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?"

Comments

This is news? Company A cares about smth strategic

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hold on Steve,

[FreeLinux]

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.

Re:Hold on Steve,

[lawpoop]

I actually partially agree with my fellow Steve here. There is no central body, or center of gravity, and that's a good thing . That's how linux got from wristwatches to outer space. Just because there is no central body investing in "engineering, manageability, compatibility and security" doesn't mean that linux has failed in any of those areas. In fact, it has certainly outshone MS.

Re:Hold on Steve,

[KrispyKringle]

That's his point. Instead of a monolithic developer/support source, you've got Novell, RedHat, IBM, Sun...

This can be a good thing, for sure. One company goes out of business, but the whole thing isn't ruined. But there are true downsides to Linux; everything has its flaws. The thing that impressed me about this is that there are really no ``bad'' quotes here. Ballmer says that Linux is just the next new thing, a potential flash-in-the-pan (which, personally, I think may be right, if we aren't lucky)--and that Microsoft must win by responsibly offering a better product and better customer care.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Hold on Steve,

[wookyhoo]

So he suggesting that Microsoft's investment in the "health and growth of noncommercial software" and their "innovating in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security" was a very good thing.

In what sick and twisted world is it bad that we don't have a single body innovating in those critical areas?

As far as I can see, having multiple groups, whose interest isn't only in making money, or "maximising shareholder value" is a very very good thing for *everybody*. Bring on the competition I say. Innovation can't (shouldn't?) be bought or paid for, it's driven by need, and if everyone is able and allowed to innovate, we *all* benefit.

And the investing in the health and growth of non-commercial software? Pleeeeeeeeease.

He's grasping at straws :)

Re:Hold on Steve,

[Spoing]

1. 1. 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.

Well, I took that to mean 'unlike Microsoft -- a central body for Windows -- there is no one single place that you can go for Linux (with the exclusion of all other sources). The list of companies you mention support this assertion, though I actually like having multiple vendors. It keeps the others more honest.

Microsoft leaders must be deeply frustrated with attacking Linux and OSS. It's like having a large private island and fighting the ocean around it;

1. Pound on it all you like, there's always more water.
2. The water for the most part doesn't pay attention.
3. The water is busy erroding the coast line.

The only tactics that they have left are to;

1. Poison the water. (Statements like this are just one example of that attempt...IP focused lawsuits and fud are another. FUD is the stock and trade of MS in the past since it is so effective, so I doubt it will be dropped in the future.)
2. Give up some mountains or hills and fill in part of the ocean. (Declare victory while loosing in the process; cut licence fees, spread money around, hype what they have. This has happened over the last year.)
3. Allow the ocean to be an ocean, understand it, and live with what that means. (Has happend a little. This is like the "acceptance" stage of denial.)

There's a lot of water, though, and all of is drinkable if not tasty.

Re:Hold on Steve,

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the OP's point was that IBM might take offense at their support service being called "an illusion", what with it being a core part of their business and all.

Re:Hold on Steve,

[Xaleth Nuada]

Something that must be taken into consideration when looking at a supposed "center of gravity" for Linux is that some people want/need that monolithic support structure.

One simple example is the US Army. The next generation of military equipment is poised to run EVERYTHING with Linux. But one MAJOR concern is the lack of a 'center of gravity' (A term the military is using to describe Linux adoption issues. They're also using the term "good enough")

Food for thought. If the Linux community can show itself to be a reliable singularity then you can be assured that Linux will be used in a big way. Having major players like IBM and Redhat helps but there must be a solid front of developers behind them as well.

And that front must look to decades in the future. Linus, and all our other 'leaders', aren't going to be around forever. But systems the Army is putting in place could be used in the field for the next 50+ years.


Just something to think about...

Re:Hold on Steve,

[Slime-dogg]

The problem is that Linux does have a center of gravity in Linus and his maintainers. Sure, someone can fork the kernel, but the fork would be called "Linux."

Any patches you write need to go to the maintainers if you want it in a release. You can apply your own patch to your own kernel, but this doesn't affect the actual codebase of the kernel itself. These patches are looked over, then accepted or denied. It's not like you have the option of having your code directly injected into the main release's codebase without needing approval... unless you're Linus or one of the main decision makers.

Balmer also has issues with the whole "manageability, compatibility, and security" thing. Since when has MS willingly worked on software that was 100% compatible, and 100% to spec with an outside standard? Shit, even their implementation of HTML is non-standard. Security? That's a laugh. You don't even need to be a hacker or script kiddie to be able to infect everything on your network... you just have to be unwitting enough to preview an email message, or run IIS.

The last is manageability. I have issues with this, because MS has organized the heck out of every administration task, to the point that I don't know where anything is! When MS has things like ifconfig, lsmod/insmod/rmmod/depmod, /proc, /etc, then it'll be manageable. If I want to change a particular setting, all I need to do at home is surf through /etc and find the .conf file that specifies what I need changed. If I want to run multiple kernels, all I need to do is mount /boot and modify grub.conf. If I want to completely remove a browser from the system, and replace it with something else, I can. If I want to completely replace the desktop, I can. Heck, I can do all of that without rebooting too (except for the grub thing.)

Windows is like a bicycle, compared to the Harley that is *nix in the manageability department.

Re:Hold on Steve,

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't terribly familiar with the Dutch, are you?

Re:Hold on Steve,

[Spoing]

1. You aren't terribly familiar with the Dutch, are you?

Yep. Been in the Neitherlands many times and other Dutch speaking parts of Europe.

They don't attempt to drain the enitre Atlantic, just reclaim parts. Sounds like they are at #3 and do #2 only where it's reasonable.

Microsoft executives either think they can pave over the ocean or they are just attempting to carve out a piece -- like the Netherlands does -- and do not really think that they will have a chance to entirely wipe it out. If they aren't at that understanding yet, they will be eventually. (IMNSHO)

Re:Hold on Steve,

[16K Ram Pack]

In fact, many markets run without a central control. There's no-one out there running the "plumbers" market, setting price, terms, whatever. I can look in the yellow pages, ask friends, or even do it myself.

If my plumber dies or emigrates or quits, I can find another one. He can do the same stuff with the pipes and flanges and other plumbing stuff that I don't touch.

And guess what, THAT MARKET WORKS!!! Yeah, there are bad, dangerous and idiot plumbers, but there's also brilliant plumbers if you do your homework.

Re:Hold on Steve,

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Don't many (most?) alternative browsers pretend to be MSIE for compatibility reasons? This would skew Google's data a bit.

Actually...

[jd]

...it conjures up more memories of the Halloween documents, where internally Microsoft is agitated about Linux whilst keeping the appearance of calm.

Re:Actually...

[slickwillie]

Interesting juxtaposition.

From the article: "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."

Link at the bottom of the page: BREAKING NEWS: Microsoft *Was* Matchmaker Between BayStar & SCO

A great gag for Steve Ballmer

[phaetonic]

If someone booted his laptop with a Linux LiveCD and started the BSOD screen saver.

Competitive Challenge ?

[johnhennessy]

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?

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[darth_MALL]

Not trolling, but you beat free with lower TCO, a massive support framework, and 70% of the OS market share.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[Kenja]

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.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[FrYGuY101]

By adding value to the product beyond the price.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[ozric99]

How do you beat free?

By being better.

.. and I mean that in answer to your question, not in an attempt to praise Windows ;)

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[B'Trey]

There are more costs associated with running a business network that simply the cost of OS software. It's theoretically possible for MS to offer a more secure, more robust, easier to use product that has a lower TCO than free software.

OK, quite laughing. I said "theoretically." I don't think they have a prayer of converting this theoretical possibility into a reality, but it doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics. The studies which have claimed to show this have all proven to be seriously flawed. But that doesn't change the fact that thinking that Open Source is a better alternative simply because it's free-as-in-beer is missing a huge part of the picture. It ain't that simple.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[DaHat]

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!

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[CptNerd]

They can always bundle Office and their development environment with Windows. Of course, the Justice Department might whimper about that a little, but that's not a big problem.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[Kenja]

"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!"

Not just alright, but a right.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[the morgawr]

Marketing 101:

Price is only one factor in a customer's purchase decision. The final decision is based on total percieved value (in micro-econ you call this utility but don't analize where it comes from).

Microsoft just needs to increase the percieved value of their product relative to Linux based solutions. The real question is who in marketing messed up and didn't see Linux comming and work to make changes in the upcomming product offerings to avoid the errosion of percieved value (and hence the worth of the Microsoft brand) that Microsoft has experienced in recent years?

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[I confirm I'm not a]

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?

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[Kenja]

True, Expensive != Better as well. However, in the context of the question "How do you beat free?" that isn't an issue. You beat free by making a better product. While it is not a popular view, I think that this is what Microsoft is and has been doing. The question for most people is if the cost is worth the improvments over the free product. In many situations it is. However, as you pointed out, if I'm just building a web server then there is no reason to use Windows over Linux. Solaris on Sparc with iPlanet servers over Linux could be choice for me however.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[NineNine]

How do you beat free?

In case you've noticed, most people still don't want to use Linux because it's free. They're still beating the pants off of Linux in the desktop market. This is actually a case where you literally can't *give* Linux away. The cost is only one factor when people decide what software to use.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[AmericanInKiev]

Free = Scaleable massively.

If you want a business with serious growth potential and computers are a part of that - Free is a good thing.

The TCO of a single desktop may not be lower - but what about TCO * 10,000?

AIK

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[homer_ca]

"How do you beat free? Are Microsoft going to pay us to use Windows?"

I think one of Tuesday's stories might explain that. Turbolinux Licenses Windows Media 9. The Windows Media codecs for Linux will be available for download for $64. Free OS but $64 for the media player codecs?!?! I know you mplayer can play WMV with the Microsoft DLLs, but no commercial distributor will touch that with a 10 foot pole.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[XMyth]

Shouldn't you make the trolling a little less obvious?

Since when did believers in Open Source suddenly become equated with music pirates? Go back to your cave.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[tsetem]

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.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[Kenja]

"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."

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. 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?

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[MourningBlade]

"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.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[zulux]

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.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[DaHat]

Take a few minutes and read some comments in stories related to music/movie piracy, breaking contractually agreed to DRM and so on and you'll find far too many people thinking it is quite alright, these sadly are many of the same people I hear/see standing up and screaming every time someone says something unkind about Linux(F)/OSS.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[happyfrogcow]

Free != Better

You should have left your post at just that. Your analogy that follows fails.

The life decisions that some people make pretty much force them to own a car for their daily needs. You cannot go back and change some of those choices. Adequate shelter from the elements leading to health considerations often limits the ability to live in a park, not to mention local regulations regarding public health and sanitation.

Free does not inherantly make something better, but it does allow you to try it out and see if it is better suited for your needs. Hypothetically speaking, I can sure try walking 5 miles to and from the grocery store carrying enough food and other necessities for my familiy for a week. That would cut into my work day, and in inclimate weather be detrimental to my health.

Better is also a question of perspective. Is walking better than driving? Yes, in some ways. You'll get excercise and be in better shape. You'll cause less pollution. You'll save money. However, as i said in the previous paragraph, walking might not be better in your specific case.

This is all assuming your "free" was in terms of monetary cost. when, ever, has free as in freedom been less desirable than not having freedom. in that sense Free is better. This then is more of a philosophical debate than a question of logic.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[budgenator]

I sense a bit of astro-turfing here, most slashdotters and especialy Linux using /.ers are strongly supportive of copyrights. Quite frankly most of us wish there were a way to compensate artists for their hard work, unfortunatly the present sitsuation with the recording and distribution companies holding both the artists, and the end customers hostage, there isn't much we realy can do about it.

All of the music on my machine was licenced by the artist as freely-distributable.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[XMyth]

Are you saying merely breaking DRM scheme on media is the same thing as sharing 10 gigs of music on Kazaa?

It's pretty rare to see someone advocating pirating music or movies on /. but wielding your fair use rights by removing DRM is another issue alltogether.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[niittyniemi]

> The final decision is based on total percieved value (in
> micro-econ you call this utility but don't analize
> where it comes from)

Don't worry, I had no intention of shoving it up my arse.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[tsetem]

A car breaking down implies that it is *unusable* until you shell out $$$ to fix it. Not that I'm necessarily advocating Windows, but a BSOD-victimized computer can be rendered usable again in what, 1-2 minutes? And for free? The 'car breaking down' analogy doesn't work here. A closer analogy would be a car that likes to stall.

Perhaps, but I've had BSOD's wreck partitions, and the registry. Remember, BSOD's generally mean something bad happened in the kernel. If something bad happens at that low of a level, then you might need to repair. Oftentimes, yes it does come back on it's own. Sometimes it requires a reinstall.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[DaHat]

Fair use and DRM? That all depends. I believe you have forgotten a key point involved with both...

I don't know about you, but I own an iPod and have purchased songs from the iTMS for playback on it and my desktop. When I signed up for the service, I contractually agreed that I would not break/hack/etc the DRM system on the music. I also am a subscriber to Audible and agreed to the same thing.

