news* .
*By news I mean gets posted , not that it is actually news .
Does more, is more secure and costs less. At least that's the argument that I have been pushing at my military contract where I work and lo and behold we are now switching to Zope (OSS CMS system). The fact that Oracle recommends Linux as it's platform has resulted in us installing a fair number of Linux boxes.
Government agencies have been feeling the pinch and they really have no choice but to consider it.
I think I may have been the only person at my contract to be REALLY excited about the fact that we needed a lot of new functionality without having much money.
i dont mean to sound like a troll, but this guy seems to have a lot of facts and figures but no indication of where they came from.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
Pardon me, but the article seems like a bunch of half-assed opinions with no facts to back them up, mixed in with a little bit of good old fashoned flaming/ranting.
Licensing 6.0 is a disaster, and so is Product Activation. At least we know that much.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Anyone who has written any code using the .NET framework knows that it will drastically increase programmer productivity and allow more creativity back into an industry that thrives on creativity but had imposed so many low-level roadblocks to software creation.
Damn, either you're an astroturfer who doesn't mind that it's obvious his postings are being written by copywriters,
or you want to be one . . . .
And with good reason. Linux just works. I am fed up with Windows, and the last straw was when windows xp BSOD'd on me with a bad_pool_caller error (WTF?) when I inserted a USB digital camera.. No matter what I tried, it just wouldn't recover. Linux on the over hand did not crash, and instead created a disk icon on the desktop. I single clicked it (Thats the KDE way) and there were my photos.
All my other stuff just works too, my scanner, printer, tv card, cable modem, sound card, graphics card, keyboard and all. Windows really didn't like all that stuff.
Linux gives me the chance to enjoy my computer, and the news is spreading. Three of my freinds have switched (and these are people who arent good with computers either) and more people are inquiring.
People are realising they DON'T need microsoft, and I feel that will hurt them hard. Long horn will be their last chance, mess it up, and they can look forward to their death.
Come on now people, companies go through good times and bad times, and I wouldn't count Microsoft out so easily -- especially since our point of fact is from The Inquirer. (The most reputable source for news since man put script to paper.)
Moreover, let's keep in mind, Microsoft is a heavily diversified company with an overwhelming monopoly to weild, and thye've taken losses in some very touchy areas -- especially the home entertainment business. Their business on a whole may be flat, but some parts of their business doing AMAZINGLY well.
In business, there is no single factor to bring down a company (well, besides money of course), but rather it's a aglomeration of tons of facts which balance the company. Even with Microsoft's "flat" quarter, they've got a lot of steam to pump other products up. Just look at their cash reserves.
WHile microsoft may have to substantilly shift its business I dont see it going out of business . .
If worst comes to worst (from there point of view) they could make big $$$ by making "microsoft linux" and adding compatability layers for old windows software.
At the same time they are diverisifying like , well something that diverisifies a lot , they will find something which they can make some money off and will survive
Microsoft needs a way to continue increasing profits to keep the shareholders at bay. Since they can't grow market share they will need to reduce costs, which means laying off US and European employees in favor of cheaper asian labor.
On the other hand the a massive transition to Open source would mean years worth of IT work and opportunities.
Yes yes, somewhat offtopic I know, but a google search on the author gave me this piece which I found hilarious.
Although to be honest, I did expect this fellow to be a ranting flamer from the Inquirer article...
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Nobody would like to see MS get a whoopin' like me, but let's be realistic; MS is one of the largest, richest companies in the world. If Gates wanted to, he could by up every Linux company with pocket change (although he might have Justice Dept. attorneys all over him).
The point is, when you have Bahrain's GDP sitting in the bank, that makes one very hard to "tipover." I put a little more credence into what financial analysts are saying than some Inquirer opinion.
And isn't the real battlegound desktops?
I do hope, as the article suggests, that Linux does force some MS price reductions.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Microsoft looks like a disconnected, clumsy bethemoth from the outside, but the fact is that they have quite a lot of power and skill. They just don't use it 90% of the time.
Microsoft does exactly what is necessary to hold on to power, and nothing more. They're like the satan character in C.S. Lewis' Perelandra (however it's spelled); they are capable of intelligence, but when acting as an intelligent creature does not directly serve their goals, they simply choose to shut it off and become a mindless, dumb beast. Right now, Microsoft is in big, dumb beast mode. They aren't updating their product line except in superficial ways, their entire product line is bloated, unusable crap, and their every action seems merely designed to extract as much money from those persons they have roped into being customers.They are, however, capable of creating good (although perhaps not secure) products and pricing themselves competitively. They merely choose not to because at this moment they do not have to. It does not serve their goals.
The problem is that still at this point, Linux to a great degree is succeeding less on its own merits than it is because of Microsoft's flaws. This is not to say that Linux does not have the merits needed for success; only that those merits are not enough on their own to cause a mass migration. What is enough to cause a mass migration is the constant bullshit that must be put up with constantly from Microsoft. This means that Microsoft has the power to stem a mass migration when they choose, merely by expending some effort [money] to lessen the flow of bullshit which they output.
We are, indeed, nearing a tipover point. However, the Linux community will be badly burned if they expect Microsoft's behavior to remain the same once that tipover point comes. This is a false sense of security. Once that tipover point does, in fact, come, expect Microsoft's behavior to change radically, probably overnight. At that point is when the real fighting will begin. And both the amount of PR jockeying (or "FUD", if you absolutely must call it that) and the amount of actual competition the open source world are currently facing are nothing compared to what it will see then.
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
Don't waste time with J.ava la,nguage! .NET fr4mework!
Extend your programmer produc+ivity!
INCREASE cr3ativ1ty!
Click here![goat^H^H^H^Hmicrosoft.com]
But Open Source doesn't NEED to "is coming anywhere CLOSE to Microsoft popularity". That's a part of the point. It merely needs to get "good enough" penetration that people start developing vertical application for it. And it's already there. All of a sudden, there's need for the more general applications. And what do you know, many of them are already available.
The cost saving will frequently make a choice that popularity ignores. Thus the tipping point isn't anywhere near the point of "equal popularity". It's a lot cheaper to choose Linux. And with the price of computers dropping, the cost of the OS and Office Software can be more than the cost of the computer. Not even counting the cost of keeping track of the licenses. Or the cost of the file formats becoming incompatible. Or the cost of...
Whether we are actually near the tipping point is arguable. Claiming that we aren't because most people "prefer" MS software is...at best misleading.
P.S.: Do you really put more faith in the stories from the major media? I have to believe that you've never been on the scene of something that you later saw reported. The major media deserve NO more credence than the Weekly World News. That they are a trifle subtler doesn't give them more credence, it merely means that they fool a larger fraction of the people.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
When I start seeing the "Top 10 x for Slashdot 2003" then I'll believe it. That's what the guys over at TechRepublic, etc are doing.
TT
I think it is poor form to bring Cmdr. Taco's ass into this discussion.
the linux wishful thinkers can bury their heads in the sand, but it does no good to deny the obvious.
OSS is making an impact and easing the switch for many people, but this is all a natural part of the cycle. Once a specific product reaches mass penetration and the quality/features are sufficient for a large percentage of individuals, upgrades become harder to sell. It's a fact of life. If GM came out with a new car that get 5MPG better than your current car, would people go out and buy it? Not unless they need a new car. Now apply this to software. How many people are going to upgrade to Office XP for just writting letters? Most likely when their old computer dies.
The real challenge for Microsoft in the next phase of life is breaking into the mid-tier and backend systems. The fight is going to be tough for them, since they are the under dog. Their experience in these areas is now where near as strong as it needs to be to win. It will take time, but ultimately, MS has to. If they don't, they're simply delaying the death of the company.
Anyone who installed one of the earliest versions of Windows 95 (look, I crave forgiveness, I was younger and being paid to do it, OK!) will remember that it didnt come with MSIE, instead it came with the Microsoft Network. Back in the early '90s (so went the script) the internet wasnt going to happen, instead we were all going to use paid online services like AOL and Compuserve. MSN was on the roadmap as Microsoft's entry into the market and in the MSdream it was going to sweep aside AOL and Compuserve lust like MSIE swept aside Netscape a few years later.
Of course, we know it didnt happen that way. If MS had been IBM we'd have seen them soldier on with the MSN dream and suddenly have to backpedal in about 2000 just in time to miss the dotcom thing and lose loads of cash. As it was they dropped the idea like a hot potato and changed the direction of the entire company in record time to embrace the Internet. It's an overused phrase, but the rest is history.
My point? Dont write off Microsoft. They've stayed where they are by flexibility and they wont have lost that flexibility. It could be different this time of course because the flexibility of the OS movement is what makes it so cool, but I'll start dancing on Microsoft's grave when I see the headstone.
Oxford Dictionaries Online
Your crazy if you think that open source is now being adopted as the solution to MS. This is a trial period. Open source better deliver or MS will come back strong.
These things take time, and Linux has a ways to go. You have a lot of CTO's that are looking at linux for sure, but if they can't get done what the need for their bottom line, they'll run from it.
Kevin
This must have been written by a fanboy, and not a serious person. The flattening of Microsoft's profits is long overdue; it is a sign of a company reaching middle age. The growth of a startup company in an undersaturated market cannot be maintained forever. Eventually, new products cease to be useful. At least not worth replacement for the sake of replacement.
For thirty years, Microsoft competed in a market that had essentially zero competition. Now, after having delivered fairly robust and stable systems (Windows XP and 2k), they are no longer selling to untapped markets. Of course their profits are going to taper off. This has absolutely nothing to do with Linux, BSD, Apple, or Sun. This has everything to do with classic market mechanics.
The article leads some fun 'rah rah' type cheerleading, but it misses the point. Are things changing for Microsoft? Undoubtedly. Are they solely or even mostly due to 'upstart' operating systems? Not a chance. I'd love it if some vertical apps (particularly EMR systems) were being written for Linux. But they aren't. Beating MS isn't going to be like overwhelming an enemy. It'll be more like digging Frenchman out of trenches, one inch at a time, in WWI. (Feel free to run with the analogy. I haven't got the time;)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
No kidding ... Look at the article. Read passages like:
So, what comes out of Redmond nowadays? Hot air and Ballmer dance videos made on Macs. Monkey boy is funny to watch, but after an all night patching stint with the CEO yelling at you, it loses its charm.
and then try to take the article seriously at all. A few good points masked in anti-MS rhetoric is not an article, it's a slashdot post.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
Man, that article is a huge circle-jerk. Look, I like Linux. I use it every day -- for development. I use XP for my everyday apps, because it's a better tool for those.
Linux has almost no penetration desktop, non-server applications. Evidence? Coming right up. Note Google's usage breakdown.
Note that Linux ranks dead last, below Windows 95! Yes, we're talking about Google, which is the geek's best friend, which would have naturally higher numbers than many other sites.
Tipover point? XP ranks first at 42%! Yes, Microsoft's latest O/S (which the article seems to think is a dismal failure) accounts for almost half of all web access!
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
That graph is quite funny. If you look at the change in Apache & IIS around August 2001 it would appear that a lot of people changed to IIS when Windows 2000 was released...then changed back after only 12 months!
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind MS-bashing nor do I dislike Linux, but honestly, that "article" (actually an opinion, at least it was noted)
The strange thing is that even this didn't work. People did the math. With expensive lock-ins on one hand, and cheaper, more interoperable software on the other, they started choosing the less expensive route. Imagine that. The high profile defections started happening with more and more regularity, and Redmond was almost out of tricks.
Who chose? When did this happen? This piece just rehashes posts from this site over the past year -- highly redundant IMHO.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
2004 is going to be a good year. :)
http://mslinux.org/ A site about MS's version of linux, its been around for years, but whynot reshow it.
SimonTek
As a Linux user/advocate and recent Mac "switcher", the issue of free software was not the one the deal maker for me when I decided on a PowerBook instead of an x86 lappy (i.e. Dell, Acer, Toshiba, etc). I didn't appreciate Dell, and many other reputable laptop makers telling me, "We're tacking an extra $200 to the bottom line for software you don't intend to use, you have no choice in the matter, and you have to agree to some arcane license just to take it off". The Microsoft Tax is what finally pushed me in the direction of the Mac. I use Linux exclusively at work, and had been running Windoze at home simply because I didn't feel like teaching my family how to use Linux systems. The last virus that hit our intranet was the straw that broke that camel's back and we went to a strictly 'Nix shop at home. So no, free was never an issue for me, reliability and integrity (both of which M$ has displayed less and less of IN SPITE of recent Anti-trust findings) is what sealed the deal for me.
The english language is in beta. It's evolving but has not yet reached a level of usability.
When do we get to start singing? -troy
While I have always admired MS's marketing (they normally figure out what is going to hurt them and address it), Gates will never allow this to happen. Their monopoly depends on Windows being everywhere. This will go down the same way that Sun is going down; Screaming that they are growing and making headway while units decrease and profits increase until it is over in a flash.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"harder and harder to compete with 'free.'"
It's not free, good software take effort and people need to make a living.
That said, M$ tries to force proprietary software, and that's what's really hurting them.
I'm right there with ya brother! I used OS/2 before I made the move to Linux, largely because I was sick and tired of Win 3.1 and Windows 95's instability. OS/2 was AWESOME for the day. I could run Windows and DOS apps with more stability and performance than native Windows on the same box (a 486 DX2 66 at the time with 16 Megs of RAM!). I also LOVED the flexibility and beauty of the Presentation Manager. I was able to make my desktop look any way I wanted it to (ie. more usable to me instead of your average moron) and had long file names for a good number of years before Windows.
Microsoft NEVER innovates. Unless you consider the definition of innovation to buy or "borrow" technology from other companies and rebrand it with a warm and fuzzy name. I have yet to see Microsoft come up with one original idea or product. AND I still have yet to see them truly innovate. The real definition of innovation is to take something that exists and use it in a NEW way. Not to use it in the SAME way it's already been used and change the name. Microsoft is a lot like those stupid kids in school who would copy someone else's paper and then change a few words here or there. That's MS "innovation".
I am certain that Microsoft won't really die, but they will evolve into something else. Much like the tobacco industry today is playing at being open about the effects of smoking. You know those folks would still rather be raking in the bucks, but how long before Philip Morris becomes a pharmeceutical company with a "cure" for smoking addiction? Microsoft will be touting the value of open source eventually, but they'll have a different name for it and claim they came up with it on their own. (Shared source is close, but not quite there yet. They are beginning to realize that OSes are approaching the point where they no longer have any real value.) I look for Microsoft to move more deeply into hardware, firmware and more Apple-like marriage of their software to hardware. Sadly, I don't see them dying. Maybe becoming less relevant like some older technology companies, but never dying. Look at it this way... at one time the biggest name in gaming was Atari. It could be said that they had a monopoly at one point. Now, all that's left is the name. It gets pulled out of the casket from time to time and slapped onto a game to try and get sales, but that's it. If it could happen to them. It could happen to ANYONE.
Un-news
"Long before Windows 95 there was OS/2. A far better implementation of a GUI interface. Stable, powerful and good looking" Bwwwwaaaaahahahahahahahahahaahhaaha Yeah right. better than what? OS2 was crap on a stick. Don't blame MS because IBM couldn't get that turkey to fly after 95. "To be accurate you have to say that Microsoft has *never* actually created anything new." You remind me of redneck morons in the 80's bitching about japanese cars. Get a grip. Making it, making it better, or marketing it better is all part of that game. What has linux invented lately, by your standards? Is their work processor somehow better? You linux sheep need to stop whining and start producing. baaaaa
I have a feeling that Microsoft's slide won't be quick, nor complete... remember when IBM was supposedly going to fall into the ocean because they weren't able to compete with Sun, SGI, and HP in the UNIX market?
Functionally, the company can continue to generate revenue and remain "profitable" for a long time. If you look at Microsoft's strongest competitors in each business, how many of them can retain a lead on M$ for another 3-5 years while Microsoft tries to reinvent itself to boost profits?
IBM and HP each half-compete with Microsoft while shipping their products to their enterprise customers.
Sun and "The Linux Distros" (Red Hat, SuSE, etc...) all nudge Microsoft at the desktop level... although none of them may have the resources to survive a sustained competition with Microsoft. That said, Apple seems to thrive despite having a small market share because it has a loyal userbase.
