Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Under Attack - Part 2
bugbeak writes "Part 2 of BBC's report on Microsoft at its 'most vulnerable moment in history' is available. According to the article, there are six battles Microsoft must go through in order to stay afloat and win, ranging from 'sort out security' (#1) to 'get them young' (#3). The first part of the article series was also linked by Slashdot." From the article: "Already Microsoft is spending 30% to 35% of its research and development budget on security issues, [Gates] says. His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
What an oportune moment for that message.
Just like the tabacco industry!
www.whitedust.net
That said, the bigger problem, as I have stated in the past, is internal. In the past Microsoft has been able to respond to a siege by motivating the troops and getting the job done. IE was possibly the last great example of the Microsoft development engine at work. Now, it is almost impossible for Microsoft to rally the developer troops for that kind of siege-mentality response. The employee apathy is thick. The old-timers can still get it up, those that are still there and haven't joined Ignition Partners or retired, but you have to keep in mind that most of the developers and program managers there today weren't there 5 years ago, and only know Microsoft as a bloated software factory. The glory years, the rally cry of Ballmer and Gates, the late night and weekender coding marathons and the 'death march' mentality are all just stories of the past. The current typical Microsoft employee is more of the 'hey, I have a family and a life, this can wait' style. Certainly there are pockets of exceptions, but generally speaking, the engine is running a bit cold.
Without the means to execute, the siege will take its toll.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
Anyone could predict that microsoft is currently vulnerable. They are losing their sustainable competative advantage and losing their market domination cannot be too far off.
99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
the next version of the Windows operating system, will make 'a thing of the past'
That's YOU /.! For shame. Tisk Tisk. ;P
Obviously going after Apple's iPod world with the line "Windows powered software & devices". MS is a smart company, don't think for a moment they are "that vulnerable" They have the money to market their products and market they will.
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
"His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge "a thing of the past"."
-Bill Gates
So longhorn isn't due out for a year or so or two or three. They expect their customers to wait that long? This shouldn't be such a complicated issue.
From the article:
And it takes a fairly computer-literate user to install and maintain the open source operating system on a personal computer.
I read this and instantly started thinking about this exactly how many window users can maintain there windows box properly? 90% of the users out there have no idea how to keep there windows updated, how to reinstall windows. The only difference is that Windows came preloaded on their machines. Now this is the only difference between the two operating systems. If a Linux machine came preloaded on a computer already with all the drivers installed it is the same exact thing on how people get their machines from dell.
...desperate times, desperate measures. i dont think its unfair to say that as linux slowly becomes more popular and MS's main competitor releases a damn good OS (OSX tiger), that MS might be worried about its place in the market. Who knows maybe in ten years time Microsoft wont exist...stranger things have happened.
Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'." I imagine a pretty little balloon that says "You've got Malware! Click here for details..."
Microsoft earned $0.75 per share in its 2004 fiscal year. That's hardly impressive for a stock that sells for nearly $28 a share. If Microsoft is done growing then its investors are going to be very unhappy. That's a return of just under 3% a year. A year with no revenue growth would be even worse.
Not to mention the fact that there is little guarantee that Microsoft will continue to be able to rake in the kind of money that they are currently pulling in. Unearned revenue continues to go down, and Linux continues to gain marketshare. Eventually MSFT investors are going to get tired of waiting for the growth to return and MSFT is going to drop like a rock. When that happens Microsoft is going to *look* vulnerable. Right now the folks selling for Red Hat and Novell have to convince their clients that they aren't crazy when they forgo the safe path of purchasing Windows. Folks that roll out Linux solutions are still taking a fairly big risk. They are betting on a David facing up against the biggest Goliath in the history of industry, and the reason that the story of David and Goliath made it into the Bible was because in real life David's get squashed. Everyone likes an underdog, but only when they win.
A serious drop in MSFT would be hitting the behemoth right smack between the eyes, and such a drop is overdue.
Microsoft has simply gotten too large. Gates was never good at turning the company on a dime, and in todays market, as TFA points out, he's even more screwed if he cannot do so. A spin-off is the most logical choice: spin the apps into a seperate company and leave the OS and other "core" products with MS.
Having said that, I'll concede that this won't happen until both Gates and Balmer retire, but it won't take too terribly long after that, either.
By using TCPA to lock out all non Microsoft authorized software & just coincidentally eliminate the open software threat to the Microsoft Monopoly.
Sorry, I refuse to play along...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Before I say this, let it be known that I am just as much of a Linux zealot as you probably are.
My father works for the local power company developing customer support systems. Rather than an Open Source alternative, such as Linux, they opted to go with Microsoft Windows. The reason? Costs. They figured that the TCO of Linux, including support, training developers, etc. would actually be more expensive than the licensing fees that a Windows solution would incur.
This being said, I would have personally gone with a Linux setup. I think that the former situation exemplifies one of the biggest misconceptions about Linux: people think that, because it's not provided by a corporation, if you have a problem, you're screwed. That's why the support services provided by Red Hat and IBM are so vital. Corporations can't just go on a developer's word that their system works well. They need someone that they can sue if something goes hugely wrong and they lose everything due to an operating system glitch. Red Hat provides a much-needed corporate backing to an already-great operating system. Most of the misconceptions out there about Linux are due to FUD spread by MS. If the open source community can simply overcome the stereotypes of Linux as having no support at all, then I think we'll see Linux begin to totally take over MS's marketshare.
Ride the skies
It's the first time in Microsoft's history that common folks are aware of Microsoft's flaws and its concurrent products? Go back two years, what alternative did a normal joe had to Windows & IE? Nowadays, Linux is becoming more and more user friendly and browsers are popping up like crazy since Firefox/Opera and the likes have gone widely public.
Or a better exemple, would you even dare to imagine a full-page NY Times Firefox ad two years from now?
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
[Gates] says. His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
Too funny. Thanks Bill, I needed a laugh. even people who work on reasonably secure systems wouldn't float so much hubris. My niece's little plastic swimming pool is deeper than this man's knowledge of computer security...Well, as vaporware Longhorn is certainly secure.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
Why is it that every HUGE budget allocated to some pursuit of security always almost leads to UnSecurity.
Seems the people in charge of Security at MS are the same ones responisble for "HomeLand Security" :-)
"malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
It's not the software that is the problem. The issue is that users will STILL accept anything offered. Install weather toolbars and so on. And the fact that windows make it so ridicilously natural and easy that there simply isn't a different choice.
I don't know what could be the answer. A good approach would be to outlaw internet access to any computer with windows installed.
