Slashdot Mirror
The Company Everyone Loves To Hate
In honor of Microsoft's 30th year, Epeeist writes "The BBC is running a Have Your Say article on Microsoft at 30." From that article: "Microsoft will always adapt and buy into other areas to keep themselves at the top. They're the company everyone loves to hate." While they're reflecting, most people are focusing on the now. teslatug writes "Brian Jones, a Microsoft PM on the Office team, has just confirmed that the new default XML format of Office 12 is not compatible with the GPL. Brian believes that LGPL may be compatible, but others have raised issues about the ability to redistribute." Relatedly, shades66 writes "Microsoft's Alan Yates tripped over his own words in responding to the Massachusetts Information Technology Division's late-August declaration for OpenDocument and other open software standards." For some more colourful commentary, smooth wombat writes "John Dvorak has written an article for MarketWatch in which he postulates that the reorganization by Microsoft is actually a prelude to its breakup into three separate entities."
Windows is great for the normal person who uses computers for everyday things. But for programmers, or other tech things, Windows isn't the best option. I think that most of the people who state their opinions on OS's are the people who actually care. Most of the people who are satisfied with Windows don't care to post their opinion on it compared to other OS's because as far as they know, they don't know the names of any other OS's.
So basically, the majority of the people who don't like Windows are programmers or something of the sort, and it just so happens that they are the majority of the people who state their opinions of Windows...
Add me as a friend!
i don't love to hate them.
i love to stop using their products, in favor of better alternatives.
Splitting up the company in such a fashion seems like a good idea to me. Stockholders have the potential to be well rewarded by such a move. The Motorola Freescale split-up was a good deal for everyone involved. Freescale's stock is up (from $14 to $22) and they are doing fine on their own. If some stuff dies then it dies. Products that fail the test don't need to be on life support indefinately.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you RTFA a little closer...
an IPO of the Xbox division would generate a metric ton of revenue. Revenue that would ride out the first few years of losses. The article explicitly mentioned that the XBOX division was getting the best and the brightest, much like an early Microsoft, whereas the other divisions were getting stagnant. A seperate XBOX company therefore would be a group of intelligent bright people who would turn a profit shortly, and whose stock would rise much like an early Microsoft.
The reason you seperate was very clearly stated: with three cash cows in one barn, things get stagnant. Seperate them into seperate entities and you spur a little more innovation (that's the theory, anyways).
-everphilski-
I didn't say ignorant, nor do I even brush up against thinking that, nor do I ascribe the demographic to be only British. I just meant to express my frustration at the general lack of understanding of the history of Microsoft and the implications that lack of understanding brings.
I just think it unfortunate Microsoft skates on this. What is being passed off as at least a backhanded endorsement of or compliment for Microsoft is being done so courtesy of a meaningless survey.
Anyway, apologies all around if I've offended.
Does anyone know just how much Gates has contributed to charity? Like most sane developers/technicians, I loathe Microsoft, but perhaps there's something good about it after all? Maybe all the pain we've gone through wrestling with this beast is actually for some good in the end? Or is this just a flash of innappropriate optimism? Are the contributions just a drop in the bucket, or do they really amount to something?
No, I think they're more worthwhile sources of news because the news they provide is more accurate and truthful than that of their right-leaning counterparts.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
from TFA:
which are restrictions on requirements and restrictions on limitations.and then later:
So something that has limits of the limitations that can be enforced is too restrictive? I think he has it backwards!
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
Dvorak is probably all wet, but Microsoft splitting into three seperate companies would save us from Microsoft and save Microsoft from themselves.
After reading that mini Microsoft blog that was posted earlier this week and hearing about the micro management driven from the top down, I think it is even more essential. Half of what is wrong with Microsoft is their desire to make everything Microsoft. From their own protocols and standards (Direct X, JScript) to slipping in bits and pieces of larger apps (Windows messaging not IM, IIS, SQLServer hooks). A seperate OS company and app company would really help all of us out. Wouldn't it be great to be able to run .NET on OS X(instead of IIS)? Or SQLServer on Debian? Or not have the Microsoft VM or JScript instead of Javascript.
But Microsoft is killing itself from the inside. Judging from the comments on the aforementioned blog, it is not a place for innovation from the ground up. Instead it is Billy G who tries to drive it from the top. That is what makes google work! Developers have the ideas, not the guy at the top!
andThe stupid thing about that is that this was rumored to be the original idea behind the last anti-trust suite: make Microsoft split up. I don't know if it was directly related to GW, but I have not seen or heard of anything happening to Microsoft as a result of them being convicted of anti-trust violations.
