Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Advised To Learn To Love Linux
mikael writes "ZDnet is reporting that the management guru Clayton Christensen (author of "The Innovator's Dilemma") has advised Microsoft to learn to love Linux. In particular he advises Microsoft to purchase "Research in Motion", otherwise they will see their applications sucked off from the desktop and onto handheld devices such as the Blackberry."
Microsoft already loves Linux.
They bought SCO didn't they?
liqbase
Microsoft's revenues/profits have been positive so far. Maybe they will face "oblivion"...but not in this decade.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
As someone who has read much of Christensen's work, I am not surprised that he would make this suggestion (and I agree with it), but I am excited to see it out in public...
I agree with him that the greatest threat that Microsoft faces is the unwillingness to destroy its existing business to create a new business.
Why won't Microsoft bring Office to Linux? Because that would undercut the Windows business.
Why hasn't Microsoft gone ahead with a truly revolutionary approach to a MediaPlayer or Handheld? Because that would undercut the Windows business.
It is about keeeping the Windows business going. Think about it, how many differnet flavors of "Windows" have we seen for totally different uses and platforms?
Yours,
Jordan
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft reading this article. He's right, and what's more I'd be surprised if many people at Microsoft didn't know it.
But they can't; how precisely can Microsoft remain a profitable publicly traded company while embracing open source? Their software is all they have.
IBM was in a fortunate position of being a major hardware vendor and therefore capable of switching revenue stream focus.
But Microsoft?
Can anyone else imagine Microsoft five years from now being known more and more as that company that makes really nice mice and peripherals?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
good god I hope Microsoft doesn't buy RIM, it's bad enough in Waterloo already with them around, if it turned into Microsoft East it would just be horrible.
Hard enough to drive around the University from 7-9am and 5-7pm.
Microsoft advised to learn to love Linux
Martin LaMonica
CNET News.com
October 18, 2004, 09:40 BST
A US management guru has advised Microsoft to acquire Research in Motion and pay closer attention to open-source projects on mobile devices, or face oblivion. Management guru Clayton Christensen has a paradoxical answer for Microsoft to the challenge posed by open source: invest in Linux applications for handheld devices. Christensen, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, is the author of the 1997 "Innovator's Dilemma," a book that describes how good companies often fail because business managers don't embrace "disruptive" technologies. Open source is a clear disruption to Microsoft and the software industry in general, Christensen told attendees at the Future Forward technology conference here on Thursday.
"Where Linux takes root is in new applications, like Web servers and handheld devices. As those get better, applications will get sucked off the desktop onto the Internet, and that's what will undo Microsoft," he said. The software company can respond to this market disruption by setting up a separate business that will "kill Microsoft," Christensen said. If it doesn't react to the rise of Linux desktops on handheld computers, it will miss a coming wave of new applications and market opportunities, he said. Microsoft has already conceded that open-source software poses a significant challenge to its business. The company could not be immediately reached for comment on Christensen's remarks.
Christensen has observed that companies regularly stumble when they follow the well-established management practices of planning and listening to customers. To succeed, companies should not only cater to customers and continue improving their existing products, he argues. They should also set up separate business units to capitalise on new technologies, even though these may be poor-quality, low-margin products. Digital Equipment, for example, grew rapidly in the late 1980s by selling mini computers, which were a simpler, lower-cost option to mainframes, he said. But when other PCs began to take hold, the company didn't pursue that market for economic reasons: PCs offered substantially lower profit margins and didn't meet the technical needs of existing mini-computer customers.
In Microsoft's case, Linux applications on handheld devices are a threat to its lucrative business of selling desktop PC applications for its Windows operating system. "As computing becomes Internet-centric, rather than LAN (local-area network)-centric, their stuff runs on Linux, because it's all new," he said. He noted that people increasingly leave their laptop PCs at home when they travel and instead rely on handheld devices, such as Research In Motion's BlackBerry. Linux also provides a cheap, commoditylike alternative to Windows -- the basis of Microsoft's business. Although Linux didn't use to be as functional as Windows or Unix, adoption of the operating system grew rapidly because it met the needs of simple applications and is relatively cheap. A similar dynamic is now occurring in the database market with open-source products such as MySQL, Christensen said.
Christensen said that Microsoft should move progressively into Linux applications over the next six or seven years, because that sector will offer better opportunities for growth than operating systems or databases. He suggested that Microsoft acquire Research In Motion to accelerate the move, rather than continue to invest in making Windows run better on handheld devices. "As the BlackBerry becomes more capable, applications will get sucked onto it. Those are kind of places where growth is," he said. "If Microsoft catches it, they'll be all right."
All of the above will receive scant support and will be axed after one release. A MS spokesman will cite 'no interest' for the reason even though the half-baked, shitty software and uncertain future has more to do with it.
But it seems wierd that the guest speaker at an event hosted by Research In Motion would advise Microsoft to purchase Research in Motion.
That seems a little, um, strange.
1) MS Linux exists, and has existed, for a while. It'll appear whenever there's a business need for it.
2) What's stopping MS from having a non-GPL applications layer which enables them to deply Office and whatever they'd want on THEIR linux. Assume they'd charge a little under the standard distro's, or even include it in the cost of Office for Linux.
The only hassle will be hiding the DRM for said Office where it can't be seen/modified - so it can't go in the kernel, etc. Could a binary loadable MS Driver do this for them?
It's an obvious business tactic to mimic a competitor if he is successful. Microsoft has done that before, and still does: Look at their Monad shell, which is designed by a team with an extensive Unix background. Microsoft is slowly testing the open source waters (f. ex. FlexWiki).
It's not like another poster said that they fear it would undercut their Windows business. Why would there be an Office for Mac?
So in conclusion, thanks for telling me the world isn't flat, Mr. Christensen
I'm waiting with baited breath. It makes sense to me that their best option would be to release a distribution of their own. Then wehen companies choose between windows and linux, they can choose their distro.
... join 'em"
You know the old addage "if you can't beat 'em
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
...microsoft is about to show you some hard lovin'
While I think this is encouraging, I feel that it's a little alarmist: Microsoft still have an incredible monopoly. Of you non-techie friends (if you have any unconverted) how many *don't* run Windows? How many are terrified by the prospect of having to learn something other than Windows? How many think that Windows, OfficeXP, IE, and Outlook are the only applications they need, apart from games, which lets face it, are mostly written for Windows.
I think Microsoft would have to play a lot of consecutive bad hands before they'll cede their desktop stranglehold.
History is full of companies who fell out of the limelight because they couldn't or wouldn't adapt to new technology. One is happening right now as Kodak struggles to remain relevant in the world of digital photography (and it seems to me, they are trying to earn money from "traditional" photographic services such as printing, applied to digital photography - I'm not sure this will be successful). Where are all the typewriter manufacturers in a world of word processing? Despite the FUD and lock-in tactics (tactics that are becoming less and less successful with each iteration IMO), the same fate awaits Microsoft it they refuse to adapt. In contrast, look at IBM - in hibernation throughout much of the 1990s but emerging ready to do business with open source - and that's just one example of how they've adapted over the course of their history. Gates and Ballmer would do well to study this.
