Slashdot Mirror
Gates: "Linux Can't Compete"
An anonymous reader writes "Theres a curious little article at
WUGNet, talking about a Bill Gates' speech on his new book, where he cites that Linux isnt viable because its openness. According to him, theres "no central point of control", and "Windows offers far more functionality and features than Linux ever will". So much for their Anti-Trust case. "
This is a common attitude I've seen as well. For computer geeks like myself (except that they are MS-lovers), I've gotten them to not immediately dismiss Linux by showing them my system and all I can do with it; things like IP masq'ing your home LAN to the Internet, the LRP (it does all that from a floppy?), KDE (it really does ease their minds that Linux is this terrible/difficult OS), Samba (so they can keep a Win box around and communicate with it), VMWare (though it'll cost money, it's still worthwhile), INN and Suck (mirroring all newsgroups that I want), Apache (for custom bookmark homepage, or web development at home instead of having to upload pages to the ISP), etc.
That works great for computer people, for others this approach works to an extent. Concentrate on end-user apps, KOffice will be powerful once it's out (or maybe it is now, haven't gotten around to trying it), or StarOffice/WordPerfect, various EMail readers, stability, etc. Although one thing these people like to do is just shut off the power without properly shutting down. Then they end up with bunches in lost+found. Perhaps mixing locate with md5sums of files, then automatically moving things that match up out of lost+found to their proper location would help a bit.
Most people can be swayed by real-life demonstrations. Show them that they can do what the do currently, only better, more of it, most stable. And on top of all that, most all of it is free.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Sure, Bill can point out Linux as a potential competitor, but I'm reasonably sure that's for the DOJ to hear, not us. I think his comments in this article are closer to what he really thinks.
And yes, I believe he really thinks that, or has convinced himself of that. Microsoft's internal development is totally in "cathedral" mode, and in the past year or so, hasn't been able to keep up with Windows 2000 design and other stuff. But I think Gates, who built his fortune on a proprietary model, just can't wrap his mind around the concept.
Complacency breeds ignorance. Ignorance breeds FUD. 'Nuff said.
What really bothers me about the whole thing my system is better than yours is that for a newbie, linux looks like DOS and XFree isn't easy to configure... so maybe Gates is such a newbie... but lack of features? like what?
like not being able to telnet to the server to fix problems by editing simple text files? (sorry, that's a feature NT is lacking)
No Quota??? (mmhh... same again...)
and what's the true meaning of an application server?? a file server on which the application can be loaded? Sorry, that's not what I meant, I meant remote applications, where the display is actually exported to a thinner X-terminal client... Ah! Sorry, that's a *nix/Linux feature again!!!
How come I have to PAY to have more than 10 users accessing a file server when I can do that for free on Linux using samba??
What about the cost? what about the cost of having a DUMB sysadmin (sorry sys-tem-ad-mi-ni-stra-tor) in charge of your network?
Yeah... I'm pssed off, and I have a right too, because a system is not all about features, it's about a small number of core features that makes a server a server... like... stability? Is there a 3rd party stability module for NT? How come I get a BSOD when the cursor moves over a window?
Oh! and How come I get a screwed-up linux partition when I launch win98 on my dual boot laptop? (yes I keep win98 on my laptop, 'coz i have a WINMODEM!!!!!
Really I don't care if I have integrated browser in my system or not! I want stability and ease of administration... vi/telnet does if for me, I don't have the bandwidth for pcanywhere or vnc (needed for any kind of remote NT administration!) but Linux is getting there in terms of ease of use... microsoft still struggles with implementing core features in their system... 64/128bit readiness anyone???
Yes, Micro$oft is scared of Linux... because people like us know exactly what's working and what's not... a few more years, and a lot of pssed-off people of the linux generation will become sysadmins and CEOs, and I know what those people will NOT use...
---
"Hasta la victoria siempre!" El Comandante
First off, Bill wants his cake and to eat it, too. He wants the DoJ to leave him alone in his quest for PC OS dominance, and he can't stand any interference. Natch, obvious. Also, he will say anything in any way to get his view - skewed though that may be, across. Remember, the rich are different than us. They truely see the world in a different way. Gates truely beleives he can do anything at all and not be criticised. He just does not believe that other folks don't view him the way he paints himself, the way he paints his vision, the way he spins his software.
