Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Strategy Memos
jg21 writes "So Linux made it onto Steve Ballmer's radar screen at last? No mention last year, in his annual strategy memo, but this year there's sentence after sentence - summarized at LinuxWorld this morning - which means, I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company! Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"
I mean, seriously, who gives a f***? It's pretty obvious Microsoft is in the business of OS and office suites, and it's pretty obvious they analyze threats to their strategic lines all the time. Some companies have the whole competitive intelligence departments dedicated to that.
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments. They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux. While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, investing in the health and growth of noncommercial software or innovating in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security."
I suspect that Novell, Red Hat and IBM have a strenuous argument against this bit of cheerleading.
...it conjures up more memories of the Halloween documents, where internally Microsoft is agitated about Linux whilst keeping the appearance of calm.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If someone booted his laptop with a Linux LiveCD and started the BSOD screen saver.
Microsoft, just like other corporations, always provide information internally they don't want seen publically. There is no evil plot here, no more than any normal corporation. Though, if you read the memo it would appear he wants everyone there to laugh at linux and open source as a nonviable piece of junk. Well, Mr. ballmer, I too work for a corporation and our 8 production servers all run linux because windows isn't up the task.
:(){
First of all:
which means, I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company!
You really think that 50,000+ people at MS had no inkling of this "linux" thing??
Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"
Its called economics. He makes a memo to the public, its going to be about good stuff and non-aggressive. This isn't surprising for any company. You don't release public memos that state "Linux is our competition and this is how WE WILL CRUSH THEM!" No, they'll talk about the good things going about and such.
Kneejerk and overreaction, but that happens anytime someone at MS sneezes, doesn't it?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
What sort of dance did Steve do this year?
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
"IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, ......"
I find this fascinating. Ever tried getting support on an OEM copy of Windows? You can't. You have to call your PC Manufacturer - you're essentially calling the body responsible for reselling the product rather than the body responsible for writing it. Isn't this exactly the same as IBM?
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
This Ballmer quote sticks out in particular, and pretty much sums it all up:
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux ...
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Uhhh, to Microsoft it makes a BIG difference. Mindshare is everything. Marketshare is merely the side-effect. If you have mindshare, everything - money included - will follow. IBM having mindshare, Linux having mindshare - these are BAD NEWS to any Microsoft director.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think that one of the reasons that Windows XP is, quite frankly, vastly better than previous Windows incarnations is that Microsoft knew that someone was gunning for them. Remember--Bill Gates knows the power of the position of the underdog. He knows that young and hungry people can dominate the Big Guy. He did it himself.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
Damn! And you thought when they refocused on the internet it was serious!
This time they'll have to change everything about how they do business.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
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.
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.
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
Exactly. I'm glad they got the message at last. It's about time they ditched Windows and started working full time on Linux.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Linux should take a page from microsoft on this one. They keep repeating over and over, they want ease of use! Everyone in the Linux community has been repeating that very same message!
Take from this article what you will, but be aware that if you try and provide many of the same services that microsoft is providing people won't have the arguement "but I need it to do this", and so, I must say, it should be fairly easy to set up a "central management Linux server" that can manage applications across a multitude of linux servers (That should be a key point in open-source!).
Just my own views.. Now please proceed to start bashing microsoft again..
Mod +5 Drunk
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.
Better security: This comes, what....2 weeks after their biggest montly rollout of security patches for every version of windows?!
Better Value: Windows XP Full (home) edition: 264.99 at Staples.com. FreeBSD/Linux....0.00 Value? WTF?
Better Opportunity: A better opportunity indeed! For them to make more money, of course.
Someone ought to tell Balmer that the masses may be asses, but we're not quite as dumb as he thinks. That goes for him employees as well. 50 percent believe the lies; 50 percent know it's all bullshit.
Chris Knight is my hero.
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Because we all know Microsoft is well known and praised for their record of competeing in fair and responsible manners. Not to mention offering better value, security and opportunity.
There is a reason that they military considers XP "compromised the moment it leaves the box", and why high performance computing centers which need reliability and good cost/benefit rations never use Windows.
Not trolling, but you beat free with lower TCO, a massive support framework, and 70% of the OS market share.
When I read these kind of pronouncements from Bill and Steve, what strikes me is how much they still don't seem to "get it".
