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
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*
That's one mad penguin indeed!
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!!!
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.
> Just when did it go out of fashion to type the full term at least once before going into acronym overdrive?
April 3, 1983 at 4:29EST.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
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.
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 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.
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.
...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
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]
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.
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.
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
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.
Not the person you responded to, but I am a software engineer.
1. You haven't tried using Linux recently or maybe not at all. This means you don't know what you are talking about.
I had been running a Linux server since 1997 - 2006, and as a desktop 2002 to 2006. Using it was fine, updating it, getting it to work with my printer, finding an accounting program that I liked was difficult.
2. You are a Microsoft shill/astro-turfer.
Nope. I had supported Linux for everything.. but after getting married and doing things other than computers, I found myself not being able to easily manage my network. I couldn't easily deploy updates to all computers on the network, documentation was non-existent or outdated, and the community helpfully said RTFM, or worse, never answered questions at all. Sorry, I'd rather spend a few minutes clicking through a wizard than researching hours on the exact linux solution to the problem I want to solve.
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.
Every job I've had has consitently held me as a very good programmer. I've even been asked recently to come back to a former employer because they thought I did a good job.
So yes, even programmers can think Linux is too hard to use. Those of us that don't sit in front of a computer 24/7 at least.
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.