Uh, yeah Bill, we've heard this promise before. I'm not holding my breath over any Microsoft promise that ends with "a thing of the past." The past keeps coming back to haunt you with Windows.
However, let's assume this time Microsoft really, really gets it right. If so, it won't be only malware that has a hard time on your computer. With their Palladium-- er sorry, Next Generatio-- er whatever they call it this week, your own software won't trust you. Can I play this music? Dunno, let's ask Microsoft. Can I see this movie? Dunno, let's ask Microsoft. Or more accurately, let's ask the systems Microsoft has put in place to handle permissioning. Yeah, they can isolate malware, but the means by which they will do this will also isolate your own stuff every time it thinks you do not have permission to run/view it.
In the windows monopoly, the software comes preinstalled on the computer and the user is not allowed to take it off.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
MS has a huge warchest. This always comes up when people start speculating that MS is going down. I don't think people fully comprehend what this money will do for MS.
It will allow them to go through a complete denial cycle. When they finally realize that their business model and software is flawed, they will still have plenty left to turn it around.
The only way MS would be in any danger is if they somehow lost all that money. And the only real way I can see that happening is through legal actions. Multiple. With big payouts. Then, when MS starts to go through their "problem phase", they won't have enough cash to see them through their denial cycle, and they could potentially flop at that point. Potentially. Keep in mind, however, that there is so much momentum behind them, that'd be a remote possibility, even then.
MS is a reality we will have to deal with for a long time. I applaud the folks working on Mono, they at least grasp this concept.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It'd be interesting what kind of software Microsoft's 'malware' envelope covers. Not that I don't like a bunch of MS software, but this is starting to sound more and more like "you can only run approved software on windows"... though I'm sure that isn't actually the intent... yet.
I'll settle for a money back guarantee.
Cant find the quote, but hasnt he said:
"Windows will be so easy computer magazines will be a thing of the past" ?
Explain to me, when a company (or anything for that matter) is on top (Come on people, Microsoft has a ton of cash, and a ton of marketshare in lots of areas) logically are they not the most vulnerable? I mean, they have no where to go but down. It seems every so often that reporters need a fluff piece to phone-in so they choose a company in whatever field and do an "investigative" piece to determine the company vulerable.
It is how the market works, when you are on top people focus on your vulnerabilities in order to bring you down.
I have always wondered why M$ doesn't make like apple, and take a unix or unix like kernel and give it a nifty windowsy interface. Maybe that would be too much like admitting defeat, that their NT kernel sucks. They could even hire FOSS coders and make their own Lindows distro.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Perhaps you haven't heard that Microsoft's stock price is flat, that they're losing market share in servers, that China and India are focused on Linux for the desktop? Yes, stock price matters. The stock market has a way of seeing through the BS because money is at stake.
In the past Microsoft has used its OS monopoly and its control of the API to kill competition. Linux, the web, and other technologies will leave Microsoft in the dustbin if they don't get off their collective lazy butts and take advantage of their position to do some innovation that will secure their place in the business market.
Until then, they are like the phone company or the electricity company; they provide a particular function, but they don't show much promise for the future.
Best regards.
I like how they use the word battle. Lately I've been reading a book called The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050. The book centers around what makes a succesful military revolution. Since they are using the term 'battles' and are in need of a revolution of sorts I'll point out what the book stated.
The basic crux of the book is that concentrating on technology doesn't make a revolution nor does it win battles. All 6 battles in the article revolve around marketing and technology. It's pretty sad state of affairs when people solely concentrate on technology and the marketing thereof over other aspects. What makes a more successful state of revolution in battle is the coalescing of technology, organization, strategy, internal culture and leadership. I would like to see such an analysis done on Microsoft.
How is M$ leadership?
How is M$ internal culture? Does it have low morale or high hopes for the future?
What is the make up of M$ strategic culture? Do they have any other strategy apart from monopolizing?
Such questions would give a much more accurate picture for the future of M$ success.
It's one thing to get a BSOD on your monitor. It's common and expected. It's another to get it on your 52" HDTV. That would just prompt anger and a broken window, with cords dangling behind where the MS entertainment whatever used to be.
SYS 64738
Easy to use operating systems like Windows are inherently insecure. However, on Linux users must manually resolve library dependencies in any malware they download, and many also require the user to compile malware themselves. Only a very small amount of malware comes with a GUI for installation but even then they must navigate a cumbersome, ugly interface. It must be said in this regard that Linux is far more secure in this regard.
Shitram Brown, PhD
Professor of Mathematics
"His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
And how many people click the "Yes! I want this ActiveX control" button?
The problem with having 90+% of the market share is that following the Rule of Suckage, 90% of the people out there suck. The vast majority of windows users simply aren't educated enough to know whats going on, and simply agree.
This isn't something that can be fixed by software, hardware, or anything else, other than a glock and several tons of ammo.
I would think that Microsoft was more vunerable very early in its history. For instance, when IBM first approached them to make DOS, Microsoft referred IBM to Digital Research.
The problem is that MS already have 90% of the PC ad Office markets. With Linux and Open Office being free they can no longer compete on price or leverage in that market as they have in the past. They are now going after niche markets against companies that know exactly what they are doing, who do it very well and who are already entrenched.
Deleted
will be more ARP and DNS attacks, in order to subvert the link to the update machine. It's just too tasty a target. The update machine MAY even be secure, but even if it isn't, compromising it would set off too many alarm bells. Working back at the ISP level is easier, compromises sufficient machines, and doesn't set off as many alarms. This of course presumes that any signature mechanism can be subverted.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I'll take it--and I hope he's right. There are many MS cynics here. This comment will either bite Bill or lead to great things for Microsoft. So be it. Why be angry?
[FromTheMorning]
Microsoft is tackling firms like Skype by integrating Voice-over-Internet telephony into its Messenger software.
Oh no, Microsoft please do not do anything to Skype... I use their service and is really fine (I use SkypeOut)...
I will be praying asking that Microsoft do not buy them... =o( please?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Microsoft promises NEXT version of their product will be the answer to everyone's wishes!
Oh gee, I hadn't heard them claim that before.
Oh wait, I DID.
That's what they said about Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows (put whatever name you want here)
Long story short, Microsoft's software is NOT good, and they can't have the same level of quality that open-source has.
Avoid them at all costs unless you really want to give the more money.
Give your money to open-source projects, at least that way it will profit YOU.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
This scenario isn't different from computer company tales of the past.
Microsoft is a shark, at the top of its food chain. It cannot be eaten and cannot be stopped unless it stops itself. It is predictably hungry and efficient. It can take its time and wait.