Sony may have a real battle on its hands with the next generation consoles given that Nintendo's weakness and Microsoft's marketing muscle (and deep pockets) may give them a big boost to narrow the gap in marketshare.
And how is Palm weathering the Micro$oft assault on handheld operating systems?
Perhaps the most interesting thing will not be anticipating the inevitable downturn Microsoft will face, but to consider what form a "new" Microsoft will take when they try to claw their way back to the top? I have this gut feeling that X-Box and PocketPC create a new "low-end" strategy in markets where being the provider of an OS and a reference design can be very profitable.
Oh, never mind. . .;)
You are not the customer.
KDE and GNOME have been out a lot longer than XP. theres other gui's too like enlightenment.
SimonTek
Apache serves my web pages for the same reason - does what we need and it's way cheaper than IIS. IExplorer is so prone to attack that we use Firebird instead. Firebird also has a few features like pop-up blocking and tabbed windows that I wonder why anyone sticks with Explorer.
Re-reading your post gave me a distinct sense of Deja-Vu. Back in the late 70's, early 80's, IBM was pretty dismissive when it came to the Apple II. IBM just couldn't imagine that these desktop computers would amount to much. What IBM, and apparently you, failed to realize is that most businesses have pretty simple needs that can be met dozens of ways. When that's the case, price becomes an important factor.
I think the point he was making was that big customers can show MS that they are assessing technologies such as Star Office and Java Desktop, and immediately be offered huge discounts. That must have at least some effect on MS's bottom line.
And I'm not sure why you were modded "Troll" for making some reasonable points... oh, hang on, this is /.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
I'll take the moderation hit in agreement.
.NET makes a lot of things a lot easier, and it makes some things more difficult. The Visual Studio IDE still blows away anything and everything Linux offers and developing world class web apps can be done with .NET faster than in Linux.
Yes,
Will is lead once again to MS growth? I don't know, it certainly could, but it just seems like too little...
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
Wehn will people start to understand that Microsoft does not free market principles for it's success - it relies on a government granted monopoly called copyrights. There is a difference.
It's an extended holiday, and any opinion peices you see during these days are little more than weak efforts to fill a quota. I would also assume that this article was posted on slashdot to fill a similar hole.
Slashdot. Hole. Ha ha... you made a funny!
But Microsoft still is strong in the Desktop market. Soon KDE 3.2 will be released and as Linux quickly matures on the desktop I don't see a reason why it will not be the default plattform in the enterprise desktop market.
As an employee of a company with a datacenter full of linux servers, I can say without bias that I like Linux (I like BSD more), but there's no way I'd ever run it on my desktop.
The interface is too slow, it's playing catchup-with MS, and doing a poor job of it. Advanced 3D support is pathetic, and there simply aren't replacements for things like Exchange/Outlook, and there won't be any free ones.
Linux on the desktop? Maybe on the desktop of linux developers, but certainly not on mine.
But... Then... (Shaking voice) What are we going to do when there is no more Microsoft ?
In the meantime...
Perhaps is time for shorting the stock. Bill certainly thinks it's, he has been selling stock like crazy. Check this site and ask for a insider report on MSFT (no direct link possible to the report).
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
If those companies had signed up for the new license, then they would still be paying Microsoft.
#1. Open Source is part of the equation. It allows companies that do sign with Microsoft to get huge discounts.
#2. Other companies do not upgrade their old Microsoft products. But they may have problems getting licenses for those products in the future.
#3. Other companies have migrated all or a portion of their systems to Open Source products.
#4. Microsoft's other products are losing money.
It is a bit complicated. There isn't any single factor. And that is why Microsoft is having such a hard time dealing with it.
It looks like SCO is going to sell licenses to microsoft so they can incorporate it into the next version of Windows. Thanks to all those who contributed ....your code was very welcome :)
I don't think so. Either way, you'll have to pay for an admin.
I and many other people here on /. have said it over and over again:
Mickeysoft will generally have to shift away from inhouse all-in-one lock-in concepts only to a more service oriented businessmodel if they want to stay numero uno for another decade.
The problem Mickeysoft has, is that it clearly underestimated it's power, clutching to that now deprecating classic businessmodel of theirs instead of seeing what was coming up with the rise of Linux/E/KDE/Gnome/uNameIt. Every single one in the industry I know is gonna switch to OSS when their current stuff isn't sufficient anymore. Everybody, exept for some Mac oriented designers. And they have 'switched' with OS X allready. In this part Steve Jobs is still the entepreneur he was 20 years ago, seeing the light befor the majority of his customers do. Whilst Billy G. just seems to feel a little overconfident in Windows and not grasping a clue about the rest.
Now there are to much people out there that have heard of Linux and OSS. 3 years ago that would have been different and MS could have incorperated a Unix/OSS concept of business themselves and everyone would have thought Linux is a new M$ thing. I guess it's to late for that now.
So much for being a big, bloated, inflexible and greedy corp. I couldn't care less if M$ shrinks to a normal company due to it's own bloat and blind self-confidence. On the contrary. That's the best that can happen to humanity.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
You know not of what you speak. My work is in highly-distributed enterprise server systems. We also develop a large number of client pieces and not a single one has been ported to Linux because there is ZERO interest out there; we've even asked our customers if they would be interested and not a SINGLE ONE said yes... EVERY customer said they were only interested in Windows clients.
Microsoft ain't close to being dead. MS have to many government contracts to die anytime soon.
The only way I can see MS making money anytime soon is to create products like IIS for Linux or a Unix version of their LDAP or Windows for Workgroups. We know that they'll never open their source code. So the only thing they can do is make their products available for other platforms.
What I expect to see is Office 2005 for Linux to test the waters. If MS did that they open a huge market and kick Mac in the head at the same time.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Maybe Amazon could work a deal to sell you books to read between reboots.
The interesting twist, IIRC, is that Microsoft decided to but a dagger in IBM's back half-way through, and began forking their effort into what would become Windows NT. IBM, on the other hand, failed to market OS/2 and wouldn't even prebundle a computer with OS/2 for fear of reprisal from Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong... OS/2 was a nice operating system, offering many modern amenities (multithreading, windows-like UI, nice development tools if you had the $$$), but it failed because it lacked a killer feature to lure Windows users away... especially after Microsoft took away IBM's license to bundle Windows with OS/2.
Anyone remember OS/2 for Windows?
shudder
With $50 billion in the bank comes political clout that no open source project can hope to counter. MS, along with their industry lackys, will push for, and we will have enacted legislation making it illegal to use software that doesn't have "content protection" built in at the hardware level. Of course only "approved" software will have any real access to the hardware, and any thought of truely open source operating systems will be lost. Major hardware vendors will produce motherboards, processors, and mass storage devices for sale in the USA that can only be accessed by approved software with proper digital ids and signatures. Of course this will be able to be hacked, but it will relagate open source back into a hobby! No amount of GPL'd code can overcome the fact that it will be a crime(as in DMCA) to break the "trusted computing" layer in hardware to allow code not certified "acceptable" to have free access to the CD/DVD/network/RAM/processor/video card etc.... Just a nightmare that Orwell would be proud of!
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
Microsoft may have been slowed by Linux, but if history has taught computer users anything over the last twenty-odd years, it's that Microsoft is exceptional adept at re-tooling itself and resuming it's domination of the software industry.
.NET and Longhorn product cycles. Then, of course, armed to the teeth with their own patent portfolios and unique proprietary technologies, their customer base will remain (they hope) safely in the Microsoft fold.
...And when Longhorn comes out and ties it all together, the One Evil Ring will very possibly remain firmly on Bill Gates finger.
Their doom has been forecast many times, yet it seems that they always rebound stronger and more profitable than ever before. Until they have shown YEARS of decline, I for one refuse to believe any reports of their death, much less serious injury.
To wit, they seem to have a palpable strategy in place to combat Linux. Basically, it is their hope that the questions of IP will slow adoption long enough for them to lock their corporate customers into the Windows 2003 server,
Remember that Office 2003 is actually a salvo in the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy -- their XML formats are just proprietary enough to make that so, given the inertia that they have with the largest installed office-suite base as well as (frankly, like it or not) the most functionally integrated package on the market. Add to that the B2B interaction of sending Word, Powerpoint and Excel files and their strategy very well might work once again.
Windows Server 2003 and it's embedded technologies promises much of the same.
I say all this not as a Microsoft apologist but simply as a realist. While I strongly prefer Linux both on the server and on the desktop, the fact remains that there is much to be done, very much indeed, before it will topple the likes of a Microsoft.
Mike Magee must be desperate for page hits: the author of the piece can't even count.
/. extra ad hits.
Microsoft only started breaking out the seven subunits about a year ago. During each of the quarters since then, three units -- not two -- have made money: client, Office, and server and tools. More than that, MSN (you know, the horrible money loser?) made money last quarter, and shows no signs of slowing revenue growth. That's four of seven making money, not two.
The author of the Inquirer piece would like to lump the two OS divisions together, but that makes no sense: F/OSS systems don't compete against the client yet, only against the server and tools segment. Revenue in that segment is growing faster than the segment. That's not being beaten by Linux; it competing solidly, despite a price disadvantage.
Worse, for the author's thesis, the handhelds division is hardly "losing money fast" -- instead, it's losing money at a constant rate, with its revenues more than doubling each year. If current patterns continue, that division will be profitable in the current quarter or the next quarter. That's not clearly going to happen, but it certainly doesn't seem unlikely.
That leaves two divisions not making money: Home and Small business solutions. Those are both new businesses for Microsoft, and they're both businesses where Microsoft expects to lose money for about a decade, just as it did with servers, with MSN, and with handhelds.
But, hey, the story predicts the death of the internet...I mean, the death of Microsoft. SO we've got to front page it to give Magee and
The real momentum to "advance the Linux cause" is coming from overseas. N. America is behind the curve when it comes to Linux adoption. I'm not sure about this, but I'll bet that most of the overseas call center employees are sitting on a linux box. The president of India is encouraging to develop for the linux platform. The american companies that employ people abroad are going to notice that it's cheaper over there not only because of labor. They use cheaper tools. I'm also going out on a limb to say that Americans are cut more slack when it comes to retraining. I think it's going to be a nice opportunity to weed out the dolts if people can't adopt a new browser and word processor. Small businesses are going to adopt linux and you'll see momentum there. What's prohibiting it now is lack of need to upgrade, and.....bone head MCSE's that keep these little offices running. We have the Geeks for rent come in and reboot our file server twice a week. The last time they had to come in on an emergency, I mentioned Samba and they drew a blank and went onto a story about running Win 3.1 at home on a P4 1GZ at blazing speeds. The point is someone is going to displace these guys that don't know the options to MS, let alone speed vs stability.
Open source- the greatest equalizer mankind has ever seen.
I wouldn't use this "article" as proof of anything. It's a prime example of the dubious writing technique where you defend your position on something with whatever you can dream up that supports it, logic and factual accuracy be damned. My favourite quote:
The fact remains that security has been getting worse every year since Windows 95 was released.
And how about backing up this assertion with some examples? Whether it's true or not, where's your proof?
Yqy...K ecp'v dgnkgxg aqw cevwcnna vqqm vjg vkog vq vtcpuncvg oa uki. Kh aqw vjkpm vjku ku tkfkewnqwu, tgcf oa dkq.
For example, the author says that Microsoft refuses to change, but they have a history of doing just that. They followed Apple's lead on GUIs. They went from poo-poo-ing the internet to become one of its chief exploiters. One of their key corporate virtues is a distinct lack of NIH (not invented here) Syndrome; many of their key products were originally developed elsewhere (DOS, IE, PowerPoint, WebTV, FrontPage, VisualBasic, SQL Server), or are direct copies of other companies' products (Pocket PC, Ultimate TV, Windows).
Granted, they've shown a certain unwillingness to overhaul their systems at the cost of backward compatibility (like Apple has peridoically done, with the transition from ][ to Mac, from 68K to PPC, from MacOS to OSX), but don't mistake that for obstinance.
...explain the scenario where Linux starts gaining desktop apps. I think open source needs to ditch the victim mentality and think not of Microsoft losing, but how Linux will start winning. Apparently, the plan involves Microsoft fucking up, leaving Linux as the only alternative for the desktop. Start thinking in terms of what Linux needs to do the win the desktop.
Right now, there is no *hige* Linux market, especially on the desktop. If Microsoft offered Office for Linux, they might help expand the Linux market, but that expansion would come at the expense of Windows. So why would Microsoft want to do this?
And I really didn't udnerstand the comment about "the only way I can see Microsoft making money anytime soon..". Have you looked at Microsoft's financials. They make lots of $$ in the OS business.
They can't buy Debian.
Someone could make a new distribution, and not sell it.
Ok, the title will make people think of me as a troll.
However, I do not intend this as a criticism. I am just thinking aloud. When Microsoft wants to fight Open Source, or Netscape, or anything, they create FUD. Part of the FUD is reasoned but slanted information, which people outside the Slashdot belt may not be able to fight.
This article articulates well the other side of things. I know it is Inquirer, but it is a well written piece, if little sketchy on numbers. For Open Source to battle Microsoft effectively, we need such articles in abundance besides the stable, usable and free platforms.
Thank You.
Please, if you are going to rewrite history, don't do it with a hunk of crap like OS/2.
To anyone familiar with Unix systems (most people here), OS/2 really looks like the retarded bastard-twin of Windows that it was. No security, input queue lockups, mystery INI files, retarded CONFIG.SYS configuration, poor stability compared to anything but Windows 3.1. Bleck Bleck Bleck.
The only "good" thing about OS/2 by any modern standard was the object desktop, but even that was a mess of ugly icons, mysterious & confusing folder organization, and a filemanager that made baby jesus cry. It was clear that it was designed by programmers and even the people at IBM had no idea what it was supposed to to do.
It's too bad IBM didn't have Bill Gates in their marketing department.
Don't think they didn't try to buy him out. It would have been the only way OS/2 would have gotten off the ground.
While I agree with every word you have said, I would caution against brushing off so easily the significance of the leveling of Microsoft's profits.
What it interests me to wonder about is that while eventual end to Microsoft's steady growth is obviously inevitable unless they literally conquer the earth, many of Microsoft's business practices seem to have been based around an assumption of constant growth. It seems to me that a number of things Microsoft does, from an accounting and shareholder relations perspective for instance, have been based around that assumption of constant growth. They've maintained the illusion that they will continue to branch into other markets, but it is clear to everyone now that all of those branchings-- MSN, XBox, etc-- have been complete and total unmitigated financial disasters.
So what I wonder is, will Microsoft have some sort of consequences for their faulty assumption of unlimited growth? Perhaps there will be some kinds of feedback mechanisms that will break down, and perhaps the consequences for Microsoft will be nasty. For example, some of the minor things they do no longer make sense when growth levels off, and these will have to be stopped. For example, Microsoft's policy of paying certain people in stock instead of money. What if we get sort of a cascade effect? What if, for example, MS starts paying everyone in money instead of stock, at which point they have to actually report those persons as being expenditures, at which point their presented profits will be lower, at which point their stock will maybe stop growing at quite the rate it has, which will make their profits, which include stock rises, seem left, which will make the stock slow even more.. do you see where i am going with this? This is not all perhaps very likely, but I think it is a possibility.
Sure, billg sells MSFT stock all the time, but so should you in the same situation, just to diversify. It doesn't make sense for a very rich person to have all their assets in one stock --- any financial adviser would tell them to spread out the risk. Since any MSFT stock he has has grown enormously while he's held it, selling some is just rebalancing the old portfolio. You can't draw any dramatic conclusions from it about Bill's fears.
To me, this is typical reporter-trash: all opinion and zero fact or experience.
.NET, and haven't installed anything more than W2K SP2 because of licensing terms in sp3. Despise their monopololistic behavior)
First off, calling Microsoft earnings opaque is a ridiculous proposition. Analysts pore over their numbers because they need to. To accuse Microsoft of accounting fraud by manipulating their numbers in an age of corporate accounting scandal borders on libel. I don't think you can accuse Microsoft of putting money away and manipulating their numbers without proof, and the author has offered none of this. I have followed Microsoft quarterly reports since 1995, and although they were dinged for something close to this a few years back, they do nothing along the lines of what this so-called reporter is alleging.
