Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Platform Strategist Speaks On Linux
prostoalex writes "Martin Taylor, general manager for platform strategies at Microsoft, was interviewed by CRN magazine on Linux, open source development, and Microsoft's official stand on it."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
My eyes glazed over 1/3 of the way through that marketing drek. It's truly unfortunate that the Corporate World has forgotten how to speak in natural language. This shit's almost as bad as legalese.
Pierre
CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?
TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
So Linux servers can't do a number of things and for a lower cost? For free I can turn a Linux box into a webserver, domain server, ftp server, irc server, database server and such. How exactly is Microsoft offering more value? All they are doing is charging more for their product.
"CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send? "
Hmm... I think the market is saying, take advantage of your monopoly while you still can. Bundle it with every computer and charge a shit load while MS still can.
Hell, I could chmod my whatever.txt to +x and try it!! It will actually attempt to run that way! Not smart.
So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Linux isn't about offering less for cheaper, it's about doing things differently. In the above metaphor, Windows XX is a super-size BigMac (and it tastes just as gross and makes you just as sick in the stomach), the 99c Diet Coke is the Windows 'light' for Thailand, MacOS-X is a slightly tastier and less ubiquitous In-n-Out burger, and Linux/BSDs/... are a good solid helping of whatever healthy food you can find in good restaurants, predominantly outside the US, prepared by actual cooks and served by actual servers, who all prefer seeing you enjoy your meal than make you pay by the half-gram of beef patty present in the burger.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
First, I'm not surprised that they position themselves not against the tech, but against SUSE and RH as licensed support vendors. However, it seems to immediately miss the concept that a growing number of home users are exploring Linux as a cheaper alternative to an email/letter writing/game appliance.
As to those "edge servers" that Linux is capturing, he may want to look at where all the tech logic is flowing: "edge servers". If web services and other distributed apps continue to grow for enterprise solutions, Linux is going to house most of those according to his logic. Just by identifying it doesn't seem to answer the issue of "what is your strategy?".
The whole price point comment seems too fluffy. Of course you have to look at what you're doing! Haven't you made up *any* clear strategy yet? If he'd said "we're going to show that Windows can scale, can be as secure and reliable, and that the value-added product it competitave with the leading vendors" I'd appreciate the interview. But he didn't.
I realize you're joking, but they really should. Open up the code and make it Open Source! Actual license costs for Windows account for a small fraction of the TCO for a company. Along with buying a copy, there's service and support, areas which Microsoft could make a killing on.
And if other companies are offering "Windows distros", this would enable Microsoft to regain a leadership position in the industry. Not to mention that they would get the benefits of Open Source as well -- when you open the code, you get a lot of developers who are willing to work on it. Microsoft could significantly reduce their development staff and have developers mainly organize contributions from the community. With the headcount reduction, Microsoft's share price would soar as they'd save billions on payroll.
It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.
Have you read the GNU Manifesto lately?
Some pretty good tough questions, with some not so direct answers. But still peculiar in the ways noted above. I'm surprised he gave that interview to begin with.
everything in moderation
I think you're right in that he's saying that Windows offers a full meal in that Windows includes a number of services. This isn't to say that Linux doesn't offer a lot of services, though. It seems like he's saying that Linux is more flexible in what they're offering so you can get JUST a web server with no other software installed if you want. It's more difficult to break down the Windows services to get just what you want and only have to pay for what you want. It seems like his question is asking "Do we lower the price of the whole meal (ALL of the services) or go to an a la carte menu?"
You don't really do it for free. It takes your time to recompile your kernal if you don't want a swiss-army-knife operating system like Windows. There's free software for pretty much each of the apps you've described, with varying capability and premium software you can buy, too, for each.
The rock bottom difference for me between the two is with Linux I know what I have and can see it all. With Windows I have to have faith in them, because it's a black box.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
TCO? I've been a programmer/sysadmin for more than 20 years now and 8 Windows systems is more than I can handle. Can you imagine how much I cost?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The biggest laugh of this whole article for me was that he seems to equate security as having an integrated firewall:
"CRN: Do you worry that Linux will gain more traction at the edge because of security concerns about Windows?
