Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ballmer's Thoughts On Free Software
An anonymous reader writes, "Steve Ballmer during a 3-day visit to India was asked about whether Free software is the future of India. And he effectively circumvented the question and answered that in the future, software businesses can look at a number of revenue streams such as subscription fees, lower cost hardware, advertising and of course traditional transaction. What is amusing is that in answering the question, he refuses to use the word 'free' or anything close to it."
I was just in India this year (Spring 2006) for almost a month on a tour of Eastern Europe and Western India. The primary focus of the trip was to see how gold bullion affected areas with poverty and reduced labor. I was shocked at the competitive and relatively free market of India -- I also saw why so many people were gaining wealth and blowing open the tech community -- they were driven versus what I am familiar with in the States.
That being said, I don't think Ballmer was wrong to dance around the question. I think his answer hit the nail, head on!
Background on information and "free": When I ran my first multinode BBS starting in 1987, I saw that the future was something similar to client-server (the Internet never dawned on me at this point). My BBS was a pay-for-play gaming system, and people paid in order to connect and use the software that I 'rented' them via their ANSI terminal application. I saw how huge the future would be if the bandwidth could get beyond 2400 bps. I'm seeing that future today with things as simple as Wordpress and Google Spreadsheet. It blows my mind, and I do see how Microsoft wouldn't care about free software because it isn't on their radar screen. I don't know of much free software that is really competitive because truly free software doesn't have the support that it needs to compete with software that does have support. I'd rather see ad-bloated "free" software like Google Mail than bug-ridden memory-leaking software like Thunderbird. I use Firefox, but it is still a memory leaker that competes well with IE in terms of falling apart over a few hours of work.
The Indians will want nothing to do with it. India has a history of thousands of years of being capitalists -- only recently did we really see socialism take over, and it is starting to be pushed out by the millions who want to better their own lives and try to ignore what is best for "society" when they all know that the rest of society is made of individuals who also want to be better than them. The fact that India is growing in leaps and bounds comes because of the hard-driven individualistic atmosphere that exists in that country and seems to be in their blood (note: I have East Indian blood in me, but I am a mutt).
The Indians are already grasping the idea of advertising-funded online media, so maybe the next step is some sort of "use it for free" software -- but we all have to see that paid software seems to be better supported that truly free software. I love Google Mail, but it isn't free -- the ads displayed on the screen are paying for supporting the application developers. Americans tend to be anti-advertising, but the West Asian part of the world is definitely not -- when I was in India, I saw entire houses painted by a corporation to be their logo and color (the owner of the home was paid nicely for allowing it). I saw taxis driving around with vinyl-cut ads from every sort of retailer, small and large. I saw how heavily the "Bollywood-style" advertisements cluttered the mainstream media there. The Indians aren't afraid of finding a way to make money on everything they can -- in order to better their own lives without a big expense to anyone else.
The entire Indian economy is run in a balanced Statist-Anarchist way. If you buy anything large (car, house, land, business) you pay a small portion of "white" money (that is heavily taxed) and a big portion of "black" money (that is under the table, and often comes in the form of bullion). That's awesome -- people realize what a burden the State is, and they work around it. The same will be true of the "free" software drive there -- people will realize that they can gain without causing other people to lose -- by finding a way to subsidize whatever the future is of the software market.
Some Americans care about Open Source because they're anti-corporation, but that isn't the reason for Open Source, not really. Open Source and free software both come out of supply and demand: there is always a demand for som
Although, there is one minor thing I would like to point out. Back in September of 2006, they started to offer the Express Editions of a lot of their development tools for free. So I've actually been tempted to use them and I've also noticed that my Windows XP Professional CD allows me to install I2S on my machine and start hosting ASPs.
Oh, ugh, disgusting! I'm wasting my time! I should be learning Spring & Hibernate or Ruby on Rails. But, you know, there are a lot of people out there that use the
I know it's not open source and the license I got from them was super flaky. But in the interests of being able to use every technology available to me, I'll learn
So you'll find some of their free (yes, free) software on my machine. Now, I had to pay for XP to be able to install that
Granted, you'll find OO.o instead of MS Office and I'll be using The Gimp 2.0 instead of
I believe there exists for every software company a good middle ground between free open source software & proprietary cost you money software. If you develop software, draw a line where you want everyone (even competitors) using your framework or underpinnings but the real premium price mark comes in on the serious development effort or application specific software. Maybe it's just libraries but Adobe & Sun have shown us that making things free is a great way to cement yourself in the community no matter what happens to your stocks. Ballmer can't deny this even though his (lack of) heart & soul probably loath the apparent loss of green in the beginning.