They talk about "free software" as is it was equivalent to, say, shareware. What they don't seem to understand is that the cost of it has nothing to do with its success, nor is it the principal reason it is a threat to Microsoft.
Personally I'm glad they don't get it. It means they are more likely to make strategic mistakes that could be their downfall.
Seriously... Microsoft (and many big businesses) have a calm public face and a real internal "mission".
The only time the two meet is if it suits the Suits.
Rack up another halloween document, and lets worry about the more important task of getting Linux onto desktops and into homes.
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
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?
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments.
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM. We're talking come-to-your-business, customize-the-software, keep-you-running support, not 90-days-after-its-installed support that comes by default with a Microsoft solution. Sure, you can add MS support on top of things, but a shop with full MS kit and an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.
They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux.
Why do you think I'm an IBM shareholder?
While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
First off, most Linux developers don't code to make money, at least not off of linux; hell, Linus Torvalds was, up until recently, an embedded systems engineer. Linux and its applications are, by and large, hobbies for the developers; but, on the flip side, can you show me a *major* open-source software project where the core development team is all desperately looking for work? Being able to put 'Lead developer, OpenOffice' on a resume is a great way to get a job.
Second, IBM hires a lot of these people; one of the reasons they justify their support costs is that they can (a) offer custom code, and (b) give you, as a business, direct access to the developers if you need it. IBM making money off of Linux means *more* jobs for Linux coders, not less.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
On that we agree.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
Fear, uncertainty, doubt.
In other words, there is now a proven Linux market which pays $40 to $55 per hour.
I think that's pretty good Linux news and simply proves what the developers have been claiming all along. There is money to be made in giving away software.
KFG
P.S. In case you havn't gotten the news many Linux developers can't get a first mortgage and live in their mother's basement.
Here's the shocker though. Some of them have come to that "unfortunate situation" because they like the arrangement. They'd rather do that than work for HP or IBM. Peculiar, I know, but it's long been noted that creative genius types, no one really understands why, deprecate making money in order to better be able to persue their own creative muse.
Funny, isn't it, that they can't see that money is the only goal of real value? Geniuses are a peculiar lot, and one often wonders, if they're so smart, why aren't they rich?
By being better.
The open source people should take his analysis to heart and accept it as a valid viewpoint from a seasoned industry expert. Microsoft does have some talented minds, and we should use them.
Sometimes our greatest critics are also our best sources of constructive criticism, if we would just be willing to listen. Not all of it is legit, but some might be.
Quite true, but remember the group you are talking about, many of whom seem to think that downloading music and movies for free with out compensating the artist/recording company/copyright holder is alright!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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
"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.
Free != Better
Free doesn't necessarily equate to better, but I'd challenge you to swap Apache for a proprietary web-server. In certain cases, free (beer, speech) leads to a better product - that's why we're here, right?
This is where the serious fun begins.
"IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, ......"
Funny how MonkeyBoy even feels the need to spin some FUD internally.
Why is it an "illusion" of support? You pay IBM for support, IBM provides you support. Where's the illusion?
As for a center of gravity... I guess no one has told MonkeyBoy the good news about OSDL.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
"... 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.
I'd love to see a complete copy of the internal memo. Anybody?
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
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.
My favorite quote: "...in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security". In every Total Cost of Ownership study funded my M$, they forget to build into the cost of recovery from hackers/virus/trojan destroying your Windows box. I'm speaking from personal experience, of course. I'm not sure they really get it!
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
I just recieved this memo from "Steve" is this the memo paragraph in question?
We are working with partners to make it possible for Microsoft
customers to manage UNIX, Linux and Mac computers in conjunction with Systems
Management Server 2003, and to manage hardware devices such as desktops
and servers through solutions that update hardware-based software
components using the same familiar interfaces that an administrator would
use to update software applications.
*end of paragraph*
This seems friendly enough to me. They plan to "work" with Linux. That is a new strategy!
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
Mindshare is everything.
I know when I let someone 'rent space' in my head, it effectively distracts me and reduces my ability to focus solely and completely on what I should be doing. Perhaps this will have the same effect on a corporate entity as it does me personally.
I think they *do* get it. I think that is the elephant in the living room, something of which they are constantly aware but never speak.
