Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Doesn't Care About Destroying Linux
techie writes "A latest column on MadPenguin.org suggests that Microsoft may not be really interested in killing Linux for mainstream users. It's after something else, and it's getting its way already. Read on to find out what it is. The author states, "Love it or hate it, Microsoft's IP attacks will continue, Linux user numbers will continue to grow and broad spectrum adoption throughout the rest of the world will grow and flourish. Microsoft's not interested in destroying Linux in the slightest. Why would they? it's been a fantastic vehicle for them to land a firmer grip on the corporations throughout the US."
Now Microsoft plans to brainwash Linux and then marry it in a dramatic wedding ceremony that will cement its rule over the two kingdoms.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
"So, I see this leading to one very definite scenario. As previously described, the US corporate world will pay a price and continue to fall behind with desktop Linux technologies. The casual Linux user within the US will become more empowered and adoption will continue to grow, regardless of the usual Microsoft dogma."
For many business managers that went to business schools who know fuck-all about IT, it's very easy to believe that something that is "free" in both senses of the word is not good. After all, business is about control and profit, two things that are absent from "free".
Sorry, but that headline doesn't follow the same as the summary...
Headline sounds like its saying "Microsoft is killing Linux and doesn't care that it is doing so", while the summary sounds more like what it should be, that "Microsoft is not trying to kill Linux and has no interest in doing so."
*sigh*
MS does quite effectively. I guess, (pocket) size does matter... I think companies should unite with Linux Foundation and contribute to the patent defense fund. Or fall one by one to MS FUD machine. Its your choice, business people...
That's one mad penguin indeed!
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
I clicked to read the comments.. and a MS add comes up advertising Microsoft's superiority to Linux. So perhaps they're just pretending they don't care.
Microsoft doesn't care about Linux people.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
That's one reason I respect Dell for having the guts to sell machines with Linux preinstalled.
until the corporate users realize "wolf" has been cried one too many times.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
The article is pathetic. The author makes a haphazard attempt to explain the current situation then draws his conclusion. He does not explain how he arrived at that conclusion or give any evidence. The Psychic Friends network gives better supporting evidence.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
... or is Microsoft hiring bot nets to spam flood someone?
Just when did it go out of fashion to type the full term at least once before going into acronym overdrive?
Of course, they weren't considering directly competing with the iPod before either, and Windows XP Express was just for a different demographic, they didn't care about the OLPC and thought SmartPhones were the way to go, and that OLPC wasn't going after the same market because they didn't share exactly the same goals...
Microsoft is forever expanding into new markets because Windows and Office aren't the "revenue streams" they used to be, and eventually they will be trying to get money from people using Linux. Even if they don't go after Linux directly, they will probably be going after Linux users saying they owe Microsoft something for some reason. Microsoft isn't interested in putting products on the shelf that a user may or may not buy.
They're more interested in taxing or selling a "service", simply because it's a guaranteed income if the customer is tethered to Microsoft in some way. If you don't buy Windows, then you can't keep it on your PC when Microsoft releases a new version. Instead, MS wants to be charging you yearly for using Windows (like with business Licensing) or yearly for using their IP in Linux. It's guaranteed money every year, as opposed to you maybe not upgrading every year like their ideal situation.
Twinstiq, game news
Hell, they don't even have to frighten business users. Linux already does.
Look, hoping that Microsofts actions lead to more adoption of Linux isn't going to work. They don't have to do anything, its up to linux promoters to convince people that it will work AS WELL AS windows WITHOUT any interruption in their use of it, meaning that they don't have to think.
Until you can provide a "don't think about it - it just works" Linux desktop the users aren't going to switch. Even then it had best come preinstalled and have a near seamless way to run windows software that they might want.
Linux and Windows don't compete for the same people and the Linux people should understand that, it sounds like Microsoft already does
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Redmond doesn't want to obliterate all comers such as Linux and Apple because that would trigger yet more legislation and court cases. Redmond has to 'suffer' a 10% or 15% market share to its competitors in order to preserve the illusion of a loyal opposition.
Linux provides Microsoft with a competitive reason to further intertwine its entire Windows software stack into a set of offerings targetted directly to different users. I imagine, in the future, there will be Windows : Developer Edition, that comes with some sort of Vista Pro and Visual Studio, or Windows : Home Edition, the comes with some sort of integration with XBox 360 integration and a slew of built in game subscriptions.
These moves would shut out or down Windows ISVs, but would provide a bit more revenue growth for Microsoft. Were someone to cry anti-trust foul, Microsoft could, and has, pointed to Linux as a real competitor. This isn't unlikely. When Linux couldn't even run with many kinds of mice and had little hardware graphics acceleration, Microsoft claimed they were a competitor during the Netscape trial.
It's the Dunkin Donuts defense, and it works. The backstory is that Dunkin Donuts drove Amy Joy out of business, but argued that it wasn't a monopoly because you could still buy donuts from Entemanns and other local bakeries. Microsoft is doing the same thing.
And, the other thing, too, is that the consumer OS space really doesn't have much room for MS. Consumers generally don't go to the store to buy operating systems, all the MS money is in preloads. So, if consumers do switch to Linux, MS has already collected its first payment. Then, as most consumers do, they switch back to Windows, by going to the store and buying a copy of something like Vista. In other words, the more frequently a user switches back and forth between Windows and Linux, the more likely they will make Microsoft even more money.