Secondly, as usual, this guy has no real world experience and talks from his ass, not his head. Let me shed some light on the things I came up against when working with Linux.
(Full disclosure: I am no Microsoft fan, but I do like some of their products, namely the NT family, and MS VC 6.0. Hate
I work for a company that develops enterprise software. I single-handedly ported it to Linux over the Xmas holidays a few years back. But then, when it came to actually selling this to customers, we ran into issues, namely support. I chose Red Hat at the time because they were a name brand and I could get support if I wanted (or so I thought). We needed database support and Red Hat supported Oracle which was great. But then, Oracle shifted gears and now wanted to only support Red Hat's Advanced Server product, which was fine, except it cost $1000+. Then, we tried to buy support from Red Hat, and that ended up costing us >$10K. Now, they have dropped support for their free distro, which means that our customers who will use it will need to pay $1000+ for their version of Linux, which is probably a huge showstopper. This is supposed to be free?
I looked into switching over to SUSE, but they offer no developer support. This is critical because as an ISV, we need someone we can go to if we run into Linux problems that we can't figure out or that we don't have the experience to solve. We can't possibly sell a product to customers and then have them go to the internet to figure out how to solve their problems.
So the article is totally off-base is claiming the benefits of Linux being free. Linux is not free for corporations, and definitely not free for ISVs that want to sell products to customers. It is as expensive, if not more expensive than Microsoft solutions. Red Hat AS is $1000 but W2k3 is $799. What gives???
As for the X-box, I like it, although the PS2 is superior in many ways, especially the joystick and no f'n x-box live which i refuse to pay for. But the graphics are nicer, and having a hard drive to store data is so much faster and convenient than a memory card. I can see x-box being a formidable competitor for years to come. Yes, it may be losing money, but Microsoft can afford to make an investment, espcailly since the gaming industry is growing faster than the movie industry. It's easy to poke at it like this article does, but frankly its something that can really help the company in the long run and is a smart investment of their $50 billion.
One thing I don't get is the myth that if I operate a MS OS I'm locked into Microsoft software and paying MS eternally for updates etc. I just went through the software I use daily and while most of it runs on Windows XP, none of it's by Microsoft. Here's the list:
Acrobat (Adobe)
Agent (Forte)
Eudora (Qualcomm)
Ghostscript (AFPL/OSS)
GSView (Ghostgum)
Mathematica (Wolfram Research)
MikTeX (OSS)
Mozilla (OSS)
Octave (OSS)
Paint Shop Pro (JASC)
PuTTY (OSS)
Winamp (Nullsoft)
Notice especially how many great open-source or otherwise free packages there exist in fields that Microsoft haven't got anything to offer. Then why do I constantly read on /. that MS have a complete monopoly on software like nothing else was available?
Note also the complete lack of Office of any kind. I rarely need a word processor, and if I do there's Wordpad or KOffice and whatever spreadsheet it comes with on Linux. Oh, I guess I use WMP or RealPlayer (blegh) occasionally.
In one sense, the Enquirer article seems correct. In another sense, by not naming the really serious problems with Microsoft products, the article almost praises Microsoft.
For example, "Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows XP have crippled file systems." The file system cannot copy some of the files that are necessary to the operating system. Microsoft provides no way of making functional backups of its newer operating systems! (Yes I know about Sysprep and NTBackup and third-party methods. Microsoft technical support agrees with my statement.)
Microsoft uses proprietary file formats. You can't reliably work with your intellectual property created with Microsoft products unless you pay Microsoft money!
Microsoft can change the license terms to which you are bound after you have made your purchase and agreed to the terms!
Who was using the more than 60 serious security vulnerabilities found in the last two years in Microsoft products before they were fixed?!!! Foreign governments? Your competitors? Hackers?
My favorite line was "In a down economy, free is much cheaper than hundreds of dollars, and infinitely more attractive. Linux started gaining ground with real paying customers using it for real work in the real world, really."
Linux is gaining ground with real paying customers and free software? Wow!
Outlook?? You're kidding.
it is a very poorly written article, with no substantive references. it reads like some intern's exam-week final project. total crap.
Let's vote a Democrat back into the White House this coming November.
You might remember the Democrats, they were the ones who spent years trying to bust the Microsoft monopoly, only to have the Microsoft-funded Republicans undo everything.
You put a Democrat into the oval office, the chances are better that they won't effectively hand the industry to Microsoft on a silver platter.
After Gates and Balmer changed out of their Matrix gear, I heard Balmer say: "You can't win, Linus. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
It is just a matter of time, it depends on the your region ecc.
KDE 3.x is far superior to a standard Win installation today.
There is always someone better, faster, smarter, or more creative than you. Suck it up, be happy there are things to learn from others, and share what you know. MS has tremendous resources and I'd love to see them join the rest of the tech community instead of constantly trying to force the computing industry to adopt their worldview.
"but some parts of their business doing AMAZINGLY well"
I think there are only two profitable parts of Microsoft. Office and Windows. Yes, they are AMAZINGLY profitable but they basically carrying every other division. If those divisions don't become profitable in time (with the Linux threat and price cuts that seems less and less likely) then MSFT earnings reports don't look as nice. Also, Office and Windows are not invulnerable to eroding profit. The fact that Microsoft isn't the darling of corporate corner offices that it once was is a very telling sign of what is to come.
And with the price of computers dropping, the cost of the OS and Office Software can be more than the cost of the computer.
/., the Inquirer, or your posting.
You know, the same is true with the price of DVD players, and I don't see any move away from buying DVDs towards Open Source movies.
The acceptability of software cost isn't dependent upon the price of hardware, it is dependent upon what it gives the user in terms of features.
Claiming that we aren't because most people "prefer" MS software is...at best misleading.
Actually this statement is in itself misleading.
The major media deserve NO more credence than the Weekly World News.
I don't trust the any media, but major media certainly have more credibility than the Weekly World News. I definately don't trust any source which clearly has an agenda, such as
since they have 40 to 60 billion dollars in their kitty, how long will they take to burn through all of their cash reserves, even if they never sold another product ever again say, from Jan 2004?
This page using data from 2001 shows total (yearly?) liabilites to be in the range of 3 to 4 billion dollars.
So it may take a while for MS to burn through all of its cash, unless it gets hit by a massive government fine, an act of god, or something equally unlikely,
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Re security: The fact remains that Microsoft's entire infrastructure is based on fundamentally flawed designs, not buggy code ... To change them, Microsoft would have to dump all existing APIs and break compatibility with everything up till now.
Can you say ".NET" ?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
The problem is that Average Joe doesn't give a fuck about Linux - he see only MSFT ads around him.
:) *
You won't buy MSFT, I wont't buy MSFT, thousands of geeks won't buy MSFT - but jillions of Average Joes will.
* Written on a PC running pirated Windows XP Pro. MSFT - kiss my ass.
-- grmbl woz heer
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." - Bugs Bunny
Really how long till we see a Microsoft Linux distro come out? Seems a logical next step.
It would actually be quite nice to see a few billion dallors trickle down the opensource community.
"What do you do with the mad that you feel when you feel so mad you could bite?" - Mister Rogers
But then, I am not a finance geek, and welcome further education in this area.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I can't wait until the day arrives that a company that bases its operations on the gpl as a firm fundament goes to what ever marionet CEO is "in charge" of M$ and tells him "NO, we are buying YOU out".
( do whatever gandalf vs balrog spin you like ! )
retep.
The thing that makes Microsoft special is that it can (reasonably) legitimately cook the books such that their results don't go through good times and bad times. In good times, they put their extra income into hiding, such that they can pull it out later to cover the bad times. The fact that they're actually having a flat quarter, therefore, means that either they decided they wanted to have a flat quarter (other companies getting too jealous and dangerous, perhaps), accounting standards have become such that they can't do this trick anymore (in the wake of Enron, it's possible), or they've been actually having bad times for long enough that they've run out of ways to cover them.
It's certainly possible that the market for MS products hasn't grown any since the mid 90s, when they saturated the market for everything they make money on, and so their trend of making more on paper each year has now caught up with them. This could be simply a result of the fact that you can't make any more money when you already have all the money.
It's also possible that their tricks have now been outlawed in such a way that someone would actually end up in jail, so now they have to report what they actually make when they actually make it. I wouldn't be too surprised if this were the case, since regulators and Congress have been really worried about companies doing exactly what Microsoft does not to maintain the appearance of slowly and steadily improving, but simply staying in business.
Or maybe Microsoft is actually at the end of their rope, and have avoided appearing this way due to their enormous assets and complex accounting, and will lose all their money next year. I wouldn't bet on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if this quarter signals that Microsoft will no longer be performing (in an earnings way) absolutely reliably in the future, which may shake the market's weird (from a technical standpoint) confidence in them.
> Microsoft NEVER innovates
:)
Oh MY God! So their press releases are all lying? It can't be!
-- grmbl woz heer
Well, while the article was pretty lame, It obviously wasn't talking about your office
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
I just went through the software I use daily and while most of it runs on Windows XP, none of it's by Microsoft.
Yeah, well, there's your problem. You read Slashdot. You know of alternatives to Microsoft junk and are willing to seek them out. The vast majority of people are not, and will use just what comes on their machine.
The best examples of Microsoft lock-in are Outlook/Exchange and ActiveX. If you want to use Exchange to its fullest potential, you'd better have all Windows machines in your organization, or forget it. The Mac version was shit until late 2000. In Outlook 8.2.2, attempting to accept a meeting invitation would crash a Mac. Things got better when Outlook 2001 came around, but even that still doesn't do certain things like (IIRC) voting buttons. Now if you want OS X-native Exchange connectivity, you need Entourage. But Entourage does a shit job at it. It doesn't speak MAPI, instead relying on other protocols (IMAP, SMTP) for everything-- protocols that are typically turned off in most organizations, who won't turn them back on due to security concerns and whatnot. And the Windows version of Outlook is like the Roach Motel for your data. Ever notice that Outlook will happily import data from about a dozen different competing products, but that exporting data out of Outlook is a major pain in the ass? Think that's not intentional? That's lock-in. Make it painful to try to use or switch to something else.
Then there's ActiveX. A Microsoft concoction designed to appeal to lazy developers. They develop stuff in ActiveX, and if you want to use it on a non-IE browser, you're SOL. That's lock-in.
Bottom line: Microsoft products play best with other Microsoft products, and grudgingly if at all with other products. If you want cross-platform capability, you're better off with Linux or OS X-- those platforms MUST interoperate very well so they'll be adopted into Microsoft strongholds. Microsoft stuff doesn't HAVE to work with anything but other Microsoft stuff.
Here's another example of tacit Microsoft lock-in: the Snap Server applicances. Yeah, they run some Unix variant. Yeah, they provide Windows and Apple file sharing, or a reasonable facsimilie thereof. But here's something you need to know about it: files touched by Mac clients don't get their Windows backup flag set correctly, so Windows backup software can't tell what do put on tape when a differential backup is run-- Mac-changed files don't get backed up. The Snap people know, and they don't care. What's implied is that if you want everything to work right you should get rid of your Macs.
Agree. All correct, unfortunately (maybe except OO bit). :(
I wonder, why Sun produced such inconsistent piece-of-crap, assuming they _really have_ resources to put together good Linux distro... They couldn't even build good LookAndFell for bundled Java apps - shame on them! Markedroids to blame, pobably?
-- grmbl woz heer
If Microsoft is having "trouble competing with free" then how is Microsoft a monopoly? If users have a choice between Microsoft Windows and Linux it makes Microsoft a "monopolistic company." I think that is different than a pure monopolopy. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.
Bill certainly thinks it's, he has been selling stock like crazy.
Bah, that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks the stock's going down. He probably just needed to pull out some money to repatint his house.
Their business on a whole may be flat, but some parts of their business doing AMAZINGLY well.
Their two big profit makers are Windows and Office. Since 1/3 of their existing customers didn't sign up to their new Office licensing scheme, that means they are obviously planning to switch to something else (or they would have signed up for the new licensing since it would be cheaper if they weren't going to switch). Linux has already pretty much won in the server space. Goverments, schools, and businesses continue to chip away at the Windows desktop market share. Microsoft's last customers will be home users who buy their computers at the mall, but how much growth is in this market (does grandma really need a 3Ghz pentium to browse the internet)? IMO, the only thing holding back total Linux desktop domination are lack of games, and maybe some polishing. I predict MS to start selling off some of their unprofitable businesses and to start laying people off.
Borland's JBuilder X and Oracle's JDeveloper 10g realy kick butt on J2EE development. Also, JBuilder X kicks butt in GUI, too. They both work on Linux (as they are written in Java).
.NET faster than in Linux
:)
> developing world class web apps can be done with
1. 'world class web apps' probably are build on J2EE?
2. see above
P.S. You can download JDeveloper for free from Oracle TechNet (as Oracle DB itself, Appserver and other apps).
P.P.S. You can also get trial JBuilder from Borland. After 'evaluation period' it will become crippled 'foundation' version. The Net is filled with key generators, however.
-- grmbl woz heer
Don't Evolution, Kmail and Konqueror {or Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird} on the desktop, and Sendmail, Procmail, Qpopper, Apache, MySQL and P(HP|erl|ython) on the server, constitute an effective Exchange/Outlook replacement? The admin side of the job is easy too; once you know exactly what packages are needed on the desktop, you put them on your own local package repository {whoops, better add ProFTPD to the server wish list}. Now compile a package of your own with no files {go on then, maybe some ready-made *rc files}, just dependencies on those packages; then just try to install your metapackage on those machines and let the automatic dependency resolution do the hard work {I'm assuming .deb here, but I'm sure .rpm probably isn't much different if you set it up properly}.
.....
Sure, it sounds like hard work setting it all up, but think about this. Windows clients typically need something doing to them at least once a day, and the time it takes to do that for every machine you have to see to mounts up. Now if you spend a whole day writing a programme to do in five minutes something you could have done by hand in an hour, that sounds like an extravagance - nearly seven hours wasted. But the eighth time you run that programme, it's begun to break even. I'm not suggesting you can write an entire application suite in just one day, but if you're in charge of Windows machines just try adding up your time spent fart-arsing around resetting boxes and so forth
And if I really wanted to dangle the bait, I would say anyone who thinks KDE and Gnome ripped off ideas from Microsoft should remember who ripped those ideas off from Apple.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
He made no mention of Apple or anyone else as competitors, but specifically mentioned Linux and Open Source numerous times.. A position my friend said was consistent with a number of internal emails circulating about that named Linux as their biggest threat.
Even .Net, the new secure infrastructure, and built with security in mind, lets you have access to the 'old ways'. Yes, you are not supposed to, but people somehow do, and hackers will.
It does not take a hacker to use System.Runtime.InteropServices. People unfamiliar with a technology should not make stupid comments about it.
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." - Arthur C. Clarke
It wouldn't very well have made sense for them to have aimed for vertical lock-in BEFORE they had universal adoption, now would it have?
Somebody post that troll?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
In short. Yes. They are lying. Please point me to one, just one, innovation that Microsoft has come up with that fits the proper definition. I throw that up as a challenge to any and all Microsoft apologists. I also invite others to pick apart every supposed innovation posted here as it should be an easy task to do so.
That said, there are still a great many IT people and users who still believe that Microsoft defines IT these days, and it will take years for the views expressed in the Inquirer article to catch up with them. I view this as a normal process, and I often see that perception lags progress by 18 months or more.
My most serious problem with this article is that I cannot show it to any serious business clients; the article shows almost nothing but contempt for them as a whole, and they will (wrongly) take that as a reflection on the Linux community; the editorial choices made indicate that the author is very blatantly pro-Linux. This tends to reinforce the perception that Linux and OSS folk are rather anti-business, playing into the hands of FUD spreaders.
We need this message delivered, but with better packaging, primarily since it will be more effective. Note that packaging and presenting is perhaps Microsoft's greatest strength, and we would do well to improve our packing as much as possible, although we certainly don't need to follow Microsoft in this regard.
> I expect it will revolve around two words:
>
> Goverment Intervention
Exactly. If lock-in strategies like low-level proprietary changes to the BIOS don't work, MS will follow the lead of the US Steel & Auto industries.