You can now accomplish a lot with their standards and languages--a hell of a lot more than before when Visual Studio costed a kidney.
My work here is dung.
The word "free" was not assimilated, as the Borg collective concluded that it was irrelevant.
What - more chair throwing?
(ba-dump-buh!)
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
However, I one day dream of owning and operating a successful software company so I understand the value of a closed source proprietary application. I'm no defender of Microsoft, but they're in the business of *selling* proprietary software -- I totally understand why they are not open sourcing their stuff.
boxlight
No too defend him (too much), but from a businesses point of view, there must be a revenue stream somewhere, be it for development, or just support. At some point, people want to get paid. Free works commercially, as long as someone, generally large companies, is willing to pay for guaranteed support.
Ballmer is a businessman, and 'free' isn't a word in a businessman's dictionary. Add that to the fact that Microsoft is fairly entrenched in a business market, i'm not sure what else you'd expect. Even Canonical (Ubuntu's parent) has bills to pay, and these bills have to be paid somehow.
...software businesses can look at a number of revenue streams such as...lower cost hardware...
I'm assuming by this he means that as hardware costs drop, the overall product cost can remain the same or even increase, thereby increasing the percentage of revenue that's attributable to the software.
This guy's the limit!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
He didn't mention F/LOSS anywhere. He just used this as a way to push his own plans on how we (the sheeple) will pay for his software. Nothing to see here. Move along... ...and duck. Incoming chair, with fucking killing power, made by Developers, Developers, Developers.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Dude, take off the Spock ears, and take a shower. You're getting creepy.
He just used a few more words than that. It'd be nice if this blog entry actually had a video of the interview instead of the author only giving bits and pieces and interjecting his own interpretation everywhere.
"Free Software's thoughts on Steve Ballmer."
you had me at #!
What is his expertise (except chair throwing)?
Does he have that much money that his words make any sence?
I think Ballmers, and M$'s ideas on free software can be sumed up by the following statement:
" Free software is fine, as long as it isn't really free, and we control it "
Anything more is simply a waste of words.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Seriously, There is no such thing as free. Take your small business no IT...they are not going to setup LAMP..use GNUcash or anything like that. They need a phone number to call...and unless your going to work for free on support lines to support the non-IT user of your supposed "free" software...and help install it... then well.
There is no Free...not even free as in free beer free.
Balmer is one of the top level executives at a company whose profits are made by selling proprietary software (Making it neither free-as-in-beer, except for all the pirating, nor Free-as-in-speech). If any major market decides to extensively embrace Free Software, his company stands to lose large amounts of future profits.
Asking him what *he* thinks of free software is not a fair question, neither to him (how can he possibly be honest) nor to anyone else that doesnt already understand that (they are likely to not understand that his answer is evasive at best)
Try asking a buggy whip exectuve what they think of the automobile, and internal combustion engines in general.
But since MS has nothing else to offer, they need to keep the upgrade cycles running as long as possible.
....
However today you can get a reliable, secure set of all the comodity software you need for free, by getting one of the numerous Linux distros, according to your level of competence (I hear Ubuntu has prettu low competence requirements, I use Debian etch, more of an expert's distro). Unless you do gaming, there is no need at all to buy OS, browser, mailer, office application, backup software,
In addition, you get community support with these. Can MS ''support'' compete with that?
And even more problematic for MS is all the activation and DRM stuff, they feel they hace to include with their offering. For anybody that wants to work with their computer, that is a major anoyance.
What is left, is gaming. Personally I have used XP as game launcher exclusively for years. However, the more people realise that they do not really need windows, the more games will become available on OpenGL, which basically means a port to any Unix (also OS X) is not much effort. Then Nobody will be willing to pay for Windows at all.
So the commodity software market is dead, and MS will die with it. Or get cut down to the size their technological competence merits. Which is not very large.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
When teh roman numeral system was being used for accounting it was an elite position to be an accountant, having social status, higher pay, etc..
