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.
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.
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)
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!
"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.
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
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.
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.
Not trolling, but you beat free with lower TCO, a massive support framework, and 70% of the OS market share.
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.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting 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. 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
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?
By being better.
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.
Quite true, but remember the group you are talking about, many of whom seem to think that downloading music and movies for free with out compensating the artist/recording company/copyright holder is alright!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I love seeing these "insightful" comments about how dumb Bill and Steve are.
Gates is only the richest man in the world, with Steve, Paul and others not too far behind. They didn't get to be that way by accident. Microsoft didn't turn out to be a multi-billion dollar worldwide company because nobody "got it". Not thinking like you slashbots and free software zealots is probably one reason.
So you guys can go ahead and laugh and mock. You can keep trying "This is the year of the Linux!!!" every single year, while Microsoft keeps raking cash like nobody else. I hope you have find in your little "free world".
Agreed. Many people say MS is all bad but they tend to forget the MS has a reputation for eventually making things better. Win2K was a solid OS for business. Win XP is a solid OS for the home(and business).
The Open Source community would be better served by not spewing this FUD, and it _is_ FUD, and instead concentrating on the real problems with MS such as the monolithic nature of their development and important security problems caused by the monoculture of their monopoly (enough monos for you?).
Open Source and Free software are very important, but they'll get the attention they deserve faster if they concentrate on their positives and not on the made-up negatives of Microsoft.
TW
Free != Better
Free doesn't necessarily equate to better, but I'd challenge you to swap Apache for a proprietary web-server. In certain cases, free (beer, speech) leads to a better product - that's why we're here, right?
This is where the serious fun begins.
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.
It's the job of a salesperson. If they were being totally honest, they would say "yes, sometimes linux beats us. Here's scenarios where you should go with linux." But as company men, they have to be total cheerleaders. "MS Rocks! Linux Sucks! You company will go bankrupt and you will lose your wife and kids of you buy linux!" It's Orwellian and cult-like, but that's what the corporate world is like today.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
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.
Agreed. Many people say MS is all bad but they tend to forget the MS has a reputation for eventually making things better. Win2K was a solid OS for business. Win XP is a solid OS for the home(and business).
.... ?
I call bullshit,
It took MSFT 6 months to fix that SSL bug ? Integrating a freaking browser into the kernel ? And this is good for businesses because
The ONLY reason for running MSFT software is because everyone else runs it. Its obviously not cheap, not trust worthy, not secure by design, and we all know it screams of consumer abuse
Sunny Dubey
The Open Source community would be better served by not spewing this FUD, and it _is_ FUD, and instead concentrating on the real problems with MS such as the monolithic nature of their development and important security problems caused by the monoculture of their monopoly (enough monos for you?).
Other than Slashdot, that bastion of 'Fair and Balanced'(tm)(R)(C)(FU) commentary, where have you seen the Open Source community spreading this FUD? It's not like the front page of OpenOffice.org has "OOo...the replacement for MS Office, because it licks my balls."
Most of the community is pretty fair towards Microsoft; they complain when MS does blatantly anticompetitive stuff, and publish pretty reputable benchmarks, along with reminders that benchmarks are about as reliable as Firestone tires, and are generally very sportsmanlike.
Microsoft is really the only group spreading FUD.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
If you look at this long-term you'll see it as an absorption strategy.
Today they integrate Linux support into their management software. Tomorrow they expand and patent the API. Next week there isn't a single IT manager that knows anything about Linux administration unless it's done with MS management tools. Next month MS starts to price the Linux management plugin at a higher and higher level to "support the cost of integrating with Open source developers". If it works they'll profit and network administrators will continue to favor using MS OS because of "bugs and inconsistencies between Linux distros and the MS Linux management plugin". If they're aggressive and companies balk at the increased price then they'll switch back to MS in order to secure administration tasks.
Simple.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
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.
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/
Not sure why this is hard for people to understand given that they buy cars rather then walk for free
But what if that $40,000 car broke down everyday, or required a bi-yearly upgrade to keep working (especially with it's hood welded shut). Or it was only available in hideous Yellow, and you can't change the color?
And that I think is the crux of the argument. It's not so much about being free (as in beer), it's about being free (as in speech). That's why IBM is doing well with consulting. Once IBM is done customizing your software, you get to keep your software forever.
With MS, you give them a check every other year, and that's it. With XP (and likely later), you don't even own the OS. MS can shut you down anytime they wanted to if they felt like it.
The argument becomes less about Free (as in beer) software is better. It is for some, but the freedom (as in speech) is where the benefit is. And the freedom is what companies like. The huge benefit to companies is that they keep the SW. If they make no changes, and it works forever, they can port it to the new systems a lot easier. That means in the long run, lower TCO since you don't need to retrain and lower TCO since you aren't paying upgrade fees.
Well, I tell ya, I had this one problem that eventually got narrowed down to a bad DIMM, which was nearly impossible to isolate under XP. I ran every diagnostic I could think of, I beat my head against the wall for a fricking week. BSOD BSOD BSOD.
Finally scrapped the XP load, and loaded Linux, which told me, immediately, that I had a RAM fault. Pulled the DIMM, and the problem went away.
Not that hardware is windows' problem, but from the error messages that went with the BSOD, I spent twice as much time as I should have had to trying to isolate it. They're getting better, but if something goes wrong it's still BSOD city.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
"Free (beer) not therefore better" is true.
"Free (speech) not therefore better" is something I'd take issue with. The property of liberty is far more important than the price you pay for the software. The actual freedom to modify, redistribute, incorporate into your own work, and treat software as speech.
The comparison here would not be "buy cars vs walk for free" or "buy/rent houses vs live in the park." I think a good comparison would be "Freedom vs. Slavery."
So, if you value Freedom, you go for Free, and you may have to pay for 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$)
* Check the 'bugzilla' section for the package or distro you're using. There may be a solution already available.
* Troubleshoot the source code and fix it yourself.
* Pay your local linux h4x0r to come over and fix the problem.
Microsoft is still big, but they're definitely scared. Open Office is an excellent replacement for MS office, and works well for what 95% of the users need it for.
Not sure why this is hard for people to understand given that they buy cars rather then walk for free and buy/rent houses rather then live in the park for free.
What if we had a facotry that produced cars for free? And the factory was easy to duplicate, and the cars could be improved upon by anyone, and thoes improvements would could be availaible to all the other car owners for free.
Software is deferentant than material goods - the cost of duplication is almost nill and for that reason GNU/Open Source software will slowly-but-surely take over for commodity-like software.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Will the childish attitude of about 50% of the posts on these subjects ever decrease?
When is this "M$ 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).
read me
The Anonymous Coward (wow we have a lot of those lately) makes the fatal mistake of equating wealth with intelligence or wisdom. Gates never started out as a "po boy from Mississippi" -- he had an excellent seed, was in the right place at the right time, and caught IBM while they were distracted with their lovely mainframes. Yes, Gates gets points for accumulating huge wealth: he got it through unethical deals, bundling traps, and intimidation. He has no respect for the free market and takes the *fascist* view that everyone marching the same way is the best way. Capitalism does NOT equal Free Market Monopoly Abuse does NOT equal Competition Fascism equals the merging of select corporate and government interests to the detriment of the small guys.
There are FOUR reasons I run MSFT at home on one of my machines...
Adobe Premiere
Adobe After Effects
Cool Edit
DVDLab
Idiot, that only feeds his main argument. Those apps are on windows only because the customers are. Do you honestly think that software producers like creating apps for a platform they are consistantly locked out of ? No
Once linux more desktop popularity (like Mac), those apps would easily be ported over as well.
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.
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".
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.