A content provider does have the right within reason to designate how a viewer/listener/receiver may have access to material. Under most cases, the user is agreeing to such restrictions as part of using the system. Virtually all legally Dled music and movies online are protected in some way with DRM and their customers have agreed to accept such a system. In the case of a mandated FCC flag, things get quite hairy as the end user has not agreed to be bound by such a restriction.

The issue I believe that you and most /.ers fail to understand is to what extent fair use should and does exist. Just because I have access to the physical medium (file/cd/disk/etc) does not mean I have the right to do with it as I please. In the example before of iTunes and Audible, users of those services are contractually obligated NOT to crack their DRM systems. Furthermore, if I were to provide access to files I had purchased to someone else who would attempt to crack the DRM, I would again be in violation of the agreement and could even be actionable.

Thus, ALL iTMS files are ultimately bound by the iTMS service agreement, and anyone bypassing the DRM or helping to bypass the DRM by providing DRMed files, keys or other support is violating their service agreement and apple does have the right to attempt to prevent the cracking of their DRM when EVERY SINGLE legitimate user of it has agreed to be bound by it.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[XMyth]

I'm not a lawyer, are you? Many say fair use supercedes those arguments. I've seen many compelling arguments (I did and will continue to try to find the links to them and post them) saying there's no such thing in copyright law which allows for a "license to use". You either have rights to the copyrighted material or you don't....either way, this is getting horribly off-topic and away from your original post which I most had issues with. Specifically

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!

You're referring to piracy/stealing whatever. Not breaking DRM which is a whole different topic alltogether.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[XMyth]

Not "license to use"....it was something else. I'll find it and post the link.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[Kenja]

"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."

You where forced to get an Athlon 64? You poor person, I realy feel for you.

"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"

Read the terms of service, they can do no such thing. Also, many (including mine) copies of XP and Office have no such activation system. Microsoft did block people with pirated serial numbers from installing SP1. They did not break the existing installs. If your going to hate Microsoft, at least do it for ratinal and well thought out reasons.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[maximilln]

Usage agreements are just plain wrong. I'm not talking legally wrong because they're legally right. I'm talking just plain wrong.

If someone sells something to you it's yours. If they die tomorrow it's still yours. You can still use it, copy it, share it, give it away at will.

The only reason why usage agreements became popular is because the membership fee at the golf course kept going up.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[DaHat]

Many say fair use supercedes those arguments

Regardless of what people say, it doesn't change the law. The fact is that contract law is a founding principal of the United States and permeates virtually everything in this country.

Example: I write a book and sign an exclusive publishing contract with company A for worldwide distribution in all languages for the next 50 years.

A couple of weeks later, I go to publishing company B and authorize them to publish my book. Even if I signed a contract saying so with company B, they still have no right to publish my book, company A has the exclusive rights to publish it. Why? Because I gave it to them in a legally binding contract, and a future contract contradicting the first would be nullified by the first.

In such a case, I have no doubt that both company A and B would sue me, A for breach of contract and B for attempting to sell them something that I couldn't sell to them.

As for your argument that you either have right to copyrighted material or you don't, you're only half right. Copyright is ultimately about making copies. You either have the right to copy or not to copy, and the owner of the copyright has the sole right to dictate how you may copy it.

In the case of say... iTunes DRM... the RIAA, having sole say over the distribution of most of their music (due to contracts with their artists (ethical or not)), grants permission to Apple on the distribution and sale of music under certain terms. Next, Apple has a small amount of leeway in which it can say "you may burn only X copies of a playlist" and so on. And you as the user are granted limited copying rights to music which you download, rights which granted in very specific ways and which can be revoked at anytime.

Whether you like the terms or not, by signing up for the service and purchasing from it, you agree to be bound by the terms

Here are two examples of contract law trumping normal rights which we all have.

I have a signed non disclosure agreement with my employer which I contractually agreed not to discuss the internal workings of our products, etc. While I may have the right to free speech, I do not have the right to discuss certain aspects of my job, and if I did, my employer would be right in firing and possibly even suing me.

Also, my employer could come to me tomorrow with a non compete clause and require me to sign it. For the sake of argument, this contract could say that I agree not to work as a software engineer for any company involved in digital television systems for a period of 12 month after I leave here. Note: My employer has the right to fire me if I refused to sign such a contract if it is a condition of future/continued employment with them.
Now back to the example: I do have the right to work anywhere I want, however could be compelled to give up that right to continue where I am today. (This has been challenged in court several times and in most cases, the court finds for the employer).

As for the original point, if you contractually agree not to break a DRM system and in anyway support the breaking of such a system, you are in violation of the initial contract and can be held liable.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[XMyth]

I really haven't researched the topic of DRM and fair use enough to be able to debate it with you, so I'll concede on that point. Will you admit using Linux doesn't make you any more likely to be a music/movie pirate than if you've never heard of Linux?

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[tricops]

While this is pretty OT, sometimes it's an indicator of something even worse. Like the last time I started getting IRQ not equal to or less BSODs in my SIS integrated system driver. Went on a vacation after getting a few, thought nothing of it, came home to a fried power supply and a motherboard which smoked once the power supply was replaced. (It still worked, but the smoke was a little disconcerting so I went and found another since it was past warranty :-/....)

Of course, that wasn't the "car"'s fault. Well, I'd hope not. Maybe they have some sneaky code written to cycle/kill parts? Ha ha...

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[Tin Foil Hat]

So you are saying that there is something better than free beer? Man, what are you smoking?

Can I have some?

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[plugger]

Supplier: Please send us that brief again in Word 6 format, we can't read the document you sent us.

Client: What's wrong with you? Can't you read Word 2000 format?

Also, when MS stop releasing patches for WinME, could you honestly advise people to continue using it for credit card transactions?

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[16K Ram Pack]

It's the fact that the source code is open that makes it worthwhile.

If I was running my own company, downloaded Apache and found a bug, I'd fix it and return the fix back to the appropriate people.

OK, now I've given away some "intellectual property", maybe a couple of hours worth. But a) it's probably worthless "intellectual property" on it's own without the rest of Apache b) I can't compile it up without releasing the source code to my customers, so I may as well give it back as there's no "hiding the code from theives" protection. c) Some people might also test out my change and find any problems with it. d) I get my change into the next release, so don't have to patch it next time.

I probably in some ways get more back (testing) for my couple of hours than I give.

Re:Competitive Challenge ?

[16K Ram Pack]

Speaking of the "boot welded shut" (and a good reason for looking at Linux, I recently had an error related to a connection between a database server and IIS.

I searched through various articles on microsoft.com. The error message had a number of possibilities.

I had to go through various things, before getting to what the problem was. What annoyed me was this: if there's a dozen different reasons, how about a dozen different error codes, or more explanation on the error message.

I've had times when the error has relied on me hunting high and low in newsgroups. It really annoys me. Let's say I still couldn't find the reason. I could contact Microsoft, but what if they were to put up a "not interested". That would be completely stuck.

I was thinking. If I was running OSS, at worst, I could check out the source, maybe put some tracing in, or get someone in to do it for me. That's a kind of insurance - if the tools don't work, you can get someone to help you find out why, because you are not reliant on a sole supplier.

why is this surprising?

[quelrods]

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.

Re:why is this surprising?

[The Slashdolt]

Well, Mr. ballmer, I too work for a corporation and our 8 production servers all run linux because windows isn't up the task.

Wow, 8 servers. Now if you could just get your 500 workstations to switch from windows to linux, ballmer just might listen to you.....

Re:why is this surprising?

[quelrods]

Well a good portion of the company is on Macs. In any case they've made it clear they wanted to break into the server market and have many campaigns to migrate from unix to windows. They've dug in for the long haul and any loss of market share, even for servers is going to be upsetting to them. Two of the four people on my team have linux workstations and I use freebsd.

Re:why is this surprising?

[The Slashdolt]

That's a start, just remember that for MS its not only about servers. Their cash cow is the OS(in volume, ie. workstations via OEM's like Dell) and MS Office. I don't think you buy a lot of copies of office for your servers. In the end, to really hurt MS's bottom line you're going to have to reduce their workstation count, which will in turn reduce their MS Office count. Then loss leaders in other industries(such as the xbox) will really start to take their toll.

Re:why is this surprising?

[micromoog]

The workload of the 8 Linux servers was previously handled by 500 Windows servers.

Economics 101

[FortKnox]

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?

Re:Economics 101

[LurkerXXX]

But, they are only in the computer industry. I'm sure they had never heard of Linux. It's a big secret!
Shhhhhhhh!

Kneejerk and overreaction, but that happens anytime someone at MS sneezes, doesn't it?

Sadly, yes.

Re:Economics 101

[Plutor]

Not to nitpick, but this has little or nothing to do with economics. It's just a plain "common sense" management technique. That's not to say that keeping shareholders in the dark about what you think the true threats are to your business is the most effective business strategy, but it sure is par for the course in the world nowadays.

Re:Economics 101

[FortKnox]

"Business Practice" would have been a better term than Economics. But I think I got the idea across alright.
Just a bit sick /. thinking this is a big deal.

Re:Economics 101

[Hatta]

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.

I'm pretty sure it's called misdirection.

Re:Economics 101

[beholder77]

>> You really think that 50,000+ people at MS had no inkling of this "linux" thing??

We had some MS reps (sales guy and a developer support guy) visit our organization a few weeks ago, and I have to say, they do have a very sour view of Linux in general but also have a decent understanding of how it all works. I was very impressed at the level of general OSS knowlege the developer support guy had, but in all fairness he seemed to have gotten it from working with FreeBSD.

They seem to have a lot of respect for FreeBSD at Microsoft, and I can't blame them I'm a fanboy myself. It might be because of the license, or just because of the community (I'm guessing the license :)

I think my utopian view of the computer industry would be Apple user interface with MS developing bread and butter apps and middleware, with FreeBSD as the core OS services. Put that on Sun hardware and you have a very nice computer. But we'd need some zelots to sell this idea to the world, I wonder where we can find those... ;)

What we all really want to know is...

[JoeBaldwin]

What sort of dance did Steve do this year?

Re:What we all really want to know is...

[wthynot]

Probably a tap dance.

A question of support

[Gilesx]

"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?

Re:A question of support

[kfg]

Well no, not exactly. IBM actually provides support.

KFG

Re:A question of support

[Donny Smith]

>Ever tried getting support on an OEM copy of Windows? You can't.

Gezuz, what do you expect for 70 bucks? Buy SuSe Professional and it's the same thing. I don't know how much it costs to answer a support call (I guess about 10 bucks), but it's very reasonable not to get any phone and email support for OEM bundled software.

When I think of it, 99% of all problems belong to one of these categories:
a) h/w driver problem (contact your h/w maker)
b) config problem (read help files)
c) known Windows issue (wait for automatic update)
d) unique Windows issue (automatically submit crash report online)
e) software updates (runs automatically)
f) how-to (search microsoft.com, google.com or buy a book)

Unless I missed something major, it's evident that MS (and Linux vendors) shouldn't do any free personalized support for OEM versions of their software.

Re:A question of support

[binner1]

I read an article (source unknown, passed on from a co-worker) yesterday that ranked tech support from 7 major laptop manufacturers. The asked each company 3 questions (posed as regular users), each of which was answered by a different tech. IBM was ranked the worst in this case, as they basically said: "we don't do software support, call Microsoft."

As much as that's enough to get a poor tech support rating, I believe it's what all major companies should do. Concentrate on the hardware, and let MS support their own software. Maybe if MS dealt with more of the regular users of their software, certain things would get fixed faster.

It would be interesting to see the ratio of support calls to major companies broken down into hardware vs. software problems. My money says upwards of 80% of the calls are windows related (not always windows fault, but windows related). That's a huge amount of money for a company to spend, when in essence, their product is working fine.

Just my $0.02 CDN

-Ben

Re:A question of support

[Analogy Man]

I read the quote...

there is no 'center of gravity,'

a bit differently.

MS has a long history of killing off competition pulling from a bag of tricks...including buying the offending company.

Linux presents a rather different challenge. There is not some new niche innovative upstart to go stomp on. It is a decentralized, generally non-corporate entity.

My read is Steve is saying..."Until we leaders and strategists figure out how to defang this threat in the marketplace, get back to work and make sure our stuff works as well as it can." A solid leadership viewpoint really.

Re:A question of support

[iabervon]

Actually, IBM is responsible for a certain amount of writing Linux; they do the work of adding support for their hardware, and this includes some pretty core code, since they make machines that are really odd for the time and require some fundamental changes that then become more common (e.g., NUMA, which they did a lot of work on, and is now useful on multi-processor Opterons).

The lack of a central body is actually an advantage for both IBM and their customers, of course, because it means that no central body needs to be convinced to add support for the new hardware. If IBM wants to make a weird new thing, they can get Linux to run on it and they don't have to convince anybody else of anything in order to ship a machine that works.

Re:A question of support

[rsadelle]

You're forgetting the very first category: diagnosing the problem. That's where the average computer user needs the most help.

