Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Strategy Memos
jg21 writes "So Linux made it onto Steve Ballmer's radar screen at last? No mention last year, in his annual strategy memo, but this year there's sentence after sentence - summarized at LinuxWorld this morning - which means, I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company! Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"
I mean, seriously, who gives a f***? It's pretty obvious Microsoft is in the business of OS and office suites, and it's pretty obvious they analyze threats to their strategic lines all the time. Some companies have the whole competitive intelligence departments dedicated to that.
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments. They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux. While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
So does this mean that they'll finally fix that Blue Screen of Death bug that I keep getting?
Why is it good that these Microsoft people are noticing Linux? It's more of a bad thing; when Linux was below the radar at least in part, the expert market-power wielders, lawyers, and coders at Microsoft were not bringing their full power to bear. Now, like so many insurgents in Fallujah, Linux advocates will face the full power and attention of the beast. They may yet prevail but it will be a bloody conflict.
Got a problem with that?
IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, investing in the health and growth of noncommercial software or innovating in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security."
I suspect that Novell, Red Hat and IBM have a strenuous argument against this bit of cheerleading.
...it conjures up more memories of the Halloween documents, where internally Microsoft is agitated about Linux whilst keeping the appearance of calm.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If someone booted his laptop with a Linux LiveCD and started the BSOD screen saver.
My favourite line : "Noncommercial software products in general, and Linux in particular, present a competitive challenge for us and for our entire industry, and they require our concentrated focus and attention."
How do you beat free? Are Microsoft going to pay us to use Windows?
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
Microsoft, just like other corporations, always provide information internally they don't want seen publically. There is no evil plot here, no more than any normal corporation. Though, if you read the memo it would appear he wants everyone there to laugh at linux and open source as a nonviable piece of junk. Well, Mr. ballmer, I too work for a corporation and our 8 production servers all run linux because windows isn't up the task.
:(){
First of all:
which means, I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company!
You really think that 50,000+ people at MS had no inkling of this "linux" thing??
Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"
Its called economics. He makes a memo to the public, its going to be about good stuff and non-aggressive. This isn't surprising for any company. You don't release public memos that state "Linux is our competition and this is how WE WILL CRUSH THEM!" No, they'll talk about the good things going about and such.
Kneejerk and overreaction, but that happens anytime someone at MS sneezes, doesn't it?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
What sort of dance did Steve do this year?
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
"IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, ......"
I find this fascinating. Ever tried getting support on an OEM copy of Windows? You can't. You have to call your PC Manufacturer - you're essentially calling the body responsible for reselling the product rather than the body responsible for writing it. Isn't this exactly the same as IBM?
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
This Ballmer quote sticks out in particular, and pretty much sums it all up:
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux ...
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I'm not sure what people expect.
A company sees a threat (and Microsoft seems to see threats hiding everywhere anyway), and says in internal memos that it needs to do something about it. They dismiss it in public.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but how is that any different from any other company?
Uhhh, to Microsoft it makes a BIG difference. Mindshare is everything. Marketshare is merely the side-effect. If you have mindshare, everything - money included - will follow. IBM having mindshare, Linux having mindshare - these are BAD NEWS to any Microsoft director.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think that one of the reasons that Windows XP is, quite frankly, vastly better than previous Windows incarnations is that Microsoft knew that someone was gunning for them. Remember--Bill Gates knows the power of the position of the underdog. He knows that young and hungry people can dominate the Big Guy. He did it himself.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Maybe this will spur development of a new stealth kernel?
cloaking_mode==ON;
We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
Damn! And you thought when they refocused on the internet it was serious!
This time they'll have to change everything about how they do business.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
...to know he has moved away from single word motivational speeches to developers....
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
Its obvious that Microsoft's definition of 'Open Source' is different then ours (the Linux community). He keeps referring to Linux as free as in beer and has no concept, according to the article, of the other aspects of Open Source.
Why do we need to keep debating this issue on slashdot? People have proved over and over again that Linux is better for some things that this M$ bozo dosn't understand.
Lets use our bandwith for something more productive.
You must have forgotten.
Exactly. I'm glad they got the message at last. It's about time they ditched Windows and started working full time on Linux.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Linux should take a page from microsoft on this one. They keep repeating over and over, they want ease of use! Everyone in the Linux community has been repeating that very same message!
Take from this article what you will, but be aware that if you try and provide many of the same services that microsoft is providing people won't have the arguement "but I need it to do this", and so, I must say, it should be fairly easy to set up a "central management Linux server" that can manage applications across a multitude of linux servers (That should be a key point in open-source!).
Just my own views.. Now please proceed to start bashing microsoft again..
Mod +5 Drunk
can you tell me exactly why this is a bad thing?
or is your day ruined when someone keeps Taco from getting $5? are you his butt buddy or something?
Better security: This comes, what....2 weeks after their biggest montly rollout of security patches for every version of windows?!
Better Value: Windows XP Full (home) edition: 264.99 at Staples.com. FreeBSD/Linux....0.00 Value? WTF?
Better Opportunity: A better opportunity indeed! For them to make more money, of course.
Someone ought to tell Balmer that the masses may be asses, but we're not quite as dumb as he thinks. That goes for him employees as well. 50 percent believe the lies; 50 percent know it's all bullshit.
Chris Knight is my hero.
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Because we all know Microsoft is well known and praised for their record of competeing in fair and responsible manners. Not to mention offering better value, security and opportunity.
There is a reason that they military considers XP "compromised the moment it leaves the box", and why high performance computing centers which need reliability and good cost/benefit rations never use Windows.
When I read these kind of pronouncements from Bill and Steve, what strikes me is how much they still don't seem to "get it".
They talk about "free software" as is it was equivalent to, say, shareware. What they don't seem to understand is that the cost of it has nothing to do with its success, nor is it the principal reason it is a threat to Microsoft.
Personally I'm glad they don't get it. It means they are more likely to make strategic mistakes that could be their downfall.
Seriously... Microsoft (and many big businesses) have a calm public face and a real internal "mission".
The only time the two meet is if it suits the Suits.
Rack up another halloween document, and lets worry about the more important task of getting Linux onto desktops and into homes.
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
...wow, a whole five of them!
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Somehow I don't think Open Source is a new concept to MS employees. I think it's pretty likely that they would be asked about it by their family members who might have heard about it on the net or from their coworkers, or whomever. I know if I had a relative who worked for MS I'd probably be interested to know their level of Linux/Open Source awareness...
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments.
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM. We're talking come-to-your-business, customize-the-software, keep-you-running support, not 90-days-after-its-installed support that comes by default with a Microsoft solution. Sure, you can add MS support on top of things, but a shop with full MS kit and an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.
They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux.
Why do you think I'm an IBM shareholder?
While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
First off, most Linux developers don't code to make money, at least not off of linux; hell, Linus Torvalds was, up until recently, an embedded systems engineer. Linux and its applications are, by and large, hobbies for the developers; but, on the flip side, can you show me a *major* open-source software project where the core development team is all desperately looking for work? Being able to put 'Lead developer, OpenOffice' on a resume is a great way to get a job.
Second, IBM hires a lot of these people; one of the reasons they justify their support costs is that they can (a) offer custom code, and (b) give you, as a business, direct access to the developers if you need it. IBM making money off of Linux means *more* jobs for Linux coders, not less.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
On that we agree.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
this tells me Balmer and Gates do not understand the nature of programming and innovation. Most innovations are the result of a few people exploring outside the box. Most innovations have a good measure of luck and lots of hardword combined. Group thinking generally works against innovation, so that may explain why MS keeps on buying companies and stealing technology to later call it "Our innovation."
