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?"
> - that's why we're here, right?
hmmm... this seems to be an attempt to to slashdot slashdot through a link on slashdot pointing to slashdot.
Yeah, Microsoft doesn't write any of their code. They bought this imaginary company and rebranded the "Doors" OS as this new-fangled thing called "Windows." Oh yeah, they also steal a lot of their shit. All of the Linux conspiracy theorist have just been quiet, waiting for the right time to highlight all of the NSA backdoors and stolen GPL code that appeared in the leak of the Windows source code. Same deal across the board... Microsoft hijacked OpenOffice and poured all of those features into Office. Outlook? That has Ximian Evolution written all over it. I mean, those thousands of coders that Microsoft employs.. you don't think they actually _code_ do you!? Hell no, they get paid more than any OSS coder to just jerk off all day long and scour the net for GPL code to steal. That's it.. or at least that idea makes me really warm and fuzzy inside.
-Matt
Duke '05
Lets call this Zealot lie #212. Nothing forces people to upgrade. Some people CHOSE to upgrade. If what you claim was true I wouldn't have to keep supporting all these users running Windows 95 and (lord help me) 3.1. They have not upgraded because they have no need of the new features.
If that were true, I would be able to run Win 95 on my Athlon 64 (for example). But since the source is closed (ie: not free), I can't make necessary changes to allow the kernel to boot on my new system.
As for MS being able to "shut you down anytime they wanted to if they felt like it", do you have ANYTHING to back that up? What can Microsoft do to make my Windows install stop working?
In Windows XP, there's that little Product Activation number you have to contact MS for to let you run on a brand new system, or if you change enough HW components to require recertification. MS could simply say "Sorry, XP is no longer supported, we can't give you a new Producet Activation #" or "It looks as if you are running illegally, we refuse to give you a new Serial #". Getting Warez to fix this is of course illegal, and the only legal way to get a serial number is to contact MS. MS has the right to refuse to give you that serial number at any time. This means that you don't own the OS since you can't install it on a new machine if MS denies you the SN. You are denied future installs
As far as making current installs stop working, I seem to recall that Service Pack 1disabled a block of SNs that were supposed to be pirated. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that again. This denies you of current installs.
A solution might be "Well don't install that patch". Again, future security patches might require the install of this "serial number" patch. Boom, you're broken. So MS wraps you around to install the SN patch, or risk having a vulnerable machine.
Look at where we stand:
95% of all queries to Google come from systems running Windows, 47% from those running Win XP, while alternative browser technologies remain essentially flat-lined, with a trivial market share. Google Zeitgeist.
iTunes is unmistakably Apple in in it's look and feel. But it did not become headline news until the port to Windows.