So they don't want to support Linux, but they don't want to quite kill it off either.
This is my sig.
TFA is a complete and utter waste of time to read. It doesn't make sense to itself. It's something like:
/TRIPE.
Microsoft doesn't care about Linux because people are starting to use it more and more, but not as much in America and America is going to hell in a handbasket so Microsoft really doesn't care if Linux eats their lunch if they do it slower and that helps Microsoft get to the corporations with Ubuntu in their back pocket.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Besides, most users are too uninformed to run a Linux distro, much less correct a problem.
There will be defections, but as a percentage, it won't be significant to Microsoft. In a few years, I don't think they will be significant to Linux's installed base. The real threat to Microsoft is the Mac, b/c you don't need to know squat to get it work.
-Living the Win/Tel dream since 1992.
Take note that all of the "What does this word mean?" links in the article are to search with Windows Live. Coincidence?
I disagree. There's tons of stuff you have to think about when using Windows. The difference, however, is that Linux makes you look at a command line, while Windows wraps it all in pretty GUI screens that all do essentially the same thing.
So Linux doesn't have to be "don't think about it - it just works" to succeed. It needs to be "don't think about it - just click OK" to succeed.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Microsoft's only interest is in capturing the dollars that may flow to Linux. Monopoly status doesn't magically come to an end like blowing up the Death Star with a single shot.
I'm left wondering why anyone ponders this question any more. Maybe so nothing gets done?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Microsoft's fortune was made on riding the wave - making money off the shift in the industry from proprietary hardware platforms to commodity based platforms. IBM was the big loser as it lost control of the platform they made popular. Meanwhile, every single (or close enough) "PC" was a payment to Microsoft no matter if it was IBM, Compaq, or Joe's Whitebox Store.
Linux is a large part of the next wave - shifting the OS as proprietary product to commodity platform. But instead of IBM, this shift directly threatens not only Microsoft's core products but a large portion of their business model (and development). Microsoft is looking for a way to get on top of this wave as well.
The IP shennanigans going on is simply Microsoft's attempt to gain control of Linux and hash out a way so that every commodity hardware platform that runs a commodity OS (specifically Linux) also includes a payment to Microsoft.
Article summary:
Microsoft blahblahblah Linux blahblahblah Corporations blahblahblah Users blahblahblah Doesn't Matter blahblahblah Or Does It blahblahblah Who Cares? blahblahblah Apparently, none of the above blahblahblah click here to make me some money.
I disagree with your disagreement. What most Linux users dont seem to understand is that the majority of Windows users dont even know what a Command Line Interface is. Microsoft understood that years ago and thats why everything is wrapped up in a "pretty GUI". If at any point my 60 year-old mother-in-law has to know where to find the CLI, that OS has already failed.
Mod parent up. Article really is almost content-free. Also has annoying pop-up ads that make it through Firefox's filters.
Have you ever heard of Ubuntu?
Its goal is exactly what you describe, here is a quote from the Ubuntu Linux website:
Ubuntu 'Just Works'
We've done all the hard work for you. Once Ubuntu is installed, all the basics are in place so that your system will be immediately usable.
And it adds that it has all the most common applications: a web browser, a mail client...
I have to add that I'm not a big fan of these distributions 'just work'. It seems to imply: "This is a OS that even the dumbest can use."
Something you can use even if you're still wondering: "How do I download the Internet?"
They wanna fucking kill it. They've done it before. They wanna bury it and if possible throw a chair at it.
I'm sorry but I have said this a thousand times, windows is not ready for the desktop. Every so often I install the newest incarnation XP, vista, what have you, hoping that they have gotten their act together but they have not. Until MS can make an operating system that 'just works' without grepping through cryptic registry keys or deciding what antivirus/spyware programs to run it just won't be good enough for grandma. And don't get me started on package management! Theres no standard way to install software, do I click setup.exe, setup.msi , install.bat ? Windows has come a long way, maybe 2008 will be the year of the MS Desktop. if you mod me funny instead of insightful then your a jerk!
Browse at -1 to keep an eye out for abuses.
>> "A latest column suggests that Microsoft may not be really interested in killing Linux for mainstream users. It's after something else, and it's getting its way already [...]"
You know that phase when the person being dumped says "I never even liked you, so there"
and a little while later comes crawling back saying "Please give me another chance"
Cue the Microsoft "Try us again, we really changed this time" publicity campaign in 3,2,1...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
You are exactly correct.
Microsoft isn't worried about Linux because Linux doesn't compete directly with Windows. Microsoft won over the US corporate world about a decade ago with a set of business and office tools that integrate the entire corporation together. Linux is getting there but they're about 2-4 years away from being where Microsoft was in 2000. You can't find many US corporations where you don't have a Windows computer on every desktop connected to Windows based email, directory and web servers.
This corporate culture that promotes everything Microsoft spreads to other non-Microsoft areas. Even though Linux and OSS has made progress in these areas of late, non-Microsoft companies must carry Microsoft computers for compatibility with the rest of the corporate world. Microsoft makes the standards and everyone else has to follow.