They have done a lot to advance technology
Yes, they gave you DOS 3.3 in 1988 while the rest of us primitives were playing with our Amiga 2000s, Atari STs and the Apple 2gs.
Advanced technology in what way?
God forbid they write software that is an improvement to people other than programmers. And honestly, only one of the things you listed is high on my list of desires from an OS, even though I'm a programmer. I'd much rather have an interface that makes it easy to get things done, or an easy setup for my wireless network card, or any number of things other than utilizing hardware as efficiently as possible.
Hardware is advancing far faster than the demands software puts on it, for anyone except gamers and scientists. Windows XP is responsive on some pretty old hardware, as long as it isn't bogged down by spyware. Vista will have higher requirements of course, but then hardware will advance more and soon Vista's requirements won't seem very high.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
Bill Gates donating a million bucks is like me donating $10. It's hard to be impressed with a donation when the sacrifice is so slight. Of couse it is great that the donation was made, but as the song goes, "It don't impress me much". Measured in terms of impact on myself and my family I donate more than Bill Gates does. He gave up nothing (and arguably gains hugh tax writeoffs) by his pittance donations. Do a google search to gain perspective.
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
Uneducated? I hardly think that is the problem. Just not everyone is a RMS category zealot.
Open your eyes, big business (read big $$$) rules. Even Slashdot was bought out. Hell, Slashdot runs Microsoft ads!
The fact of the matter is, it isn't a Microsoft problem, this is just how commercialism on the grand scale works.
If you want to complain about a cavalier attitude towards Microsoft's business practices, let me ask you this: can you guarantee me that you don't own plenty of products that were produced overseas in sweatshops?
If you want to attack business practices, why not start with ones that are in gross violation of human rights, i.e. making children work 12 hour days to produce the new line of Nikes.
Since when did left or right leaning play into anything about Microsoft? Do you think anyone really cares about that right now? More importantly, since when was the BBC left leaning?
Derive Politics
the XML format of Office 12 is not compatible with the GPL
Is the Office 12 XML format not GPL-compatible, or is the GPL not Office 12 XML format compatible? The sword cuts both ways; if we're going to complain about Microsoft using a license which isn't compatible with the GPL, we should equally complain about RMS writing a license which is compatible with very little.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
"I mean, why couldn't an ethical company have accomplished all of these things?"
Welcome to business in the United States of America.
It's pointless to single out Microsoft for bad business practices. How about WalMart? How about Intel for that matter? What about the record labels and movie studios?
Hell, even Apple directly violates a court decision from their lawsuit with Apple records - simply because they know the potential monetary windfall from making the iPod would be higher than any liability from a court case. So the ends might justify the means, but they still acted with no respect for a previous settlement.
There comes a point when a company is generating so much money and influence that it's army of lawyers and lobbyists can either prevent or reduce the impact of just about any lawsuit. Not any, but certainly just about any. It seems to take a large scale scandal and fuck up like what happened at Enron.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
The parts that torque people:
1) Changing licensing schemes, raising costs for companies dramatically, and having the nerve to call it "to lower customer costs".
2) Sending nasty letters to school districts at the end of the semester saying that they are about to have an audit of their licensing scheme, when they are short staffed as it is.
3) Purposely building their technology so it won't work well with other environment, thus preventing interoperability.
4) Illegal contracts regarding what computer companies can or can't sell if they want to be able to sell windows.
Just because they aren't found guilty of a crime in court, doesn't mean their activities are moral or ethical.
Ok, I give up, why you?
Microsoft started as a company full of innovation, looking to bring the world together thru the use of computers, to make life easier and less complicated thru the use of a lot of their brilliant software.
Thirty years forward from the embarkation of a noble dream seems a company likened to a powerhungry politician -- they want to be number one, at all costs, and want to have the say and press their voice into the 'law' that is what we know as personal computing. Hordes of Microsoft employees are leaving citing 'poor work environments' for companies like Google, who treat their employees as their number one commodity, something not suprising -- Microsoft did the same in their inception.
Right now, as a network administrator myself, I see Microsoft falling further and further off of the map. Organizations such as my own, and I'm sure many more, look for interoperability, compatibility, and the ability to use the latest and greatest technology with the greatest ease of lateral movement. Linux as a whole is conducive to this environment, embracing open standards so that everybody can view a document in different operating systems, different platforms, etc. And companies realize this -- Microsoft's ease of use will be lessened as time passes, while the brilliant programmers depart to work for the MS counterparts -- be it Google, Sun, Apple, or whomever. And those programmers will bring to Linux what Microsoft brought to computing in merely an idea thirty years ago.