But it now swims in a sea filled with other fish that are just as ravenous. They can't and won't attack the shark; they don't have to. They'll just eat the same thing the shark eats.
And that food--the market--is in short supply.
Apple, the largest desktop competitor to the "WinTel" market, is no Microsoft, but it doesn't have to be. Microsoft cannot directly attack Apple without causing legal waves as it is already a convicted monopoly. Apple hasn't the capital or mindset in the enterprise to fully cause an IT schism where businesses move in droves to Mac OS workstations and servers. But it can erode the reputation of the larger opponent by being flexible enough to try new technologies by taking advantage of the fact that people turn to places like Apple for interesting gadgets and DON'T see Microsoft as the place to buy "cool" gadgets (the Xbox notwithstanding, but do you think people really associate the Xbox with the same company that makes Windows?)
A shark moves too slowly to eat smaller fish, especially schools. And even if the shark grabs a few (buys out), they are still plenty of new fish to take their place. Time will tell if the school of fish is more flexible and malliable than the overweight, overfed and relatively uncreative and inefficient fish that Microsoft has become.
Or, you can use the Rottweiler vs. a Rottweiler's Weight in Chahuahuas analogy. Either way, Microsoft needs some weight loss. A Federally-mandated breakup might have actually been a good thing for MS a few years back to keep it stronger in the game and not this laggard monolith.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
So.. one quote from the article
Without Microsoft it still would be a world of IBM and Oracle and that would be a lot more expensive world
Makes me wonder... how would be the world now if back then, this guy didnt wanted to charge money for his software??, what if Mommy Gates had not strong IBM relations so IBM had bought MS-DOs instead of licensed it??
Who knows... maybe OSS wont exist!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Read between the lines..
He's not saying that they'll stop malicious software from being installed, he's saying that all malicious software will alert the user that they're being installed..
And how do they do that?
The MS installer will ensure that all non-MS software will present a warning saying that it might be malicious
See? It's easy!
"A raft of companies is newly emboldened to challenge the software giant in every market: music, messaging, mobile phones and more."
Microsoft didn't come up with those application and they aren't particularly welcome in those areas.
This article reads like it was their's to lose when we're just trying to keep the elephant out of the living room because, like any elephant in a living room, it is very very messy.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So, they have six battles to fight, ranging from 1-3. Interesting. Must they fight each one twice?
http://xkcd.com/386/
Large market share does not equal bad quality for other vendors. The usual illustration is Apache vs MS-IIS or MySQL/Postgresql/Oracle vs MS-SQL.
It'd be nice to see an article from the BBC get that correctly.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
FASTER! MORE SECURE! BETTER GAMING! MORE PRODUCTIVITY!
Doesn't that sound familiar? And here's the kicker, according to a security expert of mine, XP has more potential security holes in it than win95 to win2k combined. I only have his word on it, but to be honest, it sounds logical to me given Microsoft's track record and the amount of XP machines that I see with malware and root kits on them. You can say something is more secure because you disable the ability to open attachments, but then the user turns the ability back on and....whoops there goes the security of OE. Not that it was all that secure even with attachments disabled.
With the magnitude of the amount of code in Windows these days, including easter eggs and so forth, I would estimate that it would take more than 35% of the R&D budget to find them all. I don't buy it. It's all rhetoric and nothing more. Malware will NEVER go away. Bill Gates even suggesting that a product of his company will do so is irresponsible.
Most of Microsoft's customers are of the completely security clueless variety. The only way to protect such customers from themselves is to take away their freedom to run the software of their choice (because their choices are so stupid - even discounting the choice of MS). This is why trusted/treacherous computing is so important to Microsoft. The end user is the biggest security hole.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It turns a Microsoft computer into a dedicated appliance rather than a general purpose computer - but there is a market for that. The danger for the free world is that Microsoft would like to make general purpose computers illegal except for (Microsoft) licensed developers.
"Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
Riiiiiiiight... If that were true why would they have bought Giant's AntiSpyware? They sure as hell don't have a track record for caring for customers of their older OS versions.
There's 2 alternatives here at hand:
A) Billy G is talking out of his ass yet again. Which makes perfect snese since MS itself has a line-up of "malware" products, like MSN Messenger (Adware), Msn toolbar (Spyware) and even Windows built in search function, which phones home every damn thing you search for. And yea that's what makes it so slow.
B) MS will make spyware a "thing of the past" by bundling MS AntiSpyware with Longhorn, instead of actually fixing the security problems. That's all fine and dandy if you consider something you have to scan ever other week for to be a "Thing of The Past (TM)" And of course, their antispyware program will conveniently ignore to report on MS's own malware.
Ouch! You got me there. :)
Best regards.
1) Put Knoppix CD 2) ??? 3) Profit!
...and at this rate, I'll say it again in two years:
Longhorn is the new Copland.
If I were Bill Gates, I would be seriously considering just scrapping the entire Windows codebase and picking up some little known OS to use for a bottom up rewrite. Sounds crazy? Consider this-- WINE has proven that you don't need Windows to run Windows apps on x86. If anyone could make a turbo-charged version of WINE for a new, non-free OS, it's Microsoft. Meanwhile, Apple has gone from nothing (1998) to top of the heap in terms of UI, features, usability, etc. all in less than 7 years. With Microsoft's larger cash reserves, they could do the same thing faster (but not too fast!) and serve up some real competition.
And any time there's competition, the real winner is the consumer. On the other hand, if MS does nothing, people will wake up to the fact when you barely know how to use a computer at all, there's no difference between the little bit you know about using Windows and how things are done in Linux and Mac OS...
Microsoft's real product development (not innovation) lately has only occurred in areas that it has been kicked in.
.conf files for easy parsing/reading and maintenance.
Lets have a look at what's hot or not at MS:
Exchange Server - incremental development only recently. 5.5 was the last "must have" upgrade. Domino was a major workgroup compeditor, it's still there, but not dominant. Plenty of F/OSS secure and configurable email servers about.
SQL Server - Really moving. MySQL and Postgres at the low end, DB2 and Oracle at the high end with competing products.
Enterprise authentication - Incremental improvents only recently. Active Directory is dominant, NDS in non-Novell shops is unheard of. Other LDAP based products are just getting a toenail hold.
Browsers - IE dominant and stagnant. With Firefox and Opera (et al), MS is finally ramping up development of a new version.
Office products - Office95/97 was a big improvement, but most users wouldn't use the new features in XP/2003 versions. Various FOSS office products are fast approaching "drop-in" replacements for most uses and users. Don't know where MS can go with this one.
