Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Won't Dismiss Idea of Suits Against Linux
An anonymous reader writes "According to an interview with Steve Ballmer in Forbes, Microsoft is open to the possibility of filing patent suits against Linux in the interest of their shareholders. Ballmer said: 'Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy.' Microsoft filed more than 3000 new applications for software patents in 2005 and already owns more than 4000 patents, including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks."
More FUD from MS Desperate times call for desperate measures. What to say, Microsoft is getting desperate. To be coming out making direct statements like this show's that Ballmer is worried about his future; he really screwed up with Vista.
Daniel Lyons has been suspected of being a SCOX puppet for Microsoft for quite some time now. And people have been suspecting that Microsoft has been funding this sort of talk in the SCOG - IBM case as well. Can't wait for the discussion on Groklaw
and already owns more than 4000 patents, including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks.
Patent the triple click or click(n + 1) and sue the bejesus out of Microsoft for all those times you have been waiting around for something to open and you just keep clicking.
What Ballmer is saying is this: if (and that's a big if) there's patent or IP imfringement anyhere in the Linux kernal, they'll look into it and take legal action if they have to. Should MS not enforce their rights, they're hosed and the stockholder get's POed. It's a sound business decision and, frankly, so obvious that it should not have even been reported. It falls into the "duh, no shit, sherlock" category. So what else is new? This ain't FUD people, this is business as usual.
Who exactly do you sue? Linus Torvalds? Stallman? A bunch of working class coders who send in patches in their spare time?
Ballmer is just saying that he wants to challenge Linux Torvalds to a chair throwing match. What better place to do this than in a court of law? There's a lot of other things in a court room to throw, too. Personally, I think Ballmer is going to kick his ass.
I think the best analogy for Microsoft's current situation is when Apple was struggling to come out with Copland. At that time, Apple flailed around a lot trying to figure out ways to make money. Ultimately, they concluded they needed to find a way to start all over with their OS. Microsoft will wind up doing the same, eventually.
In the meantime, let's hope their flailing won't harm Linux.
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. ... That SCO group, was it? And if not, I'm sure we can find someone to pretend to be an expert and falsify information like we paid SCO, er, *head explodes*
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
These patents simply stifle competition and therefore advancement, so it stands to reason that Microsoft, being the kind of company they are, will practice underhanded methods such as this.
They are simply incapable of any real innovation and never have been, so they stifle and steal ideas and use marketing muscle to sell it as thier own.
I'd say these methods have a limited lifespan, as is clear with Vista.
They are being beaten to the punch due to lack of this innovation, by Apple, by Google and by Linux.
No amount of FUD or threats is ever going to stop that, time to move over microsoft, as your going to be played at your own game and your going to lose.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
I seem to recall playing around with an Apple IIe program when I was a kid that taught you how to use a mouse. I swear there was some double-clicking involved.
I suspect that the Open Invention Network was set up to defend against this very possibility. If Microsoft makes a move the alliance will use their patents to counter. Which the companies involved have a pretty comprehensive portfolio.
You mention intellectual property. What's going on in terms of Microsoft IP showing up in Linux? And what are you going to do about it?
Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it.
All you're seeing in that answer is "we have an obligation to our shareholders to protect our rights if we're being infringed". And if there's something interesting to say (in the mysterious future), he'll let Forbes know about it.
Taking that comment to mean MS is threatening to sue various companies over Linux infringements is akin to screaming the sky is falling when a bird shits on your head.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
and by they I mean Microsoft's management. At a time when their status quo has lead them to a debacle with Windows development, all Ballmer can think of is lobbing bombs blindly at the enemy. He's proven himself to be no real tactician nor to have a good eye for managerial talent.
I own stock in Microsoft and want to see these asses go. Stop wasting my money on threats against Linux and start getting Vista out. You idiots cannot get blood from a turnip, which is about what your suits against OSS developers will amount to. The only way to keep the value of my stock up is to develop a product that brings in more revenues, and suing Linux developers won't do that.
Fuck you Ballmer, Allchin, etc.
-From a shareholder who sees right through your wag the dog campaign to CYA.