All they have to do is repeat enough times the phrase "Good-paying US programming jobs are being taken away by Linux programmers in India, China & the Philippines!" Although MS is already replacing its own US employees with employees from those countries.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I agree. It seems the article argues since M$ has :).
a lower profit than expected, they're going downhill.
Personally I don't buy that (and M$ Products
If it was true, I'd have no problem finding a job in
this area. I'm more likely to believe if profits
and sales are down, its only because people would
be waiting a year or more for the newest programs
to become more stable and have fewer security problems.
Until then, buyers (primarily companies) will hold off
on buying anything from M$.
Can I dare to start becoming optimistic now?
Seriously. I've been suppressing my urge to be optimistic about the fall of the MS monopoly for almost 2 years now. I've always been telling myself: "there's no guaratee the good guys will win this".
But the pieces are starting to come together now. Linux has really proven itself. MS is dropping some prices. IBM has joined the good guys. And now MS's first flat quarter. Until now, I have stayed skeptical about the eventual outcome of all this.
Do I need to stay skeptical that we could really turn the tide?
I have always thought that their results are just too good to be true.
All those billions in the bank can disappear in one puff of smoke and mirrors...
Why not use a Linux distro, or even OS X, and be microsoft free while making your dollars go to a company ( like Apple ) who opposes the monopoly?
Oh, thats right - I forgot - guys like you NEVER pay for software. And a new G5 is way beyond your means. Pity.
I STILL don't know of ONE person using Linux though. Not a one.
Yes Gates has the money to buy up all the linux companies that are publically traded. What the heck good would that do him? First off he can try. And as you point out there would be the Justice dept to deal with. Of course does it matter who owns red hat or some other linux company? Does that make linux any less than free since Gates owns the company? NO! As for your putting a little more credence in what financial analysts are saying, that is all fine and dandy. Maybe you have been asleep for the past few years where many of those analysts have been fired and face possible criminal charges for what they have done. A clue you have not.
They have a heck of a lot of 'wiggle room' in between those extremes.
and if your following is demoralized in anyway...it's death.
must keep the troops in high spirits.
your assumption, that all of us geeks are objective, analytical "spock types" that might take offense at propaganda...well it's wrong.
making an assumption like that can hurt a billion dollar company. look at microsoft...they made the very same assumption.
"those smart people will see how the benefits of microsoft far outweigh anything opensource"
and low and behold, the number of people joining the opensource camp is growing everyday.
it doesn't matter that you can publicly announce that you are "smart enough" to spot propaganda when you see it. most of us are.
what matters is, what camp are you in?
I showed the Monkeyboy clip to a non-techie friend of mine. He had the best take yet on it. "My God! This is the way those Amway assholes act!" Yeah, Monkeyboy made for a lot of snide comments but there is no context whatsover in which it looks good. It's indicative of a huge grape Flavr-Aid happening.
As a developer for a Major Microsoft vendor, I value flexibility. The more flexibility I have with current software apps in production, the more options I have for development and integration. Whenever we choose a Microsoft app, I know that we will ONLY be able to use SQL Server, it will ONLY work on the Microsoft OS and my options are extremely limited.
If one thing in that entire chain fails, the entire chain fails.
But by going with tools and apps that are cross platform compatible, I can mix and match with no worries. The development community is much more vast and mixed as well and any problem I can possibly conceive has usually been solved. By choosing tools and apps that give you options, you have a greater fklexibility for development.
This is one reason why whenever I we decide to purchase new software or apps, I ALWAYS evaluate open source projects first and actively promote them to the company; I have been asked if this is contradictory to our companies nature since Microsoft is our biggest client and my response has been 'We run Microsoft on every desktop here in the compny as well as on numerous servers. Do they honestly expect EVERYTHING to be Microsoft?'
Fact remains that Microsoft decided early to be a desktop company and never really put a decent effort towards servers until recently... which is a little late in the game. They realized that by getting businesses to buy in to their product, the could get software developers to buy in and then consumers. But they focused on the desktops of the business, not the servers (as shown by their weak effort put into Xenix which was later sold to old SCO and currently owned by the new SCO).
Linux has always been server side and as such has a ddistinct advantage; they are attacking the problem from a top down perspective. Get it on the servers and then onto business desktops. Once the worker spends 8 hours out of nearly everyday with Linux, Windows will be seem awkward and unstable to even the most computer illiterate luddite. Software manufacturers will realize that businesses use Linux for desktops as well as servers, lose their fear of the GPL and realize that you can make closed source software for open source systems.
Once Photoshop is released for Linux, that will herald the day of the Linux desktop and Microsoft will truly be scared.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
As someone else pointed out, there's a ton of win9x out there. There are also tons of other computers out there, not just Linux, also BSD, AIX, Solaris ... Microsoft does not have so much power that they can make all of them illegal. Especially Linux, it is simply too widespread. If Microsoft were so foolish as to try to use DRM to make Linux illegal, they would find themselves in a world of hurt from the competition and from legislators and prosecutors alerted by the competition and users.
It simply will not happen.
Infuriate left and right
I'm not trying to start a war or anything but I wonder how those surveys work? I think it would be interesting to see some sort of "non-casual" statistics. Meaning what do most of the bigger companies/developers run on?
.NET camp for a while and have now begun learning java jsps/servlets/J2EE because of news related to .NET not exactly taking off... Don't know what to believe.. If none of this works out I guess I'll go into a trade... Electrician anyone? At least they can't be outsourced...
I'm thinking apache would be more popular with virtual hosts because there are no licensing fees. I can see people with less serious development needs going more for the cheaper solutions (not saying they can't run anything serious). Would this result in "mom and pop" type sites raising linus/apaches apparent popularity? Is apache really crushing Microsoft's server solutions by that much in the web developer world?
I've been playing in the Microsoft
You're making the rather brazen assumption that users must stop using their already-installed base of software.
I'll tell you who I don't take seriously any longer: People who either defend or praise Microsoft.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Semi-seriously, I had higher hopes for the article after it began:
The anti-Micro$oft polemic that follows kinda gets in the way of Charlie Demerjian's stated thesis, which is that there's a paradigm shift going on in the direction of OSS, but that doesn't mean he's wrong either. And I happen to think his correct with the "polemic", too, FWIW. It's just a bit over the top & a bit of a danger to older monitors everywhere!
I see Micro$oft as a lumbering giant, based on a '80s business model. The internet changed the playing field, mobile applications are changing it some more. In a real sense, OSS has evolved in order to survive against the M$ model. Viva la evolucion!
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Sometimes anti-Americanism is useful.
Linux is FREE. Because you paid for your copy of Red Hat, SUSE, Lindows or Xandoras, doesn't mean you paid for Linux.
Pretty impressive considering that your company uses Netscape Enterprise web server on Solaris.
Not that the article was important, but your arguments don't make much sense.
What else do you expect from a troll?
And see that it is happening right now. Look at the web of control M$ has with politicians, and just about everyone else. If they were to DRM everything, which they will, they cant ignore linux forever, nobody would stop them, because they're all on M$ payroll.
On
.NET allows you to choose the programming language. It's your fault for choosing a crappy language such as VB.NET.
He talks about "licensing 6.0", but he doesn't mention the product name.
Does anyone know what product he's talking about that's at version 6.0?
(My understanding is that the OS is now at version 5.x and won't be at 6.x until Longhorn in 2005.)
I probably should know this stuff, but I'm a 100% Linux guy.
> If enough people (the masses) are doing something illegal, wouldn't that send out a very clear message
> that something is wrong with the definition of legal?
Like how it is illegal to copy a cassette or video off a friend? (at least in UK law).
It would probably just make it less enforced as the courts go after bigger criminals, like the companies doing large scale pirating, not the home user who copies the occasional cassette.
I think MS is very well aware of the kind of trouble their in. The author of this article is however very wrong to put the blame on technology. MS problem is fundamentally that they are no longer operating in an exponentially growing market. PC sales used to grow exponentially. Until the market basically stopped growing exponentially a few years back. Then MS shifted attention to the exploding server market. That imploded in 2001. Then it shifted attention to other exponentially growing markets. That didn't work either.
Currently MS depends on replacement sales (os/office & server). This is basically a very steady market with very little competition and outrageous margins. It still generates lots of revenue. The only problem is that the replacements are competing with previous versions of the same thing. There's only so much people are willing to pay for incremental improvements. In order to complement this (still spectacular) revenue stream with revenue that does have the potential to grow exponential, MS has ventured into new markets (gaming, isp, settop, mobile) with (so far) mostly negative results.
In other words, they have chosen to solve the fundamentally non technical issues they have by developing/extending other technology. In the long run they'll figure out that developing new technology is the key means to keep existing products profitable. People'll still be buying windows in 10 years. Much of the new technology currently fragmented over MS product lines will be consolidated into it. In the process they'll reorganize and cut some of the accumulated dead weight that any exponentially growing company would collect over 25 years of exponential growth.
In a few years the initial OSS goldrush will be over and MS will integrate some of the associated practices into their own business (like other businesses). The GPL will most likely never feature prominently in MS products but other licenses might very well be adopted (e.g. BSD style licenses) in a similar style that Apple has used for their products.
Jilles
Microsoft's business model has built up around the ever increasing share price, to buy other companies and to woo developers. The share price has increased steadily because the revenue has gone up steadily. The long article describes this in a lot more words.
Revenue can't increase any more. The US market is saturated. Foreign markets can't afford list price or anything close, so Microsoft has condoned piracy up until recently, rightly figuring a stolen copy buys mindshare that a legitimate copy of somebody else's software doesn't. But with all their carping on piracy, and especially with Hollywood screaming about piracy, foreigners have been cracking down on piracy and turning to alternatives like Linux.
That's the cause of the flattening.
Infuriate left and right
I am sure there are some. However, to avoid this article being marked up in my eyes as Linux FUD. I need to see some sources that back up the claims of the writer. From what I read it looks more like they are loosly throwing some ideas around versus actually displaying some real hard facts. Not the sign of a good writer.
Lol...a 'flat quarter' - rather have a flat quarter compared to losing money like a ton of other tech companies and outsourcers...
Err, pardon me, but whan did MS had a flat quarter? If I'm reading the SEC filling correct there was around 1b increase from May to Nov.
I'm certaing for the budged f the author this is peanuts, but for the rest of us, at least a cup of tea.
Who are (and how many of them) the corporates interested in Exchange features and advanced 3D support at the same time? Granted, Exchange is perhaps the easiest to implement but it's still only one of the implementations of IMAP protocol. There are others and if nothing else, they are based on standards.
Outlook? That's just pathetic!
When was the last time you tried any of the Linux desktops?
I also wonder how did you manage to miss clipboard and fonts arguments.
"Then why do I constantly read on /. that MS have a complete monopoly on software like nothing else was available?"
:) I find my unique oppression in other areas ;)
Because people like to believe that they are uniquely oppressed
"Note also the complete lack of Office of any kind. I rarely need a word processor, and if I do there's Wordpad or KOffice and whatever spreadsheet it comes with on Linux."
(Not sure I get that last sentence -- does this mean you're running Linux sometimes, too?)
Don't forget OpenOffice.org. 1.1.X is noticably better in my experience than 1.1.0, at least under Linux. My OO.o experience in the past has always shown the Windows and Linux versions to be identical in operation, so I'm hoping that's true for you, too.
Gimp runs on Windows, too, if you're interested. I hear people compare it to PaintShop Pro, but I've never used PSP, dunno how they actually stack up.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
You are right - because he missed one important point:
Microsoft is for the first time going to offer dividend on its stock. It's a sure thing that the company no longer is a growth company.
From an investor point of view I think the company is very pricy.
Just saying it like it are.
Boy, jump on the bandwagon! People said the same thing about IBM in 1985. It was popular then too.
does grandma really need a 3Ghz pentium to browse the internet)?
She does if she is running Mozilla.....[me ducks]
Even my mostly non-geek wife has noticed and commented on the prevalence of MS's TV advertising now, for Office 2003 and Server 2003: Q "Why now? They never had to before." A "Because there's no technical reason to upgrade they have to have an advertising campaign."
Then you've never used Interface Builder. I've done GUIs in both VS.Net and Xcode/IB, and I can assure you that the latter is faster, easier and results in far better products in less time.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by "free." IB is free as in beer. But, of course, Visual Studio is neither beer- nor speech- type free.
The Inquirer isn't always trustable, one might say. For example, it posted an article about the Opera web browser, claiming that it was spyware. This is of course nonsense, and the author of the article never even did any research - he just jumped to conclusions. Opera was never even given a chance to respond to these false accusations. It was later half-way retracted.
It would have been OK if they had completely retracted the story without trying to wash their hands and come up with bad excuses, but their excuse was more of the "it wasn't really our falt" kind.
They even said that they contacted Opera's "PR company" to get a response (after the article was posted). Strange that, since Opera apparently handles its own PR. The "PR company" is part of Opera, and not a different company at all.
Clever signature text goes here.
Well, in fact it was sacrasm, you know. :)
-- grmbl woz heer
Granted, Apple's average customer loves Apple as devoutly as a marriage vow decrees, and the average MS user feels more like a co-dependent in an abusive relationship. Even though Microsoft's current market position is more a result of inertia than momentum, so is reliance on fossil fuel technologies.
If we'd followed the predictions of the mid-70s, fossil fuels would have been supplanted by now. History shows that entrenched yet detrimental technology does not die quickly or easily without significant upheaval. While behind the scenes (servers and power users) there is a shift away from m$, the avg user and PHB will keep M$ around for quite awhile. They've already accepted mediocrity and will continue.
This will be another sector where the rest of the world begins to move on to alternatives faster than the US.
The potato it is uninformed.
...In Wicca that's "Whatever you do comes back to you." In Christianity it might be considered, "As you sow, so shall ye reap." Microsoft destroyed countless competitors offering free software against those that could not; now the exact same strategy is being used against them, and they're crying Foul (and occasionally, FUD). 'T'ain't workin'. There is no dynasty or empire so great that it can't be brought down. Just ask the Romans, the Mongols, the Brits, the Soviets, and very likely very shortly, the Americans.
Regards,
John
Falling You - beautiful
The answer is quite simple - in Russia average salary is about 200 USD and Windows costs almost twice more. Pirated copies, which are sold almost on every corner, are about 3 USD.
I'm willing to pay for software, but when it isn't so overpriced and badly written (Why the fuck they want Why the fuck should I suffer from viruses, when it's clearly a MSFT's failute to write secure OS?).
I use Linux as well, but need Windows for some specific applications and games.
-- grmbl woz heer
"Now that Phoenix has signed on to "Trusted Computing" we are facing the very real possibility that the next generation of hardware (and MS OS) will have a very difficult to break content lock in. I doubt they'd do anything as blatient as making Linux impossible to run, but it'd have to run in "Non-Trusted" mode, MS webservers wouldn't serve to a non-trusted computer, movies, sounds, and images built with "trusted" packages won't open on non-trusted OSes.
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses... "
Ok, a bit of background. I wrote that story on the Inq that is the topic here, and as part of my job, I have been following the Trusted Computing/Palladium/whatever very closely. It isn't that bad. The technology is not evil, and it won't lock you out. The technology simply is.
Before you go blathering on and on about how linux won't run on it, or it will be a bitch for the average user to port, I hate to tell you, but Linux was up and running on a 'trusted' platform at IDF this fall. Intel wants it, IBM wants it, and so does everyone else. It is already there, don't lose any sleep over this any more.
That said, the whole idea is stupid, unworkable and won't achieve anything that they are aiming for, but that is for a totally different reason. If you want a great example of how people don't get it, go watch the fall '03 IDF keynote, it is probably on the Intel web site somewhere. You will understand how they missed the mark (A big wet kiss to the first person to link it in a comment).
Now, if you want evil, and I do mean evil, that IS meant to lock you out, look to EFI and the new bootloaders. That is where MS is going to try to cut linux off at the knees, or maybe already has. I am working on this story, but it is slow going. Be very afraid of EFI people.....
-Charlie
MS has too many programmers. Heck. With 10 good programmers you can do anything (1 carmack, 1 alan cox, 10 helpers and 20 testers), you can write ANY application in 4 months. So what's with the 100,000 people working there?
Most of the manwork is lost in the hierarchy of bosses, supervisoers, subsupervisors etc. Software doesn't work like that and MS is still alive only thanks to piracy which has put windows into every computer of the world.