IIS - Apache is market leader by most measures, IIS is too tied to the underlying OS. Not much room to improve.
File and print services. Still a lot of offices will have this as one of the most important IT function, along with financials. Samba/CUPS is a more than adequate replacement. MS's file sharing security-model hasn't improved much since the introduction of NTFS and share permissions. No notificable improvements in speed between NT4 and Server 2003 on comparable hardware.
Issues like security and patching have improved vastly, but still have a way to go.
Management of servers is still mainly point and click, but with improvements in 'scriptability'. Still waiting for the simplicity of configuration of an "/etc" folder with a series of
The big worry for MS is that it is and will continue to lose "mind-share". It's not cool to be working with MS products. It's products are only moving forward where a serious compeditor exists.
The only thing propping MS up is an "out of the box", polished UI. However, it soon pisses off power users and is also too closely tied to the OS. Works fine for Aunt Ethel, and that's fine for Dell (et al)
The lastest generation of net-admins or programmers will be equally experienced on Unix-likes or MS, unless they went to school in a MS-only brainwashing shop.
I'd consider MS will under attack.
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
And "do you really want to have your security issues discussed by the Linux developer community on a public bulletin board," queries Alistair Baker of Microsoft UK.
ummmm.... yes?
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
The whole DRM thing seems to have died down from MS recently and I'm wondering if this has meant a strategy change on their part or just keeping quiet about it and sneaking it in anyway.
If MS are stopping malware in Longhorn then that's a good thing on their part for the Longhorn users but DRM is like "nuking your back garden to get rid of an ants nest" - it'll stop any "non-MS approved" product running which is a completely different thing altogether.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Breaking News! It has just been learned from the various corporate spies who work at Redmond that Longhorn contains no Internet Explorer or any web browsers, you can't connect a modem or a LAN card...VOILA! no malware...problem solved! Genius!
"We really nailed that one." - Anonymous Longhorn Developer
"Already Microsoft is spending 30% to 35% of its research and development budget on security issues"
Or is that 35% of its R&D budget FOR security issues - which would be about $1.95, I figure...
"Longhorn will make security issues a thing of the past."
Right, Bill - we KNOW how EVERY new version of Windows is going to be the "latest and greatest" - that's been your mantra since the first DOS...
And it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It could still happen.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
"His promise: Longhorn, malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge (..)"
he said it, not me.
twitter.com/gravitronic
To reinstall it's put the restore CD in the drive and boot.
Restore CD? What is this Restore CD you speak of?
Friend, you should not use such strange language.
Could you perhaps be imagining some fantastic innovation that could be introduced to computers in the distant future? Or, perhaps you might be referring to some ancient artifact of computing long past? It is presently unclear if either of these could be what you might have meant.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Those fools at microsoft, don't they know they can win by getting the power up and hitting: up+up+down+left+right+A+A+B!??!?!!? Losers.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
From TFA:
But is the software giant really at its "most vulnerable moment in history"?
I hate MS as much as the next guy, but the article appears to have been deliberately misquoted by omission on the slashdot summary.
Why all the Fud?
Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
They OS is none too shabby neither (and security and ither updates are automagic.)
Microsoft makes no hardware, since they realized that they were making it into a chump's game themselves. So they have to partner with companies that do make hardware.
To be big enough to partner with Microsoft means that you have reached a size sufficient to have drummed out any creativity you might ever have had, not to mention that the options as far as chassis and options are limited.
Microsoft itself, in the process of commoditizing the hardware, has made it economically impossible to change anything beyond the cosmetics of the cases.
Apple is not bound by these limitations. The new iMac G5, a flat screen balanced on a pedestal, with everything else tucked away inside, could NOT have come from ANY company producing Windows hardware.
The iPod makes its own case for its own form factor and its repeated for the iPod Shuffle.
Microsoft CAN NOT hope to compete because they would have to take over one of their partners, andn I can certainly see that happening, and then actually have an idea (as well as a clue.)
Sorry but the people that would be available to Microsoft would reach for a parts catalogue first and THAT'S the problem.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Is it just me, or everytime Microsoft innovates something is because they're PUSHED to do it?
.NET
Viruses: Longhorn security features
Firefox: IE7
Java:
It seems pretty obvious to me that Microsoft is indeed at the crossroad, but not at the crossroad to disappear.
They are simply too huge to go away. They would have to make mistake after mistake for the stock to drop and for confidence to evaporate.
Hopefully Microsoft will soon realize that the wild growth of the 90s is gone, that they have run out of IT sectors to simply phagocyte, that they now need to really innovate rather than copy and do good-enough work, that they need play nicer and start collaborating a bit more.
There was a survey yesterday that said that basically people who choose open-source do that to avoid vendor lock-in, not for the price.
Microsoft cannot lower prices and recapture lost market, this is a race to the bottom that they cannot win. What this survey says is that they also cannot embrace-and-extend standards they way they used to because the industry has wised up to this strategy.
They pretty much own the desktop market, but there is no growth there except the natural growth of the market itself. They cannot grow all that much on the server market because Windows is not enough of a jack-of-all-trade, doesn't run competitively on large machines, and that the cheap servers run on Linux/BSD.
They are stuck. Sure they can grow on consoles, in the living room and on mobiles, but there is more competition there, and the margins aren't as fat.
Microsoft will not go away, but I wish they would realize that, become less paranoid and start behaving like a better corporate citizen. A bit like IBM has become. Start with following and proposing standards that other people can interact with.
Microsoft is organized into a number of business units, and each business unit is fairly independent of the others. It's not quite the "chinese wall" that you'll find at newspapers between reporting and editorial desks, but it is a conscious decision by top management to keep these units as autonomous as possible.
Within these units the business culture varies dramatically. Some units maintain a fairly good edge to this day; X-Box or Hardware are two good examples. Others, Office for example, have gotten a bit sleepier. It has to do with enemies--X-Box has Sony, and Hardware has Logitech. Office has...no serious enemies. Hence their hackles are not up.
Management will also move staff around to kick up the culture a bit. The recent development efforts in IE are a good example of this. They shifted in new developers, kicked the whole group in the pants, and got them to work.
Microsoft has always been much better at defense than offense--at defending turf rather than acquiring it. Their greatest successes have all come out of defensive efforts--Windows, Office, IE. A great example is their response to GO's pen-based OS in the 80's.
MS overall has been sluggish lately because they frankly have not been seriously challenged. Now, between Apple, Google, and Linux, they're starting to feel that they ARE being seriously challenged. I would expect great things out of MS in the coming years. I certainly would not write them off yet.