TAYLOR: Security is one of those workloads where Linux is getting traction, partly because we don't have a firewall appliance offering today. We have technologies, but we don't have a lockdown, hardened firewall that we can put in."
Sorry Mr. Taylor, but a firewall is NOT what the "security concerns" with Windows are. A firewall is a PIECE of a network security solution, but OS security has to be there first. A firewall won't do you any good if your web server is vulnerable to a trivial exploit.
I guess we can put this guy's comment to the test when XP SP2 ships with the firewall turned on by default. We'll see if the overall security of Windows increases dramatically just because of a firewall. I'm not holding my breath.
Well, it's not exactly scientific, but...
$ cat ChangeLog-2.6.1 | grep @ | grep -v " " | uniq | wc
254 254 5702
Does that qualify as an order-of-magnitude error?
He's productizing Linux, as he has to given his position.
To recognize the Linux isn't a distro available as a boxed product at Borders, and is, rather, the source code, is to leave him with no means of directly comparing the two, let alone comparing the two to his advantage.
Linux is an instruction set to build an OS, made up out of the common wisdom, and hence is more comparable furniture plans than a chair.
Only in the case of Linux the computer builds the "chair" for you.
Red Hat may build "chairs" based on the publicly available pattern, but, as we all know Red Hat != Linux. The source code is Linux.
KFG
TAYLOR: And the other place we see it is high-performance computing, scientific computing clusters that have lots and lots of servers.
Sounds a lot to me like Microsoft is saying that the Windows server is only directed small/medium businesses and not towards a large business with a lot of servers. Admitting defeat a little early, eh?
TAYLOR: Just because you have more people looking at the code does not guarantee a level of quality, because those people might not be the most-qualified people to do code review.
Wouldn't you think that there are more "qualified" coders in the world total than there are working at Microsoft? Oh sure, Microsoft probably has a great number of programmers that are "highly-qualified" but does that mean they are the only ones in the world with enough experience to truly understand code review? Of course not. I bet if you took all of the most experienced coders from both sides and added them up, you'd see how much bigger the world is than Microsoft.
TAYLOR: As a channel partner, you've got to have two questions: Do you ride Microsoft's R&D wave, or do you ride this Red Hat Linux wave, knowing there's going to be some potential conflict with a vendor?
At least if I ride the Red Hat Linux wave, I won't fall off.
TAYLOR: IBM and Novell have made acquisitions to try and get to an integrated platform that provides a level of functionality.
And they have just that.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
They feel threatened by that Linux is free as in beer. So they talk about TCO. And burger meals. And how you can segment the market. The marketeers at MS tries all the tricks a marketeer knows about.
They totally miss "free as in freedom". The FOSS development model is commoditizing software faster than MS can develop itself out of. And gives the control back to the users. That's why Linux will win.
)9TSS
Whether it chooses to do so more often is an open question, but it's refreshing to see a Microsoft exec speaking non-disparagingly about the competition.
Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality.
It certainly doesn't guarantee higher quality software, but on the other hand if you have a relatively static pool of programmers that consistently make software of a particular grade chances are that you will stay that way. The advantage of having a large community of programmers is that it gives rise to the opportunity for various insight to be made on the code. Furthermore, it allows for creative thinking and the ability to contribute to other people's current and future work.
1. Linux is the equivalent of a diet coke in the complete meal that is offered by Microsoft.
:D)
:D).
:D
2. Free software is more expensive than software with a price tag. (New MS R&D shows 0.99$ > 2.99$. Oh well
3. To make a modular design, without making the system almost impossible for (professional) sysadmins to mangage, is apperently a very hard problem.
4. Linux has a bit of traction because of the lack of a integrated firewall in windows(in related news...)
5. Almost all people reading the open sourced code, doesn't really understand it. On a global scale, probertly no more of 100 can actually code.