He didn't state that he's sure that Linux has violated Patents, but he's saying that if they did (as some experts say), they would be forced by their shareholders to take action. This is entirely true and will always be true in every situation. If someone materially infriges on a corpoations patents and there are substantial damages to the corporations ability to make money, the corporation has a duty to it's shareholders to enforce the patents. Balmer really doesn't have a say in this matter he has to act.
No Sigs!
What is going to take for the open source community to fight back? To stop porting code to Windows? To stop releasing Firefox for Windows? To create artificial incompatibilities - I know that's counter-productive, but let's talk politics and economics, for a second.
If the U.S. government won't use the Sherman Anti-trust Act to stop Microsoft, we need to rely on one of the fundamental principles of capitalism - Adam Smith's invisible hand. We need to stop buying, supporting, using, and working with Microsoft software. I do know how crazy that sounds, but revolutions require revolutionary thinking.
Many of you claim that you use Windows because your employers do - that's a crock. Make a personal choice. I work for a Fortune 50, in an enterprise-level position, and I haven't owned a Windows machine in over 5 years. I have may 98% of everything I need at home and work function with Mac OS or Linux. In the extreme cases (that last 2%), I use CrossOver Office. Once (ONCE) in the last five years, I had to borrow a colleagues' Windows machine to complete some training - because our server software was so out of date that the manufacturer's Mac drivers didn't support the old protocols. Every opportunity I have to recommend standards, I oppose the implementation of further Windows desktop or server deployments.
Not, seriously, I'm not crazy - I know all of this isn't feasible for all of you. Don't do anything to risk your livelihood, your sustainable income, or the ability to feed your family, but seriously ask yourself... "Am I doing everything I can to support Linux and Open Source, and help prevent the patent threat that Microsoft represents?"
So may on Slashdot these days have become Microsoft apologists - they aren't that bad... their UI is far superior... I have to use them at the office... all the good games are only written for Windows... ad nauseam. We need to use what power we have to stave off a serious threat to the technologies we are personally passionate about. We are the developers, the administrations, and the infrastructure of the nation and world's IT organizations. We must stand strong if we want to have any options. Because after Linux, it's Mac OS, then Solaris, then AIX, until all that's left is Windows. All that's left is crap. Yes, it is *that* slippery a slope.
And, if we stand united, we can affect Microsoft's profits. Make their shareholders listen. Make the board of directors require policy changes. I don't hate Microsoft or any company - but this "Patent Cold War" is despicable.
I am not advocating overnight change 180 degrees. Only that you ask yourself one simple question every day...
"Am I doing everything I can to enable choice in technology?"
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
This is just puff - if MS ever resorted to that, IBM would have to dust off their extensive patent collection and retaliate.
Red Hat and Novell? They're big enough to fight it, and even if they lose, I was using GNU/Lunix before they were around, and it'll still be available after they're gone. IBM? IBM have been building a patent portfolia for decades. Bring it on!
Linus? Not even Microsoft could countenance a PR gaffe of that scale. People like Linus.
The FSF? Well, Stallman is no Linus in the popularity stakes, but I'm sure he'd relish the opportunity to be given a soapbox to point out that patents are indeed the big threat to competition and choice.
Whatever they do though, Microsoft will send one message loud and clear: they can't compete on technology, so they have to stifle the competition.
Is that really how desperate they've become? If so, then that's a good sign for their competitors, both Free and otherwise.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think a lawsuit (if it happens) whould be to discourage businesses from
selecting Linux. I am sure there are a lot of corporate IT depts out there now
that at one time would never have considered Linux, now are selecting it for
all the reasons we use it for. Whats better is the growth has been a cushion
for these IT managers to not have to be out there on their own. One way
Microsoft can turn the table is to sow a little fear in the IT managers boss.
Just a wiff of a patent lawsuit or some form of injunction and it would have
the desired effect of steering some IT depts away from Linux and towards Microsoft.
Its a bit hard from a conceptual point of view to see how you pin the tail on this
one, whats injunct worthy here is not necessarily so elsewhere.
Not to mention the ill will it may engender. Still corporate Vista is on track
so they say, and thats the one Ballmer would be trying to force upon IT depts. The timing
would be right, sow the lawsuit, reap the rewards.