TFA makes a good point--MS is being challenged seriously for the first time in a long time. But they draw a conclusion that is 180 degrees at odds with the evidence. This bodes WELL for Microsoft, not badly.
but really , Gates however should stop saying things like Never, and Wont, and Thing of the Past. Sets himself up for failure when that happens.
Numerous times has he done this, only to be thwarted back by the hacker community, and the weak security model of his company.
Lest I remind everyone that if it werent for Gates and Baller , and ultimately all the developers at MS , that we wouldnt have malware, adware, and a large bevy of the numbers of viruses that exist.
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
First of all, Microsoft has a mountain of money, and that will keep them safe for a long time.
But there are people making decisions at the top, and I think those decisions have been flawed.
It's analagous to Intel, where they decided that 64 bits wasn't important for consumers, and that compatibility with x86 wasn't important. Intel is huge, and that's not going to come close to killing them, but it did give AMD a few openings.
There are tough decisions that would have been jarring, culturally, on the Windows platform that Microsoft has shied away from. They should be pushing harder to get people not to run software with administrator privs, even though doing so would cause a lot of old software to break.
ActiveX is a security nightmare. Bagging it would cause a lot of pain and suffering in the short term, but keeping it is going to cost a lot more over the long run.
I think the main strength of open source software is that no one can make those sorts of decisions and force them on people. If you dig in on a bad decision, someone will fork the project.
I don't think that gates has had the guts to make the tough decisions since he's been the chief software architect. I know he's a genius, and he's obviously a lot smarter than I am. But I just don't see his record over the past couple of years as being that strong.
The main problem that Microsoft has now is that the bottom half of their user base (the proportion is just a guess) can't admin windows competently enough to keep the machines running reliably on the internet. Geeks can do it. My windows machines run fine, and have since the second version of windows 98. But an awful lot of people just can't pull it off -- they're bogged down in the muck, because admining their home windows boxes is too hard.
Microsoft is spending a fortune to patch bugs one at a time, but they're not addressing the fundamental architectural problems that make the bugs so damaging.
Compare that to what Jobs did with OS X. People were howling for years while they waited for it to come out. He was willing to piss off everyone by breaking compatibility with the old system. He took the long view, and he took his lumps up front to get things lined up for the future properly.
That's exactly what Gates doesn't have the guts to do. It's weak technical leadership.
Wow, really playing catchup with Mac and Linux there. Those things have been a 'thing' of the past for a lot of people for a long time.
His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
so the next version of windows will be based on BSD then?
that is GREAT NEWS!
Please oh Please tell me that MSSQL will be based on postgreSQL!
Microsoft will not be "defeated" in the sense of vanishing from the field as a software company. Ever. They have achieved what is probably the most pervasive and addictive vendor lock-in situation in all of human history. An incredible amount of the information critical to maintaining our society at its current level is stored on, written for, and run by Windows computers.
g one they will be able to do it.
Remember, users will now INSIST on Windows, because they want it/know it/are used to it. This is even better than making it a legal requirement to use Windows or threatening people (by whatever means) to use Windows or else. A vast number of addicts (the situation is surprisingly analogous) to Windows will DEMAND it in spite of anything else, becasue for them it makes life easier.
What might happen is Microsoft will lower their prices and improve their quality to prevent the beginnings of a migration to another product - if they make their customers unhappy (i.e. take away what they're plugged in to) something might happen. But Microsoft will never do this. Their tendancy towards not changing anything is actually a bonus for most people, who want to learn a computer once and never have it do anything unexpected for the rest of their lives. (Please note that although I find this frustrating, it is neither surprising or blameworthy - I don't want to relearn how to drive or perform basic car maintainance every few years.) Competition does not produce products like that, since change is integral to competition. And if by some chance real innovation becomes a requirement, Microsoft may in fact be able to achieve this. We don't know - they haven't had to try. But Microsoft R&D has some good people, and it may be that if Microsoft's survival suddenly depends on an innovate product rather than an essentially-unchanging-but-incrementally-improvin
Microsoft is here to stay, in all cases where users choose stability/familiarity over performance. There are, of course, areas of society where the choice will go the other way, where people are willing to put in the extra time and effort to learn something out of the ordinary. But those will always be the exceptions, and they will only serve as a minor annoyance for Microsoft. Linux only gets so much press because of the novelty of it's pricetag and philosophy. There is no such thing as an "up and coming" Microsoft competitor. Apple produces an infinitely better product, and their market share is fairly fixed. Linux is decimating commercial Unix, but Unix users are both more familiar with the basic principles of the system and (of sheer necessity) more adaptable.
Linux will have successes - it will displace Windows in some cases, maybe even a lot of them. But most of the market share is businesses, and businesses will avoid risks that are not integral to their core business if they can. Microsoft is The Standard (de facto) and that fact is unlikely to change for the forseeable future.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I'm heartily sick of hearing posters here calling Gates an 'idiot'.
I'm no fan of the guy, but ffs, credit where it's due.
Gates is a genius businessman, and a pretty good technician too as I understand it.
How much have these posters given to charitable causes? Not much I expect, too concerned with spending $ on hot-rodding their latest processor/mobo combination.
Gates has given millions, and without the attendant publicity that such generosity usually entails.
Gates an idiot? I don't think so. A ruthless businessman maybe, but never an idiot.
One word: Palladium.
"Yer' PC Is all Messed up and stuff - Click on this to Unmess it - Word yo!"
So, how exactly is Longhorn going to change that?
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I didn't see him "disclosing" that he uses Windows, which he almost certainly does...
That support contract does change the TCO argument a lot though. You can easily get the same from, say, Red Hat et al, and not need to spend that support time resolving Trojan related issues.
who give people what THEY think people want and haven't the least fucking clue, nor listen to the feedback.
So many examples to choose from but consider GIMP.
Potentially powerful but CRAPPY UI. But of course, the developers sniff and think they know best, totally misunderstanding their target audience.
Now that's 24-carrot gold plated idiocy!
The name looks good only in certain circles; Circles which are slowly closing. I personally throw away any resume with Microsoft on it now because anymore I am not sure they will really be all that smart, but I'm pretty sure they will have overinflated egos to deal with (from a few past experiences). I do not think Microsoft fosters group dynamics that are healthy at many other places.
His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
Instead, Longhorn will have a nifty lil pop-up that says:
"Windows has successfully installed a new Trojan Horse/Adserver. Before you can bein using this program
you must restart the computer. Would you like to restart the computer now?"
[Yes] [Ok]
do() || do_not();
>>A good approach would be to outlaw internet access to any computer with windows installed.