Then in time we began using the hindu-arabic decimal system that allowed the common man to do math beyond with the former elite accounts could do. Today we use calculators in common everyday use.
And so it shall be with programming. The common man will do it as they find need to.
Free Software is just a step in that direction.
For programming is the act of simplifying an interface to complexity for the purpose of easier and faster use and reuse.
Ultimately programming will become common place, as math is today.
This is a classic tactic. Answer the question you want to answer rather than the one which really was asked of you. Basically Balmer didn't want to discuss free software so he discussed revenue streams (which is all software is about in his mind anyways). Anytime someone does this you can be sure that they're not interested in your interests, just their own.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
If you have to point out what is amusing, it probably isn't very amusing.
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
Ballmer: "Our primary aim is to have a generally more helpful participation in world economy. You can do three things ... you can stay in and do nothing, stay in and have a point of view or stay out."
Now THAT is conviction!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
I really don't know why you are amused by the fact that Ballmer doesn't openly embrace free software. As a CEO of a major software company, would you openly encourage the use of free alternatives to the things that you market?
I'm an avid member of the open source community; but come on people, we can't really blame the guy.
/* No Comment */
He said 'no' Earl, with his foot.
I don't know of much free software that is really competitive because truly free software doesn't have the support that it needs to compete with software that does have support.
For most people it's email, office applications, web browser, solitaire. I keep seeing this support argument tossed around and every time I ask myself - honestly, how much support does someone actually need?
I used to do end-user support for a living (think Geek Squad-like work). And 99% of the time, it was getting rid of spyware/viruses. Most people really don't need more than that, in my experience.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
asking the president of Saudi Arabia or the president of ExxonMobil if they think that the electric car is the way of the future.
I can't help but think that if copyrights were normalized to property rights conventions that FOSS would never have taken off. The problem with IP is that two people cannot equally own it. It's not possible for Microsoft to sell Windows the way that Dell can sell the hardware because if the user had a true property right in it, all hell would break loose for the copyright. This is why I think that the law needs to frame copyright holders' rights in terms of natural and common law rights. I think it's perfectly fair to legislate scarcity to protect copyright holders, but outlaw a presumption of implied contracts, EULAs, etc. with the exception of signed agreements between parties. Sometimes a little coercion is needed to restore balance, and though I vote libertarian, I am open to a little coercion in copyright law to give it the social legitimacy of physical property rights.
In fact, I think that is what will be needed if copyright is to truly mature. Just imagine if a software vendor had to relinquish control over its product the way any other retailer has to in the absence of a written agreement signed by two parties. It would actually present a bold new legitimacy for software copyrights, allowing them to attain the same legal standing as all other parts sold on the market.
I don't know how this got modded as "redundant". It's a good point, and I'm sure someone else didn't say ALL of that before he did on this story. (Although I think you meant September 2005 for the express versions -- I know I was using Visual C# Express in February of this year. And people don't generally say "back in" for something that happened just a few months ago.)
I was very pleased with the interface in VC#, and it was easier to find what I needed that in other open source IDE's. There definitely is a place for proprietary software, mainly where the work is the kind no one wants to do.
And about the Photoshop killer, re: the other comments, I think people underestimate the value of simplicity. For my personal needs, Paint can cover 80% of it, and with a very easy-to-use interface. Yes, easier than GIMP for what it can do.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Obviously, when ever a Microsoft exec speaks, the only thing you can count on is hot air escaping their lips. But really, this does give some insight into how they will continue to fight FOSS. They've been trying the SUBSCRIPTION FEE approach for a few years already. The LOWER COST HARDWARE is an interesting one since it means subsidies for OEMs( like marketing dollars, etc? ) or maybe even more MS hardware. DOJ round 3 anyone? The Xbox is an example of this approach. Then there's the ADVERTISING model and this one should be quite interesting. Will your kids highschool class presentation have a banner ad for Target or Cialis running? Or better yet, will Microsoft subsidise THAT sector by initially advertising only Microsoft products/services with moving monopoly profits around inside the company? Hey, they've put millions of dollars in a fund to 'support' Windows vs Linux migration attempts and with billions in cash, they'll hardly feel the hit. IMO.
They've got a number of tricks up their sleeves and it seems Steve is somewhat willing to give hints as to what some of those tricks are. Too bad making reliable and secure software isn't mentioned...