Why would they talk about the one thing that is impossible to spin? The one important aspect of Free software that is dangerous to Microsoft is the one they cannot fight openly. They can't say, "We think Free software is worse than Microsoft's software because they base it on open standards, which inhibits innovation." The closest they can come is to declare open code dangerous to security.
By equating Free software with shareware, they are simply describing Linux, *BSD, Apache, et al as hobby-level software designed to be traded by children, like Yu-Gi-Oh cards.
I think they know exactly what they're up against. Gates and Ballmer may be all kinds of unsavory things, but they are not stupid. The first Halloween document proved years ago they understood the issues facing them.
They just aren't going to ask all their employees how Microsoft can destroy openness and sharing. That would be a bad PR move, I figure.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
This isn't really an internal memo as much as it's an ispirational message to 'rally the troops'.
I think it is just a written statement to get the competative juices flowing. MS is a big well funded company with a lot of very smart people. If they get those people motivated they will be able to do some pretty amazing things.
Agreed. Many people say MS is all bad but they tend to forget the MS has a reputation for eventually making things better. Win2K was a solid OS for business. Win XP is a solid OS for the home(and business).
.... ?
I call bullshit,
It took MSFT 6 months to fix that SSL bug ? Integrating a freaking browser into the kernel ? And this is good for businesses because
The ONLY reason for running MSFT software is because everyone else runs it. Its obviously not cheap, not trust worthy, not secure by design, and we all know it screams of consumer abuse
Sunny Dubey
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -- Linus Torval
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 :)
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Well, forgive me for being obtuse, but if all the jobs are going to India, and you are an American, I fail to see where taking on extensive additional financial obligations is a long term survival strategy.
To me that sounds more like a splendid strategy for ending up standing a street corner surrounded by your stuff without even your repossessed car to live in.
In troubled times there is safty and advantage to be had by everyone in the pooling of skills and resources.
Ohana.
Unless, of course, you're an asshole.
KFG
Why would Linux vendors focus on selling Win XP Plus?
Microsoft might know all too well why Free software is different than shareware. They may have a huge empire of finances and power, but that hasn't necessarily clouded their cognition so much that they can't comprehend why GNU-type freedom is truly valuable.
BUT...
It's in their best interests if those who listen to them (Microsoft employees, Microsoft salespeople, businesses that take Microsoft's word as gold) don't "get it". As long as they can make it sound equivilant to shareware, as long as they can distract businesses with talk of pure dollars-and-cents costs as if that's the single measure of "value", then they will be in good shape. Widespread ignorance and misconceptions are Microsoft's allies.
The less information (or more misinformation) potential Microsoft customers have, the easier it is to influence their choices. Microsoft might come off looking ignorant to some of us, but we're not who they're after, and they're louder than we are.
You 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.
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.
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
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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.
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
Whoo boy, is that a loaded statement.
Or maybe ol' Steve has realized to keep his damn mouth shut on these "all internal" memos because they have been publicly humiliated by them in the past. They know enough about PR to spread FUD in their "internal" memos now. Because they know they can't stop them from being leaked.
FACT: Microsoft plays dirty, and has since day one.
This is nothing new. This internal memo clearly shows that they consider Linux and other non-commercial software to be a threat. Just because the language is leak-friendly doesn't mean that there are no dirty tactics in the works. I'll go with the overwhelming odds and say that they are probably trying to figure out how to be total bastards to preserve their monopoly.
I used to think I might be paranoid, but I am starting to believe that I am not. Which saddens me, I wish I was just paranoid.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same.
I don't think so, about the "little difference" anyway. I've worked for both larger and smaller companies as desktop, applications and server support for the last six years. I've never called for support from Mircosoft ever. Everything has always been handled in house. I have paid lots of licensing fees for servers, applications, and such. If we were to switch to Linux products, I would have to spend more time learning about and fixing Linux problems which is paid for by my salary but our overall costs would go down due to no need for licensing.
Applications support is a little different as we do pay the (server) application company support but they handle the OS of the server it runs on also and thus are the only ones to pay and call MS. Thus, I expect these applications to start switching over to Linux in the next five to ten years as there will be no licensing fees but support from the OS vendor will be the same. Not to mention that their coders would then be able to inspect the OS code to look for problems with their applications rather than be depenant on MS.