Well, that's the Internet (in any meaningful sense) killed off then.
What do you have for brains, exactly?
This brings up a quote FTFA:
Well, yes, that's exactly what I want. Private discussions are much more likely to degenerate for a number of reasons (Groupthink being a major contributor). In all likelihood, the people with the best solutions are not invited into the private discussions. There is also a certain degree of arrogance inherent to such discussions ("we are the only ones smart enough to have found this security hole").
Public discussion promotes a much wider sampling of views, opinions, and advice. Of course, some of these will be useless and/or counter-productive. That doesn't imply the process of public discussion itself is not superior; the positives generally far outweigh the negatives.
So I say again, YES, Mr. Microsoft Man, I would indeed prefer this approach.
Novell stock trades at 6 dollars
but...
Microsoft is in trouble.
Longhorn, blah, blah, blah. It will be a big hit for Microsoft.
Where will Novell be?
And they said the Titanic was unsinkable.
The basic crux of the book is that concentrating on technology doesn't make a revolution nor does it win battles.
...I think Linus made a statement to the effect that "destroying Microsoft would be an unintentional side effect". You are right, if they were in a commercial race with Microsoft (read: we want an ROI on every hour spent on Linux) they would be long dead.
Instead, Linux is evolving rapidly towards a better and better platform. How do you fight that? Cut prices? Doesn't have any impact, as Linus isn't making any sales. Lock-out? Linux has always had those issues and kept evolving. If their system becomes too much better, it will fail. Hostile takeover? There's no one to buy out (not even Linus himself).
The only real way to keep yourself ahead of the game is to offer more and more, but you run out of features people really need. At some point, your choice of words become more important than your word processor, and your numbers more important than your spreadsheet program.
In short, they can fend off "attacks", but they can't stop the underlying progress. Linux's use areas are constantly being overstretched and get beaten back, but the "core" areas keeps growing slowly and relentlessly. How do you fight an enemy that never crumbles under economical pressure, the only kind commercial companies are used to?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I just had this though as to why large companies continue to stay with MS solutions when Linux and OO.o appear to cost less.
Wallstreet looks for quarter-to-quarter success from public companies. (Even private companies have VC firms or private inestors monitoring them closely.)
To switch computing platforms does, no question, cost upfront money to retrain end users and support staff as well as acquire and install the software.
Since Windows "training" is a sunk cost (already paid for), making the switch doesn't include these costs.
If a company make the switch, Linux training would become a 1 time, sunk cost too. But hiring staff that know it would still cost training where as most people know Windows. So there is that cost.
So when Wallstreet is looking for a company to make a certain earnings number, no company wants to take the "Training cost" hit, even if it is a one time thing, during the current quarter because it will cost them in their stock.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
In the past several months Microsoft has been sued by a couple more companies regarding technologies used in core components of Longhorn. These law suits usually take years which means that Longhorn will be at least delayed again and, should it ever be released, it will lack those features Microsoft has been hyping up. As a developer and tester I am very disappointed by the Longhorn test version and feel that this is not much more than a makeover gone wrong, hyped up, and pushed on already frustrated user.
and boy are they lame.
... even if Fable and Halo for the new dorky xBox might be n33t.
my 14 yo son commented on how lame they were.
well, better forget about that one
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Question everything
Quite.
For example when was the last time General Motors was the best at making cars? They have survived thirty years because of the size of their network and their financial strength despite being regularly whupped by Japanese and Europeanoutfits on a technical basis.
Come to think of it when was Microsoft last at the cutting edge if it ever was?
Hundreds of companies have had technical leads of Microsoft and not lived to tell the tale. All you can say is that anyone who beats Microsoft will have some kind of technical lead but the argument doesn't work the other way round.
Maybe they should hire Joe Camel to "get 'em young"
"Look kids, Smoking and Microsoft are cool! Nothing like lighting up a nice Camel unfiltered then hunting down spyware!"
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
...among business users that want a phone-cum-organiser.
Now that I can watch movies on my phone, I need a phone-[edited for you protection]-cleaner!
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
80% of Microsoft's revenue comes from the top 20% of their enterprise customer base, meaning that 80% of their customers (likely you and I) do not get the attention that the big customers get. This is why security is such a big issue for them. It isn't to make your home PC more secure, that is just a side-effect.
The reason for pointing this out is that it is the largest 20% of the customers in the enterprise space that drive Microsoft's technical direction. Ever wonder why the Mac is better for the home market and novice user? It was designed and is driven by the desires of the home market, not the enterprise market. As long as Microsoft's focus remains on the large enterprise space, the product will continue to be just 'average' on the desktop. This is the crack in the market that Apple is going after.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
How much research does it take to go 'round with a ruler and smack the hands of the coders who are putting in all the buffer overflows?
...so they or some under the table partner can sell the security "enterprise solution".
1/2 (whatever) of microsoft is busywork to keep a lot of people employed and keep their stock up and keep revenues flowing. You can't resell something over and over and over and over again if it "just works" in the first place and people can go about their business for years without it breaking or having any absolute need to "upgrade".
MS has certainly reached my 8 year old. He intuitively came up with "Windows sucks" just by using Windows for a very short time.
You say that as if it's a bad thing!
On the contrary, a corporation making decisions based on what's important to customers is refreshing to see.
Critics suggest a simple solution: use Apple or Linux to be safe and sound.
But Linux (and Unix) systems have been hacked before, and Apple's brand-new Tiger operating system has already been fingered for a security flaw.
Yes, Microsoft's software has security holes, but hackers mainly love it because there are so many Windows PCs out there. Write one virus and 90% of the wired world could be yours.
Not this again. I can see an ignorant PHB still flippantly throwing this lame FUD around, but a journalist? For the BBC, no less?
Tiger has "a security flaw," so the implication is that it's just as vulnerable as Windows? That's clearly what the article is insinuating.
For those who don't know, all OSes get attacked. Given 100 Windows machines and 100 Linux machines, the success rate with attacks on Windows is a hell of a lot higher.
How can a journalist do even a modicum of research outside Redmond and not know this?
The Internet is full. Go away.
Make malicious software a thing of the past??
I don't think so. As long as there is a will, there is a way...
(and Microsoft is pretty good at providing the will)
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cou
". . . Blackberry is grabbing marketshare among business users that want a phone-cum-organiser."
:oD
Lol! I guess Blackberry wants to help folks organize their 1-900 numbers??? Okey-doke!
I guess this is part of MS's #3 strategy to "Get them young". That's all I can figure!