6. Closed R&D work is more likely to still be around in 10 years time(ROFL, a lot
note to self.. never visit CRN again
Good old fuzzy math. It _can_ cost more under certain conditions. Basically buying a HUGE support contract, using expensive commercial development IDE's, and basically being reckless with your money. I read an article awhile back somewhere discussing why some companies end up spending more with linux. The basic conslusion was (which I agree with) those implementations that end up costing more, are usually done by MCSE's who treat linux like Windows. Paying many thousands of dollars for licenses, support, etc. etc.
A good Linux admin does not need support contracts, does not need to pay consultants, does not need "server versions" of linux distro's, _can_ program himself, and does not call a piece of software a solution!!!! (ok, that last one I threw in cause it annoys me).
You are paid to be a network administrator. Maybe instead of pumping your money into easy to use software and support contracts you can just learn how to do your job.
This is the part that Mr. Taylor seems to have left out of his answer. When you buy RedHat, you're paying predominantly for a support contract, not the software itself. You can either pay a lot up front, if you anticipate a need for support, or pay less and then pay per-instance later. Microsoft generally has the same kind of thing -- they just don't emphasize their support contracts in the sale of Windows itself - you buy the OS and then you buy the support contract.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
So In order to parse this jibberish I have to assume that Windows in the full meal, supersized with bloated code. This "full meal" only comes in one flavor, and no special orders are taken.
Linux is like ordering your items the way you want them from a full menu of items, even diet, if slim and efficient is your thing.
I get confused when they compare themselves to McDonalds though . . . McD can and will sell me the diet coke I want seperate from the meal. . . but Windows can't be broken apart because a broken window is useless ? Can anybody make sense out of this crap ?
I think I just want the diet coke.
--Tsiangkun
I only need one mouse button to open the terminal.
A good part of what is driving customers to Linux is the corporate behaviour of Microsoft itself (not just problems with security and pricing -- albeit these aren't helping). It you try to trap your customers, railroad your competition, and blackmail your distributors -- they will all start to look hard hard to see if there is something they can do about it. Quite frankly, if Microsoft hadn't behaved like the very model of 'big-evil-corporation' they wouldn't have fueled so much resentment, and probably wouldn't now be facing rebellion.
In other words, "He's productizing Linux," because, "To recognize the Linux isn't a distro available as a boxed product at Borders, and is, rather, the source code, is to leave him with no means of directly comparing the two, let alone comparing the two to his advantage."
He mentions Red Hat and SuSE "MULTIPLE TIMES," because it is to his advantage to draw your attention in that direction and away from others.
It's called "misdirection."
And oh, two words. "Charm school."
KFG
Mr. MsEmployee,
-Do you know what is FUD?
-Don't You think the first problem is HOW and not WHAT do You sell?
-Don't you think that the problem is the card attached to your super-size meal telling the user that he
a.) cannot ask, read, search, investigate on how the meal was produced, grown, etc.
b.) is not permitted to even try to figure out how it was made or what the ingredients are
c.) The company (--company--) is permitted to follow the whole lifecycle of the --product-- and thus can investigate your stomach, can put cameras in your toilet
d.) your supersize comes with a free dildo just to make sure the sex shop at the next door closes and you'll surly buy all the viagra with the famous --supersize diet and viagra-- combo for --the company--?
e.) the shop does not take any responsibility of anything caused the --product-- (nausea, gonorrhea, death etc. may occour in 'some' cases)
f.) the shop tries to you sell a supersize combo as a 'service' thus asking for a daily amount even if you don't really want to go back to them
g.) any help, written or spoken costs $50 after you leave the counter
h.) it is not permitted to use a 'knife' to cut our --product--.
i.) you might use a knife-like but not knife stuff to cut our product but if and only if the knife and the product license is the dietcoke knife license. Pay $50 or pay $100 as you wish and you are permitted to banned to permit the use of any 'future work' knife product salad.
j.) the company does not guarantee to tell your doctor what the meal consists as this is a trade secret
and...
x.) you cannot buy the --product-- in kosher, muslim, klingon or other versions , because the market is too small
y.) as we are a dinamically improving company we keep the right to stop producing any meals in the futures, and after that you'll never know what have you eaten (mercury, kreutzfeld-jakobs etc.). We do not publish any data regarding to this topic
oh sorry, this vs. an 'opencola'
feel free to continue.