Internal and external-facing memos serve different purposes, the idea of it being a 'distraction strategy' is baseless really. Companies use external memos as the company line, to sell products. Internal memos are used to discuss long-term strategy and competition, both pros and cons.
In my opinion, the poster of the story is spreading his own FUD, and clearly doesn't have a business mind on top of his computing shoulders.
Fear, uncertainty, doubt.
In other words, there is now a proven Linux market which pays $40 to $55 per hour.
I think that's pretty good Linux news and simply proves what the developers have been claiming all along. There is money to be made in giving away software.
KFG
P.S. In case you havn't gotten the news many Linux developers can't get a first mortgage and live in their mother's basement.
Here's the shocker though. Some of them have come to that "unfortunate situation" because they like the arrangement. They'd rather do that than work for HP or IBM. Peculiar, I know, but it's long been noted that creative genius types, no one really understands why, deprecate making money in order to better be able to persue their own creative muse.
Funny, isn't it, that they can't see that money is the only goal of real value? Geniuses are a peculiar lot, and one often wonders, if they're so smart, why aren't they rich?
"In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows."
What is he saying here? Microsoft makes innovations through proprietary technology and the GNU/Linux/OSS open stardard initiatives are inheritabley bad?
If Microsoft really wanted innovation in technology they would contribute to open standards.
The open source people should take his analysis to heart and accept it as a valid viewpoint from a seasoned industry expert. Microsoft does have some talented minds, and we should use them.
Sometimes our greatest critics are also our best sources of constructive criticism, if we would just be willing to listen. Not all of it is legit, but some might be.
>If you have mindshare, everything - money included - will follow.
Well, Linux OS vendors have got alotta mindshare and combined sales of average Microsoft distributor.
What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"
I think they actually call it "misdirection."
-Trick
From the microsoft.com memo:
-----
We are working with partners to make it possible for Microsoft customers to manage UNIX, Linux and Mac computers in conjunction with Systems Management Server 2003, and to manage hardware devices such as desktops and servers through solutions that update hardware-based software components using the same familiar interfaces that an administrator would use to update software applications.
-----
Look for MS sponsored Linux "remote administration tools" (aka trojans) and an effort by MS to absorb a major Linux distro into its business holdings. I see Linspire as the perfect target for a hostile financial takeover. If Linspire flops then MS will target whichever distro gains wide public acceptance.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Come on, seriously. This has been fixed in a large part since Windows 2k. I don't think I've had one since then (last one was due to a Beta of a game that disagreed with Advanced Server).
You shout "FUD" loud enough at MS's attempts to denounce Linux (and are talking B$), lets not peddle as well as them.
Damn, who cares about microsoft, I was just happy Linux was mentioned on The Chapelle Show.
Ballmer says:
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing."
Enthusiasm? Ok.
"We will rise to this challenge"
By saying that it's a cancer? Or is the enthusiasm going to be displayed in a different way this time?
and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
I thought I'd never see the day!
We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Better opportunity now is it? Does this include opportunity for other companies to compete, or is Microsoft still going to make things difficult via it's proprietary file formats, or use its patents to hold Open Source solutions back?
And as for showing better value, security, etc., anybody could show that.
Will there be any credibility in anything Microsoft 'shows' people? There's been a lot of scepticism and doubts lately, centered around the 'selective' data that analysts (mostly funded by Microsoft) have 'shown'.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
I don't know about you but I would rather not be compared to a group of people reponsible for dozens of US soldiers' deaths.
Who needs Microsoft's FUD machine when we have overselves to make us look evil?
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
"In this environment of lean budgets and concerns about Microsoft's attention to customers, noncommercial software such as Linux and OpenOffice is seen as an interesting, 'good enough' or 'free' alternative."
Sorry Steve, but that's now quite how it is. Linux and OpenOffice are seen as Stable, Secure, *Better* alternatives.
"IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, ......"
Funny how MonkeyBoy even feels the need to spin some FUD internally.
Why is it an "illusion" of support? You pay IBM for support, IBM provides you support. Where's the illusion?
As for a center of gravity... I guess no one has told MonkeyBoy the good news about OSDL.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
In other words, there is now a proven Linux market which pays $40 to $55 per hour.
In yet other words, there's a proven India opportunity for 33% of the cost.
And that's what IBM and Red Hat are doing.
Check out employment stats for IBM India and Red Hat India.
Moving out of the basement becomes a bit more of a long-term plan.
...and in other Microsft memo related news, Stev Ballmer exhorted the virtues of other new computer related technologies including the CRT, the disk drive and the mouse.
Requiem
...noncommercial software such as Linux and OpenOffice is seen as...'good enough'...
Ironic, seeing as how Microsoft seems to strive to keep Windows and Office "just good enough" to keep customers using it compared to better solutions...
"... consistent innovation requires coordination across many technology components. In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows."
An interesting point, although I think it's only valid on the desktop, where coherence of application behaviour is a very important requirement.
Windows built its market share by being easy to use and (kind of) consistent in its UI. Every time MS launches some new Windows or Office version, you see all these new small-to-large applications popping up, reusing MS's components and copying its UI. There's many bad UIs out there, but overall copying MSs designs leads to a more coherent user experience on the desktop.
If you notice, MS's "innovations" have always been about setting "standards" but offering them in a way that will only work in Windows. (check an earlier story from today).
Linux offers, in general, software that is more efficient and more secure. I believe the great next innovation needed by Linux to actually leap ahead of Windows is to integrate its desktop technologies better.
First they buckle and develop MediaPlayer Codecs for Linux, and now this.
Of course there will continue to be a Microsoft for a LONG time, but they just won't matter very much anymore.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I agree completely ... I would even say that Linux is feared more expensive for its expensive conversion cost. Windows patches are just not painful enough, and its getting less anyway. Meanwhile the Apache sec fix list is causing grief for i-net facing servers.
It is just me or did the 'public-facing CEO memo' say a whole lot of nothing? I think the only real point in that memo was that managing systems is hard to scale if not done right. To that, I agree.
The company I work at is having all kinds of growing pains from being a 1 tiny server with 5 employees setup to a bunch of big servers and a lot more employees in three different cities with only 2 sysadmins (me and another dude). I wouldn't trust any commercial management software that doesn't fit with the needs and the flexibility of my department. Hell upgrading to w2k3 server will cost over $10,000 (CAN, with CALs) per server yet FreeBSD costs 1 CDR and a few man hours. Still that doesn't help in the managment of resources department.
Tools help Systems people keep the network/resources in check. They don't solve the problem.
"Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
Any one else notice that this memo seems to have been written for leaking? Yes it talks about competing against Linux, but the language used is very guarded with none of the MS underhanded schemes revealed.
I'd love to see a complete copy of the internal memo. Anybody?
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
yeah keep concentrating on it microsoft, maybe one day your servers will be good enough to use to host your own sites and services on hey?
until then... i'll stick with unix thanks.
My favorite quote: "...in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security". In every Total Cost of Ownership study funded my M$, they forget to build into the cost of recovery from hackers/virus/trojan destroying your Windows box. I'm speaking from personal experience, of course. I'm not sure they really get it!
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
I just recieved this memo from "Steve" is this the memo paragraph in question?
We are working with partners to make it possible for Microsoft
customers to manage UNIX, Linux and Mac computers in conjunction with Systems
Management Server 2003, and to manage hardware devices such as desktops
and servers through solutions that update hardware-based software
components using the same familiar interfaces that an administrator would
use to update software applications.
*end of paragraph*
This seems friendly enough to me. They plan to "work" with Linux. That is a new strategy!