But Research In Motion's Blackberry is not any kind of free-software platform. It runs yet another proprietary operating system, requiring (at the moment) proprietary development tools. It has nothing to offer over Windows CE (except possibly quality of implementation).
Netware (hammered throughout the 90s by Wintel servers) and Unixware (offloaded to Santa Cruz Operation after only about 3 years) was "all" that Novell had. They are going through a painful, but necessary and promising, transition into a software services company. I think the more accurate summation of MS' problem is that they've angered far too many people for far too long, and even if they take the Damascus road tomorrow they may find a severe lack of partners and customers would kill them instead.
keep their RIM jobs?
I wonder what it is like to "Suck" an application off a desktop... :-D yummy... I want M$ and it's billion dollar software inside me.
Ambient [Servlet Based Webapp Engine]
I'm in my last year of study and I'm taking some serious interest in doing my internship with RIM. They are my area's only real big tech company, and I really like the values they've taken up. Just the thought of Microsoft coming in and running the show makes me cringe!
-- Bored? Check out my Portfolio
"Microsoft to purchase "Research in Motion", otherwise they will see their applications sucked off from the desktop and onto handheld devices such as the Blackberry."
Uhhh, yeah right. As a RIM user for many years I find my BB indespensible but every time a new device becomes available I start to wonder at the limitations of the RIM devices. The Treo 650 will be the first non-RIM device that I will seriously consider and it is just the first of a new phase of devices that these days more and more devices are offering direct synchronization with outlook/exchange.
Also look at goodlink. http://www.good.com, a better RIM than RIM at much more affordable rates for small companies.
MS doesn't need to learn to love Linux or buy RIM. They need to embrace open source, fix their damn OS problems, and start acting more like a startup and less like a monolithic giant.
After all, a harvard business professor told Microsoft that he obviously knows their business better than the 2000 harvard business MBAs that work at Microsoft building business plans and schemes.
I bet that Microsoft had never thought about that before. Now all they need to do is weigh the advantages and disadvantages against each other. Since this "Management Guru" from Harvard says that this is the correct choice, they'll need something as big as a 50 mile wide asteroid striking Redmond to level the scale out again.
Maybe it's possible that the most sucessful computer marketing machine in history has a few bright minds deciding how best to sell their products which apparently only managed to dominate like 90% of the entire world wide market against an amazing number of competitors as different times.
I would say that from my experience, there's a good chance that Microsoft has ported most of the Windows apps using software like MainWin, but there's no reason to release them. They more than likely already have a solid business model laid out.
But aren't they adapting? Here are some of their major complaints:
1) Criticized of security problems
-- Put a team of developers on making XP more secure. Release SP2 with focus on security. It isn't perfect, and there are still flaws, but they are listening to the critics and working on the public's number 1 concern. I believe we'll see Longhorn as a very secure. Does that mean it will be full-proof? No, that would be impossible, but I do think that it will be much, much better. After all, Linux has security problems. Mozilla has security problems. They just don't get as much attention and are fixed slightly quicker.
Look for this as the number 1 improvement in the coming months / years.
2) Product Quality
-- In the past MS has sacrificed security and to some extent quality for ease of use. I think they will still but ease of use as a top priority, but look to see the quality level increase. They have already delayed Longhorn and cut feature in order to really nail down the important ones.
It is very hypocritical to read here how people blast MS for their quality problems and then blast them again for delaying a future product in order to enhance the quality. I just don't get that.
3) This article talks about apps being sucked away
-- I fail to see this. It will happen to some extent. That is inevitable. MS can't do everything (nor do I or anyone else want them to). So they have to pick and choose.
So let's take a look at a few things they have done:
- MSN - recognized the AOL threat and jumped in to compete
- online music - recognized a growth opportunity so they are now competing with iTunes
- XBox - jumping into the home gaming / entertainment center market
Again, note the hypocrisy. Blast MS for being a monopoly. Blast them for not adapting to the business market...effectively losing market share. So what do you want? A monopoly or a competitor?
To me MS screams adaptation. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just a little dense. Or maybe people just love to hate MS...no matter what.
Before I get modded down let me also say that I'm not advocating MS. There are many, many superior products on the market than theirs and I urge everyone to use the better products. After all, why not use the best? I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Well, they've already got a head start I think.
"...poor-quality, low-margin products"
Crossover isn't good enough. It's not faultless, and the problems you have aren't explainable to the end user. Plus, it costs more money when you've already bought Windows licenses.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
OSX is a threat to Microsoft? Keep dreaming.
why waste the breath on microsoft - Billy and Steven are going to do what they want to do rather people like it or not - I personally think microsoft is going way of cable companies except they are going to take it further by providing end devices in the house that either connect to fiber/cable/or dsl. they have been working with a major telecom giant in getting fiber to premis - bet ya you can only have microsoft products to use it. this is where they are going next and they will put in writing with the companies they contract with that they don't work with linux. so I think we should all save our breath and quit trying to tell Billy and Steven what to do.
Microsoft embracing Linux would immediately convince many people, particularly in the small business market, that they can dump Windows. It would imperil other sectors of their business that currently are solid. Also, many environments are 'anything but Microsoft' as much as they can be. RH and Novell would do fine in that kind of world.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Take what Christensen says with a grain of salt. I used to admire Clayton Christensen, but over time found he was more business pop culture than substance. John Dvorak put it better than I could when he wrote a piece ome time back http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1628049,00.as p
Christensen's 15 minutes is up. Back to business.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
You're being naive and innocent, and while it's cute, it's far away from the economic facts. Microsoft can sell Office to Apple, in fact Office was developed on the Mac-platform, with a nice profit. This is because Mac and Windows are in the same league, they both cost alot of money per seat. But for Microsoft to release Office to Linux, would undercut their OS dominance severely, because now people can download Linux for free and still use office. No, selling to Mac users make sense, both because of money and Office-dominance, but with Linux they are too afraid to rock the Windows-cardhouse/milking-machine yet. That's just a matter of time though.
As a side note, I've just installed Office 2000 and Filemaker Pro for a humanitarian organisation on a Knoppix hd-install (Linux). Wine does the trick, and with a few custom shell-scripts it even plays nice with KDE (required a few tricks to support spaces in directory and filenames etc).
So MS Office 2000 works in Linux NOW. With crossover office you can pay your way out of your Windows-prison.
Posted by Hemos on Monday October 18, 1997
mikael writes "ZDnet is reporting that the management guru Clayton Christensen (author of "Outsource is the key") has advised young RedHat Inc. to learn to love Windows 2000, as it will be for sure the ultimate UNIX killer(tm)."
Those guys never learn to shut the fuck up.
I can feel the love. I can almost smell it now. Here's how it will look.
Office will NOT REALLY be ported to Blackberry. You'll be able to use web-based versions of Office from Linux, IFF you use Internet Explorer to access it. So instead of having the Windows monopoly, they'll have an Internet monopoly.
There will be a ban on most desktops, all laptops, and all smaller devices that don't contain DRM hardware compatible with Office and its ilk. You will only be able to conduct business on the Internet if you are not using "pre-ban" hardware. The market for "pre-ban" hardware will be like today's market for Apple Newtons except for undifferentiated hardware, which will be in landfills.