Re:A question of support

[Surazal]

For a typical tech support call center in the US, the estimated cost is anywhere between 20 dollars (the "wham bam, thank you ma'am" calls) and hundreds (or thousands) of dollars for issues that actually take research and manpower to solve.

Off-topic comment: places like India *are* cheaper in regards to total cost-per-call. It's not nearly as cheap as everyone makes it out to be though, since "hidden" costs like having to build a telephone network in a third-world country from scratch are sometimes comveniently left out of the PowerPoint presentation during the cost-analysis meetings. ;^)

Back on-topic again: I don't know why the "center of gravity" thing is so important to Steve Ballmer. Truth be told, Microsoft is no better at being a center for Windows than IBM is for Unix (including Linux).

Re:A question of support

[naelurec]

"That's a huge amount of money for a company to spend, when in essence, their product is working fine."

But their product is the entire deal -- hardware, operating system, apps, etc.. Sure, if you install another piece of hardware or software you wouldn't necessarily expect support, but the OEM should be supporting the software that is preinstalled.

If an OEM is unwilling to support what they sold you without explicity stating this, then they shouldn't be selling it.

Re:A question of support

[thepoch]

And when you actually call your PC manufacturer for a Windows support issue, they say that they only support the hardware, and not the software. It's an infinite loop. This isn't a first-hand experience. It's the experience of my business partner who used to work as a support manager for a big US computer manufacturer that isn't IBM. You can guess who.

Re:A question of support

[Donny Smith]

Okay, you're right I forgot the category.
But I'd also say systems manufacturer (Dell, HP, etc.) as the person/entitty who sold you the product should be the first line of support for diagnosing the issues.
All software OEM agreements (including Linux, BIOS code, software utils, etc.) put the burden of support on h/w manufacturer and that's logical, I think - I mean, you shouldn't call Red Hat with "I turn my PC on and nothing comes up on the screen" if it's uncertain if your monitor is properly connected and/or powered on.

Favorite Quote

[spellraiser]

This Ballmer quote sticks out in particular, and pretty much sums it all up:

Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux ...

Re:Favorite Quote

[ozric99]

At least he didn't stand up and chant:

badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger...

Re:Favorite Quote

[blamanj]

My favorite quote was this one: ...noncommercial software such as Linux and OpenOffice is seen as an interesting, 'good enough' or 'free' alternative.

Ironic, because it has always been Microsoft's strategy to get a piece of software on the market early, that is, when it's just "good enough," and worry about bug fixes, features, and ease of use two or three releases down the line.

Hoist by their own petard?

Re:Favorite Quote

[Hiro Antagonist]

Am I the only one who got a mental flash of a group of sunglass-and-suit wearing penguin tapping Ballmer on the shoulder?

Ballmer: "Linux."

Penguin: "Yes. Linux. Linux, Linux, Linux."

Penguin transforms Ballmer into an identical-looking Penguin.

Penguin: "Hmm...Linux, too."

Re:Favorite Quote

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

"noncommercial software"

What I find interesting is that Balmer refuses to say "Open Source software". I think those words have been banned from Redmond.

Re:Favorite Quote

[fizban]

That's the strategy of most software vendors, in fact "Release Early, Release Often," the mantra of most open source software, follows the same reasoning. As soon as it's good enough, release.

The only difference is that with open source software, problems are usually found and *solved* sooner than with closed source software, assuming a large user base.

Re:Favorite Quote

[Spoing]

1. What I find interesting is that Balmer refuses to say "Open Source software". I think those words have been banned from Redmond.

Like "bug" and "defect".

Re:Favorite Quote

[JoeBaldwin]

Actually, that would actually be funnier.

Damn, I HAVE to make that video. Just imagine.

"Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger DEVELOPER DEVELOPER"

Uh...what do you expect?

[deanj]

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?

Re:Uh...what do you expect?

[timeOday]

Simple, Microsoft's concern is a tribute to Linux. Publicizing this sort of thing bolsters the public image of Linux and denies Microsoft the advantage they seek by hiding their worries.

Why does all that matter? Simple reasons, like more of us getting to use our preferred OS at work, and less frustration getting hardware to work under Linux because of better OEM support. That's why popularity matters.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[jd]

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.

competition for Windows: win-win situation

[gevmage]

One of the great things about all of the Linux-based operating systems is that while they are viable competitors for M$, even if they don't eventually crush them, they're a reminder that there are alternatives.

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.

Re:competition for Windows: win-win situation

[Tony]

I do agree with most of what you said; but the reason Gates, et. al. were able to "dominate the Big Guy" was by moving into an expanding area. Small cheap computers were a new frontier, rapidly expanding into new areas. None of the "Big Guys" understood the potential of the PC; IBM itself could have easily dominated the scene by creating their own OS for the hardware they produced. Had they recognized the potential for the PC, they wouldn't have given Mrs. Gates favorite boy a contract for the OS.

Right now, there is very little new territory, and Microsoft refuses the make the same mistakes IBM made. They *almost* made a mistake with the internet; I was quite sure they had fucked up when Mr. Gates described the Internet as a passing fad, but a year later they did a complete turn-around (which prompted a second edition of his book that talked a bit more glowingly of the 'net).

The embedded market *might* be the next frontier, as smaller faster computers fill niches that people didn't even see before (sound familiar?), but I don't expect a clean fight.

There are two scenarios for Free software dominating the big guys. The first is by attrition; that is the route we are taking now. Slowly, Linux is gaining more market share. At this rate, in about 15 years, we'll have a decent market share.

The other is by catastrophe. Microsoft may fuck up so badly they are booted out of the desktop. Personally, I think it should have been done several years ago, what with the shoddy security that allows any desktop machine to transform into a spamming wonder simply by opening an email attachment.

Until the rest of the world agrees with me, though, I fear it's going to be the long. slow, dangerous route.

Sea Change?

[tb3]

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.

it sure is nice...

[xao gypsie]

...to know he has moved away from single word motivational speeches to developers....

what more is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:what more is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no one cares about any other aspect. Even when you promote Linux to your grandma you probably insert a mentioning of it somewhere that it's "free".

Windows-phobes constantly tell about locking in on an operating system, but you know what? If that were true, everyone would be locked in on Honeywell and DEC hardware/software, since they were dominant not so long ago. Both proprietary and closed-source.

In fact, there's little value in "free as in speech" for someone in corp or even an individual. Five years from now we might be all running Macs, or Lindows, or GoogleOS or whatever.

Your values are worthless, because historically they do not scale for a period beyond 2-3 years.

Re:what more is there to say?

[DaveAtFraud]

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.

Because MS can only compete against the "free as in beer" aspect of Linux. That's why you see all of the MS sposored studies that purport to show that Windows is cheaper than Linux. It keeps the argument focussed on the one aspect of the debate where MS can use they marekting war-chest to create the illusion that they are competitive.

The last thing MS wants to acknowledge is that the free as in speech aspect of open source is even an issue. They have no way to compete there because their business model is all about locking people into a closed source solution and then continuing to extort money from them for upgrades. Thus, they try to keep the debate focussed strictly on visible costs and only visible costs.

Re:what more is there to say?

[westlake]

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.

Microsoft's core market is middle-class, capitalist and pragmatic, deaf to ideologies and ideologues of any sort, but especially inclined to tune out the anarchic-libertarian-techno-geek.

Truthfully now, has the thought ever crossed your mind that you are getting too old to be drawn into a sophomoric beer and pizza fueled debate over some obscure threat to the purity of Debian and the GPL?

M$ bozo

Language like this becomes tiresome very quickly.

Re:Bugfixes?

[FrYGuY101]

I've run XP 2 years now, on two computers. Had the BSOD once, due to a bad driver. I'd say that's damn near fixed.

Re:Bugfixes?

[albhaf]

Dude, it will take a while before they can fix it. It's like AIDS, noone has found a cure, yet...

Looks like the message seeped through at last

[GillBates0]

Microsoft's Ballmer: "Linux Requires Our Concentrated Focus and Attention"

Exactly. I'm glad they got the message at last. It's about time they ditched Windows and started working full time on Linux.

Linux folks - take note!

[DR SoB]

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..

Re:Linux folks - take note!

[thepoch]

i have an issue with this... ease of use is very subjective. any admin that has learned enough about a system (be it windows or linux) will find it very easy to use. i find it easy to setup an internal dns server, others might not. does that make setting up a linux dns server difficult? of course not. it's just a matter of learning. besides, most people clamoring for linux ease-of-use are aiming for the desktop. the server is already easy for admins that actually know how to read howtos and manuals and documentation and know how to ask questions in mailing-lists.

Re:Linux folks - take note!

[DR SoB]

Well look at it this way, with most windows administration programs, and knowledge of the os, most techie's won't need to consult manuals or documentation to set it up. Take a DNS server, since you mentioned it, as long as you know how to set up your zone files, you can set up ms's DNS server pretty much by just poking around, I don't know if this is true for linux or not, maybe you could comment?

You're right though, I was mostly speaking from a desktop perspective...

Re:Linux folks - take note!

[dodobh]

Try this URL

This is how to design a scalable solution with Linux. And the code to do it.

Enjoy.

Re:Bugfixes?

[ozric99]

Sure. Instead of the dull, outdated, two-colour effect we now have, longhorn will include a selection of wonderful pastel shades incorporating the finest Laura Ashley designs for a more relaxed and tranquil "User-Interrupt"[tm] experience.

Killer Line

[RedShoeRider]

"We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."

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.

Re:Killer Line

[dfj225]

"Better security: This comes, what....2 weeks after their biggest montly rollout of security patches for every version of windows?!"

I know that Windows doesn't have a good history with security, but honestly I think lots of patches are a good thing because this means that for every patch that is one less way that my system can be compromised. If MS simply sat around and waited for working exploits in the wild, life could be very bad. However, having things patched now and in the future with SP 2, I think Windows will begin to be viewed as having tighter security.

Re:Killer Line

[imroy]

Better Value: Windows XP Full (home) edition: 264.99 at Staples.com. FreeBSD/Linux....0.00 Value? WTF?

Value != Cost

With Microsofts' profit margin on both Windows and Office being around 80%, the actual value of Windows is more like $53. When you compare how much software comes with a typical Linux distribution or *BSD, Linux and BSD should be valued at several times that amount. $200-$300 perhaps.

Re:Killer Line

[tfoudray]

Insightful? maybe. Although, like much of /., parent post is a tiny bit biased.

Think a bit differently:
Better Security: Better Encryption, more "security features"... This is not a statement about bug-free MS code, we all know that'll never happen anyway. :-)

Better Value: Value isn't always about money. It is a statement about a better product for your money. sure, that's not necessarily true of MS, but WTF might not be the best argument against value.

Better Opportunity: uhh... yep. you got me on that one. it's all about the money.

and... aren't the masses as dumb as he thinks? this memo is bologna anyway. The basic MS strategy is the same: make sure computers ship to Joe and Jane User with Windows, and they'll stay with it.... and can you blame them? Sure, everyone probably knows a geek or two, and we've all been through several thousand OS installs of various varieties, but most users quake with fear at the thought of having to install or reinstall an operating system.

*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[Eagle5596]

"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.

Re:*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[NineNine]

They DO offer better value. That's why they're one of the largest software comapanies in the world. That's why I buy their OS's. Nobody can come close to touching their value on the desktop.

Re:*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[ihavenonickers]

Hate to say it but the military may consider it unsecure but I work for the military and by the end of the year we are rolling out 12000+ desktops full of XP :) Security doesnt matter to anyone but those who know...the Goverment has sold their souls to Microsoft.

Re:*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[fitten]

why high performance computing centers which need reliability and good cost/benefit rations never use Windows.

Having worked in the HPC business for a while (as a developer and vendor of MPI libraries on about 20 different platforms) and having both Unix/Linux and Windows solutions for HPC (as well as a number of embedded systems), this was seldom the "real" reason we saw one chosen over the other. Costs derived from things like having to hire a bunch of new staff to support Windows if they got a Windows cluster when currently they have no Windows boxes in-house were some of the more "real" reasons.

Reasons to choose Unix/Linux over Windows in HPC:

- HPC centers are, and have been, historically Unix/Linux houses so the conclusions from this are pretty obvious - stick with what you know and already have support for.

- HPC people are familiar with Unix/Linux, have used them for years, already have the machines in place, and don't want to have to learn something new or try to figure it out.

- Unix/Linux houses have a built-in distrust/dislike for Windows for whatever reasons (bunches, some of which are simply FUD and some are real).

As far as development of HPC software, these were things I saw:

- Unix/Linux is built from the ground up as a time-sharing, multi-user system typically accessed from across a network. Tools like RSH, SSH, telnet, etc have been in the toolkit for ages and are a big part of clusters. To get Windows to do similar things isn't as easy and frequently you have to turn to third party tools and/or home-grown solutions to just the job startup issues. In many cases, job startup can be an issue just because of the nature of the Windows OS (but it certainly can be done and done well).