Not to put too fine a point on it; Gates is delusional.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
"In fact, as I am sure you are aware, this stranglehold is weakening, and the DOJ had nothing to do with it."
/.-er, do not believe Linux is the 20th century version of the Ten Commandments: Novell works fine as a file/print server; Solaris works fine as a heavy-duty server; AIX is a wonder for CATIA; AS/400 rocks for mid-range stuff. Windows is okay for desktop use; MAC OS works for graphics, as does IRIX. I would argue OS/2 is a better client OS than Windows. Linux fits in rather nicely as a news/email/web/file/print server as well as a nice router/firewall/gateway OS. The problem is, Mr. Gates would have people believe that the above don't cut it, that his OS is the One-AND-Only.
Timing, as the sage says, is everything. The only reason the OEM's are even considering mentioning Linux now is because the DoJ has MS by the shorthairs. Previous to the widely-covered, well-documented foot-shootings that happened during the trial, not one OEM had the intestinal fortitude to even whisper the name Linux. I'm sorry, but your statement is just not accurate.
I, for one
You also follow the typical MS line that most people are stupid, and can't figure things out for themselves. Well, as I mentioned in my previous post, that is one of the negatives of MS and Mr. Gates' domination: The dumbing-down of computing. And, in closing, 90% of the population would not need to recompile their kernel - at least not right away. That comes after they've re-discovered they can think for themselves, and have found again that learning is fun.
Well, enough of this. Neither side will convince the other. The weekend is near - or here depending on the timezone. Time to relax.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Let me also say that, out of the box, Windows NT Workstation is useless. There's nothing you can do with it. You could run IE, that's about it. There is absolutely no functionality.
Constrast that with, say, Red Hat Linux which out of the box can run as a web server, POP3 server, has numerous email clients, has a full featured, high-quality C/C++ compiler, programmable text editors, a full range of text processing tools (sed, awk, perl, grep), can provide nice typeset output (TeX, LaTeX), can make beautiful graphics (Gimp), etc.
For crying out loud, you can't even setup tasks to execute periodically under NT without buying additional products. Linux at least has cron! For example, I wanted to record one hour of audio from the sound card input each day, compress it to MP3 and copy it to a Jaz disk so I can take it and listen to it at work. I have to do this at home on a Linux box because there's no way to script that up under NT easily.
Gates has got a flashy interface, but it's on top of a mess of nothingness underneath.
You can quote me on this: "Windows tells me how I have to work. I tell Linux how it's going to work for me."
Gates says that you get proliferations of different versions and everybody can go into the source code, and everybody does. I see Gates' point---he thinks that, for example, Red Hat and Debian are really different, and if I know Red Hat, that I'll be clueless at a Debian machine. We all know this is far from the truth. As a matter of fact, I think this "fractioning" of the market is a good thing. Different companies can market their distributions at different customers. Slackware is marketed towards the Linux experts who want complete control, Red Hat is marketed a newbies and people who want an easy to use system. Debian is geared towards those who want a truly free system. There are distributions of Linux for those who want to run it on tiny machines as routers. On the other hand, Gates only gives you one version of Windows NT. It's a one-size fits all scheme. He'll tell you it's better for you since it's all the same, but I'd rather see many different solutions geared towards different people so each person can pick what fits them best.
Gates says that Linux has no central point of control. How does that make a system bad? Contrast a company like Microsoft with the Linux movement. Having a central point of control for Microsoft certainly hasn't made Microsoft products more reliable in my opinion, or the opinions of many others.
Gates says that Linux's biggest feature is its price. No, it has to do with price (again, real freedom versus free beer). I'd like to say that I'd be willing to pay $200 for Linux, but I can't really say that since its freedom precludes that. But, let's put it this way: if Windows NT were free, I'd still pick Linux over Windows NT in a heart beat.
Gates says "We put things into our system like systems management that's not much fun for university developers". I work at a large company with hundreds of Sparc boxes and Dell machines running NT. The sysadmins will always tell you that the NT machines are a bitch to administer, and the Sparc and Linux boxes just run without any maintanence. At the last company I worked for, I setup an HTTP/FTP/POP3 Linux server. I left over a year ago and it's still running without any maintenance. Try that with Windows NT.