Well, Christensen argues, according to many examples in many fields, ranging from excavating equipment to department stores, the new businesses, despite being apparently inferior in some ways, will end in dominating the whole field. That happens because the new way of doing business will evolve faster than the old, established way. Why evolve, if it's the best and most lucrative way? And, when the old managers wake up, it's too late.
"Mein Führer! I can walk!"
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
Here is a reality check for you guys caught in the Slashdot distortion field:
- Microsoft had 36.8 BILLION dollars in revenue last year (up from 32 BILLION the year before)
- Microsoft had 8.6 BILLION dollars in NET PROFIT last year (I wish I could fail that much)
- Microsoft has 70 BILLION dollars of cash
- Microsoft has seen revenue and profit growth for every year of their existence
Thank You. Now wake up.
MS Office is the only tool that can correctly render *ALL* Microsoft Word .doc documents. Anyone who collaborates with clients by passing Microsoft Word .doc files around needs to use Office, with the exception of those who do not use custom templates or other Word features.
2 21&tid=185) I tried to summarize some of the major points that were repeatedly mentioned, and a major point was:
.doc. Just like MS Word saves documents by defualt in it's (proprietary, closed-source) native format, .doc, to leverage all of Word's features (instead of .rtf or .xml or .sxw), OpenOffice needs to store documents in it's native (non-proprietary, open-source) format, .sxw, to leverage all of it's features.
.doc files. A simple PDF of their sxw document will do and it's a hell of a lot cheaper (free).
.doc support in OpenOffice is one of about three remaining things that keeps me from moving to Linux in the workplace.
In a recent thread about OpenOffice, (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/13/1339
OpenOffice's storage format is not
However, OpenOffice is a great tool to give to developers, IT staff, and anyone else that does not have to collaborate with clients, executives, and managers by passing around Word
The lack of full
2) Assonine developers that insist on perpetuating Microsoft's browser monopoly and closed standards that use Internet Explorer only technologies to deliver their content. (ActiveX tops my list here). Unfortunately, to do my business, I am unable to boycott all of these sites.
3) The MS Exchange connector tools for Linux email clients are not yet capable of dealing with some of the features of Exchange / BackOffice that are leveraged by my employer.
- Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
Please don't give microsoft any survival tips.
signed,
A guy who does not miss macro viruses. (or any viruses for that matter.)
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
As for as operating systems that can run on 90% percent of the world's desktops go, Microsoft's only competition is linux. It's in their best interests financially to keep surpressing linux, cutting deals for people who consider switching, and spread FUD so people are afraid to switch. They want people to think of Microsoft when it comes to software, not choice.
If Microsoft really wanted to get rid of Linux they should do exactly what they did to Java. Create a horrible version of Linux. Release it as an easy to use Microsoft branded version of Linux but purposely cripple it. People that don't know any better will try to use it. They'll notice that it's doesn't work as good as Windows (Due to the crippling by MS) Microsoft will then say that it's not their fault, it's innate to Linux then everyone will run back to Windows and believe that Linux is innately broken just like Java.
It's all a question of relative value. You can get profits selling something at a low price, or you can sell a similar item at a high price.
But you must always make sure your customers get the value they expect for the price. For many Linux users, Microsoft Office seems to be either too low-value or too high-price.
Microshaft may never _love_ el tuxo but they certainly love money. If the money is with Linux - they will go there. Or am I smokin too much W33d?
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
They just have not found a way to secure a monopoly stake in the industry.
I mean, not adapting as in sticking to the model of proprietary software that may have served them well for 15 years, but is now becoming unmanageable. You cite the security issues and the steps they are taking to address them - I think this is a symptom of a much bigger problem, namely that Windows is now too big a project to manage in house. CPU power doubles every 18-24 months (a la Moore's Law) and that means your software has to increase in complexity to take full advantage of it - distributing this workload is one of the chief advantages of the open source model. IMO the delays to and feature losses from Longhorn are a symptom of the same problem.
and love the source)
<heavy german 'accent'> Ove course ze whole point of ze open sourze model is lost if you don't tell anyone.. VHY DID YOU KEEP IT A SEGRET, EH??
But aren't they adapting? Here are some of their major complaints:
I guess not wanting to steal software but also not wanting to have to prove I have a right to use it is just a minor complaint then?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
You're gonna get raped every day you're there. You either gotta get tough enough to fight back. Or you have to buy some KY and pretend you like it.
Tablet PCs:
p x
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/tabletpc/default.ms
Their products do have something in common
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
That is a good point, and you might be right. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the subject, I just know what I've read and what my experience lets me extrapolate... Windows is bloated and getting to the point where it is unmanageable. I think I read somewhere that this was one of the objectives of Longhorn...that is to say it was going to try to scale down where it could. Then again, I could be pulling things outta my butt.
The proprietary software model still works. IMO, it works well. You still see it everywhere and a lot of people seem to be making money off of it. So I'm not sure that it is all that bad that they are still holding onto it.
Open Source has its benefits, but I don't think it has proven itself in the main-streem market yet. IBM will definitely help it, if it turns out to be a success. I just think it is still too early to tell if this type of business model will become preferable.
If so, I can see MS and a bunch of other companies ditching their traditional models for it. After all, the idea or a corperation is to make money however you can...
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
None-the-less you're right - Microsoft won't burn in a day.
You're completely right. Wars take a long time. Decisive battles are rather quick, and they often aren't recognized for what they were immediately. Open source won't and can't kill Microsoft tomorrow. If MS makes the right decisions, open source may never kill it. However, Windows and MS Office can't last forever. Whether their eventual demise is a serious blow to MS or not depends partly on the timing and nature of the transition from them. Microsoft can change that to some degree. More importantly, Microsoft can determine what other markets it will already be in or pursuing on the day that battle happens. If they lost 100% of their Office revenue permanently inside a month's time, it might be only a mosquito bite to them depending on where most of their revenue is coming from when it happens.
But portible devices are just too popular, and someone else will step up. There may be some patents to get around, but MSFT might face an anti-trust suit if it tried to enforce them.
OOO /Star/Koffice/whatever just aren't good enough to prevent the person proposing the change losing their job once the end users have trouble interoperating with Windows clients. If it's Office, just blame Microsoft and keep your job.
Part of why Open/StarOffice hasn't won yet is that it doesn't flawlessly import everything MS Office puts in its documents. As far as the feature set required by most users, it is there already. If it seemlessly shared docs, you could easily set up a hybrid office. The users who need or want features that only MS Office delivers could use it. Everyone else could use OpenOffice and save some money. That scenario scares Microsoft pretty badly.
Now, combine that little piece of information with the fact that Sun was agressively moving towards Linux and the fact that Sun and MS are now friends. MS doesn't have to threaten Sun. They have the implied threat that they can pull out of their relationship if Sun burns them. MS is trying to postpone the day that the StarOffice import filters are perfect as long as they can. Of course, that just means that the work is in the hands of the FOSS community instead of Sun. OpenOffice is complete enough. The filters need perfecting. It'll happen. MS knows that. They just want to slow it down.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
MS should adapt to Linux/OSS? No shit.