- As far as performance of Windows clusters vs. Linux clusters, it's six to one, half-dozen to the other. Compiler technology on the Windows boxes typically make good code. One of the main traps that folks fall into when porting Unix/Linux libraries/code onto Windows is that they use the POSIX compatibility layers to do things like sockets, instead of using higher performance native calls, then complain about the performance of their stuff. When we implemented our libraries using the native libraries on Windows, we saw good performance (same neighborhood as Linux, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but basically the same overall) on the same hardware (dual booting).

When it came down to it, even Unix/Linux clustering process startup using rsh/etc was junk and scaled horribly. In the end, we had to develop custom startups for Unix/Linux as well as for Windows for larger clusters.

In the end, though, Unix/Linux tends to be easier to use in those environments because of its history of being a time-sharing system (which derived the requirements to be easy to access over the network, to be able to switch between users' credentials easy, and the whole sharing of resources such as transparent graphics displays across a net using X) which still is the model in which the HPC centers run because it suits them well. This doesn't mean that Windows clusters aren't viable or desirable in some places or are even inefficient or slow, because they don't have to be any of those if you have people doing the right things to achieve the end goal.

Re:*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[NineNine]

No, I'm just sick and tired of all the "MS doesn't work" and "Linux is better because it's free" bullshit. Both of which are, by the way, bullshit.

Re:*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[Eagle5596]

Neither is bullshit. I've never payed for a single copy of Linux that I use because I had to. I purchase every major version number of my chosen distro to support a good thing, but even that I typically split between some family members for a net cost of around $10.

At work we use nothing but Linux, and guess what? It's free we payed nothing for it. If we wanted support, we'd pay for it, but it works so well that we've never had to. The most training I've ever had to give people is in software, not the OS, which usually involves about 15 minutes of teaching them LaTeX (our standard for documentation). Linux is so intuitive they pick it up immediately and flawlessly.

Linux has amazing stability and performance. Our typical machine here has been running for more than a year without a reboot, and our compute nodes have never gone down during a job, only during scheduled system upgrades.

On the other hand, most Windows users I know payed hundreds of dollars for their machines and constantly battle OS crashes in the middle of critical tasks. A friend of mine who works at a windows only business spends most of his time repairing damage to machines caused by crashes, and training people in maintaining windows and avoiding virii.

MS doesn't work compared to Linux, and Linux is free.

Re:*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[NineNine]

Well, if you want to compare, anecdotes, I run my *own* business, so every dime I spend is my own. Every risk I take could mean that I don't eat some time in the near future. All of our machines are Windows, and we don't have problems, period. I've tried to play with Linux, and all it does is burn up very valuable time. I'm sorry your friend has problems with Windows, but just because his company has problems with it, doesn't indicate that the product itself is defective.

Re:*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough*

[Akoma The Immortal]

And because yours doesnt have, does not mean that other are like you.

Learning is never a waist of time.

Still don't get it

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'm glad they don't get it. It means they are more likely to make strategic mistakes that could be their downfall.

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".

Re:Still don't get it

[lawpoop]

I'm certain that they get it. The thing is, they have to trash-talk it in front of their customers, their employees, and also to themselves.

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.

Re:Still don't get it

[pubjames]

They didn't get to be that way by accident.

Yes, Bill Gates is very clever. And he certainly "got it" at the beginning of the PC boom.

But that doesn't mean he is always right. Gates didn't forsee the importance of the internet. He dismissed it saying that Microsoft was working on equivalent technologies. He didn't "get" the Internet. I believe he doesn't get OSS either.

Re:Still don't get it

[Paulrothrock]

If you care about raking in cash, work for Microsoft.

If you care about making great software, work on an Open Source project.

And, no, I don't think they do get it. Jobs gets it, and so he's supporting open source as a way to cut his own dev costs for OS X. Gates and Ballmer don't get it because they can't see why anyone wouldn't sell software. Basically, they don't like Linux for the same reason my dad won't use Linux on his home machine; they don't understand it.

Re:Still don't get it

[Kpau]

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.

Re:Still don't get it

[MullerMn]

I know this is far too late in the discussion to get this modded up, but Bill Gates is no longer the world's richest man.

The founder of IKEA has overtaken him.

Re:Still don't get it

[GbrDead]

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.

There are various kinds of thinking. We, slashbots, hate the destructive ones. Please, forgive us for that!

Re:Still don't get it

[silicon not in the v]

I think perhaps he does "get it", but it wouldn't make sense to tell it like it is to his own employees, now would it? They might think it's a good idea and start to like it. He has to spread propaganda within his company that marginalizes OS software and makes it look weak, so that his people will "understand" that it's not the way to go.

Re:Still don't get it

[nathanh]

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.

I disagree. I think they entirely did get to be that way by accident. It's an Accidental Empire, in fact.

Look at it this way. PCs came out in the 70s. They were hobbyist things, built by amateurs in their basements and garages. The big computing companies treated PCs with contempt. They didn't see the money to be made. So 2-person coops like Apple managed to make millions while nobody was noticing. Even when Apple made their first "big" PC - the Apple II - it was a small organisation but it still raked in billions.

IBM notices that money is being made in PCs, so they want a piece of the action, but they're still not "getting it". They don't understand that PCs are more than a fad, or a thing for a home hobbyist. They think the real money is in the corporate world (and it is) but they think the corporate model will always be mainframes + dumb terminals. Where do PCs fit in? Maybe small businesses, but surely that's all.

So the IBM PC is a neglected project. It gets limited time, limited budget, lesser designers, inferior managers, and so on. IBM didn't even put the effort into the IBM-PC they'd put into tape drives like the 3490. The PC was still a joke to them. They weren't serious about it.

So because IBM's not all that serious they're looking around to license a third party PC OS. Something cheap, already written, because almost certainly it'll be discarded in a year's time, right? That's what happens with all the other PC OSs back then. PCs have a short life time. Back then a PC was like a console today; you used it for a year or two then you bought a completely new one with new software. And IBM doesn't have enough in-house experience to write anything as small and featureless as a PC OS. They identify the 800lb gorilla of the day, CP/M, and try to get a license for that. But due to NDAs and one spooked wife of a CEO, that falls through.

Up until now we're running on facts, but now we're forced to speculate a bit. The manager of the IBM-PC project whinges to his boss that they can't license a PC OS from anybody. He probably even asks for money to fund an in-house project to write their own IBM-PC OS. The IBM CEO is on the same charity committee as Bill Gates mum (he is from a fairly wealthy family to begin with). The conversation probably drifts around to kids and Bill Gates mum mentions something about her son and his fledgling PC software company. Bingo. The IBM CEO asks to get in contact with Bill and this is where things get interesting.

Bill sees an opportunity and although he doesn't have a PC OS he knows where to get one in a hurry. He tells IBM that he can deliver and IBM is desperate (they're behind schedule and they still haven't secured a third party OS). IBM still isn't treating this project very seriously though, so they don't try and secure ownership of the PC OS. They just license the OS from Microsoft. That's the mistake. That's the accident right there. That's where IBM turned Microsoft from a miniscule company (smaller than Apple) into the world's largest and richest software company.

For some unfathomable reason the IBM-PC is wildly successful. Probably a mixture of reasons. It was the right time; PCs were rapidly being adopted by small to medium businesses. It was the right price; not too cheap so as to say "I'm a toy" but not too expensive so as to push customers towards Apple. It had IBM's name on it and all the excellent aspects of purchasing from IBM; worldwide support, plenty of addons, plenty of upgrade opportunities.

Bill Gates was lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time, and had the right product (sort of). He was also lucky enough that the IBM-PC exploded in popularity and that IBM didn't foresee that happening and that the contract with IBM allowed Bill to continue selling MS-DOS. MS-DOS became th

Re:Still don't get it

[danila]

Especially since it's not true. It was a media blunder.

Re:Still don't get it

[drsmithy]

Up until now we're running on facts, but now we're forced to speculate a bit. The manager of the IBM-PC project whinges to his boss that they can't license a PC OS from anybody. He probably even asks for money to fund an in-house project to write their own IBM-PC OS. The IBM CEO is on the same charity committee as Bill Gates mum (he is from a fairly wealthy family to begin with). The conversation probably drifts around to kids and Bill Gates mum mentions something about her son and his fledgling PC software company. Bingo. The IBM CEO asks to get in contact with Bill and this is where things get interesting.

Or maybe IBM had heard of this Microsoft mob, given they were a well known software development company ?

It's been recounted time and time again that Microsoft were IBM's second choice after DR. Kildall blew it, and Microsoft were waiting, next in line.

Bill sees an opportunity and although he doesn't have a PC OS he knows where to get one in a hurry. He tells IBM that he can deliver and IBM is desperate (they're behind schedule and they still haven't secured a third party OS). IBM still isn't treating this project very seriously though, so they don't try and secure ownership of the PC OS. They just license the OS from Microsoft. That's the mistake. That's the accident right there. That's where IBM turned Microsoft from a miniscule company (smaller than Apple) into the world's largest and richest software company.

It's a mistake on behalf of *IBM*. It's excellent foresight and business acumen on behalf of Microsoft. Having an OS separate from the hardware wasn't exactly commonplace back then, like it is now.

For some unfathomable reason the IBM-PC is wildly successful.

One word. Visicalc.

Bill Gates was lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time, and had the right product (sort of).

Nearly. He was in the right place, at the right time and knew it. This is the difference between a good businessman and a lucky businessman.

When the clones came (years later) the market for MS-DOS exploded and IBM couldn't do anything about it.

And this is precisely why Gates' decision to only *license* the software was smart. He took a gamble that a) the PC market would explode and b) the model of commodity hardware combined with third party software would become dominant. While it might appear blindingly obvious now, it sure as hell wasn't back then.

That's why Bill Gates became the world's richest man (ignoring the Ikea guy). By accident.

No, he did it by seeing an opportunity and taking a measured risk. Textbook capitalism.

There's a vast difference between being rich purely because you're lucky (eg: Paris Hilton) or being rich because you were lucky *and smart* (eg: Steve Jobs).

Bill didn't get rich by accident. Lottery winners get rich by accident. Rich people's children are rich by accident. (Wildly) successful business[wo]men are rich because they're smart, recognise an opportunity when it arises *and take it*.

Microsoft was propelled by one lucky incident in 1980 and here they are, 25 years later, still enjoying the fruits of that single accident.

Bullshit. Microsoft Office would have carried Microsoft through most of the latter half of their life (and Word alone would have carried them through a significant chunk of the middle) even if they didn't have Windows. And that's ignoring other incredibly popular software like Visual Basic and Exchange.

Netscape got lucky once, were in the right place at the right time and then blew the opportunities that followed. You want an example of accidental, wild, unsustained success ? Netscape is an excellent one. Microsoft have been around three times as long and outside of the average /. reader's wet dreams, aren't showing any major signs of weakness.

Nothing to see here...

[fostware]

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.

"sentence after sentence"

[wunderhorn1]

...wow, a whole five of them!

Knowledge of Open Source new to MS employees?!

[necro2607]

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...

Re:Knowledge of Open Source new to MS employees?!

[Matt - Duke '05]

Or, maybe, just maybe, *gasp* some people who work at MS actually might _use_ linux!! It's like you think that the people who work at Microsoft are mindless zombies who know nothing else of the world around them. Do you really seriously think that people at Microsoft who are aware of Linux heard of it through their _families_?!? These people work in the industry, and as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, are also some really smart people. As odd as it might seem to someone on slashdot, it is indeed possible to use linux without being a flaming zealot who thinks that proprietary software is the work of satan himself. Linux has its place, just as Microsoft does. Many of the crowd here are too stuck to the belief that the two are wholly mutually exclusive. Take Miguel de Icaza, for example. As much as he us a huge proponent of Linux and OSS in general, he is able to give credit where credit is due and recognize some successes coming from Redmond. I'm fairly positive that there are people working there that are of the same mindset - although they aren't in the Linux camp, they respect it, perhaps to the point of even using it from time to time. The world isn't as black and white as Slashdot would have you believe...

Re:Knowledge of Open Source new to MS employees?!

[necro2607]

Actually, I was pointing out that MS employees *aren't* neccesarily "mindless zombies"... And yeah, it's thoroughly possible for them to hear about it through their families. It was just an example...

Re:what?

[Quobobo]

Yes, it shall be a mighty and terrible battle, where the blood of the innocent shall mingle with that of the combatants!


...wait, you're talking about Linux and Microsoft?

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[Hiro Antagonist]

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.

Microsoft's Linux strategy in three words or less

[titaniam]

Fear, uncertainty, doubt.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[kfg]

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?

Re:Bugfixes?

[Theresa1]

fix it? it's a feature!

Listen to his analysis and grow from it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Conjurer's correction...

[trickofperspective]

What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"

I think they actually call it "misdirection."

-Trick

MS approach

[maximilln]

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.

Re:MS approach

[SuiteSisterMary]

Actually, it looks like sound decision to have their 'systems management' app actually able to manage other systems. SMS 1, as I recall, had Mac and possibly OS/2 plugins.

If they use a Mac, tell them we use Linux

[VeeCee]

Damn, who cares about microsoft, I was just happy Linux was mentioned on The Chapelle Show.

Re:If they use a Mac, tell them we use Linux

[dcowart]

When was it mentioned? On the Internet ep.?