So Linux made it onto Steve Ballmer's radar screen at last?
Linux has been on Microsofts radar screen for a long time now. Bill Gates has mentioned it several times, as have several other Microsoft Execs.
Microsoft also has linux boxes in most of it's labs, and I know quite a few MS employees are are real fans of Linux.
I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company! Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?
I'm sure that Ballmer is well aware that his "Internal" emails to all employees are always published. This was no surprise to him. He probably didn't mention it in his customer facing letter because he figured Linux didn't need to advertise it.
I'd also be quite surprised if Microsoft isn't well on it's way to having Office and mabye some Backoffice products ready to run on Linux. They can still make plenty of money with their other products if/when Windows continues to lose ground to linux.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Perhaps history will repeat itself. Microsoft may self-destruct in an orgy of paranoia, internal purges, attacks on enemies (imagined and real), and the technological equivalent of show trials.
--Mike Perry
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog/
We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
Coming, as it does, after disclosures that SCO and Baystar were both manipulated by Microsoft to mount and support a questionable legal attack on Linux, this statement is hilarious!
Same old lies here; move along.
Not sure why this is hard for people to understand given that they buy cars rather then walk for free
But what if that $40,000 car broke down everyday, or required a bi-yearly upgrade to keep working (especially with it's hood welded shut). Or it was only available in hideous Yellow, and you can't change the color?
And that I think is the crux of the argument. It's not so much about being free (as in beer), it's about being free (as in speech). That's why IBM is doing well with consulting. Once IBM is done customizing your software, you get to keep your software forever.
With MS, you give them a check every other year, and that's it. With XP (and likely later), you don't even own the OS. MS can shut you down anytime they wanted to if they felt like it.
The argument becomes less about Free (as in beer) software is better. It is for some, but the freedom (as in speech) is where the benefit is. And the freedom is what companies like. The huge benefit to companies is that they keep the SW. If they make no changes, and it works forever, they can port it to the new systems a lot easier. That means in the long run, lower TCO since you don't need to retrain and lower TCO since you aren't paying upgrade fees.
Well, I tell ya, I had this one problem that eventually got narrowed down to a bad DIMM, which was nearly impossible to isolate under XP. I ran every diagnostic I could think of, I beat my head against the wall for a fricking week. BSOD BSOD BSOD.
Finally scrapped the XP load, and loaded Linux, which told me, immediately, that I had a RAM fault. Pulled the DIMM, and the problem went away.
Not that hardware is windows' problem, but from the error messages that went with the BSOD, I spent twice as much time as I should have had to trying to isolate it. They're getting better, but if something goes wrong it's still BSOD city.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows."
Two Words: Tabbed Browsing (like I'm doing right now)
I have to wonder: Does Stevie actually write/believe this shit or is it handed to him by the mindless drones in Marketing?
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Mircrosoft execs are obsessed with the fact that Linux is (mostly) free (as in beer) and they assume the spreading adoption of Linux is only for that reason. They have this picture in their head that small - medium size companies are just too cheap to buy Windows and that's what's causing the migrations to Linux. They find it hard to understand that in many situations it is the IT departments of many companies advocating Linux not because of price, but because Linux is just easier for most network admins to install, configure, manage, and maintain.
The rule is "Faster, Cheaper, Better" always wins. Cheaper by itself is not the whole answer.
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?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I am not familiar with your crap conversion methods. Is there a website where I can see the conversion? www.crapcse.se perhaps?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Free (beer) not therefore better" is true.
"Free (speech) not therefore better" is something I'd take issue with. The property of liberty is far more important than the price you pay for the software. The actual freedom to modify, redistribute, incorporate into your own work, and treat software as speech.
The comparison here would not be "buy cars vs walk for free" or "buy/rent houses vs live in the park." I think a good comparison would be "Freedom vs. Slavery."
So, if you value Freedom, you go for Free, and you may have to pay for it.
Linux has plenty of support. For example, if I run into a problem I can't solve, any one of the following options may be helpful:
* If I bought a support package from a company like RedHat, I can call and get phone support, the same way you do with M$ products.
* There are dozens if not hundreds of IRC channels where linux sysadmins hang out and are more than happy to answer questions.