How is this news?
They should've done it 3 years ago. Instead they chose to bash the GPL as unamerican. The stupidest thing they ever did. Nobody cared squat about software licences anyway until MS started making them care, casing CEO to notice the MS licencing crap they were putting up with.
If they just would've offered a MS Linux Distribution everybody would've thought "MS bought Linux" and they'd be in the game. Now it's way to late for that. Unless they make an all out attack, admit they where wrong and openly join the OSS fray alongside a large-type MS style marketing campaign promoting MS DX for Linux (only 80$ per seat!), download and update services, their OS monopoly is done for in 18 months from now the latest.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
colinux http://www.colinux.org/
It runs a full Linux under a WindowsNT based OS. Only thing that's missing is a X server so you need an X server on the Windows side (cygwin XFree86). It can use your NICs bridged or use NAT, it can access any Linux partition you have on your disk and can use image files too. Yes it is slower than native Linux but so is Usermode Linux or VMWare
I currently run colinux as my router and the XP host is NAT-ed behind it. Crazy setup but it works and beats any "personal" firewall hands down
At least the IT professionals would. We had only three Windows users until customer interoperability requirements forced us to use Office and Project, which means Windows for anyone in management even vagely related to those projects. If we could buy Office and Project for Linux today, I could move over half of my Windows users back to Linux, and the rest (save three) back to OSX.
Assuming, of course, that it was a proper product, and not some horrible, kludgy, barely tested piece of garbage like the *nix ports of Front Page server that were around in the late 90s. We tried really hard to make that work at my then employer, but eventually concluded it was MS's little joke on the *nix community.
Anyway, yes, there is definitely a market. I bet there's even a home market if the price is reasonable.
That's funny. Same thing happens to a lot of the computers at school. Office on Windows isn't faultless and the problems you have aren't explainable to the end user. :P
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
But aren't they adapting? Here are some of their major complaints: 1) Criticized of security problems -- Put a team of developers on making XP more secure. Release SP2 with focus on security. It isn't perfect, and there are still flaws, but they are listening to the critics and working on the public's number 1 concern. I believe we'll see Longhorn as a very secure. Does that mean it will be full-proof? No, that would be impossible, but I do think that it will be much, much better. After all, Linux has security problems. Mozilla has security problems. They just don't get as much attention and are fixed slightly quicker.
Yes but as far as I can tell home installs still default to administrator, so regardless of how many patches they apply to their software, they still have to user running in the MS equivalent of root. They probably won't fix this in the near future since all normal install processes are based on having Administrator access. And until they fix that they will never have a secure home distribution.
Look for this as the number 1 improvement in the coming months / years. 2) Product Quality -- In the past MS has sacrificed security and to some extent quality for ease of use. I think they will still but ease of use as a top priority, but look to see the quality level increase. They have already delayed Longhorn and cut feature in order to really nail down the important ones.
Apple seems to have balanced out ease of use with quality and security with out having to choose only one. Yet somehow MS can never do this, despite the fact that they have over 10 times the budget. They haven't got it right yet and probably won't for some time, I can't imagine Longhorn being some kind of silver bullet that puts it's security up there with BSD/OSX.
It is very hypocritical to read here how people blast MS for their quality problems and then blast them again for delaying a future product in order to enhance the quality. I just don't get that.
Not hypocritical at all. They spend billions of dollars more than other software companies on there products yet take years to make any improvements, and when those come out the quality is crap, even though it took them foo years to make it. To me the two go hand in hand. If they are going to take forever making there product then the quality ought to be pretty decent when it comes out.
So let's take a look at a few things they have done: - MSN - recognized the AOL threat and jumped in to compete - online music - recognized a growth opportunity so they are now competing with iTunes - XBox - jumping into the home gaming / entertainment center market Again, note the hypocrisy. Blast MS for being a monopoly. Blast them for not adapting to the business market...effectively losing market share. So what do you want? A monopoly or a competitor? To me MS screams adaptation. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just a little dense. Or maybe people just love to hate MS...no matter what.
Actually they are a monopoly for OSes and Office software only. On all other fronts they suck. I don't see how those three things show them as adapting. How many people use MSN as there ISP? I don't think very many. iTunes is used MUCH more fequently then whatever MS has made...I've actually not heard of it yet. And the XBox is one of their biggest failures. They had lower sales than the PSOne in Japan last christmas which wouldn't be a big deal except that alot of the games people are interested come from Japan, so maybe they can keep it afloat with sports and shooting games in the U.S., but I'cant imagine them making much from it. Other notable endeavors include: portable devices, tablet devices, multimedia centers, and I'm sure there are many more.
MS tries to keep a monopoly on OSes and Office Suites because it's all they can do. They've repeatedly demonstrated that can't do anything else. But I do agree that software won't be siphoned away like it talks about in the article, since people will make there software MS compatible until MS isn't the leading OS.
Services for Unix is a BSD port.
Partly. It also contains ports of some of the GNU tools. If memory serves, gcc is in there.
I base my experiences on the SFU which is traumatic to install and lacklustre to run in equal measure. Cygwin beats the living crap out of it.
One thing that SFU is excellent for is NFS mounts. Yup, they got that right. If you have one Unix server (Linux, Solaris, whatever) that has to share data with lots of Windows boxes, install Samba on the sever. But if you have a couple of Windows apps that have to exist in a data center full of various Unix boxes, put SFU on that Windows box and smile.
There is much to criticize MS about. But they are not always wrong.
So, um, when do they love you?
From my understanding of the way that applications are migrating from the monolithic desktop model to the distributed server model, It shouldn't matter what OS you run. And that is the way that most OSs are designed, you have the browser be the client and the server serves up beautiful pages of http formated text that lets you run the application from anywhere and spider it as well (if you design it right). The need for open standards ought to be clear. If you can't get at these beautiful server apps (which ought be hostable on any operating system) from a specific species of operating system that means that the species in question doesn't have the correct protocols. In that case you get those protocols and load them on your machine (by installing the correct 'package' or 'module'). And if you understand software like that you start to see the MS OS as one where there are modules that are bolted on and then the bolts are welded shut. That is what the MS OS is like (a methaphor). It would be like buying a car that has the trunk welded shut. If you are fearful of having multiple operating systems in your organization, and you don't understand the LEAP paradigm and how easy cross-platform comparibility is, then I would question why you are an IT manager (if that is really what you do) I hate being cruel to the clueless. But if you are really running an IT organization then you need to hear what I am about to say: If you don't get that served apps are cross-platform, and you don't understand that for the DOT net thing to be worth anything that one ought to be able to get at the served apps from any browser on any box that follows known and published public protocols, then you really ought not to have signature authority for purchases or be designing networks and contracting for bandwidth, etc. So, it isn't microsoft or Linux or open source that has a problem in this case. It is your company who has hired a person whose point of view has ossified. Tell your vender (microsoft) that you will only keep buying their OS (which does have good points) if they place nice with browsers and clients from other operating systems. My guess is that you just don't know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. And I have never seen that apps hosted from an MS box have incompatability when following public standards. So your comment is not just false, but also insulting to microsoft people. OR: you are a troll sent to spread fear and you really aren't an IT person at all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If people are so willing to shell out all that extra money for Apple's GUI on top of an open source operating system (Darwin), why wouldn't they be willing to pay something extra for a system that runs a Windows desktop and applications on top of Linux? They'd have the speed, reliability and security of Linux, together with that good ol' Windows look and feel that we all know and love (cough).