Hedley
that merit is unecessary in the said lawsuit (see SCO) but only need to generate enough FUD to halt or slow adaptation.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Lyons hand fed him this question. It was something he wanted to talk about. You think that he would have commented otherwise.
Ballmer: What do you mean we can't patent the word "Start"?!! *picks up chair and launches across the room*
I'm sure this is review for most of us, but this is the end game right here, right now.
Microsoft has been hoarding patents, regardless of prior art, for some time now. The patent office will grant a patent, when it's not contested. They have 4000 or so now....
Now comes the fun.... litigate.... and do so against open source. Leaving the cost of this litigation with the large Linux vendors who's pockets are not nearly as deep as Microsoft.
And here's what they bank on: They can bankrupt the Linux movement financially, regardless of whether the patents would stand up, simply because there are so many of them.
Will it work?
It will work unless there is more pressure put on Microsoft than defensive litigation. There has to be a market reaction. There has to be people walking away from Microsofts product on large scale basis. There has to be PR from the linux side that's almost as dirty as FUD.
Sadly, I think we are going to lose this war for the time being. And that is not easy to say: Because it means that I will literally be out of a job and unable to continue in business. I'm an independent consultant and mini-ISP.
Imagine if Ford wasn't trumped by GM in the days of "Any color but black"?
In the Ford/GM days there was a corrective force in the marketplace through GM's product response. I'm not sure that today's consumer is ready/educated enough for that choice, I'm entirely sure that the courts really won't understand these issues for another generation, and I know Microsoft will not restrain itself based on the greater good.
Linux is in my mind equivalent to GM's product response in the Ford monopoly days.
If Microsoft is successful in a patent assault on Linux and FOSS in general, it will effectively remove FOSS from legal use in the United States, and probably many other western countries.
And here's the upshot: Countries like China, Tiawan, Thialand, pretty much the entire pacific rim and 3rd world countries are NOT going to respect US patent rulings. Leaving the USA at a competitive DISADVANTAGE as FOSS development moves OFFSHORE along with it's USAGE and REVENUE.
People need to really think about what is happening here. This is about more than business and patents. This is about freedom and the good of our markets.
What if Gutenburg took control of what was printed on the press? What if Gutenburg had absolute control over the press and it's design?
The computer is just another printing press. We all need to vote with our feet and dollars to prevent a catastrophe in the free market from happening- and if it happens, it will be in the name of Microsoft Shareholders.
Think about it.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
I welcome a Microsoft lawsuit against Linux. If MS can point at Linux open source code and make claims -- the claims must be backed up with hard evidence (and stalling tactics would be frowned upon as bullying by many, thus hurting MS in the media). The Linux legal team could argue that since Microsoft has a right to view Linux code and raise legal concerns about it, then the Linux "team" (ie: open source community) must also have a right to view the Microsoft code, and scrutinize it heavily as well, for GPL infringements. Which code will have more infringements? Care to hazard a guess?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
But it is FUD. The term has nothing to do with the accuracy or fairness of claims; rather it is used for claims intend to discourage people from using a product regardless of the merit of the claims. Here, Ballmer is by his own admission only speculating that Microsoft could sue. Why not simply look into it and sue or not sue? Because this way, he can pre-emptively discourage the use of Linux.
English is easier said than done.
Fedora's Greg DeKoenigsberg has finally posted a explanation on why Redhat has now included Mono in Fedora Core 5:
If Microsoft should choose to sue people for using projects under the umbrella such as Linux or MONO, the Mutually Assured Destruction clock hits midnight.Also see what Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims?
Yeah, you're right, Microsoft should sit around and allow its IP to be stolen, if that's the case, by a bunch of self-satisfied nerds. Maybe once you're old enough to have a job, you'll understand the ways of the real world.
Which IP? TAB handling? Virtual desktops? Wearable devices?
99.9% of MS IP is shamefull stealing from long existing projects. Name one real IP invented by MS.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Ballmer would have been derilict in his duty "to the stock holders" IF he hasn't had MS coders scouring the Linux kernel source, and other FOSS projects, for YEARS, on the lookout for stolen MS IP. After all, UNLIKE Microsoft's practices, the development of the Linux kernel, and other FOSS projects, has always been and still is an OPEN PROCESS!
