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.
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.
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.
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
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.
How about: they won't bring Office to Linux because there aren't enough potential customers to justify the cost of the port?
There may be more Linux users than Mac users now, but I believe and I'm sure their market research must show, that a much smaller percentage of Linux users would actually purchase and use Office.
If Office were on Linux I could port all my end users to Linux without issue.
/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.
OOO
And yes, I would keep a copy to stop from having to dual boot like I do now.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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.
If Office were on Linux I could port all my end users to Linux without issue.
I completely agree. Think about everything that your average user uses their computer for. You get internet/email and office, and a couple other programs such as Quicken... and games.
If you have Office, it makes it so much easier for the user because instead of having to learn ALL new programs, they just have to use a different internet browser.
Even in the Windows world, where users are used to paying exorbitant fees for software, Office would still be in trouble without OEM deals, bundling, and other reductions. Without those, and in a market used to getting software for free, the prospects can't look good...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
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.
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.
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.