For Microsoft's birthday, I think a good look at their road travelled is important. It will show them how they started, how they innovated, and how they succeeded. Now instead of innovating, they are eliminiating competition, stopping people from innovating, and stopping interoperability. Look back at your history Microsoft, and see that the noble and humble beginnings you had play a huge part in where you are today. It's still not too late to make a u-turn and take a different road than you are travelling -- because the one you are on leads to a cliff.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
The tragedy of it all is, MS persists in this at it's own expense. Imagine waking up tomorrow to see MS touting it's new open documant formats, company-hosted utilities for converting to and from other OS's native file formats, a new release of their OS (call it "good neighbor" Windows!) that accepts it's place in a hard-drive's file system and even co-operates with Lilo. Wait, don't faint, yet! How about a live Windows-CD that runs on top of Linux systems, an OS release that includes a free compiler (which creates fully capable binaries with NO STRINGS ATTATCHED!) and a Windows utility that can handle a man page, a .png file, and run .elf binaries? Now, don't you think that would change the ill will to good will? Wouldn't this be a new selling point - "Why *switch* to Linux when we'll generously let you have both?" I mean, come on, would there be any end to the marketing potential? MS is frantically clawing, looking for a foothold in the changing field - and this most obvious answer is staring them in the face, and they can't see it. So down they go, and the rest of us will have a more peaceful co-existence when they're gone.
Hell, I don't hate Microsoft, I pity them. They might have more money than me, but I sleep soundly at night with a serene conscience.
Too bad he's donated somewhere close to $30billion.
I'm actually neutral about which platforms I program for. I like programming no matter if its for Windows or Unix or some assembly language made for a processor you've never heard of. But if my customer likes the software product, then I also get paid. So as a programmer, if my customers like Windows then I like Windows too.
that the story includes a photo of Bill Gates that's from Getty Images, and not from Corbis, which Gates owns.
I didn't find the story to be entirely the lovefest that some prior posters were implying. Perhaps the BBC is updating its sampling of comments as they come in?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
it's Microsoft that seeminly hates people. It shows in the condescending way they treat everyone. The way they lock people in. The way they frustrate the user at all opportunity. the way they change their licensing at will. The way they fail to play well with anyone or anything that is not them.
It Microsoft that is the one doing the hating.
Linux is a credible alternative and very usable
You know, that reminds me of George Bush and the economy. He kept talking about how great the economy was even though it wasn't. He kept saying it, as if saying it enough would just make it true. The economy still sucks. He also says every day that the was in Iraq is going so well, while pretty much everybody in his administration disagrees. Again, if he says it enough, maybe it'll happen. Do you, also, believe that if you say that "Linux is a credible alternative and very usable" enough that it'll just magically be true one day? Honestly, I'm curious. Are you kidding, perhaps? Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, are you just another clueless IT geek that's just incredibly out of touch with the real world?
Windows is great for the normal person who uses computers for everyday things
No, it's not.
It's poorly designed, bloated, fragile, and unsecurable. It's a nightmare for the "normal" person, and sets their expectations at rock-bottom.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Trying not to sound a lot like a Bible whacko, I can't stop from pointing you to the Parable of the widow's mite. It concisely demonstrates the parent poster's point.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Microsoft do not steal anything. ...except other people's code.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I agree, and I think this process has already started. I'm seeing less of Microsoft's influence, and I get this general feeling that they're starting to have to fight on equal footing. Based on nothing other than my gut feeling, of course. I actually look forward to it, because I believe Microsoft can deliver some great products when they're forced to do so. For example, take Visual Studio, C#, and .Net.
Right, because I'm sure you personally know Bill Gates, and he has divulged this information to you. You don't know Bill Gates' motivation, and neither do I.
So you'd like to assume the best and the other poster assumes the worst. Given Gates' track record, I think he has more of a leg to stand on. I'm sure Bill probably likes the feeling of helping people, but that doesn't mean that he's suddenly absolved of all his past crimes and transgressions. I view him for what he is, a ruthless businessman, and a human being who exhibits some humanity, and has the kind of vast personal fortune to make a big difference in the world without having a noticeable impact on his lifestyle. I'm sure that the fact that it helps his business and personal reputation quite a bit was not lost on him when he was planning his philanthropy.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
t's poorly designed, bloated, fragile, and unsecurable. It's a nightmare for the "normal" person, and sets their expectations at rock-bottom.
And don't forget, they pay through the nose for that "feature set". Many of them just don't realize it since Windows, and sometimes Office, came "free" with their PC.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"You know, he didn't HAVE to give a dime. He DID, because he wanted to"
No he did it because his PR people told him to and to re-habilitate his image. He didn't give a dime till the anti trust suit started. Did he all of a sudden come to jesus and realized that he wanted to help the little people? I think not.
evil is as evil does