Further, I have no doubt that Gate's lawyers would already have filed a legal action if they found MS IP in ANY FOSS project, especially the Linux kernel and FireFox. In fact, if they are aware of such violations they have a legal obligation to inform those projects so that the projects can mitigate the damage.
No, the REAL QUESTION is: "How much Linux & FOSS IP is hiding in Microsoft's secret code base? I'll wager it's MILLIONS of lines of code.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Unfortunately, that's simply not true. Perhaps the best example is the herd behavior that's very cleverly exploited by Microsoft. Not to mention the efficacy of Microsoft-sponsored FUD. There are actually people out there who consider that Windoze is more secure and stable ... no kiddin'.
The Raven
...to bring "Microsoft Democracy(R) and Peace(tm)" in the world. We will just "nuke" everyone who will stand in our way to our last fort. Now we see why there is software patents. They are weapons. And again "we didn't know what monster it will create" from creators. No, you didn't. Because those who had forseen it, won't make such system in the first place.
There is a reason why economics should be regulated by scientists.
It is getting more and more farse. It is really all? It is all you can do? West? It is called progress? Capitalism?
It is *sad* to see all what have been good, go. But it is has to go. Such thinking is dead end for free market and capitalism itself. Anyone sees it more and more.
Less on my emotional and moral rant... Now we see "then they fight you" phase at it's maximum. Question is - will be there "and then you win" phase for us, free/open source software and small business? What Microsoft, sinking like Titanic, will take with it?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Microsoft's double-click patent only applies to buttons on handhelds (or, as they word it : "limited resource computing device", and later "Small, mobile computing devices, such as personal desktop assistants including hand-held and palm-type computers and the like").
... well ... everybody did this, but never on ... well, you know ... small, portable computers. Yeah, there, it's a complet novelty.)
And if I interprete the patent correctly, even then, only to physical buttons.
And I still think that the patent is bogus.
(You know, it's an innovation because
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
Any organization that applies for more than 1,000 patents in the previous year should be charged $100,000 per application. If they're going to bogg down the system they need to pay for it. That should at least slow them down a little while we wait for our congress to make software patents illegal (yeah, I know I'm dreaming).
Developers: We can use your help.
Linux/OSS isn't playing Microsofts game.
Sue all you want. Open your war chest of patents and fire away, Have IBM join the fray and fire back with an army of lawyers and tons of prior art. Drag Donald E. Knuth to court and have him confess that he came up with large parts of the stuff everybody claims to have a patent on. Force people to join patent ammo interest groups and have 10-20 wisecracks come forward who've managed to pass "pattern-matching" and "bit-vectors" passt the patent office clerks, ready to sue MS to chunky kibbles - or step down for a mean xx million sum.
Be it that in the end, 50% of Linux is actually 'illegal code'. 'Illegal' as in 'patent-thought crime'. Illegal as in 'may never use FAT' and 'may never use CF12xx encoding for characters.'. And so on. But never forget:
Linux/OSS isn't playing Microsofts game. It's not about money. It's about nice computer stuff that's fun to lots of people. It's about software that does interesting things, not about making money. It's made to work without money. It's about PHP. Mozillla. Python. Blender. Not about Money.
MS won't survive as a software-only company. They can sue, burn 5-10 billion and set back desktop Linux by a decade. And they have to if the shareholders demand it. But they can't win. Because OSS is not playing their game. OSS has more IT expert manpower than MS can even dream of. And it's machinery is fuled by passion, not money. That's what scares the piss out of MS.
"... then they fight you. Then you win." QED.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Ballmer said: 'Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property.
Interviewer: Who are these experts?
Ballmer: Top men.
Interviewer: Like who?
Ballmer: Top men.
Interviewer: Can you give me a name?
Ballmer: Top. Men.
Seems like a death cry to me. When a sofware company can't get it's own software working properly and turns to filing more and more patents just so it can sue other companies that is a sure sign that something is terribly wrong. Is Microsoft going to become a huge version of SCO? Rather than making products they'll just try to cash in on anyone else that tries to make a product. To bad they're big enough to cause a lot of damage on their way to the bottom.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Doesn't matter, a patent is a patent.
;)
Really?
