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
The word "free" was not assimilated, as the Borg collective concluded that it was irrelevant.
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 #!
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 *
Seems MSFT has a businessman as head instead of a Head Honcho John Wayne shooting from the Hip...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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.
To paraphrase, "I hate Microsoft but they sure are keen and smart and I wish I was just like them."
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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.
Uh, what are mods smoking? I had never heard about "expression", the AC might be offtopic but Troll?? God, this isn't even a pro-microsoft comment!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.
You might want to brush up on the free beer/freedom thingies again.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
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 */
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'll learn .NET. I'm more marketable to employers .net skills will not be marketable.
n g_for_unregulated_monopolies (or not)
.Net .net developers chasing fewer .net jobs driving the wages for .net developers down.
Today you will. But tomorrow, economic principals strongly suggest it will be used by fewer and fewer consumers. In a few years, your
Take a look at this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Price_setti
A monopoly strongly tends to produce at a lower quantity (Qm) versus a competitive market. (Qc)
For you, and all other developers that translates into:
1. fewer organizations using
2. More
For you and all consumers, that translages into:
1. More expensive hardware. Microsoft is a price maker. They alone set the price for their OS and get to drive the cost of the computer package up accordingly. They will probably provide at Quantity Qm instead of Qc to OEM's like Dell who have no choice but to pass on that cost to you.
2. Fewer employers using Microsoft products. They will only provide their OS at successively higher prices and lower quantity. There is no reason to believe the price they demand will ever go down because the thirst for profit is unquenchable.
3. Lack of innovation on Microsoft's part. Since Microsoft has no competition, there is no reason to innovate. Like most big businesses they borrow or steal from the innovaters. This will drive many customers away as well.
I still feel like I paid for XP & not the Express tools.
1. As my previous comments point out, you already paid too much.
2. You are limiting your future revenue by adopting microsoft tools. There is no path where Microsoft becomes enlightened and lowers their prices to provide the quantity the market demands. History has proven this repeatedly.
3. You would do well to add GPL'd languages that -today- do not command a premium, but will indeed tomorrow because of Microsoft's monopoly position creating demand between points Qm and Qc.
To silence the quickie-mart economists and Microsofties who claim I just "proved" that the developer world is competitive, please note that economic theory also strongly suggests "consumer surplus" is -still- destroyed despite alternatives.
Today's lesson: There is no good that can come from Microsoft any more.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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.
Quite amusing. Yes, I hate Microsoft just as much as you do. Utterly loath and detest those despicable bastards.
As hard as I try not to, I'm starting to hate the FSF just as much, if not more. The self-righteousness, the arrogance, and the brutal insistence on lock-step conformity with their "our way or the highway," thinking...not to mention the juvenile name-calling and vilification (and worse, in the case of Laura Didio) which anyone who opposes them is subjected to. The one way I've heard it described which really resonated with me was, "Free as in do as I say."
The response I'll no doubt get to this is a catalogue of all the terrible things Microsoft either has done in the past or wants to do in the future.
The thing is, I really feel that Stallman/Kuhn with the DRM fearmongering is a lot like how I saw George Bush on the one hand, and Sadaam Hussein and the threat of WMD on the other.
What Microsoft *might* end up doing with DRM is causing me a lot less emotional pain than how Stallman, Kuhn, and their followers *are* treating people because of their fear of it.
The other reason why I've realised that I'm no longer interested in being refuted by advocates of the FSF is because I honestly don't believe they think at all. They're a cult...and as such, me arguing with them is pointless...because nothing I say can argue with mind control, their degree of fear, or their equally irrational degree of worship for Stallman. The degree of fear is the most difficult thing to get through.
Ask yourselves this though, guys...If Stallman is as powerful as you think he is...What are you so afraid of?
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 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.
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
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?
What do you mean?
A businessman who squirts. (Couldn't resist :( )
And you were NOT the anonymous submitter of TFA, right?
They have done terrible things in the past. I've still not quite forgiven them for continuing to ship DOS when the 80386 (the original, not the standard), with its 32-bit, flat-memory, model became available. Just a *touch* of vision, and they could have had a 32-bit Xenix (which they owned) running on those machines, and I could have retired some refrigerator-sized VAXes much sooner. This was in 1987, so years and years before NT became an option. They could have done what NeXT/Apple did, and put a nice graphical shell on top of a Unix underpinning, but instead they put an unstable graphical shell on top of 8-bit, single-tasking DOS, and it took them until around 1991 to do that.
A former boss of mine, who had dealt with the Microsoft of the 80s once said, "the issue is that Bill has a Vision. One vision, and that vision is frozen in the 1970s".