Holy cow! From what I read of the comments, it seems that there's a boat-load of code in the WindowsXX OS that are designed to "make my specific old software work with this newer OS." How incredibly wrong is this?
I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the OS should offer a rigid set of services and functions to the programs that are supposed to run within the environment provided to them. Am I wrong about this?
If the programs are misbehaving, the programs should be fixed, not the OS. That said, I do understand that there might be times when a program actually uncovers a flaw in some form of internal housekeeping or whatever, but I don't expect that to be the norm since specific apps are mentioned.
I wonder how often "Win32 specs" change with each version of Windows? For that matter, I wonder if the same is true of my beloved Linux? But I suspect Win32 standards among others have changed not only to fix broken software but to thwart competition -- example: Samba. You can't tell me that bug fixes in Windows filesharing also happened to break Samba several times as it has. How often has that happened I must wonder.
This Windows source code leak could prove to be QUITE embarassing to Microsoft after all.
Q: Is windows too expensive?
A: No, we just need to make stripped down copies for people who won't pay full price
Q: Is Microsoft soul searching?
A: No, of course not. We're categorizing customers to figure out how to customize to their needs and extract as much money as they will pay.
Q: Are you going to make Windows do this automatically?
A: No, we're not that good.
Q: Where is linux successful today:
A: Firewalls, appliances, supercomputers, legacy unix migrations. But we're not worried because the ISVs are not big yet.
Q: Are you worried linux will get more traction?
A: Nope. It's all because we don't have a good firewall, and we're releasing one soon now.
Q: How do you respond to the notion that peer review leads to better code?
A: Very few people read the code, and most of them are idiots.
Q: Is desktop linux a threat?
A: Only in gov't and third world countries. We're working on customizing for them, slashing prices, changing license terms, or whatever other "challenges" are needed.
Q: Why should solution providers use Windows instead of Linux?
A: Microsoft doesn't give a damn about the serice and support business. So you can depend on Microsoft to throw you that bone, year after year. A linux distributor can't reap excessive profits from licensing terms, and they have crappy business models based on giving stuff away for free. In several years down the road they might decide to compete with you and stab you in the back. Microsoft would never do a thing like that its solution providers, honest!
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
"...back it up with at least a little bit of evidence."
I believe the preferred English expression is "Catch 22." You can't get to the Windows code--in fact it's a fundamental violation of the shrink-wrap agreement if you even attempt to reverse engineer it or just take a peek--but you insist on "evidence." There was a movie a while ago called "Screamers," in which AMBs (Autonomous Mobile Blades) would cut up soldiers, then drag them underground to be used in the manufacture of next generation weapons. Sound familiar?
Perhaps the Borg analogy is more to your liking? You are certainly familiar with M$'s overt policy of defeat or absorption? What was the line from Star Trek? It's hard to get here in the People's Former Republic: "Resistence is futile. You will be assimilated." Do you seriously think this is limited to the overt sphere?
As for the idiot who modded me down to "Untouchable," does anyone need any further proof? Just who exactly ARE these guys? You don't suppose they would like to identify themselves and their present employers and give a concise explication of their thought processes? Just for the record? After all, we don't want anyone here to imagine that their opinions are not being taken seriously in Washington. Come now, you're not afraid of a little daylight are you?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
You're absolutely right that modifying the OS to support old broken apps is a terrible thing to do. For Microsoft there is no other option, though. Suppose some major piece of software stops working in the new version of Windows; the word would be antitrust, regardless of whose fault it was. There are also compatibility modifications for internal apps for various large corporations who wouldn't upgrade otherwise. All in all it's a huge mess, and this mess is a huge part of the reason for .NET. Get rid of the entire win32 API and you ditch all those problems (at least until a new batch comes up). .NET also has stuff to make programs that violate the interface harder to write.
The win32 spec stays the same (with additions, and changes to stuff that was previously marked reserved or previously had undefined behavior). Lots of programs don't conform to it and rely on implementation specific behavior, though. Linux changes a lot more often; for instance each major Red Hat Linux release reflects changes that are large enough to break binary compatibility. The reasons could be in the kernel, in glibc, or in various system libraries. The difference is that Microsoft attempts to maintain compatibility with old buggy programs, whereas Linux usually stays compatible but makes no promises, regardless of program correctness. In practise it usually works because of source code availability, but it is a big reason commercial software vendors hesitate to support Linux.