Ask yourself: how does Microsoft plan to continue double digit growth in the future when their core and only profitable markets are essentially saturated and, importantly, becoming elastic on price (demand changes with price). One of the signs: last years CIO revolt. Microsoft has only actual customer markets: IT dept and SW devels - end users are not their customers, as much as they might publically try to deny it! CIOs continue this revolt every time they pick Linux or BSD which seems to be picking up.
It's abundantly clear that Microsoft faces a revenue crunch in the next five years (if not sooner) that could very well destroy them. Simply stated they can not continue to simply raise prices to fund their revenue needs, yet growth in profitable business isn't there (where do you go from 95% market-share?). This is so clear that denying it would be comparable to saying Enron still has potential for profits. Their market-broadening ventures are still essentially failures: they still lose money (only now, more) on every X-Box; their other ventures like MSN only have decreased revenue projections based on available customers and price pressures.
Linux and BSD provide a killer value proposition that's hard to fight, and its not even mostly the price issue. Price matters but choice probably matter more, be it the choice to change distributions, the choice of hardware, the choice to go directly to the code; the value of choice makes the relative price even do negative when compared to escalating prices, security problems, and bloatware-driven hardware purchases.
Of couse, Microsoft has gotten to this point by following, rather slavishly and short-sightedly, exactly the maxims of Harvard's Dr. Michael Porter who is meat-and-potatoes for MBAs as "Competitive Strategy". If you've heard phrases like "barrier to entry" and "barriers to exit", you've heard of Porter. Microsoft has almost religiously followed Porter analysis and techniques. Every dirty trick in the "Embrace and Extend" is classic Porter executed on a tactical level utterly devoid of moral limits. What was missing was the work of Stanford University's Dr. Baron's "Business and it Environment". Business can *not* simply be about profit maximization alone because business does not exist in a vacuum disconnected from the rest of society, though Microsoft has largely acted over the last 20 years as if it is and does.
Their utter lack of business ethics over the last 20 years have pretty much assured that their own allies in the future will have be paid for loyalty and paid well. How can you afford to be that lavish when revenues and profits cap? Well for a while they still might be able to buy people off in exchange for a modicum of apparent loyalty. Yes, that might include politicians making protectionist legislation for them, but the fact they have outsourced overseas as much if not more than other corporations will make that course a patriotic tar-baby many would avoid at the very moments Microsoft needs them most.
So what happens when Microsoft products are actively shunned by most of the world, are priced far too high to be competitive and their stock tanks when revenue caps? Desperate acts are likely. Yes, SCO certainly fits past behavior even if Microsoft has plausible deniability or the unlikely seeming true lack of culpability. Such is the hole of muck they've dug for themselves. Well, let's just say shorting Microsoft may actually become profitable soon. This includes the choi
Damn, if that year old piece, 6000+ articles ago is the best evidence you can find to justify our hate for MS, you are not going to win many debates. 1/6000 would bring our total anti-MS articles to 2 or 3. Yup, there is bias for you.
-Charlie (the author of the Inq story above)
will you pay the hundreds or thousands of dollars to go the Microsoft route, or the $0 to go with Linux?
either you can download linux for free and it will cost you $$$$ for the time it takes you to tweak it to work, or you can pay real $$$$ and get a linux distrubution that has os automation software that dosent overload/overwhelm you with technical details that you really shouldnt have to know (i say this as a physics postgrad student who is trying to comprehend VHDL and windows programming and digital electronics as part of my thesis).
i have to say as a hybricrate since i do use open source software alot (blender, apache, php, open office, octave, et al), but to say that linux is free [as in time is money and free as in free beer] is false. it has to be polished for people to use it. that requires cash.
I wrote that piece because I wanted to. I have a bunch more to write, and some that I have already written. One got slashdotted yesterday in fact. I am under no pressure, deadlines, or quotas, and as far as I know, the Inq doesn't do that. I just happened to have free time, and no news to report, so I did a lot of the stories that I have not had time to do recently.
-Charlie
For all the money that MS spends on R&D, they have ZERO items to show for it.
Every single Microsoft product was either purchased or copied from somewhere else.
You'd think that with that much money being spent on R&D that you would see SOMETHING new come out. Something that isn't simply derivative of another product. Something that has not been produced before.
If Walmart really believed their was a mass market for Linux, why did you see only Windows PCs in their adds this holiday season?
It's becoming clear that access to protected media content is important to users and until Linux becomes DRM-friendly. Linux based systems are going nowhere in the general consumer market.
microsoft is dying...
Quit being such a zealot.
I'm a dedicated Linux user and developer, but that doesn't automatically exclude me from recognizing and praising ideas and tecnhology that come from outside the free/opensource software community. Nobody lives in a creative vacuum; almost all ideas draw in some way from those that already exist.
As for Microsoft in particular, you can't truthfully say that there has been no innovation in, for example, the Windows graphical interface. Things like context menus, Multiple Document Interface, dockable toolbars, Setup Wizards, HTML rendered backgrounds and folder windows, these are good examples I think, and a lot of them original ideas of Microsoft's.
For arguments sake though, lets say you're right; Microsoft have never invented anything. If this is the case though, wouldn't Windows still look and feel like Win3.1? Or if all these ideas were thieved, how come it doesn't look like a Mac?
Another thing that irritates me is hearing all this crap about GNOME and KDE being cheap knockoffs of Windows. GNOME's appearance is derived from Motif, usually only found on older Unix machines. Generally though, there are only so many ways you can draw and present titlebars, entries, buttons and so forth...
Maybe applications and desktop environments need to stipulate a disclaimer like those found in movie credits, "Any similarity to other Operating Systems, living or dead, is purely coincidental..."
Google results:
"European Federation for Immunogenetics"?
"European Forest Institute"?
"Energy Federation Incorporated"?
"English For Internet"?
"Electronics For Imaging"?
"Electronic Field Instrument"?
"Radio Frequency Interference"?
"Extensible Firmware Interface"?
Come on! Help us out, here...
If you would like more specifics, just ask. If I think there is any merit to posting more detail, I will write a followup, or maybe edit the origional. Of all the letters I got so far today, none pointed out any wrong facts, and if I screw up, and I do, they come out of the woodwork to point things out.
-Charlie
That said, start expecting to see exploits coming out a lot -- there's simply going to be more people attacking as well as using.
Security problems are bound to happen. It's going to be up to us to prove that we can respond faster and more professionally than Microsoft. Get ready!
Berto
Riiiiight!!
And solaris == linux?
Nice try
While I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, the article is (clearly) biased and even inacurate in many ways..
Firstly, the article brings up the Blaster worm often and states that Microsoft failed to fix that. Microsoft did indeed fix the Blaster. It's end users' faults if they got it, not Microsoft's, as end users need to keep up on security updates. (And before anyone says that you shouldn't have to keep up on so many security updates -- there're just as many security updates for Linux as there are for Windows, and you have an equal responsibility to patch them as you do on Windows.)
Second, Windows is most likely equally as (security)-holey as any other OS. The only reason it seems like its so much of a big thing is because so many people use it - namely novice computer users who don't keep up on security updates. You do not see the exploitation of Linux systems because mostly only intermediate-advanced users run Linux, and these users are merely smart enough to stay on top of updates.
Anyway.. Is MS financially backing SCO in their lawsuits against Linux?
#1. Even if Gates did buy up all the publicly traded Linux companies, so what? Read the GPL and you'll see why he isn't even attempting to do this.
5 y&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=
#2. No, it does not make "one very hard to "tipover"." It just means that there have to be a lot of factors that have to coincide. Microsoft has saturated the desktop market. They have to find ways to continue selling their product to people who have already purchased it. That is difficult to do.
#3. Those are financial analysts that you're quoting. Microsoft's stock price is $27.21, but that is less than HALF of what it was. Go to the 5 year chart and see the pattern.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=
#4. No, there isn't a "real battleground". Microsoft will lose their desktop monopoly right before Microsoft ends. But there are a LOT of steps prior to that. And Microsoft may be able to re-design itself before then.
#5. There's no need to hope. Just check out Munich. Microsoft kept cutting its price when they looked like they were SERIOUSLY considering Linux.
They're not innovating, they just happen to have a particular GUI that some people, for some reason, like.
If I'm not mistaken, Linux was the first OS to include virtual desktops. [/uncertain]
You're looking at figures from the PAST to counter an article about how Microsoft is hitting a tipping point in the PRESENT which will result in fewer Microsoft products in the FUTURE.
Now, if those stats you linked to showed that Linux had 42% of the market, then Microsoft would have hit the tipping point a couple of years or more in the PAST.
To put it another way, once, Internet Explorer had ZERO market share. Netscape had LOTS of marketshare.
Then Internet Explorer had 1% of the market. Still Netscape had LOTS of the market.
So, by your logic, Netscape would still be the leading browser.
But there was a "tipping point". That was the date when Microsoft required all the OEM's to put IE on the desktop and told them that they could not remove it or replace it with Netscape on the desktop.
Now, that's an easy example because it is between two products and it hinges on a single event.
Microsoft's business is far more complex. But a lot is happening and you're starting to see some of the effects. The most glaring one being Microsoft's financial report.
That was what the article was about. Not whether Linux has more desktop share than Apple accourding to Google's stats.
Just watched another one of the "great moments at work" commercials for Office 2003 during the football game. That's when I felt the impact of the Inquirer piece and all the points made on the board. I can't imagine anybody making a forceful enough argument for any single factor being the cause of MIcrosoft's graduate demise. The Inquirer cited most of the major reasons, though it did neglect the important points about people not needing more computing power. Why pay for Office 2003 when Office 97 does almost everything you need? After spending a decade becoming a minor Windows expert, I enthusiastically switched to Mac OS X, only because I didn't have the time to jump in feet first into Unix. For now, I got the convenience of Mac, I got Office X for backwards compatibility (and to use Endnote), and I got fink, with which I am becoming familiar with Unix software. I imagine my next machine will be a Unix box of some sort. One thing is for sure, when you can do everything you need to do for free, why pay? Furthermore, why pay for software that doesn't comply with standards? Since 1.4, Mozilla has been a vastly superior--faster and more compliant--browser than IE. So, why pay for Office 2003 when OOO serves as an adequate alternative? (I can't believe people are still using IE!) The Inquirer piece ultimately gets it right, then, when it states implicitly that Microsoft is selling what people don't want. People don't want proprietary standards. People want total compatibility. (Just two years ago, the Macs in our lab were isolated. Now, it's our PCs that are the least networkable.) It's like the music industry. They want to keep selling CDs, but people don't want them. The music industry seems to finally be caving. Will MS give in as well?
"...who search the reason of things
Are those who bring the most sorrow on themselves." --Euripides, The Medea
Microsoft has long maintained a 'slush fund' in order to 'filter' their steady quarterly rise. They move money in and out of this fund as required; they move money in when they exceed expectations in a given quarter, and move money out when they under-perform. They have long been criticised by analysts for this practice and I believe the SEC has even investigated them.
... ummm ... which is what exactly?
It is my belief that this flat quarter has a lot to do with the accounting scandals of recent memory. Microsoft is probably phasing out the slush fund and cleaning up their accounting practices because of increased regulatory pressure.
The Inquirer should avoid market analysis and stick to what they do best
but not today, apparently. Constitutionally incapable of discriminating between definitions of free, particularly: free: open for public participation in development vs. free: sans cost of installation Trick Question: Which one do non-nerds really give a damn about? the second Second Trick Question: Do non-nerds think that paying a nerd $50/hr to set up their linux box for them = Free, as in 'sans cost'?
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
"Can you say ".NET" ?"
.Net, the new secure infrastructure, and built with security in mind, lets you have access to the 'old ways'. Yes, you are not supposed to, but people somehow do, and hackers will."
I thought I did.....
"Even
-Charlie
To quote Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos "ahahahahahahahha" please people go OUTSIDE, Microsoft isn't going away. You are all living in an LSD induced psychosis. Shave your beards, cut your hair, and run Windows like the rest of society.
The article, as good as it is, unfortunatly suffers from tech miopia. The reason that microsoft is flat has nothing to do with how well there tech is doing. It is rooted in a much simpler fact. Recently Microsoft was forced to start paying divedends on the money they make to there stockholders. Several lawsuits and tax investigations forced there hands.
Before this they could keep that beautiful curve, it cost them nothig to do so. Now, with the new divedends biting them in the rear, if they keep that curve then there divedend payouts must match. I would expect them to be flat from now until doomsday frankly to decrease there dividend liability.
So in short, yes microsoft decided to keep themselves flat, but it has nothing to do with Linux.
Papa Legba come and open the gate
The price war tacit can't win against FOSS. Price wars are based on outlasting your opponent's reserves. $50 billion in the bank isn't enough to wait out a software methodology based on Free.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
1) give away their software for free, all the while producing new versions and patching old versions
...and still have billions in reserve.
2) produce a completely free Linux distro with documentation and plug and play
and 3) completely rewrite Linux, no.. make that unix... from scratch
They are not going under anytime soon.
Tipping point. Yeah right.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
What do you mean, "single point of fact"? This article is an observation of a trend, a trend we all have the seen the data to.
.NET. (It's a warmed over implementation of a VM, but nowadays damn near everything is a warmed over implementation of something; it has enough interesting things in it to be considered a sort of innovation.)
You may agree or disagree, but we all have the facts from outside of this article. We don't need this article to notice that Microsoft is backing down on all fronts and that "dirty tricks" seems to be all they have left; on the technical front they've all but abadoned innovation, with the possible exception of
"Aglomeration of facts [sic]": In other words, the "culture" of the company. Of all the points made in this article I find this the most compelling. The current culture at Microsoft has made it what it is. It was magnificently adapted to the 80's and 90's, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be able to adapt to the Linux threat; all of its coping mechanisms are defunct, and it's too big for anyone to change.
My claim isn't that they will die, but they will become another IBM. (Although, IBM is a lot more diverse then Microsoft on the profit sheet...)
I agree, but would make that 10%-10%-80%.
"One flat quarter" and people get all excited... Just remember that M$ has been wooing investors for years (decades?) by hiding money and shifting the amounts to make appear a profit. And now today, post-Enron and all, the SEC is watching closely against those shady practices.
What we just saw here is probably *finally* a normal fluctuation of the market, not a sign the giant is crumbling. The only difference is that in this new era of "profit-reporting-politically-correctness", the public gets to see under the hood.
Give it a few quarters, and update the analysis. If it becomes a trend, be afraid (or party hard, depending on your portfolio).
C.
Mircrosoft has quite a number of silly software patents it didn't try to enfarce so far.
The one about Undo/Redo-functionality comes to mind.
Nothing that the government did has been a factor in Linux growing market share. So next time you start to talk about the big bad evil Microsoft, perhaps you should consider how much money you've given to Microsoft and compare that to how much has been taken from you by Uncle Sam to fund frivolous lawsuits and pork barrel projects.
The key to being successful is to provide a better quality service or product than the other fella. This is true of businesses, and this is true of individual people. Most people I know who I would consider successful are so because they work hard at producing quality work in everything they do. And many people I know who are less than successful are often more concerned with worrying about what other people are doing and focused on complaining as loud as they can about how they haven't gotten the same breaks as the successful people.
I don't intend for this to turn in to a tirade, but I do believe that the power of market forces are often underestimated. A truly free market is one of the most just and powerful forces on the planet. It is not meant to be taken lightly and shackled for the sake of expedience.
RFC2119
Linux doesn't need Intel.
If Intel wants to limit itself to the MS cult, let em.
photosMy Photostream
I see it coming. The people who run Microsoft are clever; many readers here don't think so, but they've managed to outpace and outwit everyone from their competitors to govermnent investigators. Lately we've heard about MS doing "why do you use Linux" surveys and paying a fair amount of attention to the Linux side of the world. No imagine MS Linux: The OS is OSS, free to all. Then you simply buy the CS versions of MS software that run on it, and presto: as a business owner you now have the wonder of Linux, with its highly touted security and "free" price tag, and the integration with your existing MS Windows infrastructure. Imagine Linux web and database servers that interoperate with Active Directory and allow for seamless intranet connections with MS boxes; that's what I see happening. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a full-steam-ahead development team working on it as I type.
Last time I checked, most of Humanity considered slaughtering protesting citizens with mechanized infantry somewhat more heinous than allowing companies to sue them in a courtroom.