Re:If they use a Mac, tell them we use Linux

[Matt - Duke '05]

IIRC, it was the episode when he goes to Kinko's and tries to print stuff out. He brings in a disk and they ask him what OS it is formmated for. I think?

Sounds good!

[OwlWhacker]

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'.

Re:Bugfixes?

[Total_Wimp]

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

Re:Bugfixes?

[i_am_pi]

Like the Mac OS X kernel-panic screen available here?

Very nice. with lots of subdued greys and multiple languages detailing how to reboot.

Thanks for the association!

[sideshow]

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?

Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better*

[wookyhoo]

"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.

Re:Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better*

[Ciderx]

How anyone can get "Insightful" for saying OpenOffice is better than Office is beyond me...oh hang on, "http://slashdot.org/...", ah I see...

Re:Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better*

[Mr_Silver]

Sorry Steve, but that's now quite how it is. Linux and OpenOffice are seen as Stable, Secure, *Better* alternatives.

I am playing devils advocate here but why, in every press release of companies who migrate to Linux, do they only mention licencing costs?

I have never seen a press release from a company who has said "we moved to linux on the desktop because its better", normally its "we moved to linux on the desktop because of concerns about the pricing of Microsoft licences".

ps. Note to mods hovering over the -1: Definition of devils advocate is worth reading first.

Re:Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better*

[wookyhoo]

"I am playing devils advocate here but why, in every press release of companies who migrate to Linux, do they only mention licencing costs?"

Because that's a good, strong argument for moving over to Linux (I will pick on Linux in particular, because my previous comment was more aimed at the Operating System [kernel, whatever]) that a lot of the people that make the decisions, or read the press releases can actually *understand*.

Is an average shareholder, when reading a press release about a company migrating their computer systems away from Windows, really going to understand the idea of Linux being more secure/stable/better? I don't think so...yet.

Before the press releases move away from just pointing out the money side of things, we need more education in the general (and business) communities about what Linux actually is and does.

But, that is happening, and will come in time. :)

Re:Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better*

[s4m7]

I work in a small to medium Windows-centric office environment. I wouldn't go so far as to say OpenOffice is *BETTER* as a blanket statement. In fact, Office 2k3 has some pretty darn amazing features. But it is interesting that any time one of my co-workers has a problem with a corrupt Excel document, that the mere act of opening it in OpenOffice Spreadsheet, and saving it without modification will not only suddenly make the file work again about 90% of the time, but usually cuts the file size in half to boot!

FUD, even internally!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

"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.

Re:FUD, even internally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it an "illusion" of support?

Because when the shit hits the fan, IBM will point the finger at RedHat. RedHat will then point the finger at the student from Austria who wrote the device driver that blew up your filesystem.

Also, unlike proprietary OSes, IBM can't take feature requests. If you want Linux to do something it doesn't do, the answer is going to be "code it yourself".

Re:FUD, even internally!

[bludstone]

Because when the shit hits the fan, and your windows server goes down, taking your business with it, you can easily point the finger at MS and they will take care of everything, no problems. /sarcasm

Re:FUD, even internally!

[Kevin Stevens]

IBM has a legendary track record for its support. Its not cheap, but its there, and it SOLVES the problem. Their engineers know their stuff. I've never seen how other companies do support, but when we were having DB2 problems that our DBA's could'nt solve (and those guys are damn good too), we called them, and they had a guy onsite almost immediately, and the problem was fixed within two hours, it impressed the hell out of me. They don't point fingers, they fix the problem.

On the contrary, I bet IBM views feature requests on linux as much more lucrative than that for its proprietary products. I mean, proprietary stuff has to go through a release cycle, but with linux, they can use their consulting model, and charge by the feature. And remember, IBM wants linux to succeed so it can keep doing installs and support, so if a feature is deemed something that all of its customers will want, I bet they will develop the feature and release it. IBM didn't get to where it is now by telling customers to "go code it yourself." In fact, any consulting company would try to sell its services first.

Alot of people view IBM as a sort of has-been because its not gigantic in the PC world anymore. Personally, the way the PC world is going now, w/ dirt cheap commoditized pc's and intense competition everywhere, I think them getting out of the pc business was the best decision they ever made. A company like IBM behind Linux is quite honestly probably going to do more for linux than linus himself did.

Re:Bugfixes?

[i_am_pi]

Consider yourself lucky.

When the file system gets maimed up, or a system-required driver dies on bootup, and you hvae the "Automatically Reboot" option for BSODs enabled as per default, you can enter an endless loop of booting, kernel panicing, rebooting, panicing, etc.

I've once had to use the NT Password Editor disk in regedit mode to change the automatically reboot option by hand, and figure out wtf caused the machine to crash out.

in addition...

[Maxim Kovalenko]

...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.

Good Enough Irony...

[TiMac]

...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...

Consistency and innovation

[flying_mushroom]

"... 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.

Microsoft - running scared

[Progman3K]

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.

Re:Microsoft - running scared

[jrcamp]

First they buckle and develop MediaPlayer Codecs for Linux, and now this.

Umm, do what? If you're using WMP codecs under Linux they're the native .dll's from Windows. I'm not sure what you're smoking, but you should share.

Re:Microsoft - running scared

[Progman3K]

The fact they have a SOLUTION for Linux is what I'm talking about.

Maybe you should pass some of what you're smoking around too, we might have an even better time!

Re:what?

[saforrest]

Now, like so many insurgents in Fallujah, Linux advocates will face the full power and attention of the beast.

It's somewhat amusing that I read your comment just after reading, in my other browser tab, about how the Americans are evacuating Fallujah.

Re:what?

[selderrr]

Check the news : the marines just withdrew from Fallujah. So will microsoft. Beating down your enemy is only a working strategy if you can identify & isolate him. The open source movement isn't identifiable and even less easy to isolate. They'll spend a kabillion bucks on ammo to scare away the press. That'll be it.

Just as much as the US will one day bail out of the iraq conflict alltogether, so will MS retreat from the war with linux. The only question that remains is wether the US awaits an equally big fiasco at the homefront as MS. I certainly hope not !

Agreed

[JamesR2]

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.

Managment speak isn't worth the effort to utter it

[NullStream]

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.

Free PR

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What I'd like to see...

[Tin Foil Hat]

I'd love to see a complete copy of the internal memo. Anybody?

Re:Bugfixes?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what did cause it? Can I take a guess? One of your uses installed some dumb ass spyware and then decided to go on a deleting spree. I have never seen a seriously messed up machine that didn't come with some confession after hours of browbeating. These things don't happen on their own usually.

Typing on a W2K Thinkpad that is shutdown only on weekends and has never in 3 years gotten a single blue screen.

Security? Critical Area?!

[AwesomeJT]

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!

I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo?

[shuz]

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!

Re:I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo?

[maximilln]

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.

Re:I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo?

[shuz]

I am not quite sure how to respond to this? Personally I am fresh out of college and I am trying to find a job in Linux or Unix administration. Its hard because there are so many talented and qualified persons also looking. Because of this it is really hard for me to believe that A) Anyone in this position would use a MS config tool over a tried and true open source or traditional Unix tool. B) As any sys admin worth thier salt should be able to adapt and learn new strategies, it should be that if they were faced with a huge cost difference between a system configuration package then they may choose to learn or use a different strategy. There are already very costly config tools for both linux and Unix's that you can purchase with support from various companies. Finally C) I am 100% certain that Microsoft will keep this new "support" to MS windows(tm) side of things. I doubt they will or would be releasing many Linux or Unix's plugin's. If they did release software then they would charge a lot since it is new teritory for the company. I personally believe that it would be silly for microsoft to release a Linux native version of Office. Although a Linux friendly or native version of outlook could be handy but that would be asking for trouble since in the past the requirement of outlook was the only thing keeping my work desktop windows.

Re:I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo?

[maximilln]

-----
C) I am 100% certain that Microsoft will keep this new "support" to MS windows(tm) side of things
-----
I agree and it saddens me. If MS Windows incorporates Linux administration into their management interface then companies will have an argument against switching the controlling portions of their IT department to Linux.

The argument will be similar to,"Fine, let the users have their Linux. Let the servers have their Linux. We can still keep MS for the managers, admins, and HR, right?"

Two years from now the managers, admins, and HR reps will complain that the Linux management plugin has too many problems and it will be easy to justify pulling everyone back to MS. As long as MS remains entrenched in the hearts of the people calling the shots they can play Linux like the unwanted foster child: give them a "chance" but guarantee the failure.

Re:I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo?

[bobsledbob]

At first I thought you were making this up. But, then I searched for it.

However, this is quite the rediculous and even laughable strategy.

It made me giggle thinking that a MS product would be suceptible to the specification and API "chasing" that the open source community, who creates products for MS integration, does now (Samba, Mono, et al.).

I'm guessing there are plenty of kernel / distro / package hackers that would just have a field day with such a MS tool. I can hear them now, "it looks like they've figured out how to manage [foo] functionality. I guess it's time to make a change in CVS."

Anyway, given this, I doubt such a tool will ever come about.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[steveb964]

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.

Elephant

[Tony]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[jdvernon1976]

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

Re:Bugfixes?

[Stephen Williams]

monoculture of their monopoly (enough monos for you?).

Not quite -- you forgot the one that might help deal with the .NET mono{culture,poly} :-)

-Stephen

This isn't an internal memo

[nuggz]

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.

Re:Bugfixes?

[phoxix]

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

Development

[Vexware]

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.

Steve Ballmer does have a truly valid statement here, and does make a strong point besides. It is true that the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot fix, advance and innovate Linux both as slowly and as hideously as Microsoft can.

Re:Development

[welshwaterloo]

yah.. mod funny & have a chuckle.. Meanwhile, the majority of open source projects are *homages* to Microsoft's [& other vendors] software..

Not trolling, just think the point was missed there.

Re:Innovation?!

[AwesomeJT]

OSS Innovation = we actually write the code
Microsoft Innovation = we buy a company that already wrote it and then call it our own --OR-- we steal it outright.

Re:Bugfixes?

[the morgawr]

I had some problems with a bad driver in 2k.

Unfortunately it was a Microsoft provided one that was loaded durring install (and cause the installer to crash).

It worked out though; I swapped to linux and managed to break my computer game adiction :)

undefined

[b100dian]

News from an undefined company.
Maybe they'll have the time to fix this (the definition)

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[kfg]

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

Re:Bugfixes?

[Hiro Antagonist]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would Linux vendors focus on selling Win XP Plus?

Re:Bugfixes?

[digidave]

It's not all FUD. I've seen XP run stable and I've seen it crash several times per day in other situations. I've seen 2K run for almost a year with no downtime and I've also seen it page fault 130,000 times per second with tons of free RAM.

Windows still has massive stability flaws, but they aren't happening for very many people. Specific uses of their OS will cause problems.

It's hard to form a valid opinion unless you've dealth with Windows on a massive scale on servers and workstations doing many different tasks.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[XryanX]

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.

Re:Bugfixes?

[gunnk]

If it takes several hours of brow-beating to elicit a confession, maybe your users are simply confessing to make the torture stop.

Seriously, if this is how you support your clients you're causing more problems than you're fixing, and your clients are probably just living with a large number of problems you never see simply because they dread the thought of calling you. At this point you likely have NO CLUE what the real situation is among your workforce.

I can't say I blame you for posting as AC. That's shameful.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[kfg]

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

MS may "get it", actually

[swerk]

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.

Re:MS may "get it", actually

[Spoing]

1. 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.

Exactly. I get a grin, though, when the intentional FUD isn't swallowed whole -- and they are called on it by those who traditionally support Microsoft. It happens rarely, though I've had a couple die-hard MS fans speak reasonably about OSS over the last couple years. One, while still solidly in the MS camp, will recommend OSS (if not Linux specifically) when it is appropriate. 'To do otherwise would be unprofessional' is his attitude, and it's a good one.

Re:what?

[RoLi]

Why is it good that these Microsoft people are noticing Linux?

Because Microsoft will give Linux lots and lots of free advertisments like their "facts" website. If Microsoft tries to badmouth Linux, it can't be so bad, now can it?

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[XryanX]

Hmm, scratch that 'when' at the beginning of the statement.

Re:Bugfixes?

[rnealdavis]

You are lucky - I installed XP on an older machine and have been unable to get XP, any patch or service pack level, to run for even 12 hours without a BSOD. I'm sure if you by a new machine and install the latest drivers everything works fine, but in typical fashion, Microsoft cares not about older hardware and requires a hardware upgrade to use XP without a hitch (the web is repleat with reports of problems after people upgrade machines to XP from relatively stable machines running W2K). There are still bugs in windows that have been there since 95 - of particular note is a bug with modal windows and window hierarchies more than 2 layers deep - Windows has not been able to properly handle this when it has worked in X11 since at least R4.

the latest new thing

[hak1du]

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.