* Another easy trick is to use google to search for your error message. Chances are you'll find the mailing list archives of a LUG, where someone's already solved the exact problem you're experiencing.
* Join your local Linux User Group. Or if your city doesn't have one you can join the one in the nearest major city.
* Email the developers who wrote the software you're having trouble with. (try that with M$)
* Check the 'bugzilla' section for the package or distro you're using. There may be a solution already available.
* Troubleshoot the source code and fix it yourself.
* Pay your local linux h4x0r to come over and fix the problem.
Microsoft is still big, but they're definitely scared. Open Office is an excellent replacement for MS office, and works well for what 95% of the users need it for.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Not sure why this is hard for people to understand given that they buy cars rather then walk for free and buy/rent houses rather then live in the park for free.
What if we had a facotry that produced cars for free? And the factory was easy to duplicate, and the cars could be improved upon by anyone, and thoes improvements would could be availaible to all the other car owners for free.
Software is deferentant than material goods - the cost of duplication is almost nill and for that reason GNU/Open Source software will slowly-but-surely take over for commodity-like software.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
From wherethesundontshine.net:
First, if we take 'a shit' to be the amount of effort required for an average european male to evacuate his bowels, precisely 2.5 hours after eating 451 grams (one serving) of Kellog's shredded wheat (plus or minus 5% for generic store brands), then we have a rather precise handle on what the phrase "I don't give a shit" means. Now. We'll call this the "metric shit". Taking a sample of 217 average adult male rats, the volume of excrement produced, on average, equals one metric shit's worth every week and a half. Given the average rat's metabolism, we find that a rat's body undergoes complete cellular mitosis roughly every fourty five weeks. Thus, a rat's ass is not, in fact, the same ass it had 11 months ago, and the timespan of a rat's ass is roughly 10.4 months. Thus, through its lifespan, one rat's ass produces (45 / 1.5) = 30 shits. Thus, we now know exactly what is meant by "I could give a rat's ass". Extrapolating further, this same sample of 217 rats was used to determine exactly how many rat's asses are required before a flying fuck is achieved (details classified to protect the experimenters' privacy from the prying eyes of the SPCA). It was determined that one flying fuck is, in fact, achievable after only 3 rats are airborne, in optimal conditions. The actual number is closer to 3.27 So, one flying fuck is equal to 101 shits, with a margin of error of 5%. This moment of science brought to you by 217 dead rats and a whole fucking lot of rock cocaine.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Will the childish attitude of about 50% of the posts on these subjects ever decrease?
When is this "M$ is the bad guy RAA!!" paradigm going to vanish? It's certainly not useful to stereotype everything they do as bad, considering they're so successful (funny how often people utterly ignore that).
Do we need a news story every time someone at MicroSoft says the word "Linux" ?? Look at the icon for the story no-less, more childish proddings at MS.
Take a step back... breathe... don't be an a-hole... and realize that charging for software is not a sin... (and closed software has it's uses too)
The point being, we need to get rid of this win/lose, us/them mentality. It's not helping anything. I believe many people have to take a step back, and try to be more humble, rational individuals.
Start realizing that you can learn some valuable, positive lessons from Microsoft is one thing (such as what it takes to be successful on the desktop).
Start realizing that Microsoft can be your best friend if they're given enough time. They have some of the most skilled software designers/engineers around, so they have HUGE HUGE potential. I believe a big problem they do have is they're a massive massive object, and they need time to gather the "inertia" to change. So why not help them instead of belittling them? Wouldn't you rather have a company the size of MS making good software for you (and swallow your pride if you have to actually trade money for goods and services).
Likewise, I think the Linux community (just picking Linux to put a name on the alternatives) also has incredible potential, but that potential has to be directed somewhere useful, not utterly purile and pointless discussion about who is better, and blinding themselves to other viable options just because they're held by Microsoft (or some other big corp).
While the noncommercial model may lead to many flavors of software...
Oh come on Steve, you achieve that magnificently with Windows. Your huge range of different versions of Visual Basics and Basic languages for Office for example, requiring major code re-writes between versions of Access. While we wer migrating to VB6, you teased us with VB.Net along with the delights of yet another rewrite of code. The API changes between Windows 95 and ME, between NT 3.51 and 4.0 kept us highly amused and on our toes. The huge range of networking protocols you forced us through while the poor non-commercial people stuck with boring old reliable NFS. We played along with Windows for Workgroups and NETBIOS for years, then as we were getting used to Domains under NT you switched over to Active Directory. We though we knew what HTML was supposed to do until you showed us how you knew better with Internet Explorer. Now you want to change it all yet again with Longhorn.