1. It can be overthrown as prior art.
2. It is not valid worldwide. EU doesn't recognise SW patents for example.
3. Too much of business already depends on Linux for this to go down without a major incident. IBM, Novell, Sony... They won't just let MS take their piece of pie without a fight.
4. They are being trialed as monopolist, meaning... they are in disadvantage and enforcing this would mean that accusation is having merit.
5. OIN. Look at the patents MS breaks there and read what OIN is.
If you want to blame someone, blame those who allow such patents to exist.
Guess what. I'm from EU
A successful public business has a responsibility to its shareholders to use every available avenue to maximize corporate value.
Yeah, they could start making better products if they want to achieve this goal.
This step with patenting issues would be valid if it was taken before companies started depending on Linux and Linux was just a hobby OS of willing hackers. Now is just a futile attempt (pissing against the wind), which is not to be taken seriously.
I know that in your idealistic world, a "good company" just wouldn't register these patents, but that's not reality.
[sarcasm] Yeah, this is probably the reason why SCO is winning. [/sarcasm]
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
I think Ballmer is a clown, but here is what was actually said:
Question You mention intellectual property. What's going on in terms of Microsoft IP showing up in Linux? And what are you going to do about it?
Question Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it.
This statement does not imply that the only strategy is a legal recourse. It doesn't imply that the strategy will not be a legal recourse either. It just means that MS will have to look at any problem case by case.
You can't handle the truth.
MS is on the death march toward Vista, the death march toward Office 2007, the death march towards a .Net strategy.
Wars on the IE front, Wars on the server front, Wars on the standards fronts.
Legal battles with various corporations, the patent office, and various governments.
Let them come against Linux. Who are they going to pick a fight with, IBM? Redhat? Novell? Maybe this lawsuit will break the (MS) camel's back. I do know that discovery in any MS versus (Linux Corp.) case will be very, very interesting. Linux's dirty laundry is avaliable for everyone to see, but won't it be nice for (Linux Corp's) our lawyers to take a look at MS source, MS confidential e-mails, MS's internal documents?
I think so. Not to mention that IBM'll be able to contribute a bunch of that stuff from their current discovery involving MS's contacts with SCO. And if IBM gets drawn into (Linux Corp) versus MS, I think very interesting things will happen.
Not to mention that MS will never have any success versus Linux; even if they smear one linux company, the "community" will rewrite those portions, and move on.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
FUD is a good acronym: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. What other term would you use to express the concept? It isn't name calling, it's simply stating what they are doing. If they want to sue, sue. There is no reason beyond spreading FUD to announce that "We might sue."
The article isn't misguided, Balmer is. Precisely because he is spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt rather than, say, useful information about the merits of his product and how it has better features than Linux. Therefore, claiming that Balmer is spreading FUD doesn't distract from pointing out why he is wrong, it IS why he is wrong.
I'm now thinking that perhaps you didn't know what the acronym stood for and took it as some kind of insult. It's the only way to explain your lack of comprehension as to why the term is accurate. That or you are some kind of Microsoft sock puppet who is deliberately spreading FUD about FUD.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So they sue 100k people in the US. On the other side of the Atlanctic Ocean, all their precious patents are futile. Oh, and there is some woman in Brussells who is not very happy with the M$ monopoly. She's got some power over there. But the negative press about the suits will NOT be futile on the other side of the ocean. Linux will be totally legal in Europe, while every newspaper tells people 'they couldn't beat Linux by technology, now they try it The American Way' (Europeans are on average not very impressed by the merits of the US legal system).
The fun is, there is more than one ocean. On the other side of the Pacific one, US patents are worth less.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Daniel Lyons wrote a scathing article asking why Microsoft invited 300 of his fellow journalists to an "Important Event", which happened to be scheduled at the same time as Novell's BrainShare. He reported that MS techies demonstrated flying whizbangs with VISTA, doing tricks so complex that "Average User" could never master them. What he got out of the whole event was the VISTA was XP with additional worthless bloat just piled on.
Apparently, Lyons must have been taken to the woodshed by Forbes (or MS) and this article demonstrates Lyons in his usual role as MS lawn jockey, dutifully feeding canned questions to Ballmer.