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
Mindshare is everything.
I know when I let someone 'rent space' in my head, it effectively distracts me and reduces my ability to focus solely and completely on what I should be doing. Perhaps this will have the same effect on a corporate entity as it does me personally.
He-he, my local CompUSA sold more copies of Win XP Plus than all Linux vendors worldwide.
I think they *do* get it. I think that is the elephant in the living room, something of which they are constantly aware but never speak.
Why would they talk about the one thing that is impossible to spin? The one important aspect of Free software that is dangerous to Microsoft is the one they cannot fight openly. They can't say, "We think Free software is worse than Microsoft's software because they base it on open standards, which inhibits innovation." The closest they can come is to declare open code dangerous to security.
By equating Free software with shareware, they are simply describing Linux, *BSD, Apache, et al as hobby-level software designed to be traded by children, like Yu-Gi-Oh cards.
I think they know exactly what they're up against. Gates and Ballmer may be all kinds of unsavory things, but they are not stupid. The first Halloween document proved years ago they understood the issues facing them.
They just aren't going to ask all their employees how Microsoft can destroy openness and sharing. That would be a bad PR move, I figure.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
to paraphrase the upcoming movie "Bobby Jones..."
If I start taking money for it, I'm not playing for the love of the game anymore
This isn't really an internal memo as much as it's an ispirational message to 'rally the troops'.
I think it is just a written statement to get the competative juices flowing. MS is a big well funded company with a lot of very smart people. If they get those people motivated they will be able to do some pretty amazing things.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -- Linus Torval
News from an undefined company.
Maybe they'll have the time to fix this (the definition)
gtkaml.org
Well, forgive me for being obtuse, but if all the jobs are going to India, and you are an American, I fail to see where taking on extensive additional financial obligations is a long term survival strategy.
To me that sounds more like a splendid strategy for ending up standing a street corner surrounded by your stuff without even your repossessed car to live in.
In troubled times there is safty and advantage to be had by everyone in the pooling of skills and resources.
Ohana.
Unless, of course, you're an asshole.
KFG
Why would Linux vendors focus on selling Win XP Plus?
That's funny, because when my local CompUSA reserves more shelf space for SuSe and Redhat combined than they do for XP, and they seem to have trouble keeping copies of them on the shelf.
for Microsoft to extend their market share. You don't use Linux because its the best or the most attractive, you use it because the Windows server solution isn't good enough (yet). I'd say Ballmer has you and your 8 production servers in the bag pal.
I've never understood tne modern deprecation of the word "amateur."
The modern Olympic games were founded around the philosophical concept that amateur was the highest possible calling.
Nowadays, of course, "professional" has come to be a synonym of "expert," which is prima facie laughable.
KFG
Microsoft might know all too well why Free software is different than shareware. They may have a huge empire of finances and power, but that hasn't necessarily clouded their cognition so much that they can't comprehend why GNU-type freedom is truly valuable.
BUT...
It's in their best interests if those who listen to them (Microsoft employees, Microsoft salespeople, businesses that take Microsoft's word as gold) don't "get it". As long as they can make it sound equivilant to shareware, as long as they can distract businesses with talk of pure dollars-and-cents costs as if that's the single measure of "value", then they will be in good shape. Widespread ignorance and misconceptions are Microsoft's allies.
The less information (or more misinformation) potential Microsoft customers have, the easier it is to influence their choices. Microsoft might come off looking ignorant to some of us, but we're not who they're after, and they're louder than we are.
You probably never had Econ 101
Hmm, scratch that 'when' at the beginning of the statement.
There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing.
It's only been around since the 1960's.
In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows.
Microsoft's constant "advancements" are actually on reason I don't like Windows that much. UNIX did a pretty good job 30 years ago, and it still does.
Ob Doc Brown: "They've found me - I don't know how but they've found me. RUN FOR IT LINUS!
Whoo boy, is that a loaded statement.
Or maybe ol' Steve has realized to keep his damn mouth shut on these "all internal" memos because they have been publicly humiliated by them in the past. They know enough about PR to spread FUD in their "internal" memos now. Because they know they can't stop them from being leaked.
FACT: Microsoft plays dirty, and has since day one.
This is nothing new. This internal memo clearly shows that they consider Linux and other non-commercial software to be a threat. Just because the language is leak-friendly doesn't mean that there are no dirty tactics in the works. I'll go with the overwhelming odds and say that they are probably trying to figure out how to be total bastards to preserve their monopoly.
I used to think I might be paranoid, but I am starting to believe that I am not. Which saddens me, I wish I was just paranoid.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same.
I don't think so, about the "little difference" anyway. I've worked for both larger and smaller companies as desktop, applications and server support for the last six years. I've never called for support from Mircosoft ever. Everything has always been handled in house. I have paid lots of licensing fees for servers, applications, and such. If we were to switch to Linux products, I would have to spend more time learning about and fixing Linux problems which is paid for by my salary but our overall costs would go down due to no need for licensing.
Applications support is a little different as we do pay the (server) application company support but they handle the OS of the server it runs on also and thus are the only ones to pay and call MS. Thus, I expect these applications to start switching over to Linux in the next five to ten years as there will be no licensing fees but support from the OS vendor will be the same. Not to mention that their coders would then be able to inspect the OS code to look for problems with their applications rather than be depenant on MS.
they seem to have trouble keeping copies of them on the shelf.
Yeah, with the security vulnerability risks they keep shipping them back to the manufacturers, hoping to get that 2.16.3-01 replaced with 2.16.3-04.
Seriously, how many families do you know that have bought a boxed Linux distro off CompUSA/BestBuy/CircuitCity?
So Linux made it onto Steve Ballmer's radar screen at last?
Linux has been on Microsofts radar screen for a long time now. Bill Gates has mentioned it several times, as have several other Microsoft Execs.
Microsoft also has linux boxes in most of it's labs, and I know quite a few MS employees are are real fans of Linux.
I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company! Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?
I'm sure that Ballmer is well aware that his "Internal" emails to all employees are always published. This was no surprise to him. He probably didn't mention it in his customer facing letter because he figured Linux didn't need to advertise it.
I'd also be quite surprised if Microsoft isn't well on it's way to having Office and mabye some Backoffice products ready to run on Linux. They can still make plenty of money with their other products if/when Windows continues to lose ground to linux.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Perhaps history will repeat itself. Microsoft may self-destruct in an orgy of paranoia, internal purges, attacks on enemies (imagined and real), and the technological equivalent of show trials.
--Mike Perry
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog/
We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
Coming, as it does, after disclosures that SCO and Baystar were both manipulated by Microsoft to mount and support a questionable legal attack on Linux, this statement is hilarious!
Same old lies here; move along.
the memo is kind of funny. It reads like a political commercial. All spin and no real substance. You can't take anything he says literally, folks. He is just using terms to spin things the way he wants to.
*COUGH*
*SNORT*
*CHOKE*
AHAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....
oh man, I needed a good laugh today!
ahaaaa...mmmmmm
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
"In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows."
Two Words: Tabbed Browsing (like I'm doing right now)
I have to wonder: Does Stevie actually write/believe this shit or is it handed to him by the mindless drones in Marketing?
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Mircrosoft execs are obsessed with the fact that Linux is (mostly) free (as in beer) and they assume the spreading adoption of Linux is only for that reason. They have this picture in their head that small - medium size companies are just too cheap to buy Windows and that's what's causing the migrations to Linux. They find it hard to understand that in many situations it is the IT departments of many companies advocating Linux not because of price, but because Linux is just easier for most network admins to install, configure, manage, and maintain.