Gates says "It doesn't have a rich set of device drivers". Well, USB support isn't in there, but other than that, it supports my scanner, ethernet, SCSI, video, and multi-port serial card. NT, on my namebrand Dell machine here at work often can't recognize even the simplest namebrand hardware we try to add (between blue screens). And we're not idiots, either. As long as you don't buy brain dead Winmodems and pick decent hardware, there's nothing out there (again, with the exception of USB) that Linux doesn't work with.
Gates says "I really don't think in the commercial market, we'll see it [compete with Windows] in any significant way". I guess he's ignoring all of those Apache equipped Linux boxes out there.
Pretty much the standard FUD we've come to expect from Microsoft. After all, this article was posted on WUGNET, Windows Users Group Network. Ha.
I'm glad to say I've never paid for a Microsoft product, never recommended the purchase of one, and probably never will.
Who's gonna sue MS for claiming that Linux has no
Someone. Please?
--
Personally, I don't think we have to compete with Windows in the typical way. The way I've seen things happening is via word of mouth advertising.
I personally make it a point to mention Linux every single time I see someone complain about Windows crashing. I don't push it at this point, I just mention a few websites and tell them they should look into it.
After a while, you can catch them *just* after a crash. At this point you mention Linux again, so they agree to try it. Assuming they get a little help to get off the ground, they generally are happier.
Now, people like to know what they have, and so they start to investigate the bundled applications, and will generally come back to ask what certain things are: "What's this 'perl' thing". So, you explain it's a programming language and so on, and you slip in a little about freedom here. You make a point of saying. "This is given away for free, in the hope that anything you make with it will be given away as well."
Now, at this point everyone has at least one small task they'd like to be able to do easier, even something as odd as an alarm clock that plays mp3s at a certain time.
So, you dig out your copy of "Programming Perl" which you *do* of course own. *grin*
You lend this to them, and they work away at their little script, then they submit it for your approval. You make a few changes and send it back, they start to get into the spirit of sharing at this point, rather than slapping a free on it and trying to cash in.
Maybe they decide to send this little alarm clock to a few of their newly found friends who run Linux, and one of those suggests a copy of ideas to add to it. They attempt to add those, and the few friends submit patches and changes that they spotted.
Thus, another convert is born. I'm seeing this happen all of the time at the moment, and I think it's the one real way Linux will win.
Who do you trust more, advertisers or your friends? Exactly.
How do you fight it? Take every innovation for which Microsoft has claimed credit and show its real inventors.
He takes credit for the GUI: point out that Xerox invented the concept (right down to the mouse) and Apple invented the GUI as we know it today (before you flame me, take a look at Xerox's GUI: It is very, very different from the GUI M$ ripped off (and wrecked) from Apple and which everyone else but NeXT was stupid enough to rip off from M$). He takes credit for the Web: point out how it was invented years before on a NeXTStep box.
See what I mean? Microsoft has never invented a thing in its life. It sucks the blood of the innovators, turning them into its slaves, knowing or not. That company never earned its money; every dollar of it is stolen from someone.
Oh, and for the "if not for him you would be stuck 20 years ago" bit, here's your defense: point out the innovations in all of the products Microsoft has killed or tried to kill. Use them to prove that if not for him we would be stuck 10 years in the future.
He's not the smartest, most influential person. Well, maybe he is, but he's nothing but an exceptionally clever thief.
For Windows 98, the argument of device drivers being available might be true (but just you can't sell any hardware without Windows 95/98 device drivers). For Windows NT, however, i don't see more device drivers than Linux, the exact opposite seems to be the case. And finally in terms of
supported file systems, i still have to find a system which has wider support than Linux.
-- Jochen
And he's just right there: Linux doesn't need to compete commercially with Windows. It's nice, that all the big Software Companies are now porting the important Applications over to Linux, but you don't have to use them and still have a very nice Operating System (and working environment) on your hands.
And I think, that that's exactly the point Bill doesn't get: Linux is out for world domination, but not to sell more copies than Windows. It is no competition in terms of stock market or whatever, Linux just quietly takes over niches (and lately even Desktop space) where Windows has roamed before.