The question of major interest, "will Microsoft sue Linux for IP violations?" is amazing in its bluff and bravado. There is little doubt that this question was designed to deflect attention away from the FAILED LAUNCH of VISTA and, simultaneously, to slow the already rapid adoption rate of Linux. It has failed on both counts because MS has become too transparent and too desparate.
Microsoft (Gates and Ballmer) know FULL WELL that if they sue the Linux kernel poject they have sued IBM, Novell, RedHat, HP, several foreign governments and agencies, not to mention the US DOD, the NYSE, movie studios and PDA manufacturers the world over. This will open up counter suits claiming that MS has stolen Linux code/IP. Then they'll have to PRODUCE their proof, which will open up their own code to public scrutiny. Considering how many times they have already been convicted of stealing other folks code Microsoft wouldn't survive that revelation.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
A successful public business has a responsibility to its shareholders to use every available avenue to maximize corporate value.
Bullshit. I don't know where poeple like you got the idea that companies have some obligation to a certain course of action.
Don't spew shit about fiduciary duty. The truth of the matter is the people running the company have great latitude to make decisions about the direction of the company. They can't blatently steal from their shareholders, but they can very easily say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't sue people for using obvious patents, that would cost us more in public image than we would gain".
Under your skewed world view, companies that didn't go with the absolute lowest bidder on every contract would be strung up. Companies that build their image based on environmental friendliness can't exist, etc.
So don't feed me that bullshit. People running any company never have their hands tied from doing anything except the most blatently irresponsible and illegal actions.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Ballmer ought to worry about the problems with IE and the rest of Microsoft's junk. If he really wants to bury linux and google, then his company should turn out first rate products. Best way to beat the competition, and at the same time provide something socially useful. That should be Microsoft's mission, and it can also be their legacy. Yeah sure. Snakes on a plane
Please, please, let him do it. I hope he does and the litigation kill Linux... IN COUNTRIES WHERE THERE ARE SOFTWARE PATENTS. Then when people start to notice that those countries have a competitive disadvantage (at least in some areas), with respect to others that can use Linux and other OSS perhaps the whole idea of software patents will go down the drain.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Windows XP is fast, (relatively) stable, pretty, and easy for the average user.
.net2.0, MSSQL Server 2005, biztalk.
.net 1.x to 2.0). This is a challenge given the Windows community worships on the altar of compatibility and many windows depelopers are change-averse.
.net managed code...etc... and now all that is left is a pail fuzzy inkjet printout of the original vision.
.config files.
XP can be MADE to be fairly fast, but it can even more easily be made to be a big, slow pig.
For some time hooking up a stock XP machine to the 'net would bring it crashing to a worm-infested halt within minutes--literally. XP has reached a point of stability but for a great deal of its lifetime it was unstable as hell--mostly because of its massive vulnerability to exploits and "turned on by default" philosophy regarding services.
Whether XP is "pretty" is a matter of taste--I personally find the default gummybear, theme-by-fisher-price look repulsive.
Microsoft has kept it patched and updated (to some degree), and provided a service pack for some larger upgrades.
Perhaps with the latest IE vulnerability they should reach for a higher degree. SP2 was definitely the right move but the truly correct thing to do would've been to put much of what was in SP2 into XP in the first place.
And at the same time they've released several versions of media center, tablet pc, etc.
This is not innovation. This is the same old garbage with fresh new garbage piled on top...and they have been midle commercial successes at very best.
All the while building the tools for their future strategies, including VS.net 2005,
This is Microsoft's biggest saving grace--they make some top-notch developer tools. I really think that if it were not for Visual Studio that not even monopoly-induced inertia could keep them secure as industry leader. Ballistic Ballmer was right on the mark when ha ambled around the stage, stomping and beating his chest yelling "developers! developers! developers!". The only thing is that their future strategies seem a bit hard to pin down...that and they've on occasion pissed off said developers by throwing compatibility to the wind (a lot of depressed VB6 coders out there...and there are a number of annoyances in migrating from
What is it that you need so bad from Vista other than 3d desktop graphics?