So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Give me the recipe, not the product. RMS has made a strong argument comparing source code and recipes.
We read about Windows on a website loaded with a bunch of paid advertisement for Microsoft products where they predicted it would be more stable, secure, and reliable for the past 15 years, and frankly, we shit our pants laughing. We finally got around to installing it to see what all the fuss was about, and maybe figure out why they make these predictions year after year, and well, we're not really worried any more.
Peace, Linux users.
Nope.
I'm pretty sure he paid people to do it.
Do you seriously think Linus wrote _all_ of Linux on his own ?
Do you seriously think he has the intellectual capacity of a Linus Torvalds?
Undoubtedly. Applied in different ways, however.
That depends on whether you're an academic or a businessman.
I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the OS should offer a rigid set of services and functions to the programs that are supposed to run within the environment provided to them. Am I wrong about this?
Nope, that's pretty much a textbook definition of an Operating System.
The only catch is it doesn't take into account the fact that program code and requirements will change over time.
Also, that's pretty much how it does work. APIs that programmers are supposed to use are documented. APIs that aren't documented shouldn't be used because there's every likelihood they'll change suddenly and without warning.
If the programs are misbehaving, the programs should be fixed, not the OS.
In an ideal world, that would be true. However, we don't live in an ideal world. Companies go bust. Programs are orphaned. Products become unsupported but remain in use. Developers simply make stupid errors.
In short, it's not always possible to fix the program - and the customers don't care whose fault that is, they just want the software their business relied on to Work Right Now.
I wonder how often "Win32 specs" change with each version of Windows?
There are changes made at least every major release. Sometimes more often.
For that matter, I wonder if the same is true of my beloved Linux?
If anything, Linux is worse. Linus has stated numerous times he makes no effort whatsoever to retain binary compatibility even between minor point releases of the kernel.
But I suspect Win32 standards among others have changed not only to fix broken software but to thwart competition -- example: Samba. You can't tell me that bug fixes in Windows filesharing also happened to break Samba several times as it has. How often has that happened I must wonder.
If Samba relies on known bugs and those bugs are then fixed, then it will break. Similarly, if it relies on behaviour that is deprecated, it will break.
How often this happens deliberately - if ever - is something I'll leave to the conspiracy theorists. I only gamble when I'm going to win.
This Windows source code leak could prove to be QUITE embarassing to Microsoft after all.
Given the intensity with which it is probably being scrutinised, I'd imagine any "obvious" embarassments would have already surfaced by now.
He's also obsessed with price. He goes over the MS price point, and how they can improve it. He compares it to the Linux price point (favorably, even.)
That's one of the things that they'll never get, or at least they'll never choose to get. I don't use Linux (just) because it's cheaper. I actually like it better as a system in a great many ways. I also prefer the politics of it to those of MS, and I prefer having options over a single-source. Because I like it, I happily pay for my distribution of choice, even though I could download it for free.
Listen up, Microsoft: the Linux guys have found a way to get people to willingly send money even when they don't have to, instead of coming up with new ways to force people to pay for things they don't want.
Fact it, most OSS developers contribute for their own benefit, be that notoriety, experience gained or the sheer pleasure of it.
I think this is the biggest misconception of the opensource industry. The amazing software developers making some of the best software out there today are not working for peanuts. The fact is that most of the work is done by people for their own financial benefit. I've done it, IBM does it, apple does it and tens of thousands of other organizations do it. It is much cheaper to add a few features to an oss product than it is to implement a solution from the ground up or buy a 3rd party solution.
Lets look at a non-main-stream example. Asterisk - The Open Source Linux PBX. Most of the development of this software is being funded by a company call digium to further the sale of their pbx related hardware and other services (support etc). Pick any other successful project, the Linux Kernel, Apache, MySQL and you will find people working for real money with a vast majority of that money coming from people who are financially benefiting from the software.