In addition, US corporations are like aircraft carriers. Once something is adopted, its unlikely it will change course anytime soon. Microsoft got there first and is now reaping the benefits. Most US corporations still use decades old technology because its too costly to switch. Any move to something like Linux would have to be phased in VERY slowly.
Linux may be approaching Microsoft in terms of functionality and ease of use but it has to convince large corporations that Linux is superior to Windows before there will be any effort to switch. As a result, Linux is still and probably always will be a niche market in the US.
In my experiences with corporations, projects that were Unix based have either switched to Linux or are in the process of switching. I've yet to see a Windows based project in my area switch to Linux. Since I support Linux based software, I've found that in many cases, being Linux only is a barrier to entry into some corporations because they've spent tons of money to develop a local support staff around Windows and are unwilling to retrain personnel to do Linux. On the other hand, a Linux based company must also support Windows so its less of a barrier for a Windows only company to sell its products to a Linux based company.
In Europe and especially emerging economies, where corporations and governments have yet to adopt the "everything Microsoft" mentality, Linux is making strong headway. I suspect in 10 years, we'll have a very similar split between the US and the rest of the world to what we see in many other technologies. Europe and Asia will be primarily Linux based and the US will still be Windows based.
So Techie's comment was poorly written; did Cmdr Taco even look at the referenced article? It's hardly English!
Its simply not in their best interest to 'do something' about Linux or particularly BSD. Attacking this resource would simply destroy them. Where else would they get any ideas? I'm quite sure they realize their corporate culture and policies completely destroy innovation, resulting in what many say is one of the least innovative companies that has ever existed.
...perhaps because it's not a threat ? The linux end-users market share is a tiny one, and MS just doesn't want to spend money where there is basically none to be made.
____
nico
Nico-Live
That's what I meant. They just take all the quirks that require a trip to the CLI and wrap a GUI around them. Then it's just as good as Windows.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
It's a bluff - if Microsoft went after say, Red Hat, they'd have to name the patents that were being "infringed". That would cause:
1) Many of the patents to be invalidated due to prior art.
2) OSS programmers to code around the "infringing" patents.
3) IBM (and it's huge patent portfolio) to come after Microsoft. Since
IBM has a huge vested interested in Linux.
4) Enormously BAD publicity for Microsoft, and call for actual enforcement
of the antitrust ruling against them.
It would be an extremely self-destructive move. By talking about infringement (but not doing
anything), they cast doubt over the competition and even get some gullible corporations to cough
up some cash (woah! free money!). It's a FUD play, fairly standard in Microsoft's (anti-)
competitive playbook.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Somehow I don't think Ma Bell would agree with you there... The battle may've taken about 8 years, but in the end, all it took was a torpedo up that two-meter exhaust port.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
They couldn't kill it, so they'll just assimilate it now.
Taco,
/. look bad
Get this trash of an article off the front page. It's making
Yes, but you are presumably already using Linux. And so are most of the other people who like to use the command line to get things done. The point is, making things less reliant on the command line will be essential for growth, because the majority of computer users would rather have a GUI. Most distributions seem to understand this perfectly well. Look at Ubuntu, for your average user, a lot of the average computer tasks can be done purely GUI, and I suspect that this trend will continue in the future.
Remember the technical and architectural history of Microsoft products?
Linux moves faster on trying, then replacing technologies; the world, including Microsoft, is there to watch.
I had a thought. What if Microsoft isn't trying to destroy Linux, but trying to steal it? The contracts they are making are so neither company can sue the other. Now, if Microsoft were make these deals with every major Linux distributor and then were to start incorporating GPL'd code into their next version of Windows, who would be left to sue? Novell, Xandros, and Linspire already can't...
Microsoft already knows Vista sucks, and stealing code would not be a new trick for them.
But Linux is not "fragmented".
And each of those "clones" works in almost the exact same way.
There is no "fragmentation". Any software that runs on the latest version of RHEL will also run on the latest version of Ubuntu. Or Slackware. etc.
And yet that does not seem to be hampering Linux's growth at all.
So maybe it isn't as big a problem as you believe it to be.
Anyone who knows Red Hat can pick up Ubuntu in less than a day. And Slackware in another day. And Gentoo over a weekend. At which point, you pretty much know every distribution out there.
Something you can use even if you're still wondering: "How do I download the Internet?" I've been using Linux for over 10 years now on my primary desktop, and I completely appreciate that when I want to plug in a piece of hardware, if "just works". Your comment seems to imply that even seasoned veterans wouldn't want such functionality. You'd be wise to count the number of Macbooks at your next LUG or convention gathering to see how wrong this thinking is. Any cycles I can use that aren't burned up trying to figure how to get the f-ing video card or flash card working with my current setup are cycles I can use productively elsewhere.
So I'll just come out and say it:
Linux is NOT hard to use. That's very old FUD. T there are only about three possibilities to explain your post:
1. You haven't tried using Linux recently or maybe not at all. This means you don't know what you are talking about.
2. You are a Microsoft shill/astro-turfer.
3. You are one of the crappiest programmer's in the world and really too stupid to be using a computer. You should find a different line of work.