Re:the latest new thing

[naelurec]

The #1 problem I have with Microsoft is "Advancements" as well. The Windows foundation, IMHO, has always been nothing more than quicksand.. it seems like every so often, Microsoft needs to "bet the company" on a new paradigm because quite frankly, the old one simply didn't work. We have Xenix, DOS, Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.x, Win95-Me, WinNT and soon, Longhorn.. All significantly different from each other. In addition to that, you have different development tools, APIs and so forth that are "bigger and better".

Of course, Chris Pratley summed this up nicely when he said the following:

"Details like great design were not critical to most customers, so that didn't really make it into the products, except where it mattered to the customer. It's hard to fault this logic really - it is pure efficiency from a business perspective, and in the mid-90's, Microsoft could do nothing wrong.."

Pure efficiency eh? Reinventing the OS every few years based on the whims of management and customers? Pure efficiency is determining how to resolve the issue correctly the first time and creating a solid foundation on which to work. Sure it might take a little longer to develop, but it will definitely make everyone a lot more efficient when everything remains constant for years and years and years.

Re:the latest new thing

[Spoing]

1. 1. 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.

Yeah, I got a grin out of that too. One company I worked for in the late 80s/early 90s was told by a potential customer "give us your source code, or we will not buy 3,000 units of your software".

I thought it was outrageous at the time. The compromise was to have a seperate contract that said the customer would gain access to the source (held in 3rd party escrow) if the company I worked for went under. What surprised me was that the compromise was even considered by the chief developer and owner of the company.

Re:the latest new thing

[hak1du]

So you would rather that they are trying to market and sell Windows 95? I remember back trying to use that crap (along with Windows 3.1, 98, etc) and that was the reason I switched over to Linux (only temporarily, though).

No, I would rather I wasn't subject to the output of Gates's personal quest of discovery through the world of computer science and software engineering. People knew how to design better systems than Windows XP when Microsoft was founded and when Gates was still getting the bugs out of MS Basic.

I know Windows isn't perfect, but it is alot more stable and reliable than the old incarnations.

After two decades, and billions of dollars of development, it would be nearly impossible for it not to be. And with all that effort, Windows finally manages to be almost as good as UNIX, which, frankly, isn't exactly exciting in and of itself. By all rights, we should really have HAL by today, instead we get Clippy and pop-up ads.

Some people might not like the constant updates (not referring to patches), but alot of the time MS is putting in an update at the request of certain customers, and you can't fault them for putting in features that their customers require.

I don't know what you mean by "fault". It is bad engineering and it is anti-free market. But Microsoft can't help it--they can hardly break themselves up for the good of everybody else as long as the money keeps coming in; at fault is ultimately the anti-trust division, which lets the current state of affairs continue.

Re:the latest new thing

[The Bungi]

Your post is a perfect example of the deep misunderstanding of how Microsoft works and why they do the things you do. You are describing Unix, with its 40 year-old base being tacked on incessantly to provide more functionality. I.e., Linux kernel->X11->WM->KDE, etc. That is not the Windows "vision", regardless of whether or not that "vision" is the correct one. It is simply different.

Most of the criticisms leveled at Microsoft regarding the directions Windows has taken over the years come from people who expect all operating systems to be similar to Unix because they consider it the One True Way to work with a computer.

To Microsoft, Windows is a product they have long since commoditized. And their customers live with that fact quite happily. This may be hard to understand when you compile your own kernel every Tuesday, but most people couldn't care less how the locking primitives are designed or how good the TCP stack happens to be as long as they can check their mail and play Solitaire.

Echoes of the mainframe folks dissing Unix for being a "toy" always come to mind whenever I see posts like yours.

Re:the latest new thing

[naelurec]

I think I know exactly how Microsoft works -- whatever Microsoft thinks the customer will buy, the customer gets. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that I have a quote from a head of one of Microsoft's 2 large cash cows basically stating the same reinforces that belief.

Microsoft is purely a marketing company -- As a result, what they release is based on how profitable it will make them in the short term. Period. From a business perspective, this isn't terribly bad, however from a technology perspective, it is what it is -- a short sighted mess.

I don't quite understand your argument. I give Knoppix CDs to people all the time. They pop them in, in a minute, the desktop comes up fully loaded with a wide range of applications and they can be as productive or unproductive as they need to be. No need to compile a kernel, no need to look at millions of lines of code, heck, don't even have to sit around and watch software compile.

As far as being "tacked on" what is so wrong about that? It, for one thing, provides a modular system. Pull out one piece and replace it with a piece that provides compatible interfaces and you are able to keep on going.. Sure, this level of customization is not for everyone, but the fact that there is flexibility for those that want this flexibility is great.

As far as Unix being "the One True Way" -- I dunno .. perhaps it is. While I might be forgetting an OS, isn't every actively developed OS besides Windows based significantly on Unix in some way? BSD, Darwin, Mac OS X, Solaris, IRIX, OpenServer, Tru64, Linux, Minix, UnixWare, AIX, QNX, HP-UX, OS/390, etc..etc.. are all Unix based in some way. Gates saw the usefulness of Unix, had MS Xenix and used it as a primary development platform throughout the 80s and early 90s..

Re:the latest new thing

[Sunnan]

It's only been around since the 1960's.

But non-free software gained hegemony pretty quickly after the 1974 copyright changes. When RMS re-proposed free software in the early eighties he was laughed at, IIRC.

I'm very happy that free software is coming back, big time.

It had to happen

[random_rabbit]

Ob Doc Brown: "They've found me - I don't know how but they've found me. RUN FOR IT LINUS!

Re:Bugfixes?

[Foolhardy]

Integrating a freaking browser into the kernel ?

What are you talking about? Internet Explorer is implemented mostly in shell32.dll, mshtml.dll and browseui.dll. All of it runs in user mode, let alone not part of the kernel. The kernel is ntoskrnl.exe and mabye hal.dll. I'm not saying IE is perfect, I've used mozilla since MS abandoned IE development, but get your facts straight; complain about actual issues (SSL is one).

...we all know it screams of consumer abuse

We? Everyone who agrees with you?

Re:what?

[Locutus]

But who are they going to attack? It's not like they could attack IBM for OS/2 or Apple for the Mac. And even if they spend $40 billion to keep companies from switching, Linux and the GNU tools/apps/etc will not go away. Microsoft might be able to keep down the growth but they can't stop it. GNU/Linux is like running Bamboo, you have to remove all traces of it to stop it from spreading. They can't do this with the Linux and the GPL.

I must admit, I just loved this quote:
"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."

As if Microsoft knows how to compete in a fair and responsiable manner. There's no proof of that in the history of the company. And they will NEVER put their customers first because to them, protecting the Windows monopoly is FIRST. I also like how they will compete by 'showing' that their approach is better. Not making it better, but SHOWING it's better. If he said they were going to make sure their approach was better then I might believe they were ready to actually compete. But then again, Microsoft is a marketing company before it is a technology/solutions company. The retoric in this memo shows this.
IMHO.

Not much new here really. Microsoft has already validated GNU/Linux as a threat over 2 years ago when they publicly stated it's existence. :-)

LoB

Re:Bugfixes?

[FrYGuY101]

I'm typing this from a machine with an 850 Mhz processor, 256 MB of RAM, and a 104 day, 4 hour, 32 minute, an 27 second uptime.

If that's not stability on older hardware, I'd like to know what is.

Re:Bugfixes?

[(ana!)a]

Maybe they could at least change its color... It's been blue for way too long ! How about having a random color ? Nobody will be able to call it BSOD after that, they'll just have to call it SOD...

They know this will be seen.

[gosand]

There is no evil plot here, no more than any normal corporation.

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[painandgreed]

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.

Nothing unusual or sinister

[z_gringo]

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.

Re:Nothing unusual or sinister

[Knights who say 'INT]

The day Microsoft Excel for Linux comes up, I'm buying. No, really, I'm shelling $299 for it.

Spreadsheet software on Linux plain sucks. And that's the end of that.

Re:Nothing unusual or sinister

[bobsledbob]

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.

You actually had an intelligent post until this statement.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Microsoft only makes money because of its monopoly on the OS. They could (probably should) be giving away their office suite, which would likely make them even more money because of how entrenched they'd become.

In fact, I would wager to say that there will be a day in the not-too-distant future that Microsoft gives away its office suite. This is, afterall, their key loyalty market.

In order to successfully compete with "Free", MS must become more and more transparent about how they make money. For instance, the famous "Microsoft Tax" on new computers. Microsoft will have to make money without the general audience perceiving that they really are paying for MS when they purchase a computer, run some new fangled toy, etc.

Re:Nothing unusual or sinister

[drsmithy]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Microsoft only makes money because of its monopoly on the OS. They could (probably should) be giving away their office suite, which would likely make them even more money because of how entrenched they'd become.

In fact, I would wager to say that there will be a day in the not-too-distant future that Microsoft gives away its office suite. This is, afterall, their key loyalty market.

You have this completely arse-about-face.

Microsoft make money on Office because it became, and remains, the best office suite available. It's their cash cow. Windows is practically a commodity *now* and it will only become more so. Most people already perceive it as "free" because they get it included whenever they buy a computer. If Microsoft is going to start "giving away" anything, it will be (client side) Windows.

Microsoft recognise the most important market segment to be dominant in is the business one, where the OS is, at best, a means to an end. "It's all about the apps, stupid". As long as the bulk of critical business applications - Office and Exchange in particular - run on Windows, Microsoft are set. They'll start giving away Windows long before they'll start giving away the *real* earners (both short and long term) which are the business applications.

The Soviet Model

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Oh yes, the famous Soviet model that seduced so many intellectuals for so long. Centralized leadership with a 'beloved leader,' a command economy, ideas controlled and dictated from the top, enormous resources expended to achieve a result that is bloated, inefficient and bureaucratic. A free and democratic system that respects and trusts individuals will beat the Soviet model every time.

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/

Re:The Soviet Model

[jmoore33]

Oh yes, the famous Soviet model that seduced so many intellectuals for so long. Centralized leadership with a 'beloved leader,' a command economy, ideas controlled and dictated from the top, enormous resources expended to achieve a result that is bloated, inefficient and bureaucratic. A free and democratic system that respects and trusts individuals will beat the Soviet model every time.

Well, before you go too far, Linus is the beloved leader of Linux, and wields pretty central authority over kernel development. The success of FOSS has less to do with its distributed nature and more to do with its openness (anyone can improve, anyone can contribute). Most successful OSS projects have a centralized development core.

Re:The Soviet Model

[hawkfish]

Oh yes, the famous Soviet model that seduced so many intellectuals for so long. Centralized leadership with a 'beloved leader,' a command economy, ideas controlled and dictated from the top, enormous resources expended to achieve a result that is bloated, inefficient and bureaucratic. A free and democratic system that respects and trusts individuals will beat the Soviet model every time.

There is a great comment I saw once about how the average CEO has a degree of control that most communist dictators can only dream about. Internally, most corporations are quite "socialistic" because internal competition is wasteful (and affects the bottom line).

Scott Adams parodied this nicely a few years back when Dilbert's company adopted "Battling Business Units". The PHB even warned them: "Don't upset the janatorial BBU"!

The funniest line

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You have to admit...

[old man of the c]

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.

UCCHHMMMPHHHAAAAAA!!!

[w3weasel]

...and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first -- S.Balmer

BWAHHHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAAAAAAAAAA
*COUGH*
*SNORT*
*CHOKE*
AHAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....
oh man, I needed a good laugh today!
ahaaaa...mmmmmm

Re:Bugfixes?

[FrYGuY101]

That's a completely different can of worms. Cars are not operating systems. Operating systems are operating systems.

I've seen Linux crash dealing with a bad sound card before. Would you say Linux has a stability problem? I sure as hell wouldn't. So why does XP get a bad rep for being unstable when it crashes under the same circumstance?

Re:Bugfixes?

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Favorite Quote

[Khan]

"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?

Linux is not better because it's free

[Kurt Gray]

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.

Re:Linux is not better because it's free

[shaitand]

"The rule is "Faster, Cheaper, Better" always wins. Cheaper by itself is not the whole answer."

Well that's optimal I'll give you that, but generally cheaper is enough. The reason Microsoft has a monopoly is that IBM hardware was cheaper but it was certainly neither faster or better in any other fashion than Amiga and Apple solutions in the days the battle was fought.

The same goes for the software, the Microsoft OS being sold wasn't faster or better in any fashion than either Amiga Dos or MacOS.

This is the same reason why people claiming Microsoft legitimately earned their monopoly and was successful in buisness are full of it. Microsoft was taken for the ride by the cheap IBM compatible hardware which won the market.

Re:Linux is not better because it's free

[deadlinegrunt]

I am going to get modded and trolled to oblivion for this but oh well...

The thing they may seem to appear to be missing is not network admins find it easier to install, configure, manage, etc. The reason is IT mindshare amongst the actual competent IT people, as in IT developers, IT admins, IT users. It is a vastly superior platform for which to produce true innovative ideas and experimentation. Hell the "spirit" of the community promotes this at its core. It does not cater to the average joe of the world that has a job merely for the check they receive. So yeah, if someone knows how to whip up an Access database, analyze it in Excel and throw together VB code to meet the requirements of CEO's then they might just not ever "get it".