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Years ago (when I was taking a game theory in University) I was introduced to the Nash Equilibrium which, at the time, seemed like a pretty obvious thought when you consider what it is really saying. Essentially, what the Nash Equilibrium states (in plain English) is that in a competitive system (like a capitalistic economy) all competitors are better off if they give up personal gains and co-operate to produce mutual gains.
As an example (related to free software) consider Internet Explorer, Safari, Firefox and Opera. For years it has been reasonably difficult to produce an advanced webpage (or web-application) that was cross browser compatible because of how different each of these browsers are; most websites avoid any advanced features because they know that they will be incompatible in one of these browsers. As these browsers become closer and closer to the W3C specifications web-developers having an easier time producing web-applications so a user doesn't have to use a particular web-browser to see a page anymore.
This hurts Microsoft right?
No, the fact is that if everyone was compliant with the specifications then Microsoft could take it's massive resources and focus on making IE produce web-pages that are more attractive, useable, secure and readable and dominate the market through having a better product rather than having the most web-pages compliant with its version of the HTML specification.
The same principle can be extended to all OS companies co-operating to produce the most stable (and best) OS kernal (or standard), and then each of them trying to develop the most useable user-interface.
You were most likely using a one year license that was only good for one year. It wasn't until April (sorry I got the wrong month) of 2006 that they made it permanent. From the Wikipedia article:
--
I concur. Although your post, my original post & especially this post are all out of the question on Slashdot. Because we're talking about a viable solution through Microsoft and it happens to be for coding. How dare we!
So far I've been called a trollbot, been chastised for not knowing the difference between gratis & libre and I'm sure there's a whole host of other things I'll get.
But if you read my current sig, you'll understand that I must have some sick pleasure from being inundated with insults and criticism by my peers. And now not only is it redundant but it's fucking flamebait.
He's not that stupid.
that Ballmer's hair would catch on fire or something if he used the word "Free" in public?
(or that Bill would beat the stuffing out of him all the way back to Redmond)
Seriously though, I'm sure there is a list of words that he has trained himself to avoid using in public at all costs, and I'm certain that "free software" is really high on that list.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
... ... then you win.
Then India will love Linux, because Linux is more pro- free market than Microsoft is. You need to stop thinking of copyrights like a property right, and start thinking of them like a communist regulation that controlls how people use information in the information age.
Let me give an example, at one large data center I worked for they had these NT servers that ran a database application for 1000's of locations. Sure enough the things would crash every day, and sure enough it would cost them over a million dollars per hour of down time. They bought the best x86's that money could buy, they custom re-wrote the tcp/ip stack, but still the computers would crash every single day and still it would cost them over a million dollars per hour. Finally, they flew in experts from all over the planet. The experts came back and said that there was a bug in the OS that was causing it. So my company then went to Microsoft and demanded that they fix it. Microsoft in "business speak" basically said "screw off and FU".
So please tell me that if they had the source, and ownership of that source couldn't be controled. Would they have refused to pay for a fully backed support contract? Would they have said "no were not going pay developers to fix it, because someone else could copy our fixes?" Hell no, that code would have gotten fixed, and every body would have benefited.
In things like software, free riders are not a burden because their copy deosn't deprive me of my copy. But rather, spreads exposure and therefore the chances soneone elses fix will be my fix. So the forces driving Linux forward and pushing Microsoft back are pure unadulterated free market forces and that is that.
Hey! Moron! Maybe giving away stuff for free isn't exactly the best way to MAKE MONEY! MS is a FOR PROFIT business. They are a public company that answers to shareholders. What a douche. I can't stand the mamby pamby do-gooders on this site. Go hug a friggin' tree or something ya pussies.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
steve ballmer is a: http://www.clown-ministry.com/images/cooky95.jpg
But if you go to countries where people don't like to work for free -- they want SOMETHING for their time and to make their lives better -- you won't see a social drive to giving away their labor.
Where the hell do you get the idea that open source developers don't get paid, and paid handsomely? I suspect the average FOSS developer salary is significantly higher than industry average, because it takes dedication and skill to produce software that stands up to public scrutiny. And companies are willing to pay because it benefits them financially to do so.
The Indians will want nothing to do with it.
What the Indians want makes no difference; if the customers demand FOSS, they will have to deliver it, at the price that customers are willing to pay.