Now I know what you mean by 'innovation': repeatedly re-inventing the wheel and forcing us to pay for it.
read me
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
This is one area that open source and Linux need a little work in. We have a lot of really great coders, but we are lacking in the diversity of people who actually know various fields very well. A perfect example can be taken from the Windows world itself circa 1994. Back then, I was an audio engineer coming from the Macintosh world. I was beginning to look at the PC as a possible option. What I found after a lot of research was that there were many limitations within Windows 3.1 to multimedia and audio in particular. A few PC based friends of mine were making recommendations that I look at the Turtle beach products, Zefiro accoustics (for hardware), S.A.W. and the like. I wound up trying quite a few of them and settled on Cakewalk Pro Audio. It worked, as well as you could expect a Windows based audio/MIDI sequencer to work, at that time. These days, things on the Windows platform have improved tremendously. Sure, they aren't Macs and still don't work as well as Macs for professional audio, but they work about 98% as well.
What happened? Microsoft was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the fact that not everyone looks at a computer as a "business tool". For some of us, a computer is a creative tool, which is as far away from business as you can get. Artists are a pretty small market, but they can be a lucrative one. And that's what made Microsoft pay attention. They actually got creative types (real artists and musicians) together with engineers and made *some* of the needed changes to the OS to improve the multimedia subsystem. Again, the Mac is MUCH better at this than Windows, but the disparity isn't as big now.
Unfortunately, in the Linux world, we still have mostly coders who like to play at being "artists" on the weekends. This is NOT a slam. I would qualify that I'm an artist who likes to play at being a "coder" during the week. What's needed are more people who can bridge the gap between the coders and the people who use the applications. This is something that most coders are loathe to accept. "Let the user dictate how the app works!? Nonsense!!" It ain't pretty, but there are some key areas of knowledge that coders just don't have the expertise in. And this applies to more fields than just art. How many coders truthfully say that they can understand and relate to the needs of their users in a very intimate way in the following fields/careers:
1. Accounting
2. Law (IANAL anyone?)
3. Playwriter
4. Journalist
5. Librarian
The point? A computer is no longer a "business tool", it's a "life tool" and needs to be viewed as such when applications and the OS are being designed. This is the point that Ballmer made in his own hamfisted way of "us vs. them". The reality is that the open source/free software community needs to include more than just coders in the development cycle.
Is your project working on a multitrack audio editor? Then get some professional audio engineers to review your project and make suggestions. In exchange for their expertise, maybe you can offer to set up a system with your application. Are you starting to work on a new application to batch process graphics for print? Then open your project up to non-coders with professional print backgrounds who can tell you if your project is useful or not.
This doesn't have to be the "free-for-all" nightmare that most coders envision. You can restrict what kind of non-coder gets to participate in the development cycle based on their experience in the field and how many useful contributions they have made after a period of time. You will also need to let more people like me into the development cycle.
Un-news
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.
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.
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).
l for more information. (and the whole website)
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.shtm
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.
Slashdot is, and has always been, an advocacy for Linux, with a playful (what you call childish) attitude. Slashdots covers other issues, but Linux advocacy is as it has always been, the center.
/.'s attitude, but the attitude of those who whine about it. There is no lack of web-sites out there who pretends to be all serious and business, about any subject whatsoever. Also Linux. Go read those, instead of staying here complaining that /. isn't what it was never intended to be.
What is ridiculous isn't
A few other answers: Microsoft *is* the "bad guy" by most common definitions, they have repeatedly been convicted of abusing their monopoly with illegal business practices. And technologically, they have been dragging the industry behind until NT on the business side and XP Home on the private side.
And yes, the Microsoft stand on Linux *is* of essensial important to the future of Linux, and thus very relevant to this site.
And yes, preventing people from sharing with each other *is* a sin, according to at least one moral system which some people here subscribe to. Read the GNU manifesto. Claiming that people should not argue based on their own moral beliefs is not very productive. Your moral beliefts aren't universal.