Well, it's his own fault if he is only able to think about "commerce, commerce, commerce" nowadays. I suppose, that sometimes one could feel sorry for him.
Ralph
Freakin' disaster, no doubt.
--
--
This signature left intentionally blank.
1. Per CPU licensing to make MS-DOS appear "free" to end customers (whereas DR-DOS cost extra).
2. Bogus error messages implying that Windows couldn't run on top of DR-DOS.
3. Publicly stating that OS/2 was the future of computing while privately planning to dump OS/2 in favor of Windows. (This really screwed over a lot of software developers, in case you're wondering)
4. Using undocumented APIs to improve the performance of Microsoft applications relative to competitors.
5. Preventing ISVs from placing competitors application's icons on the desktop.
6. Attempting to strike deals with competitors to split a market.
7. Hiring PR firms to simulate "grass roots" support.
8. Providing misleading evidence to a court of law.
The list is much longer than this, but this is what I can think of off the top of my head that's been extremely well documented. Microsoft dominance in the desktop market does give them a major advantage in the marketplace and it does make it virtually impossible to compete in with them (at least if you try to play by the same rules).
I have no interest in the government regulating the software industry, nor do I want them defining what an OS is or what belongs in it. But there is no way I would defend Microsoft's actions or pretend that they are somehow the only competent software company on the face of the planet.
--
--
This signature left intentionally blank.
As I posted above, antitrust law is arbitrary, vague, and over-reaching. It gives the DOJ a blank check to prosecute anyone who is successful no matter what they do, and it should be repealed...
It isn't envy that causes a rich thief or con artist to be prosecuted.
Just who has Microsoft stolen from? Just how does creating a product that they give away for free count as theft? I suppose you could say that they stole the browser market from Netscape. However, Netscape does not own the browser market. If Navigator was a truly superior product, it will maintain its market share. I have used both Navigator and Explorer, and I don't think either is clearly better. I frankly don't see how Microsoft can be characterized as either a "theif" or a "con artist."
Does anyone know what systems management features we lack that they have? The only feature that comes to my mind is the "reboot" feature whenever I make a minor systems change.
I've got a few but I'm not sure how to make MS look bad and us look good.....
1. The inherent instability in the windows product line encouages administrators to apply core component updates as soon as they are available in an attempt to reduce system downtime. The numerous security flaws also encourage this behaviour. Thus users on an NT network are pretty much guarenteed to be receiving the latest "innovations" from MS soon after release.
This is in contrast to a *nix admin who may be reluctant to down his system for a kernel update due to
a. everything is working fine, and has been for months
b. it will take over 3 months to get his uptime command to display triple digit day values again
2. The ever increasing minimum system requirements for the windows product line helps to support the computer hardware manufactures. More jobs for everyone.
This is in contrast to the *nix camp who seem dedicated to reusing old 386/486 machines.
3. The lack of scalability and lack of stability encourage people to have multiple machines performing a single function often with backup machines in place(PDC, BDC, BDC, app server, file server, db server, etc, etc). This has the same effect as #2 in providing jobs in computer manufacturing.
Obviously once again the *nix people seem out to hurt the computer industry. They encourage running multiple services using a single low end box. The fact that *nix seems perfectly capable of handling the load on these older machines just encourages this bad behaviour.
4. The forced upgrade cycle and lack of backwards compatibilty in MS products helps to insure that the clerical workers will always be in high demand. The re-entry and/or cleanup of important documents, coupled with the frequent crashes (see #1) will help keep people employed. It also has the nice side effect of preventing these same people from finding on the clock time to learn new job skills. That helps insure the employee will not leave for better paying positions.
Again, the unix people clamor for open standards to reduce the amount of work required during system chages. They also encourage people to think for themselves and learn about the system they work on.
I could go on but I'm starting to feel bad about all the awful things *nix advocates like me are doing. Anyone know how to put a positive PR spin on this stuff so that MS looks bad instead of us.
Hi.
:)
A group of Nvidia Riva 128 and TNT based cards are trying to get a groundswell of support for Riva 3D drivers under linux. Please mail os-info@nvidia.com with your wishes for Nvidia and linux, and bcc to either myself (bogart@rice.edu) or cmiller@surfsouth.com. You can also look at http://www.chad.org/dev/ and look at the link for riva-tnt to see some letters we have already sent, and the one response we got from Nvidia. Please send Nvidia mail, or they won't know that there is a large number of linux users who want to use the 3D capabilities of their Riva cards. Tell your friends, if you like.