The rule is "Faster, Cheaper, Better" always wins. Cheaper by itself is not the whole answer.
Out local Staples and Best Buy used to carry copies of linux distros and quit doing it. I don't even thing Walmart here keeps boxed sets any more.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
natural voice recognition?
themes?
On a business level, maybe you're right(?)
But for virtually everyone I know in my LUG and elsewhere who has personally switched to or tried out Linux, cost is always one of the main factors. The early adopters who switch are the types who like to use their computers to do a lot of "stuff." They are the tinkerers. When they hear that Suse 9.0 Professional comes with 2,500 programs out of the box of every conceivable type, their eyes light up.
The ubiquitous comment is always something like, "There is NO WAY I could afford all of those programs using Windows." And they're right. Linux gives them the possibility to do more, stuff they wouldn't even explore and look into in Windows because their limited budgets will force them to be very choosy as to what software they will buy.
That's one of the reasons I can't stand it when I hear the argument, "Linux newbies will be intimidated by all of these options. Let's just give them one browser, one office app, etc etc."
The people who make those kinds of arguments just don't even understand most Linux noobs, who are relatively technically proficient and who LIKE having all of those choices. Windows is like being on a diet where you have to restrict what you can eat, whereas Linux is like a never-ending smorgasbord.
I am not familiar with your crap conversion methods. Is there a website where I can see the conversion? www.crapcse.se perhaps?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Linux has plenty of support. For example, if I run into a problem I can't solve, any one of the following options may be helpful:
* If I bought a support package from a company like RedHat, I can call and get phone support, the same way you do with M$ products.
* There are dozens if not hundreds of IRC channels where linux sysadmins hang out and are more than happy to answer questions.
* Another easy trick is to use google to search for your error message. Chances are you'll find the mailing list archives of a LUG, where someone's already solved the exact problem you're experiencing.
* Join your local Linux User Group. Or if your city doesn't have one you can join the one in the nearest major city.
* Email the developers who wrote the software you're having trouble with. (try that with M$)
* Check the 'bugzilla' section for the package or distro you're using. There may be a solution already available.
* Troubleshoot the source code and fix it yourself.
* Pay your local linux h4x0r to come over and fix the problem.
Microsoft is still big, but they're definitely scared. Open Office is an excellent replacement for MS office, and works well for what 95% of the users need it for.
From wherethesundontshine.net:
First, if we take 'a shit' to be the amount of effort required for an average european male to evacuate his bowels, precisely 2.5 hours after eating 451 grams (one serving) of Kellog's shredded wheat (plus or minus 5% for generic store brands), then we have a rather precise handle on what the phrase "I don't give a shit" means. Now. We'll call this the "metric shit". Taking a sample of 217 average adult male rats, the volume of excrement produced, on average, equals one metric shit's worth every week and a half. Given the average rat's metabolism, we find that a rat's body undergoes complete cellular mitosis roughly every fourty five weeks. Thus, a rat's ass is not, in fact, the same ass it had 11 months ago, and the timespan of a rat's ass is roughly 10.4 months. Thus, through its lifespan, one rat's ass produces (45 / 1.5) = 30 shits. Thus, we now know exactly what is meant by "I could give a rat's ass". Extrapolating further, this same sample of 217 rats was used to determine exactly how many rat's asses are required before a flying fuck is achieved (details classified to protect the experimenters' privacy from the prying eyes of the SPCA). It was determined that one flying fuck is, in fact, achievable after only 3 rats are airborne, in optimal conditions. The actual number is closer to 3.27 So, one flying fuck is equal to 101 shits, with a margin of error of 5%. This moment of science brought to you by 217 dead rats and a whole fucking lot of rock cocaine.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Are you telling me there are no "coding firms" out there, willing to program what you need for your open source business servers?
This is an honest question.
If there isnt one, I think I smell a huge pile of business opportunity.
Anything free is worth what you pay for it.
Will the childish attitude of about 50% of the posts on these subjects ever decrease?
When is this "M$ is the bad guy RAA!!" paradigm going to vanish? It's certainly not useful to stereotype everything they do as bad, considering they're so successful (funny how often people utterly ignore that).
Do we need a news story every time someone at MicroSoft says the word "Linux" ?? Look at the icon for the story no-less, more childish proddings at MS.
Take a step back... breathe... don't be an a-hole... and realize that charging for software is not a sin... (and closed software has it's uses too)
The point being, we need to get rid of this win/lose, us/them mentality. It's not helping anything. I believe many people have to take a step back, and try to be more humble, rational individuals.
Start realizing that you can learn some valuable, positive lessons from Microsoft is one thing (such as what it takes to be successful on the desktop).
Start realizing that Microsoft can be your best friend if they're given enough time. They have some of the most skilled software designers/engineers around, so they have HUGE HUGE potential. I believe a big problem they do have is they're a massive massive object, and they need time to gather the "inertia" to change. So why not help them instead of belittling them? Wouldn't you rather have a company the size of MS making good software for you (and swallow your pride if you have to actually trade money for goods and services).
Likewise, I think the Linux community (just picking Linux to put a name on the alternatives) also has incredible potential, but that potential has to be directed somewhere useful, not utterly purile and pointless discussion about who is better, and blinding themselves to other viable options just because they're held by Microsoft (or some other big corp).
While the noncommercial model may lead to many flavors of software...
Oh come on Steve, you achieve that magnificently with Windows. Your huge range of different versions of Visual Basics and Basic languages for Office for example, requiring major code re-writes between versions of Access. While we wer migrating to VB6, you teased us with VB.Net along with the delights of yet another rewrite of code. The API changes between Windows 95 and ME, between NT 3.51 and 4.0 kept us highly amused and on our toes. The huge range of networking protocols you forced us through while the poor non-commercial people stuck with boring old reliable NFS. We played along with Windows for Workgroups and NETBIOS for years, then as we were getting used to Domains under NT you switched over to Active Directory. We though we knew what HTML was supposed to do until you showed us how you knew better with Internet Explorer. Now you want to change it all yet again with Longhorn.
Now I know what you mean by 'innovation': repeatedly re-inventing the wheel and forcing us to pay for it.
hooray. Microsoft mentioned Linux a few times in this one memo, then-- wait for it-- only mentioned it once in another memo!
Big deal. Where's the story here?
the coolest club on
read me
I distinctly recall working for a MS shop some years ago (NT4) and we had a problem Our web application was not working, not integrating with our middle ware. WE were MSDN and had other MS developer support contracts. We had a deadline to release the application to our client 'real soon now'. When we called support the MS response was 'that will be fixed in the next service pack', several months down the road.
MS support' is a joke. You get nothing.
If we had gone open source (proprietary or software libre, either would have been better) we could hack rolled our own patch. But when you go closed source you are at the mercy of the vendor. And THAT is the advantage. Free as 'Liberty to make software soft'.
Tell us another good one, Steve....
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
so true...
Yes.
I've spent enough years (25+) in a big corporation to know that they develop internal cultures. I'm sure many people at MS are well aware of Linux and what's happening "outside", (There's a big-corporate term, for you.) but I'm equally sure that many of their employees' computing experience begins and ends with Microsoft. They may know the word, "Linux", but only in the sense that it's the *enemy*, like Lotus, Oracle, Sun, IBM, Google, Intuit, etc.
Consider this especially when they work like MicroSerfs on software all day, and many don't want to work on programming at night. Then add that they probably get Microsoft products for free or negligible cost, so aren't motivated to save money of software. Finally, there might even be some loyalty.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Mandrake is not bankrupt.
Mayday !!! Mayday !!!!
