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."
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.
...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!
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 *
If we're talking about Free Software as in the FSF's definition, the free refers to freedom, not price. I used to make quite a nice living writing and selling Free Software.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
And how are they working around the extreme poverty? And social services?
Yes, I thought so.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
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.
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....
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.
However, India has a very serious problem that you appear to view as a virtue.
What you are referring to when you say "black" money is tax evasion, and it is a means of corruption. I don't see how it can be compared to open source software. Can you (or someone else) explain this analogy? I don't see it.
Also, the State can be a burden, but the degree that it is a burden is ultimately under the control of the populace. The State is a necessity; order will always be imposed, contrary to what anarchists fantasize, since order is necessary.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Interesting first post; I have been to India twice and have seen many of the remarkable changes brought by Narasimha Rao's and Dr. Manmohan Singh's economic liberalization. It is another example of what improvements can be made when a nation decides to discard the failed ideology of Communism.
India was never communist -- they had a quasi Socialist economy post independence, for a short while. During this time, the state owned most most things, but the private sector was also allowed ownership of a lot of things.
Perhaps you meant Socialism, not Communism?
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.