Get your priorities straight buddy because you sound like a real idiot.
Only on
MS's existing proprietary data formats and protocols are a pain. But when necessary, people on other platforms can deal with them one way or another. If MS is so so stupid as to deny access to all competitors, esp. including GNU/Linux, (1) they'll have the federal government breathing down their neck again, but this time they'll be pissed, and (2) people will have had enough. That would be a last ditch effort that would put them in their grave.
The person who wrote this really knows their stuff. MS has been backing themselves into a corner for a while now and while most windows users can be distracted by bright shiny objects some are admitting the fact that their OS has major problems that are not going away anytime soon.
As one reader here wrote that some websites or servers will not work without the seal of "owned by MS" in the future, it is already here. There are some sites now that will not work with any other OS and browser other than Windows and IE. Can you guess where the content creation tools that made these sites come from?
Even the MS page to lodge a complaint against it for the anti-trust case only works under Windows and IE....which if you are running those, you will be less likely to complain. Good idea I guess....but proves the case against them.
Microsoft will reap what it has sown and it could not happen to a nicer bunch!
Central calendar?
Centralized tasks?
Assigned tasks, meeting requests, meeting votes, shared schedules?
GOOD integration with the main ldap database holding all of the user accounts (sendmail and PAM work, but they're kludges, I know, I've set it up a few dozen times).
It's not about IMAP, it's about the rest of the undocumented RPC that only Exchange does, and not a single free software has been able to implement yet.
Work in a company that uses Exchange as it's meant to be used and you'll understand.
Marked as offtopic when it's right on the money. A moderator needs to be defanged from retarded mods.
Just a bunch of opinion, bravado, and pro-Linux spin and zealotry. How about we get some opinion pieces based on actual numbers. How many companies this year went to Linux en masse? Overexuberant ranting doesn't prove a damn thing. I'd like to see Linux take the momentum from Microsoft, but anyone seriously considering this kind of crap as proof need their head examined.
You know, that box in the bottom left corner that KDE and Gnome both copied verbatim into their "window managers".
Yep, thats just one right off the top of my head
and I for one look forward to that change. The US will be like that little kid in his backyard playing with his new football by himself, while all the other kids are in the park playing game that doesn't require a football. Have fun hey.
I don't think I said that. I would assume that people who didn't sign up for the new licensing would continue to use their existing MS products while working on a migration path. Either way, I doubt these companies will be sending any more money to MS.
If Microsoft falls, who will the Linux Community have to copy from? I hope it's Apple.
Trusted Computing will backfire big-time. What'll happen is, Windows will become the OS for "watching movies and listening to music." Linux will become the OS for every kind of serious computing.
In fact, some people already think that way.
I am a severe skeptic of every technology company around, but have found myself engulfed by Microsoft as a Windows Geek because they just keep surprising me by not going totally braindead. (in spite of The Inquirer's article) Is it just me or didn't MS servers go from 10 percent of the market (LAN Manager on DOS or OS/2), to 20 percent (Novell ignored this), to 38 percent (where I thought they would peak), to 55 percent now? These Windows 200X Servers are pretty impressive examples of how the Borg has expanded through embrace and extend. In the meantime, Linux has been killing off the NIX'es and Novell to become the other big kid on this block. All the while, I have seen boneheaded move after boneheaded move by MS that tempted me to write them off, learn Java and Linux, and start looking for a job with "The Rebel Alliance". The phenomenal price hikes, the horrific defense they put on against David Boies and the Justice Department, SQL Slammer, Blaster, the refusal to backport Active Directory's Group Policies to pre-Windows 2X (Windows 2000, XP, 2003) machines, the forcing of Exchange customers wanting Exchange 2000 to deploy Active Directory (on Windows 200X Servers only), MSN, losing their lawsuit with Sun over Java, the threatened arbitrary defrocking of Windows NT 4.0 MCSE's (Microsoft Certified Sales Engineers :) )that was only averted four months from the deadline, and more. This company has committed about a zillion errors and it keeps coming back from them all smiling, profitable, and supremely confident like some sort of liquid metal-based Terminator soaking up shotgun blasts. Sixty billion in the bank will do that for you, I suppose.
What to make of this? An old friend long ago advised me that whatever IBM is doing, do the opposite. He has long been an MS guy and it has paid off for both of us. Will it go on forever? Extremely unlikely. When twenty year olds come to me these days asking for long-range IT advice, I recommend Open Source. You will learn more, you have the time to learn it, and it's not going away. If they need to learn MS later, it will be easy after Open Source. MS won't be going away any time soon, but eventually we will ALL perceive that IT is not just about desktops, servers, and mainframes. When it comes to money, we need to remember those cell phones, Blackberry's, PDA's, gaming consoles, set top boxes, supercomputers, Distributed.net, manufacturing control systems, routers, firewalls, and dozens of things that don't come to mind. When viewed in its' totality, this market has MANY big players. The winds of change are blowing and the devices are bypassing MS's chokehold on innovation in its markets. Adam Smith's invisible hand will crash right through MS discounts, Justice Department inaction, and legions of lawyers to bring us the computing solutions we need. A pox on Darl McBride!
In principio erat Verbum.
That is an irrelevant question. Apple makes the hardware, they are allowed to require me to purchase their OS when I buy a Mac.
If Tivo stands for "Trash In Video Out"
will the MS version be Tito "Trash In Trash Out"?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
That article is devoid of information and is rabidly anti-microsoft. Pity it is getting so much attention here.
MSFT has so more alternative strategies than can be enumerated. And they have always dealt with adversary well, OS is just another challenge to them to adapt and optimize. Anyone really care to bet that they won't succeed? Think IBM or Novell are going to grow faster than MSFT now?
I figure the emergence of India or China as technology powers are much more serious threats to MSFT.
A few years ago, I worked at HP on EFI firmware for IA-64 machines. Like all technologies, it can be used for good or evil.
EFI, short for External Firmware Interface can be described as BIOS on steroids, combined with MS-DOS. It's a programming API in firmware used specifically for low-level hardware configuration and bootstraping of OSes. It comes with a command shell that looks much like MS-DOS - it reads FAT filesystems, runs a TCP/IP stack, lets you manipulate files from the command line, set up scripts and execute programs. For the most part, these programs do things like boot OSes (from disk or network), splash screens & hardware configuration. I personally have seen Linux boot through a version of LILO hacked for EFI (though that was three years ago). It's much more flexible than the PC-style BIOS for such things. For those of you with Unix backgrounds, it's somewhat like the firmware in PA-RISC workstations that normally bootstraps HP-UX.
It isn't much of a stretch to suggest EFI can be used to set up Trusted Computing software or DRM, and even to lock out software that the Powers That Be consider to be undesireable, by running an initdrm program in the boot script just before it executes the hwconfig, splashscreen or bootos programs. As I said, EFI can be used for good or evil. EFI can be used for this, but doesn't have to be.
I personally doubt EFI will be used to cut off Linux, since a lot of the big players like HP and IBM have too much at stake to let themselves be shut out.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Faster does not mean better. Faster does not mean more secure. Faster does not mean fewer bugs. Faster does not mean choice. Those are things going against .NET, and they are valid concerns for any company.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
While I won't argue w/many of the points in the article, there are a number of errors in it. It points to MSN as being one of the money losing groups and says that only two major products make money.
a in.asp?dcn=0001193125-03-080353&nad= or http://biz.yahoo.com/e/031113/msft10-q.html .
Well, MSN recently turned a profit. I guess he never read the SEC 10-Q filings at http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edgardoc/finSys_m
He also talks about "Then it came out with a 'student and teacher' version of Office..." Err, there have been educational discounts for a LONG time even when I was back in college back in 1992. It's not something new.
While MS's stock is pretty richly valued if you look at the P/E, it isn't terribly high compared to the rest of the S&P 500 or other tech companies.
That's a laugh; that the people running non-DRM hardware will be locked out of anything!
That's as dumb as saying non-a.o.l. users are locked out of the Internet: a.o.l. may *think* it is the Internet, but 99.999% percent of everybody else on earth couldn't give less of a care WHAT a.o.l. thinks.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
MySQL. Store tasks in a database - make use of datetime and text field types. Perl. Use /etc/passwd for managing the user accounts.
Use a web-based interface with JavaScript and Java applets on the client end and avoid the need for RPC altogether. Any CGI script can generate a bit of JavaScript to bring up a page automatically on a timeout. A quick and dirty bodge would be to popup a window and make it self-minimise; said window runs a bit of a CGI script which responds to trigger events {watches a directory for files changing, for example}, and refreshes itself at intervals so it keeps on checking. When the appropriate event occurs, the window restores itself, displays the appropriate content and comes to the front.
It doesn't really have to be Exchange. All means to the same end are equally valid.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Ever wonder what all those uppity protesters were up in arms about in Seattle a few years back? They're protesting against NAFTA, FTAA, GATT, WTO, and MAI because these groups and agreements allow investors to override laws.
To quote from a recent article "NAFTA: North American Deal Dismal After a Decade"
NAFTA rules also limit each country's domestic policies to deal with issues ranging from environmental health and food safety to banking and truck safety regulation.
Under the unprecedented investor rights sewn into the deal, investors are allowed to demand compensation for "indirect expropriation", which has been interpreted to mean any government act -- including those directed at public health and the environment -- that diminishes the value of a foreign investment.
Following one such suit, the Mexican government was ordered in August 2000 to pay nearly 17 million dollars to a California firm that was denied a permit from a Mexican municipality to operate a hazardous waste treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive location.
Yeah, that's what everyone was so up in arms about it. Too bad the media only told you about some dumb kids who threw some bricks at a Starbucks. If you want to understand the sort of societal structures that underly this situation, I recommend the book Understanding Power.
I was just reading through some of the EFI docs on Intel's site. EFI can be used for cryptographic authentication of boot images.
I can see Microsoft arm-twisting PC manufacturers into writing EFI code that will cause the PC to only allow authenticated, pre-specified boot images, Microsoft-approved Windows boot images, to be executed. Of course, this is only done for the best of reasons (for Microsoft) so viruses (and Linux kernels) can't run amok on your systems.
Yes, that's evil. But still, EFI is capable of lots of useful stuff as well.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
'Nuff said. M$ is one of the few companies that is still hiring in US, they don't outsource to India and they contribute to our economy in a big way.
Open your windows plzzz!
Microsoft Bob?
"And, ultimately, legal does matter to us, if we're forced to run pirate than we are open to lawsuits, arrest, etc. The DMCA must be overturned."
No. The real kicker is that the little guy/gal is always going to be at the mercy of those who would have power over them. I think that it's quite clear that with enough money, anything can be made illegal. Fuck the lawmakers.
Actually I think that their new licensing sca.. ehm scheme flushed them with money in the short time and they now feel those who did not go along.
I don't much care for the Redmond enclave myself, but this article was so blatenly biased--or outright hate mongering against Microsoft, I doubt that any reader not already embracing this attitude would take it seriously much less finish reading it.
The "article" assumes that the reader already loathes Microsoft and its acrid tone is less than professional. I also found that the writer's bold statements of linux victories had no authoritative citations or quotations. Basically, it sounded like some techno-elitist Linux zealot ranting rather than an open-minded, non-biased, and fair analysis of the situation.
Kudos to the writer's crusade for "trustworthy computing" and quality control. Shame on him for his poor forensics and inarticulate rantings.
You find what you're looking for in the not-so-exact science of punditry. In fanaticism, you lose sight of reality altogether. Caveat emptor.
[I do admit, however, that it was fun to live vicariously through his utter despising of MS for a moment or two--I played the Monkey Boy Dance video for a good laugh].
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
For Microsoft to dig itself out its flawed Operating system, it should copy Apple. Use BSD, build and XP front end on it with a Win32 API for it.
Opviously Microsoft will have to look at its other products aw well, but it will be much easier to 'secure' them , ie Outlook, Explorer, Office etc.
It took Apple two years to move from OS/9 to OS/X, I am sure Microsoft could do this in the same time frame. The clocking is ticking, how mush market share are they will to lose be for them act?
You are seriously suggesting that this hacked-up non-scalable single-server webapp would be remotely equivalent to Exchange, Lotus, or even Netscape Calendar server?
I've written web-based calendar apps before. My estimate is this will cost you approx $50K minimum. Still think it's such a bright idea?
I'm talking about the inauguration of the new troll here on slashdot:
Win* is dying!
While there were a variety of word processors before Microsoft Word, its direct ancestor was Bravo on the Xerox Star sytem. One of Bravo's authors was Charles Simonyi who moved from Xerox PARC to Microsoft and became one of the developers of Word. I'm not suggesting that any code was lifted - in fact, I don't think it could have been since Bravo was written in Mesa, which as far as I know never ran on Intel processors - just that Simonyi brought a lot of ideas with him. I used Bravo once or twice and disliked it for some of the same reasons I dislike Word - I hated having to try to position the pointer finely in order to do anything rather than using keystrokes as in Emacs (or for that matter, Wordstar).
For those of you with Unix backgrounds, it's somewhat like the firmware in PA-RISC workstations that normally bootstraps HP-UX.
Sounds more like the Open Boot interface found on Sun Workstations with the exception of the DRM (Open boot is pretty open). I have heard stories about having to go through hoops to load Linux on a PA-RISC box, whereas Sun has a couple of pages on their website on how to set up a Sparc box to dual boot Solaris and Linux. Part of the reason for HP's DRM is to keep people from loading MPE onto HP 9000-series hardware.
What will be even more interesting to see is what steps AMD takes with regards to EFI.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
I personally think Microsoft will be around for some time to come.
The reason is simple: the massive software and hardware support for Microsoft operating systems. I mean think about it: the bundled software packages that comes with some of today's most popular items for computer geeks--namely digital still cameras and MiniDV/MicroDV digital camcorders--support mostly Windows and (increasingly) MacOS X. You don't see Linux driver/application software for these devices bundled on the CD-ROM provided by the camera or camcorder maker, that's to be sure.
I will say Linux has finally made it when something like the Casio EXILIM EX-Z4U digital still camera (with its camera docking cradle) includes Linux software to download and process images from the camcorder.
[Emphasis added.]
The assumption that there's any sort of migration at all is what I'm questioning. I see no reason why a company can't stick with (e.g.,) Office 97 forever.
But what good is following in the footsteps of Apple, at least from a business point of view? Apple's PC marketshare is still pitiful and their revenues and profits are a fraction of Microsoft's. Their profits (when they have any) are a TINY fraction of their revenues compared to MS.
Ok, that's true. I guess I'm still using Word 6.0 on my legacy Windows computer...
I just put it on my dad's computer and the biggest complaint I've heard is that its slow on that first load. That's true, but most will put up with the 30 seconds it takes for the first load to save $500 per machine.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The underlying programming language (VB) sucks big ones, but the GUI maker is supurb
.Net framework (C# is another), which is more or less Java minus the portability, plus six years of hindsight.
You're a bit out of date here. This was the situation in 1999, but VB.Net is only barely related to VB 6. VB.Net is a thin shell to access the
In the near future we will have two kinds of platforms. One platform will be a fully integrated appliance that runs Windows in DRM-nightmare mode with BIOS lockin.
No.
The point of the article is that MS has announced they are dying. Bill knows there is no path for MS to survive in any recognizable form, and has given up. He already gave himself a billion dollars in dividends, so he will not starve. I expect their stock to be halved by this time next year.
Without MS leading the way into DRM-nightmare mode, I doubt Apple will even give it lip service.
Do you want to suggest to Linus that DRM would be a great addition for Linux 2.7?
---
Welcome to the new world of computers.
- MS is dying. Soon it will be dead.
- Every major company with any MS products will at least be researching how to get rid of them by the end of next year.
- More money and developer time will be spent on the Linux desktop in the next 2 years than has been spent so far. The windowmanager that gets the early money will become the only windowmanager.
- Computer technologists who were smart enough to avoid MS technologies will reap major pay increases as companies fight for these human resources.
- Computer technologists who depended on MS technology will flip burgers. Some may attempt to learn non-MS technologies, but few will understand how operating systems and programs are supposed to work after years of MS indoctrination.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
It was true then too. And it was very nearly fatal to IBM.