India has a history of thousands of years of being capitalists -- only recently did we really see socialism take over,
FOSS has nothing to do with socialism. FOSS is the natural endpoint in a free market in which the marginal cost is zero. FOSS is a free market response to the kind of abuses companies like Microsoft have been engaging in.
Microsoft always has a stance against something. For example, Microsoft considers free and open software to be their enemy. Not their competition, not just an alternative. However, suppose I called some of the other top software companies in the world. Do you think that Intuit considers GNUCash to be the enemy or that Symantec thinks that free virus scanners, firewalls, and disk partitioning tools should be unconstitutional because they are viral and will destroy the industry? Does Adobe send secret emails chiding the makers of the GIMP? Do they embrace and extend standards like PNG the way Microsoft did with HTML? Does Autodesk make PR statements about Blender in an attempt to spead FUD about it?
When Microsoft talks about open-source they sound like George Bush talking about terrorism. They have a lot of bright people, and can make some damn good software. But the company would do better if they stopped declaring competitors to be an axis-of-evil, and just made software.
hi there steveo ..
"I think his answer hit the nail, head on!"
.. you won't see a social drive to giving away their labor"
"I do see how Microsoft wouldn't care about free software because it isn't on their radar screen. I don't know of much free software that is really competitive because truly free software doesn't have the support that it needs to compete with software that does have support"
How do you explain the existance of the Firebird Database project. It isn't 'free' but free to use and extend as you see fit as long as you contribute changes back to the community.
"I'd rather see ad-bloated "free" software like Google Mail than bug-ridden memory-leaking software like Thunderbird. I use Firefox, but it is still a memory leaker that competes well with IE in terms of falling apart over a few hours of work"
I would never know about the 'memory leaker' if it wasn't mentioned so ofter on slashdot. Firefox using 48,572kb on this XP box. How about KMail or Evolution.
"The Indians will want nothing to do with it. India has a history of thousands of years of being capitalists -- only recently did we really see socialism take over"
You can be a capitalist and still make money out of Open Source. Why do you erronously equate Open Source with socialism. In fact it is the exact opposite of socialism as there is no central authority unlike MS that by your logic could be compared to corporate faschism.
"The Indians aren't afraid of finding a way to make money on everything they can -- in order to better their own lives without a big expense to anyone else"
translation: Indians who use Open Source are diverting revenue from Redmond.
"if you go to countries where people don't like to work for free
A total distortion of Open Source. Developers use Open Source and sell solutions to clients. They contribute any changes back to the community. They both derive and get benefit from the arrangment.
was India and free don't go well together (Score:2, Distortion)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Most people, especially here on Slashdot, cannot comprehend why a company would want to make money, or why programmers would want to get paid for their work. They view programmers as worthless, since (they say) software "should" be free. Free = valueless = worthless.
Of course IBM is happy to get behind Linux. IBM is a hardware company. So if someone purchases (or better yet, leases) hardware to run their supposedly free software on, who is IBM to convince them otherwise? Never mind the fact that the consumer then assumes all the costs for supporting the OS, whereas a company like MS would provide OS support. Or that you then become a slave to the legion of linux consultants who keep the system running. The Linux spin is that it 'just works', but every place I've seen an implimentation done has been a support nightmare, plagued by lots of downtime, support from un- or under- qualified technicians, and of course extremely high cost overruns.
Linux: great for billable hours, not so great for business.
Like one of my past CIOs always said: he likes to use applications made by people he can sue. You will find that a pretty solid and intelligent viewpoint, one which is in complete contrast with those who want to play with unproven technology on company time (like the entire IT staff of the city of Munich, for example).
Free software is good, I use it all the time. It enables me to be more productive as a programmer, and it's great to learn from too.
Is 'free' only good for learning. Is there any commercial companies making money out of selling Open Source solutions. Any company who licenses a proprietary solution are effectivly giving away the company as they are tied into the never ending upgrade mill.
was Re:free software is good, but so is making money (Score:5, Not)
davecb5620@gmail.com
... so it must be made-up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
send + more == money?
And he effectively circumvented the question and answered that in the future
Wow! That's definitely some circumvention!
In other news... Steve Ballmer invents time travel. "I did it with tubes!" he exclaims.
And you were NOT the anonymous submitter of TFA, right?
India first to invent Time Machine!
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
...does not preclude you from also getting what you did not pay for.