I don't really care how they call it, but I don't want any of those things-of-the-past around my puter. And no matter how they call it, I don't believe this, until I see it happen. Talk is something in which MS is very good at. But I prefer deeds talking.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Why are we complaining that Microsoft is "under attack"? Haven't we all been under attack by hundreds of thousands of Microsoft Windows machines for the last 5-6 years, every day, all day?
Heck, a quick scan of my log today so far shows over 2,300 unique IPs trying to peck at different Windows-specific things on port 25 and port 80, not to mention the random noise from worms and trojans on port 135 and DCOM and other ports that I obviously don't use on FreeBSD and Linux machines.
I give them zero sympathy until they stop providing a platform that can be used to perform distributed attacks on our non-Windows machines.
No no, Microsoft has been attacking us for years. Its about time they own up to it, or get some pain coming back their way.
Most handset makers are pushing their own software, while upstart Blackberry is grabbing marketshare among business users that want a phone-cum-organiser.
Okay I may have a mind that tends to wander in the gutter, but I doubt anyone really understands enough Latin to appreicate the author's meaning in writing "phone-cum-organizer". I wouldn't have published that on the web. Or maybe I'm just perverted?
Every great journey begins with the first step.
"do you really want to have your security issues discussed by the Windows hacker community on a hacker bulletin board,"
And the answer is no, of course not. And most serious Linux programs have a way to report security issues confidentially. But if they are in the open, those who want to know already know so the point is moot. It's just sticking your head in the sand.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Uhh, according to my sources, Microsoft made $1.03 over its trailing 12 months (ttm - 2004). The company generates $1 BILLION cash every quarter. It has gross margins north of 60%. It just paid a large cash dividend to shareholders and there is rumors that another is on the way.
What, exactly, is impressive in your book?
MSFT is the GM of the computer world. It will NEVER go away (unless America, somehow, goes away).
Google picks up dodgeball and the attack on Microsoft takes a new turn.
Look at that picture of him in TFA. You'd think with his billions of dollars Bill Gates would be able to afford a decent-looking haircut...
Isn't this an oxymoron?
His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
.exe/.dll with a debugger and SoftIce).
What will really end up happening is that malware writers will simply need to look at how Microsoft's software installs and works on Longhorn (i.e., going through actual
While every other legitimate software developer will be trying to do things the way Microsoft says they should be done, of course Microsoft's developers will have all sorts of tricks and hoops they can jump through to bypass most of those things.
And one of the negative effects of that will be that it will probably be even more difficult to remove malware than it is now.
What if Microsoft locks down the Registry for home users so that even the Administrator account or group lacks certain privileges on certain hives or nodes, but Microsoft's apps use a different account that can access and modify those nodes, and neglects to tell others how to use that account, on account of "security concerns", so that even with new versions of non-Microsoft anti-malware, one's computer is never really clean (especially because some Microsoft utilities/applets/whatever could be looked at as potentially being malware as well?)...
Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'.
By my definition, Longhorn qualifies as malware, so does this mean it won't even install?
My god, that's brilliant.
I was just reading that "The NEXT version of Windows...." statement we hear every year or so and thinking "Yeah, malware will be a thing of the past; SURE." But then it occurred to me... Linux has every piece of sourcecode open to the world, has more installs than Mac, just has enough viruses to fit on one hand. Meanwhile, Microsoft's sourcecode is stored in the same "Area 51" next to the Arc of the Covenant and the Fountain of Youth, and has 60,000+. So what's the difference? Someone's got to be helping, somewhere. A LOT like the Patriot Act and friends; a large, dangerous perceived threat that allows organizations to make sweeping changes. So..."Longhorn" will have all that Trusted Computing crap and deny use of other operating systems, etc....'cause we're tired of viruses, phishing, and all the other circus that online life has become? If I hadn't burnt-out on computing, I'd care. YOU guys deal with it.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
No sig for now.
Gates: His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'.
:-)
In unrelated news, Longhorn will no longer support networking, removable media, keyboards, or mice.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Stories like this only hurt M$ alternatives. Here's how I see it:
1. Media constantly searches for new stories to entice readers to look at ads.
2. To entice readers to look at ads, writers build tension. In this case, the hero (big advertising $$ Microsoft) is being "challeneged" by other market participants. It doesn't matter how they define the issues, there's a challenge. This builds tension and a sense of excitement.
3. Microsoft finally releases something new(ish) and the writer proclaims, "Microsoft destroys its enemies! Our hero lives another day!!!" To the great pleasure of readers, Microsoft and the media outlet who just got you to look at more ads.
I think M$ competitors are willing participants because they get "some" press, but they are playing a losing game unless they can come up with more advertising dollars than Microsoft.
I'd like to know if anyone has a strategy to break this cycle. Other than IBM's mega-bucks linux ad campaigns, I don't know where to begin.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Perhaps Gates should've said: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make computing freedom 'a thing of the past'.
yep, get 'em young.
best results will acrue if early anti-drug
propaganda is emulated
just like marijuana and LSD you want to tell the kids MS is BAD for them through saturation advertising. to illustrate HOW bad it is, show them films of happy, laughing, zoned out, windows heads with the occasional BSOD accompanied by scary organ music, frowns, gnashing of teeth, and fork in the eye action by the formerly gleeful windows heads.
FOr the real HARD CORE MS stuff like Office, borrow from the anti-LSD propaganda. SHow them all the beautiful things one can do with Office and then bring in the organ again to accompany a 'file not found' error and forks in BOTH eyes.
Just like the drug propaganda, the kids who don't know about MS products will become aware. They'll pay attention because it's supposed to be BAD for them. They'll get off on all the psychedelics and won't believe that such things as BSOD and 'file not found' could possibly exist. From their POV it's 'don't do this kids' PROPAANDA after all and the BAD stuff hasn't happened to anyone they know.
Despite all claims of ease of use, if you don't configure it just right it blows up in your face.
Never confuse volume with power.
"Most handset makers are pushing their own software, while upstart Blackberry is grabbing marketshare among business users that want a phone-cum-organiser" I've been looking for are product for some time now to organize my phone cum. Its so nasty and gets over everything. I'm glad to see that Microsoft may be providing another means to organize tele-spooge!
Here is my opinion regarding Microsoft. Microsoft is targetted by far more hackers due to the popularity and "success" by the company by being on the average computer users computer. I'm sure this is obvious and probably mentioned in these comments before. However, Bill Gates promises the following in Longhorn: Malware will be a thing of the past. In my theory, I've gotten the same promises in email that I've received from Nigeria. Anyone with the patience and presistance will be able to exploit software, regardless how well it has been programmed. Surely there was a developer that isn't 100% perfect.
could not be more apropo.