Remember MCA, Token-Ring? Great technical solutions, but eschewed by the masses because of their hate for IBM. We had to wait like 10 years to get PCI instead of ISA. TR still really has no replacement in mass production, though switches make life much more bareable in a contention based network.
Anyway - point being, I think IBM had some killer products, IMHO much better than MS, and the anger over the company almost killed them. MS is headed down the same road, and I think has less room to survive.
Cheers,
Greg
You are contrasting the "number of internet users using Google" to the "quantity of money that Microsoft received in a specific period." There should be no correlation. Those Windows95 and WindowsXP surfers should have needed to pay only one time for their OS. MS should not make any more money from them even if they continued using the software for decades.
For the first time, MS has made less money in a 3-month period than the previous 3-month period. Their growth has stalled, and the decline is starting. Because of their fun financial practices, the fall will be fast. Just wave goodbye as they go past.
Unless you are dependent on MS software for part of your income. Then you need to examine your budget for things you can cut, or look to replace that income by learning a new career.
---
Google, which is the geek's best friend, which would have naturally higher numbers than many other sites.
Google is great for geeks, but geeks are still considerable outnumbered by non-geeks, and many non-geeks like Google too. Your proof sounds like "I found some shells on the beach, therefore the beach must be made of shells." Please read about writing proofs. (Your local college should have a course in algebra or symbolic logic that will cover the important concepts.) If you want statistics on what geeks use, get your statistics from a geek-only site like Slashdot.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
like poopy in here. It must be the MS shills looking to make some holiday cash.
The question isn't whether people would still buy Office some of the time, or how many years Microsoft could operate on its cash reserves (at least, what people THINK is their cash reserves- proof? bueller?)
The question is to what extent Microsoft's wealth and influence is a bubble.
It doesn't have any goodwill and is weak on performance- the one thing MSFT has always been able to do is be a money machine. That drives everything. Some (such as Bill Parish) say they have been doing it through paying wage expenses not charged to earnings, i.e. paying people in stock. I'd like to know if they are still speculating on themselves through put options- the stuff Parish talks about tends to go over my head, but his basic point is that Microsoft is its own financial institution dependent on continued rapid valuation growth to maintain itself. He calls that a 'pyramid scheme' but even if you don't call it that, they should not be having a flat year under any circumstances. People underestimate how much effort they've always made to avoid that ever happening.
I think if they are having flat earnings it has horrible significance- BECAUSE they aren't primarily a software company. They are a money company, an earnings company. Nobody cares if Windows Whatever rolls over and dies, but a run on MSFT should terrify you. It could take down the US economy with it. Investment in MSFT is _everywhere_.
Monkeyboy balmer looks just like Major Charles Winchestor the Third. "Gentleme-e-e-e-n". "Develope-e-e-rs".
public final transient String president = DUBYA;
When our firewall got hacked and I was reimplementing it in Linux or OpenBSD, I was constantly being asked, what is Linux, how much does it cost?
I used to tell em its free but they'd give me the look that Ive fallen for a nigerian scammer or havent read between the lines, or stealing software.
Nothing in life comes free... I got that twice as I was setting up the firewall. They also needed a big company behind the software regardless of my opinion of its stability. IT experts around the globe understand and respect opensource operaring systems, but companies as a whole cant put their trust into Linux. Microsoft is a face. It has an address and everyone knows that address. There are phone numbers to call and people to threaten should things break. You cannot call a kid in a garage and threaten him.
So companies like RedHat leaving out desktop users and focusing on business are doing Linux a favor. They're doing IT technicians in those companies a favor by allowing them to use what they trust in most. Once you have every institution use a Linux or BSD server as a redundant firewall or file server... other applications for it will spring up, and that tide, Microsoft cant go against.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I doubt it, at least not yet. If they had 5 quarters in a row that were flat, then maybe. With their cash on hand it will take six to ten years to rid the world of this pestilence. If they are still flat in one year, 5 in a row, I'll start smileing real big, 10 and I dance on the desk.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Here we are 20 years on and I can't actually remember the last time I saw an IBM branded PC in a shop. I've seen the odd model of laptop but the days of walking into a PC retailers and seeing swathes of IBM PCs are long gone. Microsoft is starting to go exactly the same way.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
>> it reads FAT filesystems...
Ah HAH!!! Hence the Patent licensing!!!
The Penguin Producer
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
You can't beat FREE!
If someone gives you a load of shit; you can still grow tomatoes!
Please note that some people will pay good money for a load of shit too; it's still shit and it still grows tomatoes.
I'll take the FREE pile of shit. Thank you...
Anyone want some tomatoes?
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
nice way to read the article then repeat the "insightful" methods with which microsoft can smooth out their earnings....
there is nothing sneaky with how they do it: using "Software revenue recognition" they smooth out earnings by not recognizing revenue when received but rather over a period. this is done under the notion that they must release patches, provide tech support, etc. that are done years after the sale of their product. this is a legal (FASB approved, GAAP method) that many software firms use. they are not putting the money in the closet in some conspiracy theory way....
And the second biggest factor for Microsoft, one that many other large businesses don't have to deal with, is how to compete with free.
Something that would have strengthened your argument would have been an example of a large corporation that was selling a product or service, and then suddenly had to compete with free...
Maybe the Netscape/Internet Explorer comparison would have strengthened your argum...ohhh, wait, maybe not...
Your comparison of Microsoft to 3M is utterly ridiculous. Post-it Notes?. Get real. 3M is wildly diversified, and has been wildly diversified decades prior to Post-it Notes.
You should have stopped at the statements that are obvious. The 3M part at the end seems to indicate that you copied someone else's post, and added your 2 cents at the end.
and as for codersputter...
Lotus 123.
I gave my Grandma Mozilla Firebird and it works fine on her old 300Mhz celeron. Both Mozilla and IE6 are equaly slow on her old Windows machine.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some defections were headed off, like the Thai government, which pays $36 for Office and Windows XP comes with a 95% discount if you compare it to list.
This kind of glosses over the fact that this price was available only for government program offering low-cost computers to Thais. These computers were set to come with the government's own version of Linux and other programs localized for Thai. One million computers with Linux pre-installed scared MS enough that the program put the first crack in the "One Price Around the World" dam that MS had erected to that point.
Prices for regular software dropped somewhat shortly after, but not to the level quoted in the article. Despite this, the MS initiative seems to have succeeded because the Thai gov't has signed at least one huge contract with MS since then and has all but ceased the open source propoganda that it was pushing before.
Put identity in the browser.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
About (beep)ing time too. :-)
I do. So do you.
I'll preface my comments with the admission that I am a long time mac user at home and PC/windows user at work. I can only wish that my work machine was as easy to use and trouble free as my - now ageing - macs. Cant say I have any substantial experience with linux, but from what I have seen it seems equal to or better than windows in a number of areas. The only thing that PC's do better imo is gaming - just listen to salesmen use that pitch when selling PC's. "look at all the games you can get yourself/your children/granny" - nothing about education, ease of use, ease of setup, freedom from virii etc etc. It seems to me that the only way MS will die is when other OS's give consumers what they want, ie a machine to play dozens of shit games, and a few good games on. Essentially the general populace and businesses have been "brainwashed" into believing there is no alternative to MS. End of MS? I dont think so for some time
Face it, Slashdot is little more than a propaganda source for Linux. Look who they are owned by, and tell me you dont smell 'alterior motive' around here.
BTW, I work as a network architect and security engineer in corporate IT, and NOBODY is talking about switching from MS. There are too many benefits to being with them, and the bene's keep getting bigger and better. For example, its nice having one place to call if something goes wrong that the tech people cant resolve. Likewise, I enjoy being able to use Technet for various problems, rather than having to figure out yet another vendor's website and support network.
The strawmen OSS people make against MS products (like the every popular 'monoculture' arguement) are always wrong, and very illogical. My guess is that its the ranting of high school kids with very little experience in IT, or else developers who likewise have very little experience in security or network design (they know just enough to *sound* like they know what they are talking about).
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
my office has no windows, and i wouldn't call my cube an office. what did you say about office and windows? how much?
I'm surprised that a bunch of intelligent people fall all over this stuff. This article is feel-good writing. It's probably about 50% true, and about 50% wishful thinking (i.e. maybe true), because the writer was too lazy to address any real people or real issues (in their true complexity.) The slashdot posters seem to be a rather self-selecting group of dissenters; I'm wondering if there are any more neutral opinions to be found here?
As soon as you say '/etc/passwd', everyone knows you're not talking about enterprise solutions. It's great that you can hack together a script that works for you and 10 employees, but that just doesn't work when we're talking about 10s of thousands of employees spread over dozens of sites using a large cluster of mailservers.
/etc/passwd for anything other than single-system accounts. LDAP is the way of the future. Even MS knows that: 'Active Directory' is just a big LDAP directory. Replication to the other nodes in the cluster is damn near automatic, you can get a dozen or so exchange servers handling the email for a single domain, or a few dozen domains, and it's all relatively easy to configure, no custom scripts, no silly typos, no need to hire a special programmer to build and maintain it for the next ten years.
Real companies don't use
You see: you're not the market here. Nobody expects you to shell out the money for Exchange for your dozen people in your company. We're talking ENTERPRISES here: thousands, tens of thousands. This isn't about you.
Yes... but eventually pretty much everything gets migrated, it just doesn't necessarily occur as soon as a new product is available. Whether or not the company migrates is also completely irrelevant to the point that they're still not paying Microsoft anything.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I've been reading some posts (I don't have 3 hours to waste reading the 3 billions posts here), and didn't find (in those I read at least) any talking about SCO. Man, that's an historical day :-)
But maybe it's time to talk about them. There was a time when MS didn't care about Linux. Now Linux comes and begins to eat server market share (note by the way that I think we're still light-years away of everyone running a Linux distro at home...I know that for currently fighting with Debian), and then all of a sudden hell breaks lose on Linux community (and GPL) with that damn SCO threat. One might, read well, _MIGHT_ see some 'friendship' between MS and SCO. Maybe it's not the case (I hope it's not, actually, otherwise we might face a MS Linux sooner than we think), but maybe it is. Who can tell?
As of alternatives such as OpenOffice, sorry but as long as they're not 100% compatible with MS Office products, I won't use it. I tried with some Excel spreadsheet we use it as 'time sheet', and all the macros were screwed up in OpenOffice. It's still sitting on my machine, but I never use it, actually.
The article in itself seems a little too enthusiast about Microsoft's collapse, and the author is obviously not on their side. There are betters posts hereunder talking about how wrong and a kind of morron he is, so I won't say more.
That said, have a good 2004 year. And forgive my bad English and typos, too.
And then he said: "I'll tell you the meaning of life. It is" and then realized 120 chars are definitely not enough...
See http://www.gearbits.com/archives/000430.html for a respectable overview of why Microsoft might be at its zenith (ha ha) right now.
If I'm not mistaken, Linux was the first OS to include virtual desktops.
I ran HP/Unix workstations in my university that had multiple virtual desktops. Even Sun workstations had em, I think.
After reading the story, it seems that Microsoft, after locking-in their customers, they have locked-in themselves. They need to change Windows fundamentaly, but they cannot. I love the irony.
The real question is:
A life of forced regret could certainly be classified as torture. Also, if you are unfairly convicted, does it really matter which sentence you get? Your life as you know it is over either way.All data is speech. All speech is Free.
"Any opinion pieces you see during these days are little more than weak efforts to fill a quota."
Another important thing to remember is that offhand comments like the above are no substitute for objective critique. I found the article well worded, the historical information accurate and the reasoning sound. The fact that it was published during a holiday time is irrelevant.
The article is that the analysts make and break companies and CTOs and CIOs take more notice of this than security and price. The defections at the moment are from the thinking types, those that can make a decision based on technology. Now MS has the real problem that will highlight all the real problems with its software (price, security:-) lockin etc) and the evaluation of alternatives will stop looking as being brave.
Anyone deploying Microsoft might get fired.
And as far as DRM and lockin, well even that may come too late for the Beast. Not just because the rest of the world may go a non lockin route but because what are we talking about, the next MS OS being 2005+ or maybe even 2005++. How many more GNU/Linux servers running Apache will power the web, how many Sun Java desktops, how many more Novell/Suse/Ximian solutions will be out there. How amny IBM deployements of whatever OSS combinations will there be. China, Japan, Taiwan, Munich, Texas, Brazil, Peru, Germany, India, etc etc etc etc.... how do you lock out the rest of the world from your websites and sell anything? and what your desktops won't talk to Samba.... mmmmmm ?? Face it the worm has turned, not that its a lay down mozaire, but it is an interesting faze, and SCO, well I've always maintained they are IBM's advertising company. Who'd have believe Linux was any good if it was worth suing everyone for.
The market is about to crucify MS and there is nothing they can do about it. Lose market share, share price goes down, and credibility goes down, BIG time... then the questions will be asked by the clueless and those early adopters of other technologies will be heard. And more and more analyst say some similar things...
Got to feel sorry for MS *choKe*.
"Due to the DMCA please DO NOT submit your tender/job application/report in MSWord format. Please use a friendly format like standard XML/.pdf/.sdw etc. available from and an OpenOffice.org product that is freely available from openoffice.org. Corporate customers may wish to try Sun Staroffice available from Sun.com at a more than resonable price. For detailed instructions please refer to our website using Mozilla"
Now how good is your lockin now???
What's hard to take seriously are the catty negative comments about this article. I see criticism of the writing style, the anti-Microsoft slant, that it's not news or that it was featured during the holidays and must therefore be worthless filler. What I don't see is intelligent analysis refuting the guy's arguments.
I would say this article is full of solid points, presented from a decidedly anti-Microsoft point of view. But a good argument is a good argument no matter who makes it, and a whiney non-argument is just that.
'It's Miller Time!'
-- Peter Venkman, PhD
It kills as much the main core business of MS if users se no need to upgrade.
If MS would move towrads support as theyr core business that may have some relevance, but not as the situation is currently.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Almost 5 years ago to the day, I started a little project called PROPAGANDA. In a nutshell, I wanted to do something to help bring people to the platform, and flip Mickeysoft the bird at the same time. I mulled over the idea for months, and then the Halloween memos were leaked. Like most of us, I got pretty pissed off at that.
I can remember very clearly at the time, circa '98 or so, hoping that a little exposure for the platform would mean articles like this one would exist in the mainstream press 5 years later, out in the open. It's kinda nice to see, in a way.. The rest of the industry is starting to catch on.
Makes me wonder what the press will say 5 years from now.. If anything needs to be said at all.
Bowie J. Poag
Most of what I meant is that EFI can allow software to own the boot process. It was strongly hinted to me, without evidence, but by people in a position to know, is that this is how MS was going to deal with Linux. Installing anything after and MS OS was put on could be considered DMCA violations. How many PCs are shipped without MS? This would make installing Linux a nightmare to say the least.
-Charlie
And the pre-emptible kernel means that the interface no longer waits for system tasks.
Sorry, try again.
+++ATH0
The Visual Studio IDE still blows away anything and everything Linux offers and developing world class web apps can be done with .NET faster than in Linux.
I beg to differ. I have worked extensively (2+ years) with VS and a variety of other development platforms. I have proven numerous times that using BASH, UNIX tools, CVS, plus the ViM editor makes me far more efficient in coding anything than in any other kind of development environment I have seen.
I program "world class" webapps for a living.
I code HTML faster and cleaner than people who use DreamWeaver. I code up hundreds of lines of perl code an hour that are tested and working. I am 2 to 3 times faster when working with Python.
I call your bluff, and raise you a find, grep, and diff, all of which can not exist in VS.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I'll agree that there is no free IDE that can throw up a GUI as quickly and as well as MS [VisualBasic .NET Whatever]. The underlying programming language (VB) sucks big ones, but the GUI maker is supurb, no doubt. I'd be damn happy if there were a GPLed GUI maker that good.
Try Qt Designer with PyQt. I programmed an app yesterday to show flashcards to my toddler in less than 3 minutes and with only two lines of Python code.
I've done a lot more extensive work than this with it. I coded a complete app to handle an Optometrist's medical record and claim filings in a few months by myself full time. It's still running (1 year later) and there are hardly any bugs.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I worked for Intel in the early '90s, when the PowerPC was coming on strong. I was in a small group of employees, receiving a presentation from Andy Grove. In the Q&A, someone asked about this new threat to Intel.