Just a thought.
m0nstr42.blogspot.com
" Free software is fine, as long as it isn't really free, and we control it "
That's right, it needs to be at least $99.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I agree with you 100% and feel that "intellectual property" is a bogus concept, but I don't understand how you can call this a "communist regulation". It's the opposite, if anything: communism opposes illegitimate private property, while the "copyright regime" tries to make property out of ideas.. "Protectionist regulation" would, I think be better. This notion is diatemtrically opposed to libertarianism and communism.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Did you know that Steve Ballmer's chair was bolted to the ground during the interview?
Please forgive the OT post, the below quote comes from MS (formatting mine):
"Expression Web FAQ
Who is the target audience for Expression Web?
Expression Web (formerly Expression Web Designer) is targeted at the professional designers who are building standards-based XHTML Web sites and applications."
Just found it interesting.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
-- nt --
Wikileaks, no DNS
I believe that Mr. Balmer is trying to say is that without regard for how software is packaged and without regard for whether it is freed or enslaved Microsoft intends to make money from it. There is nothing wrong with this and even the right reverand RMS would probably not have a problem with this.
Incidentally, most worthwhile software will never be "free" as in "beer".
I hate Microsoft
"Amusing"? Why should Ballmer comment on free software? The entire notion is ridiculous, akin as it is to workers in the United Auto Workers union suddenly deciding to work for free so Ford can give away cars while hoping to sell ad space in one's rear view mirror.
I will reply to only the first two paragraphs of your distorted picture of India. A complete reply will take an hour.
I was shocked at the competitive and relatively free market of India.
What did you expect in a country which is the worlds biggest democracy for the last 50 plus years? Did you expect some sort of wild wild west? I am always amazed by the distorted picture educated Westerners carry about other parts of the world.
-- only recently did we really see socialism take over -
India never had socialism the way a westerner like yourself understands it. And Communist parties currently run the state governments in Kerala and West Bengal - two of the most developed states in India.
The Indians are already grasping the idea of advertising-funded online media.
The percentage of population currently online in India is very low - online media is an offshoot of traditional media and largely caters of the non resident Indians. I don't see any grasping whatsoever.
If you buy anything large (car, house, land, business) you pay a small portion of "white" money (that is heavily taxed) and a big portion of "black" money (that is under the table, and often comes in the form of bullion).
Indians generally use gold/silver as a sort of future investment. In traditional arranged marriages a part of dowry might be paid in gold/silver. Paying for an acre of land by a kilo of silver is not the norm. And if you buy a car from a dealer, you have to pay the tax and you cannot dodge the system. The property and land registration taxes you pay are close to the market value (might be 10-15% less.)
Always remember what Rabindranath Tagore said about India - whatever you think of India is true and the opposite.
Tat Tvam Asi
Why is it so many people on Slashdot only seem to care about the "free as in beer" definition of free? Business guys LOVE the freedom definition of free. Why do you think they like free trade so much? Freedom gives you flexibility, and business tends to thrive on flexibility since you can easily adapt and aren't stuck in one path. Most businesses would love to be free from the lock-in of proprietary software. Most of them just can't do it though because the headlock is too tight, or there's no open source alternative.
AccountKiller
Stuff everybody uses - linux kernel, utilities, graphics, communications protocols and utilities, web browsers. It is stupid to have 30 of these things. It's better to have one common set everyone improves upon, and this is where open source shines - in software used across industries.
Where it works less well is in how that infrastructure is used an applied. Everybody might contribute to a linux based RTOS, but a the end of the day, it's going to be used someplace, where someone is paid to make something work. That someone doesn't have to open their work.
See the distinction? Pretty clear to me. What is less clear is what we need massive infrastructure companies like MS for, other than to enfore an artificial standard. There are other ways to do that, with their own pros and cons. (See: OpenGL).
..don't panic
The function of the state is to protect capital and regulate its ownership.
When India becomes fully capitalized, the burden of the state will be harder to escape from.
Assuming he's a subscriber, and had twenty extra minutes, that's enough time to formulate a decent essay on a topic with which he is readily familiar. I say this is much ado about nothing.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
of Dada21's thinly veiled diatribes about how great libertarianism is? He doesnt seem to get the contradiction that is him trying to shove it down people's throats.