So, which one are you?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It's no longer possible to make money selling software alone to corporations. The support contracts and maintenance are part of the package and are in fact the biggest money maker. These were once add-ons, when the price of software itself was high relative to costs, but as complexity has expanded, so has the cost of production and with it, the tendency toward bugs and incompatibilities.
As a result, corporations aren't going to buy any software that does not come with support, because those gotchas can delay vital money-producing work. Software companies have quite sensibly as a result been drifting closer to a license/service model, where software is "sold" but that purchase is really an entry point to the purchase of yearly support contracts and licenses that entitle them to updates.
Microsoft is not concerned about Linux because Microsoft makes money from selling its support contracts. Their goal at this point is not to slander Linux, but to leave it as a free option with no clear support path, because Linux is divided into thousands of distros with no clear market leader.
This can benefit OSS/FOSS in that where Microsoft tackles the broadest, unspecialized market, Linux distros can shine in specialized areas, for example music production, and offer unofficial support to those who are smaller companies or individuals wanting to forge their own path and not be dependent on expensive support contracts.
What OSS/FOSS should do at this point is to cease any emulation of Microsoft or Google as market leaders, and look closer to the Apple model, which is selling a specialized service to a number of specialized needs. So goes my experience, and whatever "wisdom" has been imparted to me by it.
technical writing / development
I guess you haven't tried Linux in quite a while. Ubuntu is the obvious choice of a distro that just works for 70% of world's population. And that may not include you.
People, please understand that not everybody has a need for MS Word, Excel and EA Sports titles. Two years a go I built a Ubuntu box for my father in law. He has been using it since without serious issues for the things he uses it for... Internet, Email and playing card games.
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
Long distance, maybe, but the Baby Bells were still very much Bellish in nature... They earned that name, and continue to do so. Don't forget that one of them - Southwestern Bell, AKA SWB AKA SBC AKA AT&T has grown again... As a Texan who grew up with SWB, now living in Florida where Bellsouth was just purchased by the entity that was originally Southwestern Bell but is now AT&T......... I'm not saying it's necessarily all bad, mind, just that to say Ma Bell went up in smoke is... not nearly the whole story IMHO. :)
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
It's #2.
You're my wife now!
That never seemed to work for Bowser, no matter how many times he tried to brainwash Princess Peach.
I think the IP angle will run out. Microsoft if counting on companies being panicked by Linux and that's just not happening. Some are but there is far more adoption going on and that's probably why they played this card. Why not play it, get what mileage you can out of it until it's useless? I think that's the idea. The IP will not pass muster in the courts and they know this. In the meantime, they sign up some skittish Linux companies, keep some corp users in line, and wait.
There's still that perception by business management types that a Windows-based IT shop can be staffed adequately by cheap, plentiful , easily-replaceable fresh grads right out of the local community college who have MSCE paper stuck to their foreheads. And there's still that perception that Linux/Unix qualified people are hard to find, tend to demand lots more pay, want real offices instead of an open bullpen with cubicle dividers, and that they tend to be more argumentative against the bean-counting management and they dislike strict dress codes and are less punctual when management expects them to always be there at 8:00AM sharp every morning despite whether or not they had to work until midnight the prior evening (for no overtime of course). In short, business management types prefer to keep their IT staff well under their thumbs, and squirming in fear of their positions... management hates, in the most profound way, to ever let themselves get into any position that looks like their IT people might have any kind of leverage to hold over them. Microsoft has convinced the business world that as long as they run a pure Windows-based IT operation, then their IT staff will always be a controlled commodity and easily replaceable with standard off-the-shelf "parts".
rpm
apt
slackware's pkgtool
gentoo's emerge
And learning them would be included in the single day it would take for anyone familiar with any distribution to learn a different distribution.
So it seems that you're trying to define "fragmentation" as "choices".
Why is that?
No one refers to the car market as "fragmented" just because you can buy a Ford OR a Chevy.
And if you buy a Chevy you can get a sports car OR a pickup truck OR an SUV.
And you can get them in manual OR automatic.
"Choice" is not "fragmentation". Learning to drive a manual pickup truck does not prevent you from learning to drive an automatic sports car. And the learning process will take less than a day.
Microsoft care about competition from Linux?
It's like Mick Jagger caring about competition from a typical Slashdot nerdling to see who his next c**bucket's gonna be.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
First of all, the "article" is all of 2 paragraphs long and is little more than fecal speculation. Secondly, didn't the part in the blurb that told us to "read on to find out" strike the slashdot editors as begging for click traffic?
Pull the story.
ferrari dont care about bugatti, ben sherman dont care about burbury, sony dont care about philips... but they are in compotition, as is the nature of business..
portfolio
The large MS customers - governments, military, fortune 500s - have spoken and told them that they want a 'full service'. MS should support everything in the data centre, like IBM does. MS eventually listened and is beginning to do that.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
If they dont care so much why buy out the linux distros?
They have a marketing plan and are going to use it. "Embrace and Enhance" then watch them wilt by the wayside. They have only been using it for 25 years. Why stop now?
from TFA: "Click here to get the latest prices on Linux distributions!"
You make an interesting point. Part of the tradeoff is level of service to the users. If it's OK to have the Exchange server offline 1% of the time instead of 0.1% of the time, then by all means go get a batch of MCSEs and turn 'em loose. I would rather have a small number of very smart, well-paid people than a large number of mediocre certificate holders. I prefer 99.9% uptime to 99%. I prefer to work someplace where people can tell the difference.
