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."
Wow, I'm breathless and speechless! Just read the litany of comments posted on the BBC article, collectively of which these posts represent the general sentiment of the posting community.
If this is so, I'm devastated (but maybe I shouldn't be so surprised, as it is consistent conversations I have casually with friends and family). The general feelings seem to include:
Most disturbing is a seemingly cavalier attitude about what are historical data regarding Microsoft's business practices, products, etc. As an excercise, note that in the list above, each "what's wrong with that?" can be interpreted in two ways.
As for Dvorak's speculation Microsoft is prepping to split into three companies, I don't get that. Why would they? One of Microsoft's major takeaways from the DOJ's penalty phase was not having to split up as a company. I'm am not a businessman, but I can't see Microsoft splitting unless forced to. (Though I wouldn't discount it as some huge PR spin to make it look like they're taking steps to not be the evil empire anymore while behind closed doors (and through underground tunnels) continuing to operate as a single company to ensure their continued position in the marketplace.)
Indeed, I would hate to see what a truly efficient Microsoft could do to Apple, Sun and the open source community. Considering their resources, and if they can whittle themselves down to a highly efficient company, they could put up an effort against their competitors second to none. Now, perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing. An innovative Microsoft will force the open source community and other companies to become just as competitive, if not more so.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Let's ask slashdotters what they think of Microsoft. Again.
That's bound to produce an enlightening, well balanced, polite thread.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
No, I hate hating them. I'd rather not have such annoyances in my life. I'd just like safe, secure software that does what I want, and nothing that I don't want.
And I'd like them to secure the current operating system before moving to the next one.
For a programmer an improved operating system is one with less program faults, less resource requirements, and better performance on the same hardware. Microsoft seems bound and determined to go in exactly the opposite direction.
Cheaper would be nice too. Darn, they missed that one too.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
"Standards" designed to make a competitors entry into any given market controlled by microsoft impossible."
An endless FUD compaign against competitors
and choosing to stifle innovation in self interest of controlling the direction of the market to areas they already control.
Microsoft are the greatest company in the world and managed by a genius.
Bill, Seattle
You would think he would let his legal department come up with a better reply than that.
// no
I bought a bunch of MSFT stock in 1987 and rode it up until selling in 2000. However much I despise Bill Gates, I figure I owe him my financial independence at least. So, stick it only partway up your backside, Bill.
i don't love to hate them.
i love to stop using their products, in favor of better alternatives.
Because that judgement was overturned? Because Dvorak claims that MS is voluntarily considering something that they fought vehemently against?
Note that I think Dvorak is off his rocker, incidentally.
Wow, don't look at the comments on the BBC page. It's the anti-Slashdot!
But it's pretty tough to avoid the obvious comparison between Microsoft and the Hydra. Think Google & Co. will deal Microsoft a fatal blow? Guess again! It just pops back with three heads instead of one.
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-
In a previous discussion here earlier this year I suggested that Microsoft was getting ready to collapse. This was based on the special dividend they paid out which only served to draw down the cash on hand and make certain people much richer. Look for them to issue a few more special dividends then start selling off chunks of the company.
And I really like the other posters comment: "They are going to reproduce?!"
Too late, Microsoft already owns it.
Xenix Information
http://www.computerhope.com/unix/xenix.htm
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
namely, SCO.
Are they dead yet?
In the South Park movie, Bill Gates got shot in the head and everyone in the theater laughed. Once South Park wants to kill you, the teeming masses will follow.
They're the company everyone loves to hate.
I'm not hating them, I'm sick of them...
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
How can an XML file format be incompatible with the GPL?
Does that mean we can't link them directly, or include them embedded within a binary?
It's a file format. They going to patent XML?
I'm confused.. I think he only said that for FUD factors, becouse it makes NO sense at all.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Is it Microsoft that is evil?
n s/microsoftDejanews.png
s /billgatesDejanews.png
http://www.realmeme.com/Main/evilindex/corporatio
Or is it Bill Gates?
http://www.realmeme.com/Main/evilindex/celebritie
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.
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
"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.
Found this on the "Have your say" page:
Microsoft are the greatest company in the world and managed by a genius.
Bill, Seattle
Help find a cure for cancer!
In your reply: That's really just legal-ese, and the only reason that geeks felt that they were anti-trust experts was because they knew of a high-profile computer company that was involved. Real people don't care.
Actually, the reason I felt I knew something about this was because I worked at Microsoft. I left, explaining when I left I felt if what they were doing wasn't illegal, it was at least unethical -- reason enough for me to go. Eventually I testified in the DOJ case.
As for your willingness to just allow that "that's how the world works", it's your perogative. It's also an attitude that eventually allows those who would abuse their power to eventually abuse it absolutely.
If you view Microsoft as a software company, they have always had mediocre products. If you think that Microsoft's main product is adversarial behavior, they are one of the most successful companies in the world!
Here's just a tiny, tiny sample: The U.S. District Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft antitrust case lists 207 pages of abuses.
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.
"Honor" and then "colourful". What's up with using the American spelling for one and the international spelling from the other?
Signature.
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?
According to Wikipedia, Gates has donated about 5 billion dollars in charity. Thats about 10 percent of his total wealth. The list of the accomplishments of the Melinda Gates Foundation is quite impressive.
Ack, correction, that's 5 billion in 1999. "As of 2005, the foundation has an endowment of approximately US$28 billion." I wonder how much of that comes from Gates though (other companies donate to it, I believe).
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
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
"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