If your company is seriously so impacted millions of dollars are lost per hour of downtime, you don't go to the vendor after you've found the OS-level bug -- you stop the hemmorage and you fix it yourself.
(for real)
What do Ballmer, Gates, Bush, Hitler, Pope ... many leaders have in common?
... many (whoever) leaders may be completely mentally and emotionally healthy or believe totally they are healthy (it is their reality of right/wrong). It is not like we would ever require them to be tested for mental illnesses and presently power, justice, and mental health are defined by wealth and/or fear (as is right/wrong). Pity those who cannot feel, hear, and see the endless suffering of humanity. MS can/will go the way of Ford, GM, Novell, IBM, AT&T, Lucent ... or open-up ... same goes for US, EU, others. I can see a gradual decline of US & EU domination & participation in global economics and relationships (by the end of this century) ... just as past empires of China, Egypt, Assyrian, Greece, Rome ... are past history interesting but not presently consequential. It all depends on our continued fixation on Industrial-age economics and our mythological faith in deities and their fraud-prophets. [Yep, if you don't understand ... this is off-topic ...; So, ... you got points maybe?]
... what is right (in their reality) is what they do, what is good (in their reality) is good for all humanity. This is what can drag humanity to self-made extinction wars. Aristocracy ruled EU, China ... for thousands of years and failed for obvious inbreed/corrupt reasons. It is time for the end of inbreed/corrupt religious and secular dictators, plutocracies, oligarchies, and the anachronistic governing aristocracies before humanity is self-made extinct.
.., then let a true legally protected democratic and capitalist meritocracy for all grow.
Ballmer, Gates, Bush, Hitler, Pope/Mulah
Well, in authoritarian (non-capitalist and non-democratic) business, religion, and government, the leaders are typically gucken-nuts [AKA: megalomaniacs] in a persistent state of paranoid denial of reality. "Reality is self-induced hallucination." for these narrow and delusional minded guckers. Their amoral responsibility, repercussions, and guilt are based on pride-image
In my reality (my hallucination), reality is changing. We are moving away from HomoSapienSapien (HSS) plutocratic Industrial-age economics too HomoSapienPrescient (HSP) Open-age global economics that promotes international human/public [AKA: citizen] education, health, and welfare for everyone. This does not mean everyone will be a millionaire in the future, but it does mean an end to famine, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, genocide, plagues, wars and threats of war. IOW, in such a world where we by law raised all children like our own, and gave each child a minimum level of shelter, health care, education
SUMMARY: Humanity as one family has a simple logic of why should anyone go to the grave controlling more resources then they or their immediate (spouse, siblings, children and grandchildren) family require for very comfortably living out their lives and improving their family living standards by their own efforts while alive. We need real Democracy and Capitalism.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
But if you ask the CEO of BP he might say that Electric Cars are the way of the future. http://www.envirolink.org/articles/mar98-2.html
get back on the meds already!
The function of the state is to protect its citizens. Protecting their property is just a nice aftertought.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Free software doesn't mean you can't make money. It means that you sell services
Well put - another reason why Free software is at the heart of things a capitalist notion is that it is the most efficent use of resources. With proprietary software we see the same software developed over and over again, what a waste of limited natural resources (programmers). Free software allows for more advanced software to be built from a base maintained and created by the smallest number of workers possible, freeing many programmers for other tasks that make a company even more money.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So there were some pretty disturbing undertones in your conversation with the Doctor. I asked straight out:
"Do you love Steve Ballmer?"
Answer: "We were discussing you!"
Evasive indeed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is where we suffer once again from the a ability to conflate gratis with libre. When a journalist says "free software", it's an ambiguous term, so Ballmer gets to pick which frame which is to his best advantage. Of course, he immediately starts talking about the software //business//, which is the context that Microsoft exists entirely within.
//users// do. We would be better off referring more to user freedom (eg "the free user foudation") that to free software.
Libre software only partially exists in the business world, however. Industry can benefit from user freedom the same as everyone else.
It bugs me that "free software" is the term de jour when the gratis/libre confusion is mainly caused by the selection of a thing - software - for the object of the adjective. Things have no use for freedom; as such, it's reasonable to assume that free software means gratis. Software has no use for freedom;
Shit happens, things ?*? change, ....
... should reduce my reality/hallucination.
Finally I am back on my meds
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
by dada21 (163177) *