-s. Ballmer
Nowadays, of course, "professional" has come to be a synonym of "expert,"
Not really. At least, not once you work with 'professionals'. One is merely paid, the other is an expert -- you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the difference. Lots of NBA players don't know how to either trap or break a trap. Sure they're professionals, but they know NOTHING about the game.
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
Pull the other one.
Breakfast served all day!
This is one area that open source and Linux need a little work in. We have a lot of really great coders, but we are lacking in the diversity of people who actually know various fields very well. A perfect example can be taken from the Windows world itself circa 1994. Back then, I was an audio engineer coming from the Macintosh world. I was beginning to look at the PC as a possible option. What I found after a lot of research was that there were many limitations within Windows 3.1 to multimedia and audio in particular. A few PC based friends of mine were making recommendations that I look at the Turtle beach products, Zefiro accoustics (for hardware), S.A.W. and the like. I wound up trying quite a few of them and settled on Cakewalk Pro Audio. It worked, as well as you could expect a Windows based audio/MIDI sequencer to work, at that time. These days, things on the Windows platform have improved tremendously. Sure, they aren't Macs and still don't work as well as Macs for professional audio, but they work about 98% as well.
What happened? Microsoft was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the fact that not everyone looks at a computer as a "business tool". For some of us, a computer is a creative tool, which is as far away from business as you can get. Artists are a pretty small market, but they can be a lucrative one. And that's what made Microsoft pay attention. They actually got creative types (real artists and musicians) together with engineers and made *some* of the needed changes to the OS to improve the multimedia subsystem. Again, the Mac is MUCH better at this than Windows, but the disparity isn't as big now.
Unfortunately, in the Linux world, we still have mostly coders who like to play at being "artists" on the weekends. This is NOT a slam. I would qualify that I'm an artist who likes to play at being a "coder" during the week. What's needed are more people who can bridge the gap between the coders and the people who use the applications. This is something that most coders are loathe to accept. "Let the user dictate how the app works!? Nonsense!!" It ain't pretty, but there are some key areas of knowledge that coders just don't have the expertise in. And this applies to more fields than just art. How many coders truthfully say that they can understand and relate to the needs of their users in a very intimate way in the following fields/careers:
1. Accounting
2. Law (IANAL anyone?)
3. Playwriter
4. Journalist
5. Librarian
The point? A computer is no longer a "business tool", it's a "life tool" and needs to be viewed as such when applications and the OS are being designed. This is the point that Ballmer made in his own hamfisted way of "us vs. them". The reality is that the open source/free software community needs to include more than just coders in the development cycle.
Is your project working on a multitrack audio editor? Then get some professional audio engineers to review your project and make suggestions. In exchange for their expertise, maybe you can offer to set up a system with your application. Are you starting to work on a new application to batch process graphics for print? Then open your project up to non-coders with professional print backgrounds who can tell you if your project is useful or not.
This doesn't have to be the "free-for-all" nightmare that most coders envision. You can restrict what kind of non-coder gets to participate in the development cycle based on their experience in the field and how many useful contributions they have made after a period of time. You will also need to let more people like me into the development cycle.
Un-news
No, they can't do it. Read the licence agreement.
Flame bait my ass. Get the fuck off your high horse and face reality. Slash dot has changed from being a source of information regarding IT to a linux-huggin group of fanatics.
/. has no credibility in the IT world if they persist in MS bashing while CENSORING anyone that won't kiss TUX's ass.
/. has become nothing more then a MS bashing site, with a few tidbits regarding science...(a few clients have requested that /. be blocked, due to the misinformation it spreads concerning its competition...)
The moderators seem to mod down anyone that points out the obvious.
MICORSOFT, is a business, that wants to make a PROFIT. Linux is a group of talented wannabes, that if offered a job working for MS, would dump their linux dev work in favor of feeding their family, and being able to afford that vacation to Disney World for their kids...
STFU, work on making Linux a viable solution in all markets, instead of spending the majority of your time bashing a BUSINESS.
And the mods can kiss my ass, censoring people by modding them down so no one see's the post, is pithetic. WTF are you afraid of?? That others may agree, that
This is a very, very old memo sent out by Steve Ballmer months, if not years, ago. There is nothing new to read hear and it is all there. No centre of gravity, an apparent endorsement by IBM, blah, blah, blah.
It was complaining about running low on virtual memory.
Zeroeth thing is "What is this message doing on the screen of a banking machine." I want a banking machine, not a BSOD or a dialog box equivalent, telling me that "there something wrong, help!"
First thing is: "WTF is a message about running low in virtual memory doing in a banking machine screen?" Do they expect a customer to walk up and reboot the machine? How is he going to play with the VM settings without a mouse or keyboard, just a number pad in the street?
The second thing is: "These machine weren't even running." The bank branch isn't even open yet.
Would you want to put your money in that bank? I sure as heck ain't going to do business with them.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"Open source" and proprietary software are not the same thing. With Microsoft's software, you had proprietary software. The limitations of proprietary software is what gave your business such a hard time inspecting and improving the programs you were dependant on.
Ironically, your conclusion doesn't even support the philosophy of the open source movement. The open source movement does not talk about the freedoms of free software; the open source movement was designed to move away from talking about software freedom (which the OSI calls "ideological tub-thumping") to talking about practical goals which that movement's founders believed businesses (their chief audience) wanted to hear about more. So instead of talking about all computer users being free to share and modify software, the open source movement's philosophy talks about more people (not necessarily including the users) having source code access so the program can be enhanced faster and less expensively. I understand that you might think you're better off siding with the open source movement's philosophy because your experience came in a business setting, but your conclusion presents an argument supporting the free software movement's philosophy. The two philosophies are not the same. This doesn't make the two movements adversaries (in fact proponents of both philosophies get along well together), it makes them different.
Digital Citizen
and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first
(emphasis mine)
-xski
Microsoft's Ballmer: "Linux Requires Our Concentrated Focus and Attention"
Does this mean M$ has ADD?
---
Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
What city is your local CompUSA in? It's kind of silly because other than a box I bought years ago simply to try to show some public, local support for Linux. If I were to buy a distro now I'd buy it directly from the distro provider and download everything. I call BS to your post.
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM.
Have you ever purchased anything "enterprise-like" from IBM and also payed for the support? or are you just spouting what you "think" it is like?
All other things being equal...
You did not impose any constraints on your equation.
Free Crap != Better Beer
But,
Free Sex with Natalie Portman == Better than paying for Hot Grits poured down your pants
Har.
After decades of experience of Microsoft, I have come to the opinion that they deserve all they get.
Microsoft IS the bad guy. They have frequently released very poor quality products, which have been fixed only by pressure of competition. They have manipulated markets and used financial might to stifle competition. They corrupt standards and 'embrace and extend' to kill off technologies they don't like. They are predatory and arrogant and seem to just not get that what is best for the consumer is NOT what is best for Microsoft.
Sorry, mindshare is *not* everything. Apple Computers has way more mindshare & visibility than its marketshare would/should logically allow. I mean, usually a company with the marketshare Apple has would not have as much visibility as you see with Cupertino's finest. What I am trying to say here is that mindshare != sales and/or profits.
I think what is important here is "positive momentum", like Be, inc. once had, or like Linux currently has. What you want to have is not only the awareness of your target market, but especially to have peeked their interest in trying your stuff, better yet, to USE it.
This is not "insightful". Calling people "aholes" is childish in itself. This is boilerplate commentary and borderline hypocritical. Sorry, Microsoft was the on acting childish for years. Not on the partisan user basis but at the executive level. Your defending the bigest baby on the planet by calling some of their detractors babies. So what? Someone on slashdot takes a whack on Microsoft? "You must be new here".
