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.
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.
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.
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Because we all know Microsoft is well known and praised for their record of competeing in fair and responsible manners. Not to mention offering better value, security and opportunity.
There is a reason that they military considers XP "compromised the moment it leaves the box", and why high performance computing centers which need reliability and good cost/benefit rations never use Windows.
When I read these kind of pronouncements from Bill and Steve, what strikes me is how much they still don't seem to "get it".
They talk about "free software" as is it was equivalent to, say, shareware. What they don't seem to understand is that the cost of it has nothing to do with its success, nor is it the principal reason it is a threat to Microsoft.
Personally I'm glad they don't get it. It means they are more likely to make strategic mistakes that could be their downfall.
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments.
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM. We're talking come-to-your-business, customize-the-software, keep-you-running support, not 90-days-after-its-installed support that comes by default with a Microsoft solution. Sure, you can add MS support on top of things, but a shop with full MS kit and an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.
They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux.
Why do you think I'm an IBM shareholder?
While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
First off, most Linux developers don't code to make money, at least not off of linux; hell, Linus Torvalds was, up until recently, an embedded systems engineer. Linux and its applications are, by and large, hobbies for the developers; but, on the flip side, can you show me a *major* open-source software project where the core development team is all desperately looking for work? Being able to put 'Lead developer, OpenOffice' on a resume is a great way to get a job.
Second, IBM hires a lot of these people; one of the reasons they justify their support costs is that they can (a) offer custom code, and (b) give you, as a business, direct access to the developers if you need it. IBM making money off of Linux means *more* jobs for Linux coders, not less.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
On that we agree.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
In other words, there is now a proven Linux market which pays $40 to $55 per hour.
I think that's pretty good Linux news and simply proves what the developers have been claiming all along. There is money to be made in giving away software.
KFG
P.S. In case you havn't gotten the news many Linux developers can't get a first mortgage and live in their mother's basement.
Here's the shocker though. Some of them have come to that "unfortunate situation" because they like the arrangement. They'd rather do that than work for HP or IBM. Peculiar, I know, but it's long been noted that creative genius types, no one really understands why, deprecate making money in order to better be able to persue their own creative muse.
Funny, isn't it, that they can't see that money is the only goal of real value? Geniuses are a peculiar lot, and one often wonders, if they're so smart, why aren't they rich?
By being better.
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.
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.
If you look at this long-term you'll see it as an absorption strategy.
Today they integrate Linux support into their management software. Tomorrow they expand and patent the API. Next week there isn't a single IT manager that knows anything about Linux administration unless it's done with MS management tools. Next month MS starts to price the Linux management plugin at a higher and higher level to "support the cost of integrating with Open source developers". If it works they'll profit and network administrators will continue to favor using MS OS because of "bugs and inconsistencies between Linux distros and the MS Linux management plugin". If they're aggressive and companies balk at the increased price then they'll switch back to MS in order to secure administration tasks.
Simple.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
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
Perhaps history will repeat itself. Microsoft may self-destruct in an orgy of paranoia, internal purges, attacks on enemies (imagined and real), and the technological equivalent of show trials.
--Mike Perry
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog/
Not sure why this is hard for people to understand given that they buy cars rather then walk for free
But what if that $40,000 car broke down everyday, or required a bi-yearly upgrade to keep working (especially with it's hood welded shut). Or it was only available in hideous Yellow, and you can't change the color?
And that I think is the crux of the argument. It's not so much about being free (as in beer), it's about being free (as in speech). That's why IBM is doing well with consulting. Once IBM is done customizing your software, you get to keep your software forever.
With MS, you give them a check every other year, and that's it. With XP (and likely later), you don't even own the OS. MS can shut you down anytime they wanted to if they felt like it.
The argument becomes less about Free (as in beer) software is better. It is for some, but the freedom (as in speech) is where the benefit is. And the freedom is what companies like. The huge benefit to companies is that they keep the SW. If they make no changes, and it works forever, they can port it to the new systems a lot easier. That means in the long run, lower TCO since you don't need to retrain and lower TCO since you aren't paying upgrade fees.
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.
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.
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