Thanks,
Mike Y.
Hmm, it seems that the server is not allowing access. I'll try to set up a page on my account with letters sent to nvidia, and if you want the address, send mail to bogart@rice.edu.
"There is no culture in computer science, only cults." - M. Felleisen
I've had my Windows NT machine for over two years and never needed to rebuild the kernel. Not even when I added new SCSI and Ethernet cards. Not even when I applied major OS patches. Ditto for my Macs. Can your Linux box do that?
The need for end users to mess with the kernel - ever - is one of Linux' biggest barriers to mainstream acceptance.
Come on.
Anybody who reads Slashdot already knows why Linux is good.
Posts on "Linux development is better" are pointless since we dont have a crowd.
For us Bill Gates' articles are as much as Troll Flamebait posts,
there is no point stating the benefits of OSS development.
Everyone is hyped up,
thinking Billy's going to read Slashdot,
but infact we're just stating the obvious to ourselves.
This have been discussed a hundred times before.
Personally I think Bill Gates is running out of ammo.
FUD's not going to hold againt OSS.
soon enough he's just going to join with MS-Linux.
then he would just slowly sink to the death of Microsoft,
or as Alan Cox said it "Corporate Suicide".
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
Well, Bill, if Linux "can't compete", why is it growing faster than your oh-so-innovative OS? If the versions are so incompatible, why can I grab packages from Caldera and Debian distributions and (assuming proper package format conversions as needed) drop them into my RedHat system? If it doesn't have a graphical interface, what are KDE and GNOME then? And why is one of the biggest complaints about Windows the sheer size and complexity of the API?
And most important, why is the Linux community concerned with your opinions? We're winning without competing on your terms, why should we change that?
From http://www.rpi.edu/~veliaa/linux-dvd/
;-) please do me a favor and email them at devsupport@creativelabs.com, asking them to help me (or write their own driver, which they are for some peripherals now). I can only do so much with one voice. While I have a number of updates and have some various info on the Ziva now past what is given below, I no longer wish to work blind, and neither do I have the time to reverse engineer every detail. "
"Creative Labs was talking to me but then stopped. If you want me to finish my driver, then instead of asking me "what's going on with DVD?" (I get a lot of these
Systems management features refers to the ability to remotely manage other machines - he's probably referring to their SMS (Systems management Server) software. The idea is that an IT guy can sit at a server and completely manage all client systems - take inventory of their hardware and software, install new software, see if someone has opened the case, reboot the machine, that sort of thing. You can also do mass software upgrades over the network - upgrade everyone to Windows 98 or Office 97 or whatever.
If you've got Linux for a server and Windows 95 for clients, gates is basically correct. But if you've got Linux for clients, then what he says is total FUD. i'm no linux expert, but (correct me if I'm wrong) all configuration is based on text files, which are easy to manipulate across the network. You can telnet into a Linux box and make all the changes you need without leaving your chair. You can write scripts to make mass changes on all clients across the network. In fact, anything you can do while sitting at a Linux system, you can do remotely.
The only thing that may be lacking in Linux(again, correct me if I'm wrong) is the ability to do a network broadcast to update the software on multiple machines simultaneously. I don't know if SMS can do this, but there are packages for Windows NT that can do this.
It is illegal (violation of anti trust acts) for a company to use its effective monopoly in one area (like desktop OSs, say) to leverage its position in another (like browsers, or dialup service provision).
When Windows 95 was release, MS was sued because the prominent MSN icon on the desktop was viewed as illegal leveraging by the likes of AOL, Compuserve, etc. Microsoft settled, signing a consent decree saying that they'd never do anything like that again. They also agreed not to impose the "per processor" licenses for the OS on the hardware manufacturers (aka the Microsoft tax).
Then Microsoft discovered the Internet, and started bundling Internet Explorer with the OS.
Oops.
It isn't envy that causes a rich thief or con artist to be prosecuted.
(Of course, the degree of actual lawbreaking is up to the Judge to decide. But judgements have gone against MS in the past.)