You may win the classic slashdot mod-me-up style points, but your substance is "purile and pointless".
Ballmer: "...the reality is there is no 'center of
...
gravity,' or central body, investing in the health and
growth of noncommercial software or innovating in critical
areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and
security."
Contrast the above with the OSDL Mission Statement:
To be the recognized center of gravity for Linux; the
central body dedicated to accelerating the use of Linux for
enterprise computing through:
* Enterprise-class testing and other technical support
for the Linux development community.
* Marshalling of Linux-industry resources to focus
investment on areas of greatest need thereby eliminating
inhibitors to growth.
* Practical guidance to our members - vendors and end
users alike - on working effectively with the Linux
development community.
-Nivag
If you don't think or agree it's news the don't RTFA!!
Whiner. You're such a wuss.
Because that's all they see to compete on; Microsoft makes their arguments from a similar framing of the issue when they compare OpenOffice.org to Microsoft Office or various GNU/Linux distributions to Microsoft Windows. They never discuss the value of the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are actually what is being leveraged in our community, but anyone who only knows to talk about price will never see software freedom as advantageous. This isn't unusual, economists are well known to not discriminate or evaluate based on things they cannot quantify. Freedom and ethical behavior are two of those things.
If you want to see more of the outcome of the myth of rational economic acting or various adverse outcomes which are not assigned economic value, I recommend "The Corporation"--a documentary which examines how corporations came to be and what kind of power they wield around the world. One of the most interesting questions the documentary asks is if a corporation is a legal person, what kind of a person it it? I recently came across a lower resolution version that aired on Canadian TV on archive.org but I the section where I found it has changed and I can't find the new location.
Digital Citizen
Free != Better
Not sure why this is hard for people to understand given that they buy cars rather then walk for free and buy/rent houses rather then live in the park for free.
Well your arguement would be better if you could find a subset of people who voluntarily Pay to walk on a toll way rather than walk freely along side of it. Or find a someone living in government housing, and ask them if they are willing to pay to live in the same, or lesser quality housing.
I am not sure why it is so hard for you to understand that the OSS is not about price but about freedom Do you understand the concept of freedom? Even if you do not have the talent to change the code, you have the freedom to hire someone who can.
The facts that you will can afford to hire someone to customize OSS source is a side benefit of OSS. The fact that you are never locked into one vendor, and beholding to their time scheduleor pricing scheme is another benefit.
Yeah, but IBM has also contributed. They added all of SCO's intellectual property into Linux! :-)
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
I've always preferred the 'metric sh*tload', which is ten percent more than an English sh*tload.
Balmer: Linux has... "an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, investing in the health and growth of noncommercial software or innovating in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security."
I think the grand illusion here is the belief that Microsoft has a "center of gravity" (whatever that means, maybe "center of profit") or that they invest in the health of Windows.
CompUSA in Tallahassee, FL is the one in question. I haven't been in there in a while, but the last time I was in there, they had reserved quite a bit of space for Linux.
So Ballmer thinks Linux lacks inovation in areas like compatibility? It is an interesting point, since Microsoft have been very inovative when it comes to incompatibility. When has inovation ever been good to compatibility?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Yes, and doesn't it sum up the wonderful business model of Linux so well???
That $40-55/hr is being made because the product is difficult to use and maintain. Ideally, software should be easy to use as difficult to use software is a mark of bad software. Should Linux become easier to use, tech support calls will drop and the business model falls apart.
Allow me to generalise... when you make your money by providing tech support, the last thing you want is a better product that needs less tech support... ergo, your business model only works if you DON'T make a better piece of software.
I work as an admin for about 400 users in a mixed enviroment dispersed over several locations. The biggest reason i use linux is because i know i can install a linux box and just forget about it except for routine checkups and patches. The darn boxes just work. I have even enabled updates to be installed automatically every day since i have yet to encounter a patch that break an application in linux. In windows thats common and i have to test each patch before rollout and even then i cant be sure that it wont break something.
Since i manage both windows, linux and Novell boxes i dare to say i have good experience of managing servers. Linux is no doubt the easiest to manage once you have learnt it. Windows quirks and twists still confuses me after over 10 years experience. It just isnt any logic involved that lets you draw conclusions and get experienced.
I dont think that is to blame the gui for but more of the fact that Windows is an ugly hack based on a pretty unstable ground. Granted it gets better but thats mostly because it was utter crap to begin with.
As a school admin i can get Windows almost free but the man our i would have to add would cost more than any possible benefits compared to linux.
I think MS makes a big mistake when they just add fetures to the OS instead of perfecting the ones already there. Samba has made smb quite useful and i personally find it easier to use in many occasions, especially since i can reuse my configs.
HTTP/1.1 400
when these internal documents are leaked; it does as much harm to them as it does other private companies with corporate secrets. wait wait who are they going to sue since Linux isn't one entity?
They didn't get to be that way by accident.
Bill was born rich, you dumbass. His mom sat on a board of directors with the guy at IBM who decided to license DOS. They proceeded to build a *criminal monopoly*, and abuse that position. They are evil, not smart.
It is a shame the republicans took over the US and allowed MS to continue abusing their monopoly.
You are such a tool for posting the above.
"Mostly Harmless" ?
We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
Mouahahahaha.
Does he really want us to believe this ?
Microsoft to compete in a fair manner ?
Microsoft to think about its customers first ?
wtf.n0x.org
Microsoft finally has fount its match.
BTW: Claiming 'illusion' shows that Microsoft has problems grasping reality. They refuse to understand what is happening. Their first step into perdition.
This is definately news, no talk of any real strategy here. What does this mean? Well considering the SCO FUD fizzling out, MS is most likely looking for a new battlefield. Be prepared for this, all innovations you create for Linux must be gaurded in any way possible so MS does not steal it. Kind of hard when the source is freely available, so that leaves us with doing everything posible to ensure that MS is not infringing the GPL. Dont talk about this publicly too much or MS will get wise and obfuscate GPL violations. Also some may notice a sharp increase in patent applications from MS, I believe this is part of the new battlefield. Be very careful of MS tainted protocols/patents and those which may be submarines. Notice MS talks of integration with Linux. Uhm, ever hear of 'embrace and extend'?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. --E.C. Stanton
Money takes too much time and effort to collect and manage. You can be much more productive with the things you love if you can set up your life such that you don't have to spend that effort. Inheriting millions or winning the lottery would be ideal, but in the meanwhile living with mom or picking a job based upon creative satisfaction both work.
Michael
The center of gravity in opensource projects is the sourcecode. That's why it works.
Right now I have a solar cooker, which I built and I am testing, sitting out in the sun. It is up to 130 degrees C (approx 250 F). It cost me a grand total of *zero* dollars for parts and labor - even the glass was given to me by Lowes (!). The energy input comes from the sun for *free*. In theory, I could bake a cake or cook some soup with it (haven't done this yet, but I have no doubt that it would work).
Yes, in many cases, free may mean "cheap and shoddy", but in the case of this solar cooker, and Linux (see, not totally off topic!) - free does sometimes equal great things...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Are there 2 divisions of IBM providing support? I am only aware of Global Services (IGS) and the various product support services. If you're saying IGS is awesome, I think you need to share what you are smoking. Nothing can destroy an IT infrastructure and demoralize a company faster than IGS. Talk to any Solectron employee, esp. Solectron Texas, about the 3yrs. of IGS hell and how hard they tried to get out of the contract.
What's the big deal?
They've been doing everything possible to FUD open source lately.
I'm more worried about what they are going to do next. All of their previous tactics, which have proven successful against Closed Source entities in the market have failed to make a dent against Open Source.