I see many businesses where management takes a commoditized view of IT. This must be a popular concept in MBA school; those people seem to be the worst offenders.
Although MS would like to market itself as an upscale competitor of Linux, they are actually a mid-level player. At the low end, you have businesses that can't afford the license costs. At the high end, you have businesses that can't accept the stability/security/licensing problems. In the middle, I can see how there is just enough money to pay for licenses and MCSE salaries.
As you say, there is a certain category of software customer whose primary objective is the commodity replacement of internal IT support. That kind of thinking rarely leads to growing a business to the level where MS is no longer suitable.
- a South Korean electronics and petrochemicals conglomerate?
- the acronym of Lietuvos gelezinkeliai, the railways of Lithuania?
- a female member of Order of the Garter, used as post-nominal letters?
What is it?!p.s.: I cannot seem to get character code ž () to display, my apologies to any Lithuanians.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Did anyone else read this headline and say "well of course they don't care if they're destroying Linux. In fact, they'd probably want Linux to be destroyed." "Microsoft not trying to destroy Linux" might be a more accurate headline.
I disagree with your disagreement.
...which reminds me: Is there a nice shiny and simple way to reset DHCP in XP? Something more convenient than hitting up and down arrows in a dos box to run ipconfig. Will this be consistent among any version of Windows you might find?
Linux has been trying to get away from the commandline since Slackware 96. In some ways, Slackware 96 even did a pretty good job of it. Much like Windows itself, Linux these days tends to mainly need to the commandline when you need to debug some gui app that's not quite right.
The Unix commandline utilities also provides a nice stable toolset. You don't have to worry about where in the GUI the network config wizard is hidden this time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
A few folks mentioned the Linux community fragmentation as problematic?
... all like DOD, Congress, Ford, GM ... are monolithic structured institutions. They are all legacy/Luddite business models of the industrial imperialism economic expansion. They are all dysfunctional in the present global expansionist economy. Oligarchic/Totalitarian business/government architectures lack ability to change manage fast enough to for efficient growth and performance. In the past these legacy institutions would accumulate great wealth, then during down-markets buy (at a non-inflated price) small more innovative, creative, and dynamic entrepreneurial startups to bolster product line and appear competitive when the market improves. Repeated failures by the big institutions to create, sustain, and maintain collaborative community commons indicates a dieing institution, not healthy community organizations.
... RedHat, Ubuntu ... OpenOffice, Ant ... Firefox, Opera ... Thunderbird, Evolution ... ... are not fragments, they are the same youthful and dynamic community that continue to do far more with far less, than any legacy institution. MS, Adobe, Oracle ... all like DOD, Congress, Ford, GM ... RIAA-DMCA ... all wish they could slow down or even stop the Global Open Communities, but this will remain a failure in progress.
What some would call fragmentation is a dynamic strength to innovation and creativity. The fragmentation is lacking in MS, Adobe, Oracle
Anyway GNU, KDE
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
MS wants the profit from every PC sold. To date, they've been willing to accept that the people that actually make and distribute the PCs and the software that runs on them (try to run your PC without nVidia's software) are unwilling do it without a cut. So far, their success has been phenomenal: they've escalated their cut of the profits from 2% to over 50% for office PCs over the 30 years that they have been in business. In the meantime, they've managed to reduce their contribution from some of the hardware and all of the software to a relatively small portion of the software (the uselessness of Vista despite shipping with a less-broken browser being one example of how little MS brings to the table). Linux is a natural next step. If they can con someone into giving them $600 for including a 10c hologram with every shipped PC, they'll obviously take it. This sounds ridiculous until you look at what MS is actually contributing for their half of the take and you compare the progress of the software industry to the more "mature" music industry.
I'm thankful for Ubuntu. Now maybe I can get my brother, my mother, my father, my father's company, etc to use Linux instead of Windows. Most of the world are not techgeeks like you, or me even.
You don't like them because even the dumbest can use them? Or do you not like them because "commoners" are encroaching on your "exclusive" domain and you don't feel special anymore?
Elitist prick. People like you and your massive egos are why Apple succeeds at making Unix accessible to everyone and Linux succeeds at making Unix accessible to Unix nerds.
Don't get me wrong, I know my way around the CLI and have edited my share of X configs and whatnot, but at this point in the game why should I have to? It's nice to know that I can really tweak out my system via some cryptic command line voodoo if I want, but why should it be required? Like most people, I just want my computer to work. Even if I only use it to browse the web and email people, I'd rather do that than fight with hardware.
If bad puns were like deli meat, this would be the wurst
Can we get a version of Microsoft Office for Linux then?
It isn't so much the word, excel and Access, but VISIO and Powerpoint would both be useful. Especially Visio.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Until you can provide a "don't think about it - it just works" Linux desktop the users aren't going to switch.
Why? They don't get that on windows, why should they expect it on linux?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The arguments in the article are not very sound. First, a loss in home/private OS market does not result in a grow in the business/corporation market. Not in number of sold copies nor in cash earned. But you could argument, that as more and more people who do decisions in IT departments, know Linux. Therefore they start to promote the system in their company. This will result in a loss of market share in the corporate market. You could argument that all other companies are frightened by this "communistic system" and therefore they do not adopt even if they should. This would hold Linux a little bit back in the US. But as far as I know capitalists, they would even sell their grandmother to the bugs. So why should they not take Linux if it is useful.