These are my thoughts, correct me if I'm wrong.
As for the idiot who modded me down to "Untouchable," does anyone need any further proof?
Huh? Your baseless accusations get modded down, and that is supposed to prove that Windows contains stolen source code? Even by Slashdot standards that doesn't make sense.
It's like the old saying goes: never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained by people being able to tell you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
That's exactly what I noticed. MS isn't trying to discredit Linux with FUD anymore because they seem to have learned that FUD is ineffective against OSS. Interestingly, the Halloween document highlighted this very point, but they only now are trying other tactics.
Notice how Taylor still tried to belittle Linux, though. When asked, "Where do you see Linux being successful today?" he immediately replied, "Definitely on the edge." He then further qualified it with, "You're just seeing edge services continue, such as firewall, appliances and those types of devices."
It's pretty clear that he's trying to marginalize Linux by characterizing as an "edge" operating system, but with a less hostile tone, as you pointed out. He neglects to mention the large installed base of Linux webservers, databases, mail servers, etc. He even implies that there aren't any other areas Linux is successful in when he's uses the word "just" in "You're just seeing edge services..." When faced with a direct question about Linux on the desktop, he only mentioned increasing "conversations" about it, but not the actual conversions which are taking place.
The other way he attempts to discredit Linux is to note that there is very little ISV support for it. While it's a true statement, it's quite misleading. I've been using Linux for many years without needing software from ISVs. Nearly every piece of software needed by the average user is available as Open Source! Taylor knows that much of the industry still believes ISV support is crucial to success.
I'm actually very impressed with Taylor. He didn't outright lie about anything, but he definitely painted Linux in an unfair light. However, he admitted to shortcomings in the current MS offerings, which makes him seem quite believable. I think this article could be quite persuasive to those who don't know much about Linux. That's probably a bad thing, but we're going to have to show a level of tact on par with Taylor's to sway people back toward OSS.
Totally. I've been trying to break into a Unix/Linux job for a while now. I have worked with Windows for a long time now, because it's pretty easy to break into. I've been using Linux for years and I've infiltrated it into my employers systems in one way or another, but I always end up with the same type of attitude from bosses..
That attitude is "If it doesn't come from Microsoft or some other software company it's crap." What I mean by that is, if I put together a Linux box to serve out files, web pages, whatever, the way I feel is best, it's no good. If I had to write my own shell scripts and compile the kernel differently then there must be something fundamentally wrong with it right? No, of course not, but this is the common thinking of a microsoft shop.
I believe in "smart admins" where we can design and impliment our own "solutions" and not be a middle man between the users and the software vendors.. It's cheaper in the long run. God, how many times have I seen a company spend yet another 70k on some useless software or server.. if they just used that money to hire another good admin they probably wouldn't need it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
People see what they want to see. People who have views like that are reinforced by thinking their ideas are repressed or censored.
Karma: Contrapositive
While he doesn't say it outright, this response gives the impression that the "14 to 25 . . . guys might not be the most-qualified people to do code review"
While development goes on in other places as well, it is centered in the OSDL, paid for by small companies that no one in the business world would recognize (such as IBM, Intel, and HP, to name a few). Do you think their money is going to anyone but the most qualified.
Again, he didn't actually say it, but it's still a lie.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I don't believe anyone is saying that. What they're saying is that money is not the primary motivator of these people, they're doing it for other reasons. Sure, many are being paid full time to do this and that's great, but you seem to be implying that Linus, for example, would only work on Linux now if he were being paid too. I would suggest instead that Linus would do what he did in the beginning, earn a paycheck working for someone else, while working on his 'baby' on his own time. Just because these guys are being paid to work full-time, doesn't mean they wouldn't continue to work on them on their own time if their main job was something else.
What you're describing as a misunderstanding, I would describe simply as an indicator of who the elite in the FOSS world really are. These guys are so good, they are being paid to do work they would most likely do anyway, only at a much slower pace because they'd have to earn a living first. They're paid to do what they want to do anyway. Damn, I'm jealous.
I'm sure it's as easy to write a broken PHP script as it is to write a broken ASP script.