Seriously, though: if Apple can do it, there's no reason Microsoft can't. If they wait too long, there is indeed a danger that the open source community will, slowly but surely, end up pulling a Netscape on them (oh, the irony). However, if they act soon enough, I can even imagine them retaining a bit of their current monopoly (apps that don't work without the MS desktop).
If you take it in the context of his books, it is clear that he can offer that advice knowing that there are three very real possibilities. First, MS might very likely ignore it. Second, they might buy RIM and gut it, which is not what he's advising. Third, they could buy it and do what he suggested.
His advice won't be the deciding factor in Microsoft's strategy. So RIM has no reason to believe that his advice is going to sway MS. What he is really saying to RIM is that RIM's strategy is going to win out. If MS wants to ride that wave, they have to buy into it. It's too late for them to compete with it.
What if Microsoft decided to put some support behind Linux? Suppose they take the current source, fix the issues, get decent drivers and make it look pretty. They then slap their logo on it and release it. (Either by download or sticking it on a CD and charging for it.)
OK, they've lost money on it. But if they suddenly switch half the Linux community to Microsoft Linux (never thought I'd say those two words together!) they then control that market too.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Christensen says, "If Microsoft catches it, they'll be all right."
After reading the published damages discovered by Federal Litigation that Microsoft has done on a global scale; Is it ok to agree with Mr. Christensen that, "...Microsoft catches it...".
How many are terrified by the prospect of having to learn something other than Windows?
How many Windows users are terrified of learning anything else because it is hard enough keeping Windows running? When Windows is working, it is fine. When anything serious goes wrong, and it does eventually, it requires skills that are well beyond the average user to diagnose and fix it.
Linux, on the other hand, requires a lot more work up front. If you don't install it yourself, you have to find a source you trust to get a pre-installed box from, and that will cost you more than low-end Windows boxes because it is on higher-quality, vetted hardware. You have to get the stuff you want confiured right. But once it's running, it's hard to break it with day-to-day use. The up-front knowledge scares most Windows users. And they have no experience that would lead them to believe that it doesn't break once it is set up. They've heard that Windows can be like that too, but their experience doesn't confirm those stories.
There will come a day when power users start running Linux pre-installed with Crossover Office and MS Office on their laptops. They'll be wearing business suits and lot talking in tech jargon. And they'll say things to other business guys in sales and management about how they bought a laptop with all this stuff already on it and it just works. Six months ago, they had a power supply die, but their IT guys replaced it the next morning and everything worked again. That's been the only problem. Interoperability, no problem! Aim your IR port this direction and I'll send you a copy of that presentation I just gave and the spreadsheet that backs up the business case. You'll have no problem with it. Nobody ever does. That conversation and a thousand more like it will be the tipping point.
> That would be Mono then.
I wouldn't be too sure (read the first comment , LOL !!) .
If Microsoft enforces a patent on Mono, I'm sure Novell will pay the license fee though. A RAND license from Microsoft might involve a per-copy royalty or a distribution restriction agreement for the source - effectively killing off Open Source part of Mono. But Novell would still be able to consider Mono a revenue stream (so the paying customers might still be not left out in the cold).
The sad part of this is that all the public code of Mono will also become useless for everyone concerned (except for academic purposes , but there are much better research VMs). This is the concern expressed by the various Gnome devels recently ...
Support ParrotQuidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
I too am waiting for the Microsoft Linux Distribution! ;-)
Seriously, with some planning, they could make a real go of it in much the same way that IBM has embraced Linux without really cannibalizing their existing businesses. Afterall, even if MS Linux did cause a massive dumping of Windows, whose Linux would the dumpers be flocking to? Why MS Linux of course. Since it's from Microsoft it's got to be good, right? Besides, a smart MS would simultaneously release MS Office for Linux too which may or may not work best on MS Linux. In any case, a Linux version of Office would sell like crazy.
Given this scenario, the worst thing that could happen for OSS would be for Microsoft to embrace Linux, worse in the sense that if they are smart, they could quickly dominate the platform. I don't know if we'll ever see the Microsoft Linux Lovechild, but I bet it'd be darn purty!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
This guy's just an academic. As a business owner & manager, I tend to listen to people that have a proven track record, as opposed to academics who haven't spent much time with real life business.
I don't respond to AC's.
To put it succintly.
Linux is to Microsoft today
what Microsoft was to IBM/OS in the 80's:
A cheap low quality alternative.
Seems fate is not without a sense of irony.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
Yes, but you can blame them on Microsoft.
Try doing the same when you were pushing Crossover Office on the user who doesn't want anything but stuff that works. They will ask 'why'. Your explanation will not be good enough in most cases.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Agreed, at times people seem to think that Microsoft could just implode one day due to a bad business decision and almost immediately cease to exist.
I think that Microsoft *as we know it* could implode one day doe to a bad business decision. Does this mean that they will still be making software? Don't know....
People seem to forget that if Microsoft were to completely pull out of the Operating System, Office, games and internet markets (and just about everything else) and devote themselves to say... selling sol.exe (Solitaire for the non windows persons) for a dozen different platforms... even without a single sale, the pile of cash they are sitting on, in addition to their assets would be sufficient to keep them afloat for many many years.
The business has decided to give away a large portion of its cash pile to its stockholders in the form of a buyback program and a huge dividend.
That is not to say that Microsoft could not sustain their operations for a long time via debt financing...
Now, the software suffers from an extreme economy of scale (variable costs are very low, fixed costs are very high), so if sales of Windows start to fall, it impact's Microsoft's budget really fast. THey are still forecasting something like 6% growth next year. But what happens if they end up losing market share to Linux? They can afford to cut prices *now* without endangering their operations, but if they lose market share this will not necessarily be the case.
Microsoft is under attack from multiple angles from rapidly maturing and credible compeition: OpenOffice, Linux, etc. These programs threaten their conjoined twin cash cows of Windows and Office. And if they can get 30% of the market (assuming no market growth), they will render Windows and Office unprofitable at current prices and budgets. Even half that would cut their profit by 50%. Now if the market grows those numbers grow with it, of course. At that point, Microsoft can either increase prices (damage their competitivity) or cut costs (pay programmers less and spend less on marketing, thus damaging their competitivity).
At this point, I do not see a long-term future for Windows in the face of Linux. And by the time Longhorn ships, we may be at a critical point.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Perhaps they're realizing that they should listen to the old saying:
Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
shiet, someone needs to love freebsd :/
Available candidates:
Christensen tells you not to listen to your customers too much.
Drucker says that above all you must listen to your customers.