Second, he argues, that this is holding back the US. To be honest. Who cares? Most people live not in the US. They life somewhere else, even in countries and regions where software patents do not exist. Every time Microsoft says something about IP, I could say I don't care, because these monopolies do not exist here (Europe) and will never exist. And as far as I know China and India don't care about these US-monopolies too. Not to forget South America and Africa. All continents which great growth levels in computer and Linux usage.
And exactly why is that?
Because Microsoft pushed its software into colleges for free. Not only that, it gave them money and told them to use their software. This is just generally widespread accepted truth, there really isn't anything new here.
Before Microsoft chose that plan of action, CompSci grads generally were proficient in DOS, Minix, Unix, Windows, Mac, etc. A wide variety of systems, which produces developers who have enough tools to work on a wide variety of platforms. Now, all platforms but Microsoft platforms are generally treated as footnotes by your run-of-the-mill state college. Windows was one of many choices...now, it's pretty much the only choice of development environment. I was in school when we went from being fairly open to being a closed MS environment. One summer, all the machines in our computer labs were "upgraded" to Windows NT 4. The cost for the upgrade came in part directly from Microsoft.
MS could easily "make money" by integrating Windows with GNU/Linux, by working on Windows/Linux interoperability, or by selling Linux services to their larger corporate accounts.
Why don't they do that and merely "make money"? Because GNU/Linux represents a different business model and a threat to MS' closed source code business model.
I would argue that MS has a much stronger interest in even losing money -- if it means eliminating the viral threat and outside-the-box software model that GNU represents.
Bill and Ballmer light up their cigar... Bill: Linux is giving us money if we let him alive... Ballmer: Take is money then kill him. I don't care about that.
I used Linux on Desktop and I also use Linux for my/clients' webserver. If there is one thing which I can say for sure, I doubt users in the SOHO segment would want to make a shift to Linux.
What is the single most important factor when people buy a computer for their home? I have travelled a bit and being from the industry, I realize that it is 'Support'. The "What if this crashed...?" or "What if this didn't work...?" syndrome decides on what computer/software will people buy in future.
Why would a Stock Broker want to go to a forum and post a query and indefinitely wait for a reply when he can just call someone and ask them to come-fix't-up? The only reason I had to uninstall Linux from my Desktop and my Laptop (which was shipped with XP home preinstalled) was because I didn't have any particular place where I could go and ask for support. If I pay for this support, then the purpose of 'free' revolution seemed to be defeated.
It appears to me that the single most important advantage which Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle... etc have over OSS is the ability to take onus for mistakes and provide support for their products. I do not know who would be responsible (besides me) if something goes wrong with my system when I am on Linux. With any of these companies, I can transfer the blame on them and have them help me restore everything.
two cents..
shashank
http://www.techspeak.in/
two cents..
shashank
http://www.techspeak.in/
It also doesn't help when there are misguided linux advocates doing counterproductive things. An example near me is a guy that gives poor users the fad distro of the week and does no more than install, set up one user and install one in-house program. He doesn't have a clue how to update packages in most of the distros let alone other things and has created a group of frustrated linux users each with a very different setup - in the end they only use it to run one python based program which would run in MS Windows anyway. It really does make more sense to use one distro in one place, actually know how to configure it and stick to it until there is a reason to change.
Msft provided all of the financial backing for the scox-scam. You may have noticed, the pro-scox articles are all written by the usual msft shills: didio, enderle, lyons, etc.
Windows Vista Ultimate
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Starter
"Home Basic N" and "Business N" in EU.
64 and 32 bit versions as well.
Bullseye. I agree 100%, based on my own experience. Wish I had the mod points . . .
SARAVA!
If they could see a way to make more money by working with Linux, they'd do that. Hell, they're not that stupid
If MS wanted only to make money then they'd support Linux as well as any and all other OSes. MS could make a pile of money on sales of Office for Linux but they won't release a Linux version, at least not for some tyme until they have to. That is one reason some hesitate to switch to Linux, they need Office compatibilty and know of no alternatives.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A package built for Debian 4.0, for example, will most likely install not install on Debian 3.1 at all if it has any non-trivial dependencies.
Hell, Windows is the exact same. If you don't have XP or Vista there's a good possibility a new app will not install on a Windows PC. Not being able to install new software in old OSes is a none valid argument, your other arguments may be valid but not this one.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Business is drudgery; it's filing papers the proper way, it's following procedures so things do not get out of hand. It's tedious repetitive meaningless work that is best performed by semi-intelligent drones that will never question management rather than by intelligent independent thinkers that always see another way of doing things. It's only the big-shots who get the hookers during intense contract negociations. The little pipsqueaks jerk-off on the couch.
And if you're an intelligent independent thinker, you certainly don't want to indulge in the terminally dullness of business work.
It's simple, just Run setup.exe, or if you want to push it out with Group Policy, run the associated .MSI file. How many ways to uninstall a program... Hmmmm, Add/Remove Programs.