In desperation they may do ... anything. That's what I'm worried about. But my best guess says that they will never attempt to compete technically. Their only saving grace against the eventuality of a shared environment between Microsoft and Linux will be legal actions similar to RIAA, MPAA, and DMCA
This is just my opinion.
Apple has far larger cash reserves than its marketshare would suggest. Perhaps they are an example of mindshare = profits and marketshare is simply not part of the equation.
Battling Beasts
I think what he was trying to say is that the departure of jobs to India means that said programmers won't be financially able to move out of their mothers' basements anytime soon.
Battling Beasts
and realize that charging for software is not a sin..
Charging for software is fine. Limiting the freedom of users to do that via copyright (which is what you meant) is a sin.
It is an abuse of the copyright system that shouldn't exist in the digital age in the first place. It is placing restrictions on the freedom and sharing of information of every human in society, in order to promote the creation of the software - which would get created anyhow.
Tell me about it. I can't believe that someone is surprised that Microsoft wouldn't trumpet their competitors out loud. I might talk with my business partner about who we're competing against, but I don't go around mentioning competitors to clients.
Sorry kids, but if you want Linux out there, you're going to have to do a bit more PR yourself instead of relying on Microsoft!
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Microsoft fears GNU/Linux as it has realized that the future is ruled by free software. Other companies such as IBM have realized this too and are embracing the free software model rather than opposing it.
Microsoft is a warning to all as to what happens when proprietary software is tolerated and allowed to become dominant. Products are poor quality, and smaller competitors are forced out of business. Constraints are put on OEMs to sell only the dominant proprietary software, not the superior free alternative.
Proprietary software can no longer be tolerated. Only free software is fit for posterity.
You can read more about the GNU project at http://www.gnu.org/.
I went back and read it again. You are correct.
My post requires editing for that perspective. The basic points will hold though, I think.
KFG
Cutting a check is not that hard - especially when it's not my money. Losing hours and hours to tracking down purchase orders that are 4+ years old to prove that the major brand pc we bought (that we could buy without a windows license) had a license: that is painful. Business investment should be fairly simple: this is/is not worth the expense and we can/can not afford it. But the meta-costs of non-free really chap my ass. How do you budget for the risk of a BSA/SPA audit? We went through one, were completely cool, and still lost thousands of dollars worth of staff time in salary alone. The staff time is worth more than the salary, but harder to quantify. Nobody compensated us for that loss. And don't say we were rewarded by the use of the software - that audit wasn't on the invoices we paid.
IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, investing in the health and growth of noncommercial software or innovating in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security.
That's an excerpt from the beginning of the article which Balmer apparently wrote. Now: look at those points. Engineering, manageability, compatibility and security are noted as areas where there isn't open source "innovating" (MS does so like that word). The last two are evidently false, as open standards and hasty security fixes can testify for. The item of "management" is also bullshit, though somewhat less so: open source projects get good management from people that are personally dedicated to the success of the project. The claim that there's no innovation in "engineering" with open source is simply bullshit, and is readily evident when you look at some of the additions that kernel 2.6 gives us, QT3 and 4, perl, and a slew of other innovative, creative engineering.
These are all MS party lines. I have no doubt that this "internal memo" was meant to be leaked. People will read this memo and think, "Oh, they're saying these things internally too; it's not a PR stunt, so they must be true!"
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
should read, "...that we could NOT buy without a windows license)"
I hope this comment is being made tongue-in-cheek, but in the off-hand chance that it isn't, here's the best way I can think of to explain it to the likes of you.
"Geniuses" are kind of like normal people, except that geniuses actually have imagination, vision, and intelligence. As such, a genius will aspire to implement his/her vision of what's possible, and although making money for doing so would be preferable, it's what he/she would be doing anyway, money or not. "Normals", not having imagination or vision, aspire to the highest goals that they can see within their inborn limitations: money, power, sloth, physical comforts, and self-centeredness. And that I don't understand.
This was all detailed quite well in the book "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, but if you don't have the patience for a book, it was also a movie starring Gary Cooper.
P.S. I feel qualified to speak for geniuses solely because people ostracize me for being one. Personally, I think being a genius is the inevitable result if you (1) read, (2) think for yourself, and (3) work hard, and that any "normal" could become a "genius" if these 3 steps were applied repeatedly and consistently. I really think it's that simple.
If they're using their own search engine, yes. Considering the 317 search reults that pop up searching "linux" on MSN, I think microsoft is trying to keep considerably more than 50,000 people in the dark. It is these public and contradictory postures like sanitizing a search engine while including it on their threat matrix that keep making them look like schmoes.
[KARMA]a man's character is his fate - Heraclitius[/KARMA]
While you raise an interesting point, it does not support your position. Rather, it tends to support the "mindshare is everything" argument.
:-)
Consider: Apple fell to as little as 3% marketshare, and probably has no more than 5% right now. If it were not for Apple's powerful mindshare, they would likely not even exist today. How many companies can you think of, that, if driven down to only 3% marketshare and seeming to have no great product on the immediate horizon, would still be able to maintain a powerful base of utterly loyal customers who would see them through until the company got back on its feet. Then the company brings back the former CEO, gets some decent new product out the door, and is back on its feet and increasing marketshare.
If Microsoft is someday driven to 3% marketshare as a result of Linux and Apple eating its lunch (I'm not saying it's likely they'll go to that level, just for example), do you think that the remaining 3% of MS users would so fervently love Microsoft that they would refuse to switch to either Mac or Linux because they think MS products are so great that there simply is no alternative? I doubt it. There may be a few people like that, but Bill and Steve's families aren't big enough to keep Microsoft afloat by themselves
WRT positive momentum, Apple has that. You might have heard of the iPod and OS X? OS X helped tremendously to save Apple, not only because it's good but because it proved that after failed attempts to do so in the past, they could finally get a replacement for the aging MacOS out the door. Now the iPod and iTunes are bringing Apple not just a lot of mindshare, but real sales and marketshare, too. Do you think a person who buys an iPod and is a first-time Apple buyer might not consider a Mac for his/her next computer if they love their iPod?
I'm even thinking possibly buying a Mac for my next notebook, and I was a DOS user, then a Desqview user, then a Windows user (starting with 3.0; I had Windows 286 and Windows 386, but they were so bad they were pretty much useless), and later became a Linux and FreeBSD user. I've never owned an Apple product, don't have an MP3 player and would probably never buy an iPod, but I may well buy a PowerBook or iBook next year.
That's how Apple translates mindshare to marketshare. Like many people, I once wrote them off as roadkill, now I'm considering buying one of their products for the first time ever.
I've had things that have taken ages to resolve because I've either had to play around with something or just hunt high and low in newsgroups/weblists hoping to hit the right keyword "hanging" or "hangs" or "stalls".
Fortunately, always resolved in time, but it's not comforting. Source code of the tools would be as a final insurance policy - that I could always put breakpoints etc. in.
Penisbird, you ROCK.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Shock and Awe"
'good enough' is part of the point. I don't need a word processor with a bunch of features I never use, and I certainly don't want to pay hundreds of pounds for them.
Most users are happy with Word, Excel as they are. Power users have been pretty happy since about Office 97 or 2000. Basic users were probably happy with Excel 4 and Word 2. How many users have gained much productivity from Office 2003 over Office 2000?
I run Open Office at home because it's "good enough". I can write nice letters, send them as PDFs, put my monthly budget on the spreadsheet.
I imagine for business use (writing documents with tables/images, tables of contents) that it would do that too. So, I'm going to go without some grammar checker or links to clipart? Big deal.