Andy replied that it was good for Intel. If Apple and OS/2 customers were going to be forced to jump to a new platform, they might as well jump to Intel.
Of course, Intel was itself transitioning to the Pentium. And even with math errors in the new chips, people were paying through the nose to change with Intel.
Let's look and see if people are willing to throw out the old for wholesale change:
Apple: 68K->PPC, success
Apple: OS7->OSX, success
Intel: 486->Pentium, success
MS: DOS->Win3x, success
MS: Win3x->Win9x, success
MS: Win9x->WinXP...
Microsoft customers have been loyal through all of the Win9x problems. They stuck it out through the WinME disaster. They are sticking with XP despite an endless wave of security headaches.
They are excited to wait for Longhorn. It will be incredible! Just wait until 2006.
Linux does not really provide an alternative that never existed before. The Mac has always been a better desktop alternative than Linux is now. OS/2 was a better server alternative. Not to mention Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.
So all this article really can argue is that the price is finally right for a switch.
IMO, the only thing holding back total Linux desktop domination are lack of games
If I look at linux as a programmer and compare it to windows, I think in general it needsto have the interaction with hardware standardized on a higher level as the kernel currently does.
As a programmer I want to be able to talk to a modem, tell it to call some number. I do not want to have to find out what Desktop Env. I have, probe on which USB/serial ports modems might be present, and try to discover what command I have to give to put it into a certain baud, stopbits, parity, GSM network transperancy, compression , error correction, etc.
The same holds for other hardware like printers, scanners, etc.
I am no linux expert, I only have programmed several smaller projects on it, so I could have missed something, but if this is available on Linux please point it out to me.
I hope freedesktop and LSB will move into this direction, as I think it is necessary to have things like this standardized, to allow small software companies to develop for linux.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
It was strongly hinted to me, without evidence, but by people in a position to know, is that this is how MS was going to deal with Linux. Installing anything after and MS OS was put on could be considered DMCA violations.
I think that's pretty thin - considering that the DMCA itself sits on shaky ground. It won't take much of a change of political landscape to see that law finally dismissed. How long, a year? Two? Sooner or later, either the US Constitution goes, or the DMCA goes. They're incompatible.
However, even in the case where the DMCA spins for a dozen or more years without a brush with SCOTUS, and even when the majors are spitting out obnoxious hellspawn PCs that won't run Linux without "illegal" modifications - I'm certain there will still be manufacturers willing to churn out machines that don't have this issue. Perhaps this will halt Linux adoption on the desktop (because Major Corp X won't be able to buy 500 Dells with pre-loaded Linux) - but that's not much of a change from today's situation.
And the very DAY that the DMCA fails, is the day RedHad ships a bootloader that "works around" this problem.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yeah, how many other windbags have made this same prediction? Get real...
Jamey Kirby
Yes. You are correct, sir.
Is it physically painful to be that unaware?
You're making the rather brazen assumption that users must stop using their already-installed base of software.
P.R., for MS's bottom line (don't forget that's we're talking about),
switching and not upgrading are the same thing.
Cheers,
or Microsoft Bob? I don't recall any prior product of any significance quite like these two innovations!
And how long would it take an intelligent person to become as adept as you are with the tools you use, vs with Visual Studio .NET 2003?
It's not that one tool is better than the other for the end result, but that spending 2 years reading man files and creating one's own personal best-practices is not really an option for people who need to create quality software quickly.
Amazing magic tricks
Let me get this right ok? Here we have a company that people have invested in. The investors have never received a single cent for this investment - until recently with the declaration of this petty dividend.
The dividend of course is really low - it is so low that were Microsoft to actually pay a return on the investment that even approached the bank rate - then Microsoft's cash reserves would be drained. In fact - if one calculates how fast the reserves would be drained one would find out that if a decent dividend were declared say 5 years ago - then today Microsoft would be broke.
Next it appears that actually giving something to the folks that invvest their hard earned cash becomes interpreted as "divedends biting them in the rear".
By this line of reasoning it is clear that the investors are the problem - they should just hand their money over as a gift of course and exepct nothing back in return while Billy plays his silly games with their money.
But of course - when I look at this stock I conclude that it is little more than a gift investment and I personally will not touch it - when it starts to decline it will go deep and it will go fast and a lot of stock analysts will be running around squawking like chickens proclaiming that they can't understand how this happened...
Thankfully I have no investments in any of the institutional funds who buy these shares. I do imagine there are going to be a lot of pensioners down the track wondering where all the assets went of course.
Consider the notion that as technologists, we must agree that Microsoft's software as it sits is adequate for everyday business needs and that new upgrades aren't necessary for client PCs. Who needs XP when you have Windows 2000? Unless you are adopting the bleeding edge technologies and constantly keeping yourself up-to-date because you have cash to burn, you aren't going to spend the money you did three years ago. Businesses are trying to save money, so smartly managed companies don't spend cash if they don't have to.
Microsoft has hit a slump because they aren't offering enough to convince customers to pay more money for their newer technologies en masse. The author of the article is trying to say that the flatness is because we're getting defections. No. We are not seeing movement in the bottom line at M$ because nobody wants to spend more $$ on software they don't currently need.
"people have been jailed in the US for websites encouraging rebellion just like they would in China"
I would love to read about this if you have links to actual reputable news about it.
+++ATH0
Think about it this way: Microsoft already has 90+% of the desktop market, and a good chunk of the server market.
.NET, but the next version "Whidbey" is adding a few enhancements that will make it even easier to develop a professional and well-designed web app in a short period of time.
.NET? Strong XML, web services, and remoting tools that make it easy to integrate .NET into other existing business applications that may not currently be using it. This opens up a great deal more interoperability, as well as presents a good first step migration path.
.NET runtime. I just wish it weren't dependent on WINE for gui apps, since I've had nothing but trouble with WINE.
.NET across platforms.
.NET runtime... they may be just what you're looking for.
.NET, then you should really consider the fact that both were created by profit-seeking companies, and so they are on a pretty level playing field in that regard... only C# is an ECMA standard, while Java is not.
Desktop apps have never been easier to develop than they are with Windows Forms.
Web apps are pretty strong in
All of the above contribute to security, since the less time you spend coding the core features, the more time you have to think through security and more importantly test it and review the code.
What else is in
Miguel is working on Mono, which I've found to be just as fast as Microsoft's
This means there will be every reason to use
If you like Objective C, Smalltalk, or any other high level language that has a very conceptually clean way of doing OOP, then you'll love C#.
If you have a love/hate relationship with Java, take a look at C# and the
Also, if you like Java but hate
Amazing magic tricks
Isn't DRM already available in the 2.4 series?
I do not know. Does the Linux2.4 DRM include the BIOS locking ability? Was there any BIOS with that capability when 2.4 was released?
A Linus quote:
I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! He does not like DRM, but feels it may have positive uses.
But could DRM in Linux ever work?
"Making DRM in Linux secure would be like winning a hand of poker against someone who can change all the playing cards at will," wrote [Tony] Mantler. DRM would require proprietary binary modules. How long until someone in the free world (somewhere without the DMCA) released a module that returned "passed" for every function in the verification API?
These quotes are from April 2003, so the kernel developers may still be debating it. I doubt any implementation available today has all the abilities we fear.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
What's happening to Microsoft happened to the minicomputer companies and happened to the mainframe companies before them.
Who here has ever heard of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? The Dwarfs were General Electric, RCA, Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data and Honeywell.
Who remembers the Comdex when the buttons handed out included "Sew Long Singer" and "IBM means Cash Registers"?
How many minicomputer companies can you name?
Only one computer company has transcended the drive and vision of one man in the slightly more than half century of the computer industry.
While IBM was never considered to be a minicomputer company, IBM sold more minicomputers than even the most successful minicomputer company. IBM defined the personal computer: the IBM PC with "compatible" always present for the majority of the PC's existance.
The reason that IBM isn't considered to be the driving force in the computer industry is that IBM has not lead in the key aspects of innovation defined by Clayton Christensen:
- embracing an inferior product technology and betting the company on it
- settle for a lower profit margin than the competition
IBM has learned to adapt to the changing rules of the computer industry. IBM no longer insists on the 60% profit margins it commanded when mainframes were king, nor does IBM insist on the 30% margins when minicomputers were king.
But look at Microsoft and Intel. Both believe that they can maintain margins that are higher than the glory days of the early mainframe era.
At least Intel sees the need to diversify in some meaningful way and does see that it must accept different margins for different product lines. Still, even Intel refuses to invest in the true semiconductor growth markets because the margins are too low for Intel's liking.
Microsoft, on the other hand, refuses to accept that it has earned its huge profit margins only through chance and that the future requires they embrace markets where the profit margin is a small fraction.
What few remember is that Microsoft started out making very little profit on software at a time when many companies were seeing significant gains in software profits. Only by selling its software for a lower profit margin and hence lower price was IBM able to gain dominance in the market.
Today Microsoft is faced with the Innovator's Dilemma, lose control of its market or embrace significantly lower profit margins.
We do see that Microsoft is significantly cutting its profit margins, IN SOME MARKETS. Where governments have clearly indicated that they will not pay for more than the cost of distribution and support, Microsoft has met that price, but with many limitations and restrictions. Clearly Microsoft sees the threat of competitors willing to settle for low profit margins, but Microsoft has not, and can not, accept the need to drastically lower its profit margins.
Linux and open source developers are willing to settle for the "profit" of becoming an expert in the software they write, enhance, support, etc. which gives them better pay for their labor. Does the investment pay off for all devos? No, but no investment has an assured return on investment, but "no investment" always means "no return".
Microsoft is faced with millions of competitors who are willing to deliver software for far lower profit margins, profit margins approaching zero.
Microsoft could give its software away and make its money by supporting and tailoring and integrating it for customers for a profit. But the profit in such services is a small fraction of the profit Microsoft now earns. And not even Bill Gates would be able to convince the stockholders that giving away Windows and Office is the only path to the future - Bill Gates would be ousted in an instant by the stockholders if he made such a proposal.
Microsoft can never "go head to head with IBM" because Microsoft would be fighting for a declining market with the only company to have survived all the other changes in the computer market over the past half century.
Well that's not Microsoft though is it? ;)
Have you hugged your penguin today?
For the record, I wasn't blaming M$ for IBM's lack of marketing. I have always said that M$ has the best marketing team on earth. They have to because their products suck! Always have, always will. Substandard programs and operating systems will eventually fail to sell unless you use extortion and unfair trade practices like Microsoft has (and has been convicted of in some cases) to prohibit competition. That's the thing Gates is the most afraid of - competition - because he knows if someone releases a superior system with software to go along with it and the market starts switching, he's finished.
Given that, OS/2 2.0 *was* stable. It wasn't until they screwed things up with Warp that it went downhill fast. I used 2.0 for a long time at work. I usually do everything I can to try to break things and it was far more difficult to break OS/2 than it ever has been to break any version of Window$. Oh, and OS/2 looked a LOT more like Apple System 6 than Windows 1, 2 or 3.x ever did. I don't know why Apple sued M$, they should have sued IBM.
To be fair, I'm not a Linux zealot although I prefer the Linux opsys over Window$ any day. I don't like some of the difficult things that you have to do to Linux to make it work as easily as Window$, but I love the stability. I use Linux and XP right now because most things that I do for work are written for Window$. I'm currently experimenting with various versions of Linux to see what I want to end up using.
There's something else that has been overlooked in this whole discussion too. This BS about creating software that should be patented is crap because it's all being written with the same languages. It's only a matter of time before someone else does the same thing the same way with the same code having never seen the original. We are limited to the parameters of the compilers, processors and everything else that goes along with it when it comes to writing code. There will be similarities in code between operating systems because there are only so many ways to turn pixels on and off, copy or format data, transmit bits across a medium, etc. To think any other way is simply foolish.
Your arguement about Japanese cars is partially accurate - those cars were for the most part better than most of ours in the 80's, but that fact really made our car makers put quality on the forefront. American cars in the 80's sucked. I wouldn't have anything else nowadays. There is that Mercedes I'd like to have though... :)
Have you hugged your penguin today?
It doesn't take 2 years to become proficient with Unix. It takes a few months. Even non-programmers have become very skilled in the Unix environment.
Let's put it this way. You have two options: Riding a bicycle, or driving a car. While it only takes a few days to get the hang of riding a bike, you are limited by the features of riding a bike: fatigue, the environment, and a low maximum speed. Some people have trained themselves to the point where they can ride for days or at very high speeds.
But driving a car is a different matter altogether. It takes almost a year of practice and learning before someone can become proficient at driving a car. But the end result is so much better. You can drive in all kinds of weather and remain comfortable inside. You can drive for days without the kind of fatigue that bike-riding would cause. In fact, people who become proficient at driving cars can drive very quickly around racetracks, or drive huge trucks from city to city at a profit.
Needless to say, riding a bike is like relying on your GUI environment. Using the Unix system to its full potential is like driving a car.
And as far as people who want to create applications quickly -- it takes a lot more than a few years to even understand programming to a point where programming that app is even an option! The investment in learning the Unix tools is quite small compared to that. Of course, judging by some of the apps that Microsoft has turned out, I'd say a lot of their programmers need to spend some more time learning how to program...
Just because you can make crap quickly doesn't mean it still isn't crap!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
"our favorite monopoly is finding it harder and harder to compete with 'free.'"
How is MS a monopoly if they have competition?
You are strongly misguided.
.NET is to have a ready supply of wheels, sprockets, etc., so that developers don't have to have as much expertise in low level plumbing. The .NET API is high level and very expressive, and has (fortunately) been designed largely in a way that promotes an understanding of the underlying concepts while abstracting away from unnecessary implementation details.
.NET API is that Microsoft learned a LOT from Java.
It's like if you want to ride a bicycle, but first you have to spend 2 years reinventing the wheel, and then the sprocket, etc., so that once you're proficient enough to do a pretty good job at those things, you can construct a bike that is ridable and begin riding.
The Microsoft approach with
One of the things that has helped to propel mankind out of the stone age has been the ability to be selectively ignorant about certain things. For instance, the modern human is ignorant about agriculture and mechanical engineering, yet he/she drives bikes, cars, etc., and eats fruits, vegetables, grains, etc of extraordinary quality.
It's essentially due to the economic force of specialization. Some programmers write embedded systems, and for them low-level, hand-optimized code is ideal. But for most apps, a good bunch of reusable classes is much more valuable and will result in much less buggy code.
The beauty of the
Having a single, integrated development environment rather than a disparate collection of tools is extremely useful, since the tools can be made to work together extremely well. Download the trial of Visual Studio 2003 and I'd be shocked if you didn't agree with me.
Also, I think your analogy is flawed. It's much easier to drive a car than to ride a bike. Learning to drive a car can be done in 30 minutes, and it takes most people a week or two to really learn to ride a bike. Traffic rules/customs take some time, but the basic act of driving (stop, go, turn) is extremely easy.
Amazing magic tricks
Actually, find, grep, and diff all exist in VS.
If you ever used Visual Source Safe, you'd know at least about diff.
Microsoft has been buying companies and technologies, but those acquisitions haven't improved Microsoft's profits or moved Microsoft into new exponential growth markets. Only by tightening the noose on its customers has Microsoft sustained its profits.
Microsoft did enter the handheld market in a way that prevents a competitor, like Palm, from becoming a gorilla able to move up market and gain the clout needed to challange Microsoft. But on the other hand, Microsoft has entered the market at the high end and has shown no interest in driving its technology down the price curve so that it can dominate the handheld market. The reason is quite clear: it would lose its high profits on the high end as customers substituted the cheaper products for the existing high profit products.
Maybe Gates and Balmer own stock in Lindows.com and are cleverly giving it greater visibility by suing it. But I doubt this is the case.
If Bill Gates were starting out today, I don't have any doubt that he would figure out a way to make a lot of money from Linux, but a lot of money is relative.
He would make a lot of money compared to all the others who have tried, and failed, to make money.
He would make very little money compared to winning the lotto with Microsoft.
In other words, Bill Gates is one of the best business managers around, and replacing him at Microsoft would be as successful as replacing Steve Jobs at Apple.
The benefit for Gates would be that he could return to the helm of Microsoft five years later and double or triple the price of Microsoft stock, from $5 to $15.