On the other hand, I find that I am less and less interested in the political fights, and more and more interested in getting work done. So, I use a mix of proprietary, but highly-functional, desktop apps under a mostly proprietary, but highly functional, operating system, and rely on Free software (of one sort or the other), for specialized tools, compilers, and things that the Free community has taken a real interest in. (except for the 9-billion IRC clients. One for each name of God.) So, if uSoft cares to offer cross-platform development tools, less annoyingly licensed operating systems, etc, I'll talk to them. Otherwise not, but it's a decision these days made mainly on suitability to the tasks at hand. This being said, all they make that I use is Word, and that's because it interfaces to my reference manager. However, that decision is a technical, not emotional or political decision. Some time spent by the FSF making their software more functional would convert far more people to their side than all of the songs in favor of Software Libre ever will.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
India first to invent Time Machine!
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Pot, meet kettle.
That might a decent analogy except that DRM is becoming a real thing while the WMDs were mostly just chimeras existing only in the mind of the American citizens. Both of them are used for fearmongering and DRM is still poorly understood by just about everyone.
Stallman is not powerful, and don't think the FSF as is is really all that powerful either. The real power is in the Free Software community which predates Stallman and the FSF and will exists long after they are gone. The fact that Stallman and the FSF are viewed as the headpieces of the movement is more of a formality than anything else.
As for microsoft, I'm not a fan of them either, but my thoughts on them were formed before I even knew who the FSF or Stallman were and the two are pretty much orthoginal.
...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
Laura Didio mentioned having been issued with death threats by Linux users. I might not be able to conclusively prove it, but I'd be willing to bet money that said threats would have come primarily from the FSF/GNU side of the ideological fence. I've noticed that people who identify themselves (or are identified by others) as being on the "open source" side of said line don't tend to feel as though theirs is the only perspective with the right to exist, or that anyone who voices opposing beliefs must be silenced or shouted down at all costs.
The FSF and its' followers, on the other hand, do feel like that. I see it demonstrated on a near daily basis online. You can also read about this attitude being displayed in an interview with Bradley Kuhn that was conducted here on Slashdot. I mentioned it in a post a few days ago.
In that interview, Kuhn says that he feels that programmers/developers should not have the write to license their work via any license other than the GPL...whether it is commercial, or simply a non-GPL FOSS license.
The FSF are seeking, IMHO, to create a scenario which is just as repressive in its' own right as anything Microsoft are trying to establish.
Microsoft want to use DRM to ensure that you can't use a computer in any way other than ways in which they specify.
The FSF, on the other hand, wants to use the GPL and their activism to ensure that you can't use, write, or license software in any way other than ways in which they specify.
To achieve their ends, Microsoft use their marketing power, threats of patent lawsuits, hostile market acquisitions, economic and legal warfare, and their position as an incumbent monopoly.
To achieve their ends, the FSF uses a cult of personality centred around Richard Stallman, (and to a lesser extent, Eben Moglen and Bradley Kuhn) namecalling and vilification of individuals, threats and various forms of intimidation and fearmongering, (such as creating hype about DRM) and a rather insidious form of decentralised, mutually-reinforcing thought reform along FSF-approved lines in which critical thought is not tolerated, and whereby individuals monitor each other and enforce ideological comformity, generally via reproduction of the above methods.
I'm assuming you'll find the similarities between the two cases to ultimately be reasonably clear.
-- 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
Probably a troll, but I'll bite:
1) Have you ever read a Microsoft EULA? They do their best to avoid any liability for bugs in their software.
2) Do you know anyone who has successfully sued Microsoft because a Microsoft application has scrambled his data?
C - the footgun of programming languages
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
If it's not released for the Mac, it has little future in the graphic design and publishing fields.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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.
Interestingly, IBM is one of the largest software vendors on the planet.
Also, as much as they are anything else, they are a services company. IBM global services will often actually tell customers to buy non-IBM hardware when it best fits their situation. This helps them maintain credibility and get repeat business, and IBM is making money either way. They do try to weasel some IBM stuff in there just to get the blue tinge going, but who can blame them? Besides, IBM has some of the best hardware around.
But also, IBM listens to their customers. They may resist doing what they want for as long as possible, but IBM is not afraid to wake up and smell the coffee, as the saying goes. IBM is a champion of Open Source now, but the original use agreement for their mainframes stated that any software you developed on the system was the property of IBM. They've come a long, long way.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
I think you do not understand the meaning of "monopoly". If Microsoft had a monopoly, we would all be using Windows 95 and Visual Basic.
Please explain how a company can fix a bug in Windows by themselves.
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
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?
I agree, and it's very, very sad.
I wouldn't know how many times I've been modded Flamebait, Troll, or Overrated, (the latter when they were at least feeling honest) purely because I was simply expressing an opinion that went against the hive mentality of the FSF, and some of its' resident enforcers didn't want people seeing said opinion. Said cultists are also unbelievable cowards...Nothing is tolerated less by them than dissent. Great freedom there, guys.
Stallman only has any power at all because of the sorts of zombies who enforce his ideology here and in other places...he has only attained any influence at all because a lot of people hate nothing more than having to think for themselves, which is a burden he seems more than happy to relieve them of. It's a lot easier to simply swallow someone else's ideas than it is to try and come up with your own.
Laura Dido is far from a credible source. Granted - it doesn't mean she didn't really get said threats. But I would be really careful about making generalized, sweeping statements about people based on Didio's claims.