Did we see a /. story two days ago about how Tivo had so much mind share that it has become a verb but were not winning in their market?
Yep. That was a painful read. The whole damn book is just one big straw man argument for why corporate greed is really a good thing.
And no, obviously these people do not starve. The original posters comment were way off base.
In economic terms, Microsoft software is developed like in a planned economy, while Linux is developed like in a market economy. With the usual bebefits and drawbacks to each. Microsoft can, in theory, make huge leaps forwards thanks to their five year plans (e.g. Longhorn). Linux, being market driven, can only take baby-steps. But it takes these steps in every direction at once, so while 9 out 10 steps leads to dead ends, the 10'th step ensure a steady progress. Microsoft, on the other hand, is depending on the brilliance of their "central planners".
It is kind of ironic, given that some people compare free software to communism, and even believe the monopolies are good representives for capitalism.
Slashdot is, and has always been, an advocacy for Linux, with a playful (what you call childish) attitude. Slashdots covers other issues, but Linux advocacy is as it has always been, the center.
/.'s attitude, but the attitude of those who whine about it. There is no lack of web-sites out there who pretends to be all serious and business, about any subject whatsoever. Also Linux. Go read those, instead of staying here complaining that /. isn't what it was never intended to be.
What is ridiculous isn't
A few other answers: Microsoft *is* the "bad guy" by most common definitions, they have repeatedly been convicted of abusing their monopoly with illegal business practices. And technologically, they have been dragging the industry behind until NT on the business side and XP Home on the private side.
And yes, the Microsoft stand on Linux *is* of essensial important to the future of Linux, and thus very relevant to this site.
And yes, preventing people from sharing with each other *is* a sin, according to at least one moral system which some people here subscribe to. Read the GNU manifesto. Claiming that people should not argue based on their own moral beliefs is not very productive. Your moral beliefts aren't universal.
Read: College town.
CompUSA manager was a Linux zealot (a self-correcting situation).
"OSS will rulez teh world!!!!1!!"
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM. We're talking come-to-your-business, customize-the-software, keep-you-running support, not 90-days-after-its-installed support that comes by default with a Microsoft solution. Sure, you can add MS support on top of things, but a shop with full MS kit and an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.
You've clearly never actually had a hand in any of this. First of all, any company who has "come to your business" support from IBM is also going to be looking at the kind of enterprise licensing from Microsoft which often involves Microsoft employees permanently assigned to your company. Just like IBM, but certainly not this "90-days" line of BS you're spouting.
And for the record, pretty much ANYTHING with IBM is going to be vastly more expensive. And I DO have direct experience with this, in a company with 65,000+ employees, two enormous data centers, acres of mainframes, and trillions of dollars in assets.
on the flip side, can you show me a *major* open-source software project where the core development team is all desperately looking for work
Not necessarily, but I can easily find a slew of major OSS projects that have floundered untouched for years on end. For most people in the world, the automatic response to losing your job is NOT to run off and update a blog.
Second, IBM hires a lot of these people; one of the reasons they justify their support costs is
If what you said earlier was true, I'd think IBM wouldn't have to justify their cost.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
So you're saying, if you band together and write and improve the free software being used by Indian companies who just took your job, you are somehow creating a more financially secure environment for yourself?
Wanna try that again, chief?
I've never understood tne modern deprecation of the word "amateur."
Bullshit. You're trying way too hard to appear thoughtful and intelligent.
Can you point me to the design ?
Working for necessity's mother.
...is easy. (I worked for a company in Denver which did it in the early '80s because we couldn't get good data transmission from the phone company.)
The hard part in India is building your own power grid. But it's required for a call-center operation. The local grid is so unreliable that business parks have to build their own power supply systems.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Maybe, but do you actually accomplish anything? That's usually when I get in trouble with people -- when I accomplish something that's way above anything they've done. Which I do routinely.
I have a shitty opinion of people because they take forever to accomplish absolutely squat, and I end up having to fix their crap all by myself (because they're unwilling to do so, or incapable of doing so), then once I prove (by example) that I'm actually capable of accomplishing something, immediately I get shit on.
If the people who didn't like me actually had some accomplishments to point to, I might actually care what they thought. The simple truth is, they don't accomplish anything. (Unless you count piles of uncommented spaghetti code as an accomplishment.)
The fact that I even have to define "accomplish" shows just how "normal" you really are. (Not that I'm trying to get into a fight with you, but it's too late for that now, isn't it?) "Accomplish" means "to do something no one else has ever done, in a way that's so much better than existing solutions that it makes them all instantly obsolete". Your list of what you consider to be "accomplishments" shows that you meet my definition of "normal".
I blow the state-of-the-art away. And I've done it numerous times. Unfortunately, nearly all of them were in closed-source houses. I'm part of an open-source project now, and as soon as my recent addition gets the attention it deserves, I'll steer you to it, and then you can tell me whether I have an inflated sense of myself or not.
I'm not mistreated for the accomplishment, I'm mistreated because the mere existence of my accomplishment implicitly insults my "peers", who have proven (by their actions/inactions) that they're not capable of such things.
I just checked, my original post was as AC also. So what are you talking about here?
and distrobution.
DRI goofed when they blew off IBM, MS "borrowed" Q-DOS/86-DOS (a CP/M ripoff) for $50K USD and turned around and sold it to IBM. There was nothing in the IBM contract that said MS could not sell their own version of the OS, so MS-DOS was licensed to Compaq, etc.
Microsoft, seeking to help Apple and perhaps create a new market to take money away from Lotus and WordPerfect, create Word and Excel for the Macintosh. While Word and Excel were miserable failures at first, like the Macintosh, they sold more and gained marketshare after being bundled with PC sales and in MSOffice as a big bundle.
Microsoft, seeking to license the OS the Macintosh uses from Apple, upon rejection of that deal, invent Interface Manager, which eventually led to Windows in 1985. A miserable failure at first.
IBM and Microsoft work together over OS/2, Microsoft puts Windows on a back burner and fully supports OS/2. After disagreements and political infighting with IBM, MS makes their own copy of OS/2, which leads to Windows NT 3.1, another miserable failure. Windows 3.1 takes off because MS bundles it with MS-DOS.
Windows is revamped, and Microsoft practially gives away development tools for it. After MS bundles Windows 3.1 with MS-DOS, sales of Windows go up and pass OS/2 sales.
MSOffice bundles Word and Excel with Powerpoint and Access. It is a hit for the growing Windows market. The failure for the Mac became a hit for Windows.
Microsoft revamps NT into a Server OS, fixes some bugs, and gains more support. NT Server starts to outsell Novel Netware, etc.
Windows 95 is born, using some of the OS/2 technology mixed in with Windows 3.X and MS-DOS 6.X code, Microsoft makes it a hit OS because it is bundled with new PCs and a big marketing drive tells everyone it is better than ever. Most of the Windows 3.X sales upgrade to Windows 95.
Microsoft eventually learns to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 95OSR2 and 98, this hurts Netscape. Who needs a browser when Windows now includes one for free? Microsoft learned to leverage one Monopoly to create another. The same thing was done with Media Player to kill Real Player and Quicktime.
Microsoft, finding that it cannot grow any further in marketshare, tries to make it into the video game and ISP business. MSN and XBox are big losses, and money pits. MS Games don't sell as well as others. Proof that MS does not have what it takes to enter other markets and be successful unless they leverage their Monopoly to do so.
Recently MS made plans to enter Finacial Services, loans, credit cards, etc. Why? Because their OS and software marketshare cannot grow any bigger than it already has. Not unless they force everyone in that market to upgrade to a new platform, hence Longhorn is born.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.