Peters says you must have a corporate culture in place and it's more important that you follow the values of the corporate culture than what those values happen to be.
I'm afraid I don't remember the name of the current that stress how vital it is to deliberately piss off and drive away the customers that are costing you money (e.g. by asking for tech support)...
Whatever you feel like doing with your customers, you can find a management "expert" to back you up.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Why should a company abandon its business to start on another, apparently less lucrative line, which offers less utility to the company's clients?
I think Microsoft has done something smarter than what Christensen suggests in his book. Why should Microsoft "abandon" its once-and-still-successful business to start a new one when it has enough resources to keep the old one and start 100 more?
Have you heard of:
- XBOX
- Tablet PC
- Windows Media Center
- Windows Mobile
- Smartphone
- Visual Studio
- SQL Server
- Microsoft Games Studios
- Business Management Software
- MSN, MSNBC, MSN Messenger
Not to mention all the stuff Microsoft Research is cooking up with 5 billion in cash.
Of course you can say: none of these businesses are successful, but that's exactly Christensen's point. None of them are at first, but if you don't get into new markets, your company will die.
...does an 8,000 lb gorilla care about checkmate? Isn't he more likely to simply eat the opponent?
Realistic gorilla sizes.
You're undoubtedly thinking of the traditional joke and multiplying by ten.
Q: Where does an 800 lb gorilla sleep?
A: Anywhere he wants.
"John Dvorak put it better than I could when he wrote a piece ome time back"
I disagree - that link sounds like more of Dvorak talking out his ass again. Example:
"The closest Christensen comes to a real disruptive technology is digital photography. But it was invented in 1972 and has never been "cheaper" than film."
In what universe? The Land That Time Forgot? My digital camera saved me more than the cost of the camera itself within 6 months of purchasing it! The cost of a 36-exposure roll of film + development really adds up fast.
And that doesn't even factor in the cost advantage of being able to review a shot immediately to know if that rare family reunion pic actually turned out. Not only is digital definitively cheaper in raw dollars, it's far cheaper in terms of recovering from lost/failed photo ops.
Frankly Dvorak has sounded like a tired worn-out gasbag of punditry for over a decade. Maybe two decades - I'll have to check my back-issues of Computer Edge. ;-)
I for one don't welcome our (potential) new Microsoft overlords -- everything they touch turns into poor quality crap. That's why I started running Linux in the first place, I needed something that was reliable and just plain worked day after week after month after year.
...profit!
The IT guys where I work have figured it out: The only way to keep Microsoft products stable and secure is to run them as little as possible and to severely restrict what can be run and where they can go. Even then most of IT's time is spent trying to keep the Windows boxes working. Why? Because Microsoft makes and markets garbage, it's their business model: Just good enough to get the cash from the suckers who are fooled by a pretty GUI. Make the user sign a EULA agreeing that Microsoft isn't responsible for the poor quality of the product and
The only thing Microsoft should be doing in the future is pushing up the proverbial daisy. A fitting end considering that is what Windows machines do best: Sing Daisy.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Don't hate corporations; wastes time and dulls you to what you could be accomplishing. Furthermore, think about corporations in general instead of MS ... its endless corporate culture that is a large 1st world problem, not MS specifically. Work with corporations, regardless of Windows or whatever (lots of GPL sw there to support). As a hobby, do some Linux stuff. Assume 95% Windows forever, and work WITH that (i.e. sw on that; lots of clients) and be happy and/or work WITH the 5% (small&nimble) and be happy.
Troll? It's as much of a troll as the original article. I disagree with some idealistic idea that Linux is going to supplant MS, give very basic reasons, and so it's labelled as being a troll. Whatever, just because you're a Linux fan, or anti-MS, doesn't mean that someone who doesn't see Linux as a replacement is trolling. Linux has issues, real problems to solve before it can even start to become incorporated as a mainstream OS. That isn't trolling, just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it false.
I think if OpenOffice can include a mail client software better than outlook, that can check pop mail + multiple hotmail accounts all at once, they'd have a good chance. Their version of word/excel is almost where M$ is.
Multiple hotmail accounts is literally the only missing feature in Outlook today!!
Unfortunately I don't have enough time to properly respond to this, but I'll do my best...
The Administrator Point
This is a problem. And I hope they do fix it. I wouldn't be surprised if Longhorn is set up this way, at least I would hope so.
Ease of use
Apple is relatively easy to use, though IMO not nearly as easy as MS Windows. I've taught people to use both OS's and people always catch onto to Windows faster. Maybe it is because I'm a little biased, or maybe not, but I've never liked the feel for how things flow on the macs... It just seems counter-intuitive to me. So I can't say much here than this aspect is really a personal opinion.
Security
Argue this as much as you want, but I'm a firm believe that one of the reasons why there are so many security issues is because MS is so widely used. They control so much of the market, why wouldn't the person who writes virus' or other 'naughty' programs write it for windows? It has been proven time and time again, that there are vulnerabilities in OSX and BSD and the other flavors of Linux. To me it just seems like they get patched a bit quicker.
You also have the issue of setting all the third party software. Sure Mac has them too, but not to the extent as the PC does. Windows is a cash cow, and MS needs to be sure that it is as easy as possible to write apps for it. This unfortunately causes security issues. But look for this to improve greatly with Longhorn. The problem won't be solved, but it'll be a lot better.
Quality
I wouldn't say the quality is crap. MS makes some VERY excellent software. A lot of their stuff leaves things to be desired, but not all of it.
Take MS Money and Excel for example. These two apps, hands down, kick ass. XP is also very good as far as the Windows OS goes. Very, very stable. IE is like a rollercoaster. It used to be crap, then it became excellent, and now it is crap again. So this is a bit relative.
Other Stuff
Let's see...MSN. MSN grew to near AOL size in no time. It was easier and better to use than AOL. At the time before broadband became cheap, I encouraged my parents to switch over. There was no bloated program needed to access email and the web. You just dialed in and went.
XBOX... I don't know how you can call this 'their biggest failure'. Of course it wasn't' going to do well in Japan...nothing will except the established companies. It'll take years to break into that market. But look elsewhere. It has done excellent in the US and Europe for a new first-generation consol. Good games, some exclusive deals, best graphics on the market for a consol. The question is will they be able to improve it with XBOX 2. If not, then it will fail, yes...but if it gets even a little better, then the XBOX will be here to stay.
Also, look at XBOX live. It is HUGE! That is why I bought the box over PS2. Games were comparable to me...the networking is what sold me.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
I think they view it more like this:
Jim Jones Follower #1: "Hey Bill, try this Kool Aid..."
Jim Jones Follower #2: "Yeah, you'll love it. It's really crazy man."
Gates: "*Sssip*...Mmmmm!..what flav.." *THUMP*
Soon Microsoft will embrace and extend Linux. LSB? MSB!
inconcievable!
wait a second, what was my point again?...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So what new innovations or advancements are used in Linux? What makes you think Linux is new technology that must be adapted? Don't feed people hype, give facts, be insightful like this was probably intended. I'm tired of seeing only hype, and that it's labelled as insightful is telling.
Snyde Acronyms...