Almost nothing at all. Vista was hyped as a big new thing...then MS suddenly had to pay attention to security and put out some big fires and "reload". Oops...no time for WinFS...gotta cut back on the ambitios rewrite of system componenets in
There is one thing that is welcome...and that is the deprecation of the registry and DCOM...but both are still there. At least there are supported, standard alternatives in Vista in the form of Indigo and XML based
XP will still do everything my MacOSX box will do (and much faster) and with the proper tweaking, it'll do everything my Ubuntu laptop does as well.
XP will do it "good enough". It just does a mediocre job of most things. My experience with Macs as of late is limited but I really notice little difference speed-wise, considering the amount of eye-candy that OS X (which I also find a bit off-putting once in awhile).
Windows XP is a great operating system, and I'm glad to have something stable enough that we don't have to upgrade every year
Except that we actually do upgrade it in a sense--every month when Windows Update has a round of patches to install.
MS has a problem on its hands really...it has slipped into managin Windows a bit like an open source project--it is updated often but rarely is there a ground-up, major reworking. It has made XP into a mediocre but (finally) stable and usable OS, and if MS just kept issuing updates and service packs it would evolve into what could be considered a true quality product. The problem comes in because
The point just flew right over your head, didn't it? Microsoft more than likely has software that violates patents that OIN members hold. If Microsoft starts patent litigation against Mono, it risks the same litigation in return from OIN members. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Microsoft will not "KILL MONO", because doing so would be very, very costly.
Also, Mono is not "in Linux". It is an application which can be run on a Linux system, and is included on a handful of Linux distributions. This does not mean it is "in Linux", as there are versions for Windows, Mac OS X, *BSD, and Solaris.
This poo is cold.
Those pesky customers, who want to do things like run their old games with decent performance.
Astounding as it might seem to you, Microsoft actually *are* interested in keeping their customers happy and have a long history of going out of their way to do so.
According to studies, Linux does infringe on a lot of patents. In a certain study infringement of 283 patents were found and out of these 27 belonged to Microsoft. Even Richard Stallman has been mentioning this in interviews as well as in talks, thus giving the claim some credibility in my eyes at least.
Since SCO is now in everyones seen as a Microsoft sock puppet, even the Redmond company realizes that it would look incredibly silly to continue using SCO as their megaphone for spreading Linux FUD.
Microsoft is at a crossroad right now. People, companies and governments have started demanding a lot more software freedoms in the last few years and it's clear that Microsoft can't tackle the "Linux threat" (i) in the same manner they've tackled all other competitors since their beginning. Since Microsoft's hand is more or less forced right now they seem to have no other option (at least given their current business model and unwillingness to become a service company) than to pull out the patent card. This might very well be a Pandora's Box, since there are a lot of big companies having a lot more patents than Microsoft who are betting a substantial part of their future on GNU/Linux. However Microsoft currently only has three options.
1) Sit back and watching their market share shrinking (due to many factors such as regulations of software freedoms in certain countries and general sway in corporate attitude towards freedom).
2) Become primarily a service company, backed by software which is still lacking in the OSS community (ii)
3) Start a legal battle to slow down the inevitable, allowing a few more years of enormous margins.
Now clearly option 1 is out of the question since it flies in the face of any Harvard MBA. Option two is not something Mr. Gates is very comfortable with and will likely not happen while he and Mr. Balmer still has significant influence over the company's direction. So They're left with option three...
i. Linux happens to be a manifistation of software freedom which looks tangible enough for Microsoft to grasp, since it can apply the typical corporate stratagem of having a "threat" and an "enemy". Tacking these labels to the real reason for their headache namely "freedom", would not play out very well as a media stunt, nor for their own employees I would guess.
ii. The future of proprietary software is in my view to fill whatever gaps exist in the OSS offerings at any given time or to invent (iii) new useful stuff. However the OSS community will catch up eventually if the applications are of enough use which means that the "software aspect" of a company who relies on proprietary stuff will have to raise the bar and / or find other gaps to focus on more quickly. It's all good in my view since it would likely accelerate the development pace in the industry.
iii. By invent I don't mean the buzzword / marketing term for "refinement" but real innovation.
Thanks for noticing, for getting an on topic first post I was bitch slapped into karma oblivion. At least two people with mod points went back and knocked down all my previous posts to -1 with trolls, off topics and redundants. I was banned form posting for twenty-four hours and I'm not allowed to meta-moderate anymore:( There some mean people on /.