Linux may never dominate the masses. I don't think it will. If I am wrong or right what does it matter? Nothing. What does matter is that if you are one of the people I am describing you already made your choice anyway and in the end you will not care about markets, mindshare, or any other buzzword.

You only care about what is important to you.

Microsoft appears to miss the above statement in the eyes of the either party, it's a perspective thing, but that does not mean they are not getting it either. They seem to be doing what is important to them, like I just stated, but much better at convincing non-thinkers it is for their benefit. The biggest threat they have is misjudging how many people are educating themselves. The biggest advantage they have is ideas are a very fragile thing and a lot of people have a general tendency to dismiss ideas in favor of the status quo, so much so that they rather attack the person(s) delivering the ideas than to question if the norm is relevant like it once might have been and adapt to new frontiers. If you take my perspective at face value then Microsoft has a huge positive going for them more than a negative, but again, that is a perspective thing and depends heavily on context.

GNU/Linux nor Microsoft can change peoples mind, only a person who is open to new ideas can do that, and they do that for themselves. That sums up my /. ranting...

Re:Linux is not better because it's free

[krray]

And much like the 'ol Netware servers ... once I set up a box and get it running ... it just works. And works. And works. Typical deployment time for installation, email setup, web setup, DNS setup, Samba setup [they have got to HATE that one ;], and anything else the clients needs ... is an afternoons work.

Sure -- you have to keep them updated as needed. The remote "root" type exploits that come along, compared to Windows, is so minimal it's funny. Normal installations don't give end users shell access and unless one of the services being used is remotely exploitable the possibility of any (which is most found) local exploit is quickly mitigated.

No, Microsoft does not "get it" by a long shot.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[JPriest]

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.

Re:Bugfixes?

[Redlegsys]

I have used MS stuff for years, and 2K/XP have been incredibly stable. Particularly XP, I have not had a software problem with it - any problems have been hardware related. I have installed and am using Linux mostly out of a need to explore and learn new things, and secondarily because I was ticked off about having to "activate" windows after a motherboard upgrade. Linux and Linux apps are great packages, I have been quite impressed with the applications available, but they crash occasionally. Microsoft's problems are not really BSODs anymore, other stuff sure, but not that.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[UnknowingFool]

. . .an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.

I am not familiar with your crap conversion methods. Is there a website where I can see the conversion? www.crapcse.se perhaps?

Balmer is an asshat

[scarolan]

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.

Re:Bugfixes?

[Lumpy]

There are FOUR reasons I run MSFT at home on one of my machines...

Adobe Premiere
Adobe After Effects
Cool Edit
DVDLab

all four have no equlivaent in linux. Nothing NADA. there is no video editing app that exists for linux that is anything like or powerful as Premiere... and that is sad because Premiere is considered a toy on the Video editing Biz. After Effects... NOTHING AT ALL CoolEdit.. Sorry, I've tried the linux apps.. I tried really damn hard. Until these developers drop their affinity for every shiny lib out there it's pretty darn useless to someone that doesnt want a music/audio ONLY workstation. JACK and ALSA integration sucks giant brown bananas.

DVDLab. there is absolutely nothing under linux for DVD menu and ISO fabrication. no I dont want to spend 6 weeks hand writing text files, I want DVDLab alike or Scenarist alike tools.

Linux Video editing is crap and has been for 5 years. Cinerella stinks, MainActor is utter crap, and Kino is for little kids making a home movie. also without effects tools like After Effects or Boris Red you are STILL stuck with wintel or having to get a MAC and kiss flip off the entire intel world.

I guess that is my answer. Serious Art or Media work is to NOT be done on an intel based computer.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[Hentai]

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.

Re:Bugfixes?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

While MS has improved it is still plagued with annoying problems. Several examples:

1. VPN clients using RRAS do not use the VPN provided DNS server instead opting for the DNS server configured for the ethernet interface (even if the VPN configuration specifies other DNS servers). My research on this issue shows that this is a common problem that has existed for quite some time. NOTE - This is not about handing out the correct DNS server...ipconfig shows the correct DNS server listed for the VPN connection. It's just not used for some reason. Thus internal hosts cannot be access via name because the ISP's DNS servers are being queried and they are not aware of internal hosts. If anyone can help me solve this I'd be grateful.

2. Often when I'm moving files I am told that one or more files is in use (I know there not). I can copy them to the share and then delete them but cannot move them directly.

3. Recently my network cable came loose and Windows 2000 Professional would not obtain a new IP address from the DHCP server without a reboot. Yes, I performed the release/renew switches for ipconfig.

While Windows has improved it still has so many annoying little glitches.

Irony

[oldmacdonald]

The quote slashdot put at the bottom of the page while viewing this story:

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

Re:Bugfixes?

[Afty0r]

It took MSFT 6 months to fix that SSL bug ?

This is another example of why MS continues to dominate the scene. If MS take 6 months to fix an SSL bug, SO WHAT?
99.99% of their customers never even knew it existed, were never affected by it and will never hear of it.
But when they hear something that insigificant and petty being used as a "reason" to "switch" you can damn well be certain that they will close their ears a little to all future arguments to switch, regardless of their credibility.

Re:Bugfixes?

[FrYGuY101]

Well, it's close to the bottom limit of what XP's recommended for. Any less memory, or a significantly slower processor (600Mhz or less), and I'd go Win2k if I wanted to stick with Windows.

After reading a few posts...

[saynte]

And reading a volume of posts over the years, I do have a few questions:

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).

Re:After reading a few posts...

[Duhavid]

Will the childish attitude of about 50% of the posts on these subjects ever decrease
Probably not, and I agree that that is bad.

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).
As soon as MS abandons the bulk of the bad business habits that have earned it the bad reputation that it has.

I believe many people have to take a step back, and try to be more humble, rational individuals.
Very very true, on both sides of the fence. I would love to see MS become a more humble, rational company, for instance. More concerned with what is right and legal and good for the whole community, less concerned with what it can afford to get away with. I would love to see no "Microsoft is automatically bad" comments, but reasoned discourse.

Start realizing that Microsoft can be your best friend if they're given enough time.
Friendship is a two way street.

They have some of the most skilled software designers/engineers around, so they have HUGE HUGE potential
True, but no more or less than anyone else around.

Re:After reading a few posts...

[GbrDead]

It's certainly not useful to stereotype everything they do as bad, considering they're so successful (funny how often people utterly ignore that).

Well, the Third Reich was successful, too, but its success lead to the deaths of more than 50 mln. people...

Disclaimer: I don't mean to offend the Germans. As well as (most) of the Microsoft employees.

Re:After reading a few posts...

[Hassman]

I can't believe you just compared MS, to the Nazi Germany.

Re:Bugfixes?

[LEgregius]

I have a XP installation with all the updates and nothing really funning added on my Dell laptop. It has BSOD 3 times this week. Plus it almost always BSOD's when I wake it up from suspend. And no, there is nothing wrong with the hardware on my Dell. Even if it didn't it's still a confusing and quirky operating system. It's just not consistent to use. On linux I get a consistent shell that lets me get my work done. On my mac I get a consistent graphical UI that lets me get my work done quickly and well. I don't get either with windows. Their command line is awful and unsupported, and the gui is badly designed and quirky. So who cares if it never crashed again, it's still a bad product.

Ballmer underrates Windows

[Decaff]

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.

Re:Ballmer underrates Windows

[16K Ram Pack]

I had an argument with a guy about this.

He was talking about some new features of some MS product, and I said something to the effect of "and how long will it take you to learn it. Not just learn it, like read the manual, but learn it in terms of how to work with it in our environment, deal with the anomalies and quirks. And how long between that time and doing it again."

I don't think that these re-inventions deliver productivity gains, because by the time you've reached a mature productivity point, it starts again.

It's why in companies with COBOL on old mainframes, the productivity can be very high. Because people using the tech have 10+ years experience of the tools they are dealing with and how they work with them.

BFD

[X_Bones]

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?

Re:Bugfixes?

[quasimodal]

I've run XP 2 years now, on two computers. Had the BSOD once, due to a bad driver. I'd say that's damn near fixed.

Have you turned them on yet?

That's odd

[killmenow]

That's why I buy their OS's.

I always thought we bought them because it's more painful than a root canal to get a PC without one of their OS's. They locked up the OEM channel tight and play dirty trying to keep it that way.

read me

Re:That's odd

[Hatta]

OEM PCs are for suckers anyway.

Re:That's odd

[NineNine]

Nah, if I wanted to spend the time and brain cells, I could buy one of those Wal-Mart things, or get one from Dell, or better yet, build my own from the local 'puter shop. But it just ain't worth the headache to save ~$100.

Re:Bugfixes?

[hamsterboy]

And it's pretty. And it's easier to use. And it requires less knowledge for everyday use.

While cost is definitely an issue with the average consumer, security and trustworthiness aren't even secondary. The SSL bug you mention was never even noticed by 99.9% of users.

"Black & Decker makes the best toaster, therefore all other appliance companies are worthless!"

Hamster

Re:A question of support/bad memories

[plopez]

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....

I could not have said it better myself!

[oddpete]

the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can

so true...

You really think that 50,000+ people at MS had no

[dpilot]

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.

Umm...

[killmenow]

Mandrake is not bankrupt.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[Sqwubbsy]

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.

Cost doesn't figure into it?

[PCM2]

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.

Uh ... is this comment meant to be serious? So nobody is using MySQL instead of SQL Server because they don't have to pay for MySQL? Nobody is using GCC instead of Watcom C because they don't have to pay for GCC? Nobody is using JBoss instead of WebSphere because they don't have to pay for JBoss? Nobody, anywhere?

Pull the other one.

Re:Cost doesn't figure into it?

[16K Ram Pack]

MySQL is mostly, I would imagine a cost issue, but also a performance issue.

It doesn't have some features of bigger, more expensive databases, but I bet it also needs a lot less disc/memory to use it.

I've built databases using MySQL. Partly because it's a lot cheaper than Oracle/SQL Server, but also because it's all I needed. It had very low hits, data that was low risk.

Key Paragraph

[Trolling4Dollars]

"While the noncommercial model may lead to many flavors of software, getting broad, 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."

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.

Re:Key Paragraph

[Pop69]

I am an accountant you insensitive clod !!!!!

Re:Key Paragraph

[Sunnan]

1. My mom is in accounting.
2. I know some lawyers in the free software field (and know of others, Eben Moglen and Larry Lessig comes to mind).
3. I am a playwright. (I use a free program called plywood. I think I'm going to do some modification of it when I write my next play.)
4. I used to do journalist work for a magazine (but I have no formal education).
5. My summer roomie works at a library now.

Hey, it's GPL!

[mangu]

IBM & others will do it, but from then on you'll be running a custom version of Linux.

No, they can't do it. Read the licence agreement.

Just walked past a banking machine.

[crovira]

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.

A few clarifications on terms and philosophy.

[jbn-o]

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'.

"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.

Re:A few clarifications on terms and philosophy.

[plopez]

I beg to differ on the "Open Source"/Proprietary comment. I have worked under NDAs where we had access to the entire source code from a vendor. We were free to modify it even, with the understanding that they would not support the mod and if a patch was shipped it was our responsibility to see to it our code worked well with their code.

You can have Open Source software which is encumbered by proprietary licenses set by a vendor. You can have Open Sourced software not encumbered by the vendor/creator. Microsoft has CLOSED Source software (at least in the experince I just related), and that is the kiss of death.

Whether the software had been Open Sourced or Free in either case the situation would have been better. I think you may be splitting hairs on this one.

Re:A few clarifications on terms and philosophy.

[jbn-o]

What matters here is the terms of the license under which you or your organization had to operate. The same program would not simultaneously be licensed to you under a proprietary license (a license which limits modification or distribution or places such strong barriers to modification and distribution that you can't do it whenever you want and for whatever reason you want) and another license which qualified as being open source or free software. The same program might be licensed to you under different terms than that same program is licensed to others.

Microsoft's software, for example, is proprietary for most of their licensees while other licensees pay them enough to see and modify the source code. The license a typical Microsoft licensee gets is considerably more restrictive than someone willing to negotiate another license with Microsoft. Multiple licenses for the same programs exist, but only one applies to a particular licensee at once.

When did they start doing this...

[xski]

and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first
(emphasis mine)

-xski

M$ on meds?

[smatt-man]

Microsoft's Ballmer: "Linux Requires Our Concentrated Focus and Attention"

Does this mean M$ has ADD?

Re:Bugfixes?

[forevermore]

Funny. I would have just run MemTest from a floppy (or pxe boot at work) instead of wiping the whole OS. Then again, I have a dual boot machine and use linux 95% of the time, anyway.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[fitten]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[fitten]

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?

Micrtosoft IS the bad guy

[Decaff]

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.

Re:Micrtosoft IS the bad guy

[Sunnan]

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.

Or, rather, that they get that all too well...

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Mod parent down.

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Linux has no center of gravity - what about OSDL

[Nivag353]

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

Software freedom is not easily quantified.

[jbn-o]

[W]hy, in every press release of companies who migrate to Linux, do they only mention licencing costs?