And RIM bites ms in the ass, will ms be "'RIMmed' in Motion" (recursive, dual-meaning)?
Will they LIKE of LOVE that/THAT?
I prefer R-RAM: Regressively Renal Anesthesize microsoft" See how long they can go without processing their PR machine's kidneys...
Gives a new meaning to promote/expand from within...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"Open Source has its benefits, but I don't think it has proven itself in the main-streem market yet."
Err...Apache remains the number one web server; most of the time when you are looking at a web page, it is served via Apache. Now, if you are limiting to the desktop market, then no, open source is unproven as a mainstream source of desktop software. Open source will continue to be mainstream in servers and workstations. Note how Microsoft is having to add open source auditability to their software to work with governments. They will also need to offer the ability to offer custom versions (another feature already part of open source) if they want to be a serious player in the embedded market.
The chief advantage that proprietary software offers over open source is that it includes a mechanism for people to group together to trade money for software. However, as we shift from general purpose appliances built by third parties (i.e. PCs) to special purpose appliances built by the same people who are specializing the software (e.g. router, Tivo, PDA, web server, etc.), the advantages of this fade.
It makes more sense for Tivo to share the same OS as Linksys or IBM. By submitting their changes back, they get free support from other companies. Further, they don't need bells and whistles (they will develop their own), just the basics. Amazon currently has a Tivo for $80 after rebate; they can't afford to pay a $50 Microsoft tax out of that. Linux saves them the $50 and is better suited to their needs (because they can trim out the parts they don't use, saving resources and increasing security).
It has been so since Wierd 2 for DOS, and the compatability issues have never been fixed properly. Yet the one-time competitor, WordPerfect, managed full backwards and forwards compatability for 10 years or more.
Use protection. Microsoft has some nasty infections.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
he advises Microsoft to purchase "Research in Motion"
That would be a real shame. As a Canadian, I love to see strong products coming from the great white north. MS already took care of Corel (which used to be a publicly traded company based near Ottawa, Ontario) by having a (privately owned) subsidiary buy them and move them to a more controllable home in the US. (I'm not trying to be anti-US here, moderators!)
For those of you who don't know, RIM is based in Waterloo, Ontario. It would really suck if MS bought them out, too. Then all we'd have is OpenBSD!
I recently had a hardwood floor installed. The underlayment used was kodak photo paper. Turns out they have surplus, and rather than take a total loss they sell it as underlayment. I now have 700 sq/ft of Kodak paper sandwiched in my floor.
Just hot air. Microsoft has already lost too much trust even in the eyes of mainstream media to pull something like this off. Media would have a field day with this and I'm sure even Microsoft knows that.
Quack, quack.
That's the reason Clayton Christensen is an associate professor and Bill Gates is the richest man in the world.
I'm not saying Open Source is bad. I like the idea of open source. I just don't think it has proven itself yet, which is why it is slow to gain acceptance and change the business model.
Apache is an excellent example, but we need more than one to really be proven.
Once a few more successful ventures with Open Source have been made, then I think we'll see the revolution take off.
But that wasn't the issue. The issue is to the current business models, which still apply. The other issue was if MS adapts or note, which I think they do. So if things like open source take off, we'll see MS move that way. They will probably (unfortunately) have their own twist to it, but you'll see it more readily.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
to wear a condom
Microsoft advised to make better software! Industry analysts advise Microsoft to make their software more secure and less annoying if they plan to remain profitable in the future.
Helk, I've never been busier! All those wonderful viruses and spywares keep us tech boys afloat, especially when Bill Gates' contemporaries (ie. Carly Fiorina) deem it necessary to hire people a few thousand miles away. Thanks Bill! Sad to say, no one has made a nickel off of Linux. Keep those crashes and blue screens a comin Gates!!
P.S. Geeez... I almost forgot my other important sponsors. Kazza and WinMX. Thanks guys for supporting us techs with your wonderful popup ads!
Just so you know, competitivity isn't a word. The word you want is competitiveness I think.
;-)
What do you mean it isn't a word? "Ain't" is a word in many dialects of English too.... Lets see-- it is a group of letters without whitespace which has a readily understandable meaning....
Here is the thing-- English teachers think that English is like a programming languages, that there are rules which cannot be violated which define the English language-- i.e. that grammer and vocabulary is prescriptive rather than descriptive.
However, any first-year student of linguistics will tell you that natural languages have descriptive syntax and grammer, and that the goal of linguistics as a field is to explore these fields and hence to learn about the origins of a natural language.
As Calvin said (from Calvin and Hobbes) "Verbing weirds language"
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
> the management guru Clayton Christensen
Wierd, I read that just as I heard "Chris Cayton" (by Goldfinger). Strange coincidence.
(posted anonymously because no one gives a fuck)
Linux might be great for someone who is computer literate.. but not ready for the masses.
Do you think ppl really want to be typing commands into their console all the time, when they want to just install a simple application.
Yes, there are gui flavours out there.. I use Fedora at work. And I find that it lacks a lot of usability testing that Windows already has.
Only thing I like so far is having a lot of control over my system.
Question to u MS Bashers... if Linux is so great, and free, with so many free prgms.. why isn't it used by so many ppl. And I'm not talking about the l33t.. i'm talking about the average Joe..
if M$FT did buy them, all of the (US) Senators and Representatives would immediately be persuaded to pass stringent anti-spyware laws after their devices crashing hourly because of being clogged with crap. Hmm....
OK, how about BIND? Every time you type a domain name into, well, anything, it's about 99% likely that open-source software is doing the hostname lookup and translating that domain name into an IP address for you.
Sendmail, Qmail, and Postfix are also pretty entrenched when it comes to Mail Transfer Agents (aka, software that actually routes your mail from you.com to them.com). When it comes to these bedrock network services, it's closed proprietary software that's the new kid on the block. OSS has been the standard for decades.
Samba is another good example of enterprise-ready OSS. File servers running Samba tend to out-perform Windows file servers on the same hardware.
Causation can cause correlation
In a heartbeat.
At work, my computer is a tool; I use what lets me get the job done. I use Linux because I find it a powerful, productive environment. I use PowerPoint because it's the most convenient way to create presentations. If I could use PowerPoint and Linux at the same time, for what earthly reason would I not?
"MS is evil" is a nice ideological stance, but is an unrealistic way to predict what programs people are going to use to get their work done.
And yes, I was being serious.
To quote the article: "If it doesn't react to the rise of Linux desktops on handheld computers, it will miss a coming wave of new applications and market opportunities, he said."
And: "To succeed, companies should not only cater to customers and continue improving their existing products, he argues. They should also set up separate business units to capitalise on new technologies, even though these may be poor-quality, low-margin products."
This is what MS is doing -- investing in new software for new, undeveloped markets, even if they aren't profiting from it.
Perhaps the author has made the assumption that Linux dominating the handheld market is inevitable. If that actually happens, his suggestions make sense.
But it hasn't happened yet. Microsoft is fighting to get Windows onto every kind of handheld device, as my earlier post pointed out. Given the resources they have, I think they have a chance at gaining yet another monopoly, and companies like RIM will be screwed.
as in "I'm holding my breath". Does that make sense? Yes. That's what you intended to say.