I found the second part of the BBC article to be very disappointing.... I wonder if the whole series is being fed to them by a Wagner-Eggstrom PR rep. Sort of like "See? Microsoft is the underdog again! Look at their exciting strategy for gaining^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMaintianing dominance...."
THe first part got things about right. THe second part looked like it was primarily MS PR.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Since he is American, he can't be called "Sir".
I believe only British people and people from countries who submit to the monarchy (if in ceremonial form only) like, I think Australia (Canada too?) can use the title "Sir".
Anyway, he's not "Sir Bill". I believe the best he can do is "Bill, KBE" (Knight of the British Empire).
Anybody -- please correct or elaborate if you can.
My stupid web site
I can't believe that any "PC" tech who has been working more than a year or so hasn't installed Linux. Not even Knoppix? Are you living under a rock? No, I've got it ... it's your first day here!?!
As soon as I heard of it (about 6 years ago) I had to have a go, installing Slackware from diskette on an IBM thinkpad (Pentium-S, the S is for Slow I think!). IF only because I fancied messing about with partitions and seeing if I could reinstall windows.
As far as career development goes I'd have thought some *nix|*BSD|MacOSX experience was essential.
But hey, no-one offered me a job so I s'pose I got it bass-ackwards.
Seriously I'm not trying to offend but I can't actually believe I saw your post on Slashdot.
My apologies if this is less than coherent, but I'm not in the best headspace right now...
Convergence is good in the sense, as you said, of everything just working together and not having to deal with mixing and matching and fine tuning your solutions. That is what customers want, and I agree, it's a Good Thing.
What is bad is the way that MS and most everybody else has been going about it: the approach of "everybody wants their word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software to work together, so we'll make an integrated wp/ss/presentation combo package!" This encourages too much interdependency on specific other products, vendor lock-in to whoever makes your preferred end-to-end solution, and compromise in the quality of the individual parts of the integrated package. That's a Bad Thing.
The right way to go about convergence is similar to the old (and sadly failed) document-centric computing approaches like Apple's OpenDoc, or the unix "pipe" concept, and the associated staples of both of the above: standard, free and open formats and protocols and specific tools that do one thing extremely well.
So in a sense, what you're saying is spot on: it's not the one box that does it all that we need, it's the one network that'll make all out boxes work together. But the "network" doesn't have to be just the internet, and all our "boxes" don't have to be separate physical devices. I still want my general purpose computer. Hell, I want a general computer the size of a small PDA that doubles as a cell-phone-alike (ala VoIP). I don't want a thousand special-purpose little devices, I want one device to which to which can add and change functions and have it all Just Work. And I want my data and my processing power to rest primarily with me, and not rely on some remote network to function properly.
The "network" isn't the necessarily the Internet, it's the protocols and formats that let things like the Internet work. The "boxes" don't have to be literal separate devices but any specific components (either hardware or software) that operate together over those protocols without caring what each other are.
It's great that this type of interoperation can scale to remote inter-device levels too, and allow us to take advantage of remote services, but that's not the key factor. The key factor is the protocols and formats. They are the core of integration and "convergence", and they could work just as well in a single box as over the network.
In the history of computing, the death of the document-centric computing concept (where a vast array of different, specialized tools all work together seamlessly as though your whole OS was one application), and the associated stagnation of standardized file formats, has got to be one of the saddest events that I have witnessed.
People think MS Office and Adobe Creative Suite are great because "it all just works together". We were once promised that our entire computers would function like that (again, only now in the graphical environment too). It was companies like MS and Adobe, who refused to support document-centric paradigms (lest people not be locked in to using *their* entire suite when they could mix and match their own just as easily), that saw the efforts of those promises stillborn.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Looking at both part 1 and 2 of this article, and attempting to read between the lines, I noticed one overarching theme which struck me as fairly important:-
Microsoft are abandoning their traditional, core market, namely, the desktop OS. The tone of the second article is very, very defensive...in a nutshell stating that they're aware Windows is doomed, and are essentially scrambling to jump to another market/find something to replace Windows with as their core bread and butter.
The "wired home" stuff in particular will fail. I can predict that with a high degree of certainty. The main reason why is because it's redundant...it's technology that people do not want or need. People wanting a more programmable combination DVD/MP3 player I could accept, but we've already got those...and you could quite easily bundle that and an HDTV set top box together without it needing to use XP...In fact, the only thing XP would introduce there would be a security/stability risk. The thing wouldn't need a hard drive, either...That's what 4 Gb DVDs are for.
I can't see Microsoft making it big in the mobile/handheld/embedded markets, either...embedded Linux is already out there, and even if Linux won't catch on as a mainstream home user (read: idiot proof) desktop OS for a while yet, it works just fine for dedicated applications such as a web browsing kiosk, etc.
The only one of its existing markets that I could see Microsoft feasibly surviving in would be the console market with the new Xbox...but even then, they'll be looking at massive downsizing if that becomes their new centre of gravity.
Microsoft's main problem now is quite simply the fact that although during the 80s, the UNIX world was kept distracted and divided by the vendor wars, that is no longer the case. Microsoft might have been referred to metaphorically as an 800 pound gorilla...but although the Tyrannosaurus Rex that is UNIX spent some time sleeping, in the last ten years it has re-awoken...and Gates has a very large and deadly surprise in store for him.
Geez, just when I got all my viruses, worms, trojans, and malware running *perfectly* on my machine with no crashing, they're going to break it all.
"To reinstall it's put the restore CD in the drive and boot. Normally that will load up the correct 3rd party drivers as the PC manufacturer has put those into the restore process."
This has never really worked on Windows unless you have a machine stripped of anything fancy. The Microsoft video drivers are so poor that some users just say my machine is too old and slow. I need a new machine.
Linux works better, but has poor support for bleeding edge devices and ones that have Winedows-Only drivers.
Your Average Joe
Do you actually understand how the stock market works? When MSFT is a sell and they make NO profit watch the stock drop by 90% and employees, investors and owners bail.
You can mark my words, they will all bail and the software company will be liquidated for the fixed assets. Software companies are not worth a DAMN when they fall from grace.
Your Average Joe
"But that's not an issue, as long as Microsoft manages to sow enough doubt."
That about sums it up...
Yep. And another similarity is that MS's "research" seems to be mostly aimed at manipulating people and preying on their vulnerabilities.
The only "security research" microsoft seem to be doing is how to finally admit that Unix has had it right all along, while looking like market leaders offering something new.
Sorry if I was inflammatory, it was late...
Hmm, I think I missed something here.