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.

Freedom ==Better

[Avihson]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[chmilar]

[IBM] and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux.

Yeah, but IBM has also contributed. They added all of SCO's intellectual property into Linux! :-)

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[eschasi]

I've always preferred the 'metric sh*tload', which is ten percent more than an English sh*tload.

an illusion of support

[MikeySquid]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[XryanX]

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.

Inovation

[kasperd]

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?

Its not all about free, they dont get it.

[miffo.swe]

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.

Re:Its not all about free, they dont get it.

[surgeonsmate]

I think MS makes a big mistake...

I should make such mistakes and be as rich as Bill Gates!

-- Pete, working out where he didn't go wrong

Re:Bugfixes?

[Welsh Dwarf]

The point is that Windows is not Unix, unix has a layered kernel, windows has a micro kernel, which means that damn near everything runs in user mode (disk access, the lot) and you have different 'levels' of dlls, so in this sense, IE could well be running in what we call the 'kernel'...

Re:Bugfixes?

[SatanicPuppy]

Actually I did try it. I got inconsistent results.

The windows BSOD errors kept saying there was a fault with my harddrive. I sent so far as to replace cabling, and switch out drives.

I googled every error message, and those were so all over the place, at one point I thought there was a driver issue with my graphics card. It was ridiculous.

Re:Bugfixes?

[NuclearDog]

233 Mhz Pentium II, 96 MB Ram, last I checked was somewhere around 400 days of uptime.

THAT is stability. That would be my web server :)

One Sentence ?

[manastungare]

"Mostly Harmless" ?

Re:Bugfixes?

[NuclearDog]

"Well, I tell ya, I had this one problem that eventually got narrowed down to a bad DIMM, which was nearly impossible to isolate..."

Amen.

I had a bad DIMM in my system, so it would only crash if I loaded something up that used lots of memory (like a game or something). It drove me nuts trying to fix it.

One day I just woke up in a daze, walked to me computer, pulled it out, and started my computer up, worked fine. Guess it works to 'sleep on it'.

Anyway, I wish I had tried installing linux on it around then. Would have saved me TONS of time.

That's funny what Balmer try to make us believe

[BokLM]

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 ?

Re:Bugfixes?

[FrYGuY101]

Out of curiousity: BSD?

Re:Bugfixes?

[member57]

Wrong answer... You are right Premiere and the others you are using are considered toys, so is M$ windoze... Serious people do use Linux, but they write their own programs to do it. Example #1, Pixar, they use Linux clusters with custom software. So therefore, you wrong, but also right M$ windoze is a toy OS, period, end of story...

Re:Bugfixes?

[HermanZA]

Huh? So Pixar doesn't do serious video work on Linux?

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[ForThePeople]

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'?

Re:Innovation?!

[cranos]

Umm I think you'll find that Bill didn't actually write most of the original DOS. He got a copy of QDOS and modified it a bit then licensed it to IBM, thus establishing a pattern that MS has followed down the years.

Microsoft has never innovated in the Technological sense, they have always run with the pack letting the leaders do the innovation and research and then using their massive marketing muscle to make the average joe think they came up with the idea in the first place.

Remember this is the company who thought the Internet was going to fizzle out and when it didn't tried to introduce their own version.

Which is total BS (slightly offtopic)

[cr0sh]

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

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...

So What?

[tacocat]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[edrain]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[edrain]

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.

It is a sin

[Peaker]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[antic]

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!

Microsoft Stategy

[R. M. Stallman]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[kfg]

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

Re:Bugfixes?

[einhverfr]

there is no video editing app that exists for linux that is anything like or powerful as Premiere... and that is sad because Premiere is considered a toy on the Video editing Biz.

Actually, given the tools that Hollywood runs on Linux, I would say that the tools are far more powerful in Linux. However, what you are saying is that there is no Premier workalike that meets your needs. Fair enough. But it is not the same thing.

Of course for this work, perhaps you would do best to use OS X. That way you can run the industrial strength *nix editing tools along with the nice easier to use tools such as Premier.

Licensing friction a big part of TCO

[JimmytheGeek]

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.

this is bullshit

[CAIMLAS]

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!"

goof

[JimmytheGeek]

should read, "...that we could NOT buy without a windows license)"

Re:Bugfixes?

[Foolhardy]

Microsoft calls NT a microkernel, but it's not. It is closer to a layered client/server model. Also, the kernel proper is different than kernel mode. If anything, NT has too many things running kernel mode. Since NT4, most of win32 runs in kernel mode (win32k.sys).
Disk access running in user mode? Let's say you open a text file with notepad. Notepad calls CreateFile from win32 in kernel32.dll, in user mode. Win32 translates CreateFile into the native function NtCreateFile (ntdll.dll). All NtCreateFile does in user mode is load that function ID into a CPU register and raise a software interrupt. After that, everything is in kernel mode. Software interrupts for system calls are handled by KiSystemService (in ntoskrnl.exe). The corresponding entry for NtCreateFile in KiSystemServiceTable translates to ZwCreateFile. After that, the filesystem driver takes over.(Same thing with reading/writing).
Overall, applications are on top, then win32 (or some other subsystem), then the native api (ntdll), then in kernel mode the minidrivers, executive services, low level drivers, the kernel itself, and the HAL at the bottom.

See http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/ntdll.shtml for more information. (and the whole website)

You think 50,000+ people at MS had no inkling

[Buddy Bradley]

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[gujo-odori]

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.

Re:A question of support/bad memories

[16K Ram Pack]

I agree.

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.

Re:Why geniuses act "that way"...

[Bush Pig]

Oh dear god, not another closet libertarian who thinks "The Fountainhead" was the greatest book ever written and Ayn Rand was an insightful philosopher - it's a steaming pile of crap, as is "Atlas Shrugged". I read them both years ago, on the priciple of "know the enemy".

Re:Microsoft's Linux strategy in three words or le

[master_twig]

I was thinking more along the lines of "Shock and Awe"

Good Enough

[16K Ram Pack]

"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."

'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.

Not always true. Tivo?

[Barlo_Mung_42]

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?

Atlas Shrugged

[Barlo_Mung_42]

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.

Re:Bugfixes?

[petecarlson]

Out of curiousity: BSD?

nucleardog.com (his webserver?) was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 30-Apr-2004 05:34:21 GMT

nmap says: Remote operating system guess: Linux Kernel 2.4.0 - 2.5.20
Uptime 4.147 days (since Sun Apr 25 23:11:22 2004)

Perhaps he has another web server. Not that uptime is the best measure of stability. I rebooted my gateway and my authentication server the other day after installing new software and patches. Just wanted to make sure they still liked to play together after a reboot.No one but me was logged on at five thirty in the morning anyway.
One of mine says:
Remote operating system guess: Linux Kernel 2.4.0 - 2.5.20
Uptime 2.883 days (since Tue Apr 27 05:42:46 2004)

I've had windows boxes up longer then that.

Linux is not developed by hobbyists

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

While it is probably true that most Linux developers are either hoobyists or do their Linux work as a "side-effect" of their real job, most Linux code is developed by people who are paid to do that, as their primary job. Basically, you can write a lot more code if it is your primary job. You can convince yourself that is true by looking at the maintainers and main contributors major components of the kernel, and notice who they work for. It is companies like Red Hat, SUSE and IBM, who have a strategic interst in a great kernel.

And no, obviously these people do not starve. The original posters comment were way off base.

Planned economy vs. market economy

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

Answer: As long as you keep coming here!

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

What is ridiculous isn't /.'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.

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.

Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate

[zero_offset]

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.

Re:Innovation?!

[drsmithy]

Umm I think you'll find that Bill didn't actually write most of the original DOS. He got a copy of QDOS and modified it a bit then licensed it to IBM, thus establishing a pattern that MS has followed down the years.

And some other products they have done this with would be...what ? IE 1.0 and maybe 2.0 ?

Microsoft has never innovated in the Technological sense, they have always run with the pack letting the leaders do the innovation and research and then using their massive marketing muscle to make the average joe think they came up with the idea in the first place.

When have Microsoft ever claimed to have come up with an idea first that they didn't ?

Remember this is the company who thought the Internet was going to fizzle out and when it didn't tried to introduce their own version.

Ah, how quickly people forget. MSN was made to compete with Compuserve and AOL, not the (practically non existant at the time) WWW. Back then, when the Internet was still largely an academic network barely crawling away from tools like gopher and archie. It *wasn't* considered particularly suitable for the typical joe sixpack, and with good reason.

No-one expected "the Internet" to "fizzle out", they just didn't think it would turn into the Flash-driven, advertising laden, pornucopia it is today. Given it was largely run and inhabited by the type of people who think lynx provides all the viewing technology one could ever need and that commandline FTP was an excellent way to exchange files, that's hardly surprising.

Solar Oven

[guybarr]

Can you point me to the design ?

Re:Why geniuses act "that way"...

[zero_offset]

"Normals", not having imagination or vision, aspire to the highest goals that they can see within their inborn limitations

P.S. I feel qualified to speak for geniuses solely because people ostracize me for being one.

Or maybe they're just tired of your shitty opinion of them, or are tired of hearing about what a genius you are. I've been ranked genius IQ my whole life, yet I have a huge number of friends. I don't get ostracized. I never got beaten up in school. I've had no more than the normal share of ups and downs with women.

Here's a clue: a genius is exceptional. The specific meaning of that word is critical. Assuming you actually are one, it doesn't mean you have something others lack, which is what you appear to believe. It isn't a unique capability, it's enhanced capability. You are a lot more like those "normals" (possibly one of the more rude characterizations I've seen in a long time, by the way) than you're willing to admit.

The point you have to realize is: nobody cares. The minute you stop getting hung up on being a genius, and a lot of what you posted suggests you are -- people will start treating you normally. And you clearly DO want people to treat you normally, otherwise you wouldn't have concluded your post by pouting about being ostracized.

Re:Bugfixes?

[AbRASiON]

hey hey whoah...... can someone answer this guy's question number 1 ASAP?

I've got this problem at work and need some answers on it -

sorry to beg or something but i was kind of hoping this was my support provider's problem (HP) not an MS issue.

interesting - i was considering a hosts file too.

- Scott

Heck, building your own telephone network...

[freeBill]

...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.

Re:Bugfixes?

[spruce]

Actually, I'm not 100% percent on this, but I believe at Tech-Ed last year I heard a guy talking about doing some HTML parsing in the Kernel itself, for speed purposes. I don't know if they were talking about Win2k3, Longhorn, but I think it was for IIS. I remember how he talked about how careful they had to be because it was, or was going to be in the Kernel.

Take with grain of salt, too long ago for my memory.

Re:How to tell a real genius from a poser...

[zero_offset]

Define "accomplish". Work? I head up software development that affects the day-to-day work of 25,000 of my company's 65,000 employees. Leading a satisfying life? I have a great wife, we party a lot, I take European vacations whenever I can make the time, and I can generally do whatever I feel like doing. Material goods? I own a race car. I own two other cars, a truck, two motorcycles, a boat, a half-million dollar house, and several acres of land. Plain old coding? In my spare time I write D3D and OGL screen savers for the amusement of my wife. At work I'm currently involved in a system that directly processes $8 billion in transactions monthly.

All of which is beside the point.

What do you accomplish that's so much more valuable than everyone around you? I can honestly say I've never met someone who would mistreat another person simply because they "accomplish" things.

And why the sudden switch to AC, if you are indeed the same person?

Re:Bugfixes?

[Foolhardy]

Yeah, IIS 6 (WS2003) has a kernel-mode cache component for web pages (http.sys). It's not optional. This article mentions it.

It seems to me that some other high-performance web servers have an optional kernel-mode cache component too.

Re:Definition of "accomplishment"

[zero_offset]

I blow the state-of-the-art away.

I'd love to see what you think makes you so amazing. At this point you just sound boorishly pompous. Probably it'll go away when you get older.

And I stick by my statement -- I can't think of anyone who feels "implicitly insulted" by the accomplishments of another person, no matter how amazing. Based on this recent post, I'd bet everything I have that they simply grow tired of you, as a person, and it's totally unrelated to your accomplishments (except perhaps in the sense that your behavior is tied to the value you associate with them, whatever they are).

Sorry for the AC confusion -- I don't normally respond to AC's so I simply assumed you must have posted under a username originally. I suppose that also raises the question, if you someday achieve all this wonderful recognition you feel you deserve, how am I supposed to know it's actually you once you present your evidence? Not that I expect it will actually happen, but the question does occur to me.

Re:Bugfixes?

[NuclearDog]

Redhat 9.0. I've never actually tried BSD.

Is it a lot diffirent from Linux? If it is, how hard is it to learn the BSD commands knowing Linux well.

I was actually looking into installing BSD on a diffirent box a couple of days ago.

Re:Bugfixes?

[FrYGuY101]

In my experience, it's not much different...

Friends of mine who only use Unix-based OSes swear by BSD, and in my (Regretfully limited) experience, BSD is darn nice.

It was a series of accidents, dumb luck, marketing

[Orion Blastar]

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.