If people didn't realise your mistake, which comes from hearing the phrase but never reading it, they might think you were waiting with bait on your breath. Why would you do that?
Is taht like teh love bush proposed.
So many OBGYNs are unable to practice their love with the women.
you mean like the Zaurus?
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but you had good points that I wanted to respond to, and clarify myself on.
I completely agree that ease of use is completly subjective. So I was wrong to say that Apple products have a smaller learning curve than MS products. It boils down to preference and past exposures.
I agree that MS's programming is probably not much worse than most Unix-like systems(Except BSD which seems pretty hardened to me), what I mostly meant is that security takes a back seat to everything else. Defaulting to administrator is one of them, but also things like having applications automatically run when downloaded. I know they have some of the best coders working for them, but they are probably drowned in beuracracy and not allowed to take the logical choices for implementation.
I was thinking back to the 98se and ME days when I was talking about crap software. From what I've used of 2000 and XP they seem much better, but it's taken them a LONG time.
And last, but not least, the XBOX. Regardless of how many they've sold or how well it's doing they have lost millions on it. There's an article here that talks about it some. Basically they sell there massive system at a loss to themselves and hope to make it up selling games and online services, but it hasn't went that well so far.
Even neophytes know how to do a Google search.
Of course, a lot of people who keep Windows around, do it because of gaming. We wouldn't want 100% compatibility with new games either, would we?
No, I think MS will continue to embrace Linux like a cat embracing a bath.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
I agree. Before 2000, their OS was crap. I remember before I knew what linux/unix was and win95 came out. It blew me away. I coulnd't believe it...and then the problems started. Crashes, lockups etc... Then I went to college and was exposed to what is a stable OS: Linux. As soon as I could I threw that puppie on there and was very happy. Had to keep Windows around for Quake II, but that was the only time I booted into it. But yea, 2000, and XP are MUCH better, but it should not have taken them that many years to get to it.
:)
I'm not sure if is because they were trying to build off of DOS or if they just didn't know what they were doing yet...
They did / are losing a lot fo money on the XBOX. But I think that was there plan. Speaking from an economics standpoint, it is very hard to break into a new industry and be successful right away. It is generally acceptable to lose money the first year...sometimes two depending on the market in order to gain some market share. I think looking back on it, MS lost more money than they wanted to, but they have the money to lose, so as long as they come close to breaking even next year I think the XBOX will be here to stay. If they don't, it'll be questionable.
IMO it truly isn't a bad system. I do own one and get a lot of flack for it (depending who I'm talking to) because it is a MS product. But IMO it is one of the better MS products. Never had a problem with it. It has good games, and the graphics look excellent. I just hope XBOX 2 is backward compatable so I can mod my current XBOX into a media center or something.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Kicked Vlad's Ass On Trolltalk by the AV3
(To the tune of Cleaning Out My Closet by Eminem)
I'm sorry Lockwood!
I really meant to hurt you!
I'm glad that I could make you cry, and tonight
I kicked your ass on Trolltalk.
I said I'm sorry Scotty!
It's really fun to flame you!
It's not real hard to make you cry, and tonight
I called you out on Trolltalk.
Vlad's got some skeletons in his closet
And I think that everyone knows it
There's so much shit in his mouth that he can't close it
I'ma expose him; I'll take you back to '69
Before he started crapflooding Slashdot all the time
He was a baby, maybe just a couple of months
The Priest at his church bit off his penis for lunch
Now he's grown up, and he likes to fuck kids in the eye
No person would love him; we all wish he would die
He's got a hippo for a wife who'd never leave his side
She WANTS to leave, though, but she's too fat to try
To squeeze her ass out the door, so her life's a mistake
She and Scott should both die, for their own Vlad-damn sake
But Vlad's a behemoth, and might not get out of bed today
We all know that he's stupid; no doubt that he's dumb
And the dumbest shit he did was not shoot himself with that gun
He shoulda killed himself, him and Theresa both
They've got no life, so just call them "The Crapflooder Show"
I'm sorry Vladdy!
It's so tempting to flame you!
You really want to make me hurl, and tonight
I kicked Vlad's ass on Trolltalk.
I said I'm sorry Lockwood!
It's easy shit to hurt him!
It's mighty fun to ream him good, and tonight
I called him out on Trolltalk.
Now I would never diss Scott just to get recognition
Take a second to listen to why it's him that I'm dissin'
But put yourself in my position, just try to envision
Witnessing a man being an asshole for a livin'
Crying and moaning about others when his own civility's missin'
DoSing and spamming, practicing Asshole-Jerk Syndrome
His whole life he's been a Nazi to others
Now he grew up, got no friends, and a really huge stomach
Isn't it? Isn't that the reason he's even hated by his own Ma?
He cries in his bathtub and he has to wear a bra
But guess what, Scott's getting older, and he's going to die lonely
He's been divorced three times, and they all think he's a phony
He's so evil now, he could never know something beautiful
Nobody likes him, he'll be the only one at his funeral!
See what sucks about him most is he won't admit he's a dick
Everybody who knows him thinks he should be beat with a stick
What he doesn't know is what you give, you will get
That selfish punk, now it's time for him to drown in his own shit
Remember when he was dumped by wives #1 2 and 3?
Well guess what, everyone hates him; that's the way it should be!
I'm sorry William!
It's so much fun to hurt you!
I know you're gunna go and cry, and tonight
Scott's crying in his bathtub.
I said I'm sorry Scotty!
Too bad that you're unstable!
Maybe you should see a shrink, but tonight
I'll shred your ass on Trolltalk.
I'm sorry Lockwood!
Too bad I have to hurt you!
You're responsible for what you do, and tonight
You're hereby banned from Trolltalk.
I said I'm sorry Cockface!
I only try to help you!
You need to reasses your life, and for now,
Stay fuck away from Trolltalk.
When it comes to LaTeX, I cheat and use LyX.
Learning LaTeX and TeX are on my list of things to do.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
In the Ghetto Part I
It was pitch-black in the roach-infested double-wide trailer. All was
quiet except for the gurgling sound of an infant, shut away in its own room.
The floor creaked as a mass of flesh made its way to the infant's room. The
door slowly opened, creating a growing triangle of light on the floor. The
infant coughed and gagged and began to cry as it was overpowered by the horrid
stench.
"It's time to suck on daddy's special pacifier, Marticock!"
As the door creaked shut, the whale in the master bedroom wept into her
pillow. What kind of life was this for her precious little Marticock?
Before you visit the new crapflooder website, www.sporks-r-us.com, there are a few points you should review about the owner and administrator of SRU, Vladinator. Scott (Vladinator's "real life" handle he goes by in public) won't tell you any of the following facts because he's afraid you'll be put off by his sordid, depraved, criminal past and close your browser window before he can log your IP address and password!
It is my duty to you, gentle reader, to make sure all of the relevant knowledge is out in the air before you do something you may regret, like registering an account or posting in a discussion on www.sporks-r-us.com.
PLEASE review the following facts about Vladinator:
( and often posts communications between them to make them appear to be more than one person!!! ):