Uhm, I've seen Windows software that does not have a way to uninstall it via Add/Remove, not without using Add/Remove to install it to begin with. And even using Add/Remove software to install then uninstall software can still lead to lots of junk left in the registery which causes it to become unstable. Heck Windows itself is unstable. The only Windows version I've used if not got that was stable was NT 4.0. It is the only Windows OS I have not had crash on me, then again it's the DEC Alpha version that I have and because it's an Alpha, FX!32 was a piece of crap, I haven't been able to get much software installed on it so I haven't used it much. Windows 2000 and XP are more stable? When I first used Win2000 it took only a few days before it crashed. And XP? The very first tyme I booted a PC with XP it froze during bootup. And it wasn't installed on some old knockoff PC, the PC was a brand new Dell the college I was attending had just got.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That would require them to have a competitor in the corporate desktop market. In my entire career I haven't seen a Mac being used by someone not involved in creative work, to say nothing of some accountant running their reports on Ubuntu or Slackware.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Linux is the same crap ass non driver and application support having antiquated green screen unrefined PIECE OF SHIT it has always been. Go install any distro and see the truth. Linux SUCKS. After all these years it's still a piece of shit. Good job open source community. Have fun watching a prono movie bent around the corner of a cube. Now there's linux usability! Ready for the desktop! Lamerz...
The easiest way to go to preserving headcount is to go with Windows.
The best way to preserve headcount is to go with Linux.
Which would you rather have? 10 people maintaining broken Windows systems or 10 people working on Linux-based infrastructure improvements?
The answer to your question is (c) 20 people maintaining and improving broken Windows system.
The GP's point was that most clueless managers have even more clueless executives above them. And the clueless understand one corporate principle very well; change is risky and growth is good. If your department is growing in size, then it is a good thing. If your department is 3 times as productive with the same number of staff, not only are you a threat to the other managers, but effeciency and effectiveness are not rewarded in large corporate environments, so it's all risk and no reward.
- Nothing to see hear.
I recently bought a USB headset. In order to get various programs to use the headset as the sound output device on Ubuntu required editing the ALSA configuration files from the command line (setting the defaults in the GUI tool did not work). And the only way I found out how to do this was reading the Ubuntu forums. In one case (Enemy Territory), there seems to be no way to force it to use the USB headset at all. Unless issues like these are addressed, Linux is a non-starter on the desktop.
Yeah, you just have to worry about remembering what the tool you're looking for is called. Let's see, I'm using Ubuntu so I should be using update-rc.d (the manpage suggests using bum or sysv-rc-conf, but neither are installed by default) - but if I where on RedHat I should be using
chkconfig. Note that finding out what the tool to use is called is actually more work than looking for the equivalent functionality on Windows.
Why would the normal desktop user care ? Repeat after me - the vast majority of computer users are neither server admins nor software developers, they don't want to be either server admins or software developers, and they don't need the feature set server admins or software developers need. What normal users want is a system that is consistent and works out of the box without having to fiddle with the configuration. Linux is not that system, and if the attitude of Linux developers does not change, is never going to be that system. Which is perfectly fine, because in the real world, one size does not fit all.
Really, I think the author of this article is short sighted. Microsoft is a global company on the march of expansion. Linux in large degree is a stumbling block. Nothing in Microsoft's history would indicate that it is, or would be willing, to shrink from the global marketplace. There may be a certain reality that Microsoft must face but that certainly would not imply that the company would ever give up without a fight any more than it would likewise relinquish non-corporate U.S. desktops. The author would have Microsoft, a company as devious as it is adroit, doing both.
Even though Microsoft is one of the richest and most powerful of corporations it does find itself in perilous waters, held afloat on the simple basis of investor confidence. To retain that confidence the company must relentlessly move forward and this at a time when the challenges have never been greater. It is therefore essential that MS monetize its platform maximally. To lock in, lock down and absolutely annihilate the notions of freedom or choice. All competitors must be crushed. That is the end game. The middle game has the company dancing with the U.S. Department of Justice and the monopolistic underpinnings of it all. So for the time being at least, Microsoft must allow at least a minimal degree of competition to bolster some semblance of free market economics at play in this field. At best however, this is but a minor annoyance for the DOJ has been proven essentially impudent in regard to the Microsoft case even before the company went on a buying blitz in Washington DC. Given the results of a massive lobbying campaign and the requisite numbers of pocketed lawmakers paid protection money in the form of campaign donations among other acts of charity, it is essentially inevitable that any future DOJ proceedings be little more than the meaningless yappings of a toothless chihuahua even IF it was ever to come to that. The company learned a valuable lesson in the failure of DOJ v Microsoft Anti-Trust I. That narrow escape served well the indicator that MS needed a significant positive presence on the Hill and so it was done.
The SCO case was another interesting building block but for a handful of Microsoft millions to bolster legal efforts against IBM, Redmond was able to safely sit back and observe the proceedings. To Microsoft, the outcome mattered naught and clearly spread legged SCO had little more than a tawdry case of town whore syphilis to bring before the court, but to gauge IBM's defense and the courts reaction was tactically invaluable from the perspective of potential future litigation on behalf of Microsoft's "if you can't innovate, litigate" legal department.
So now we find Microsoft signing off on a number of IP protection agreements by entities of Linux to weak to defend themselves and hoping to garner market share as being certified legal versus the competition who isn't. Never mind that "legality" has yet to be established and just like SCO, Microsoft hesitates to declare just what IP is claimed in violation. From Microsoft's perspective this is a classic divide and conqueror strategy on one hand, and a potent FUD campaign on the other. Only IBM has the resources to challenge if they decide to pick up the gauntlet in what would turn out to be the death match of the century. One would expect IBM has a close eye on this but for now Microsoft nips at the periphery and doesn't threaten IBM directly. What Microsoft is doing however, is picking up IP rights correspondingly within these agreements that may well be used against IBM. If it wasn't in Microsoft's best interest to be doing this, they wouldn't be.
The author is correct in my estimation to surmise that the paramount battle is over lucrative U.S. corporate accounts beyond any other. I doubt Microsoft would be willing to settle for simply winning that however. It is also noteworthy that there is more than one way to win. Killing Linux, a possibility in effect if not outright is only a practical matter stateside. It may not be possible but if your Microsoft
Those responsible for writing the article and posting it here are insignificant worthless irrelevant attention whores. There is no substance to this article - only infantile speculation.
MOD DOWN WAY DOWN.
#1 Accuse Linux of using Microsoft IP.
#2 Make deals with Linux companies to license Microsoft IP to make Linux friendlier with Windows.
#3 Develop Silverlight libraries and virtual machines for the Linux companies that want to license Windows technology.
#4 Linux companies that didn't settle with Microsoft are denied Silverlight technology.
#5 Silverlight allows Linux to run Windows and Dotnet software under the host operating system. Microsoft ports MS-Office, MS-Money, some games, etc to Silverlight to run under Linux.
#6 Companies that refused to deal with Microsoft are shut out of Silverlight. Some agree to make deals with Microsoft.
#7 Some corporations see Linux as a viable alternative as long as it has Silverlight to run the same applications as Windows and Dotnet support. Buy Linux distros whose companies made deals with Microsoft.
#8 Companies who refused to deal with Microsoft are shut out of the desktop market.
#9 Microsoft ports server applications to Silverlight, BackOffice, etc.
#10 Linux companies not dealing with Microsoft start to get shut out of some of the server market.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
You imply that Windows "just works".
Well, explain this genius: why do we need so many "Windows for Dummies", "Windows, the lost manual" and similar offerings if Windows "just works'? Why all the training? Why the expensive support?
Windows doesn't just work, so use another argument, the evidence show this one is not going to fly at all buddy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So you're saying that because I know how to drive a small super-mini I won't be able to drive a sports car round the streets?
I won't be able to get the full performance out in a race, but then again, I couldn't in my supermini, either: I'm not a race driver. Ask Stig to drive round in it and he's fine, the sports car will go faster but he'll be faster than me in the sports car when he's in the mini...
would be too obvious and dramatic a demonstration of their illegal monopoly.
.. continue to make it harder and harder to migrate away from MS platforms and applications, including fighting standardization on true 'open' data/document formats any way they can (witness the ODF/OOXML debacle) .. continue to release false 'get the facts' type campaigns that consist of vast amounts of FUD that is just vague enough to be hard to disprove affirmatively .. continue to browbeat OEM consumer peecee makers into not selling hardware without Windows installed, or at least severely restricting which models might be available with anything else (or with no OS) .. continue to 'embrace and extend' anywhere they can, making it _look_ like they are trying to be 'interoperable', while at the same time ensuring that they are not. They dont want to comform to published specs for networking or document storage (wether the specs are published by MS or anyone else), that would make it trivial for anyone to interoperate for free (or at least, without paying MS). They much prefer that drones pay MS for 'interoperability', even if it doesnt work.
Instead, expect them to
They're too busy trying to survive.
We live in a free country, where I can choose the OS I wish to use. Damn, it's even called free software.
I didn't say that you have to be dumb to use Ubuntu - which is a great Linux distribution, by the way - I said that making things really easy isn't what really matters to me in the end. Maybe, you think that of yourself, but that's a completely different problem.
That's the reason why Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Ark Linux and other more "difficult" distributions are still widely used - there are other people that think the same I wrote.
My post above is incomplete, because I didn't say why. I couldn't care less about being "elite", I never thought I was. If I was such a prick as you say, I would have told you to go back to Windows.
I've been using Linux for quite a long time, and I know my way around enough. There are things that can be done from the CLI with a single command. It's easy and quick - well at least for me. It doesn't depend on what software is available on that particular computer and on what type of distribution it has.
Clicking through a GUI, on the other hand, is not that quick, it's not scriptable, you have to look which software is available and different distributions often offer different GUI to configure the system, while ifconfig is always there, for example.
Linux is a very powerful operating system. Sometimes GUI offers just a subset of what it's really possible to do. Usability is a wonderful thing but if that doesn't let me do what I want to, it's not that great anymore.
You got several things wrong in you post, one of these is that you speak about "tweaking out my system" and "fight with hardware". I don't do those things, I configured my system once - well it almost did it by itself - and I changed something when hardware changed. None spoke about "tweaking".
By the way, how can a thing called "tweaking" be required? Isn't it against its definition?