-- Alastair
Bill Gates is either very badly informed, or spreading FUD. Quotes like "because it's free software there's no central point of control" demonstrate this. Linux's development model is cool because, whilst anybody can have a go, there is a "central point of control", i.e. Linus, who ultimately decides what goes in and what doesn't.
Gates also said the Internet would go nowhere. Well, with a history of predictions like that, I think Linux is going to do just fine.
The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
The very fact that Gates mentions the fact that "Linux is not a threat" means that he already considers Linux a threat. The momentum has been building for the past few years.
I must admit that until very recently, I was running NT4/NT5/98. Not that I have anything against Linux, I just wanted to play games and game support for Linux, sadly, sucks. That should change soon when Q3A and a few other games are released commercially for Linux (maybe that will kick NVidia into realeasing drivers for their card and I won't have to reboot to play games at all). The reason I switched is that games became unimportant to me (relative to grades at least) and Linux has more functionality outside of games that Windows ever has (you wouldn't believe the amount of software available to me on MIT's distributed system, Athena).
Even though I only installed Linux a few months ago, I have been using UNIX since 1990 or so, and I toyed with Linux on my family's 486/33...I know countless Linux users that will never experience the joy of downloading the ~ 20 slackware disks on a 14.4 modem from sunsite, creating the dreaded root and boot disks (make sure they don't have a single bad sector before you RAWRITE them, or you'll ruin the disk!), etc. Linux is where it is today because there has been a push to make it more user-friendly...even in my day you had a color boot disk and the ability of UMSDOS, both of which made the transition from a DOS environment to Linux a bit easier)
So Linux has made definite progress in the five or so years that I've been using it. There is no reason to think that it will stop or even slow down. I doubt Gates loses sleep over Linux right now, but the fact that Linux is free and there are free alternatives to all of M$'s applications has got to at least make him sweat when these same applications get media coverage (for free, no less).
If you want some really fun truth, I just read an article (I think it was on c|net) about the servers running Microsoft's HotMail. It seems the folks in Redmond have been trying for months to get HotMail to run on a WinNT server to no avail. NT just can't handle the load and has a tendency to crash when it's really put to the test. (Duh!) So, instead of serving HotMail on NT (as MS would prefer for all of the obvious reasons) it's being served on Solaris (64bit version for Sparc). Yes, Solaris, a product of Sun Microsystems. The very same Sun Microsystem who has MS in federal district court for violating agreements re: Java.
While MS tries to patch together a version of NT which can handle HotMail scale loads, Solaris just plugs along, happily doing it's job. MS is discovering that making the hop from 32 bits to 64 bits is much harder than they ever dreamt. Remember what happened to 16bit compatibility when Win95 was released? Promises that 16 bit apps would still be supported were dropped like red hot rivets. Don't expect any supportable promises of backward 32 bit compatibility when MS finally figures out how to handle 64 bits.
Meanwhile, those of us in the Unix/Solaris/Linux/... world have stable 64 bit workhorse systems up and running today.
D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
I don't know how old it is, but it is way older than MS' SMS. You can basically push packages to other systems by using the rdist facility. This can be exactly used for that purposes you refer to.
I recently sent an e-mail to my "normal" friends bashing M$ and gates and extolling the virtues of Linux.
However I met with much resistance, to quote:
"No one gives two shits. People are too
busy to worry about stuff like this. You are denouncing arguably the
smartest, most influential and successful person to grace the world during
our lifetime. If it was not for him, you would be stuck 20 yeard ago with
computers. Stop worrying and feeling bitter about who is getting richer and
making more money than you. Have you ever thought to give them credit??"
(My friend has a bit of a confrontational personality)
The FUD is deep and long, and powerful b/c it rests on a kernel of truth. (update, in our continuing _conversation_
"I want to save this conversation and give it back to you in 30 years and laugh at you. It pisses me off more than anything to
see pathetic souls, denounce the hard working man whose business,
technological and common sense have happen to have made him millions" I'll send this back to him in 2 hehe.)
How do you fight this? Is it worth trying? Should we leave the weak and ignorant at the mercy of market share and expensive upgrades?
Bill is not the problem, the problem is the millions who "believe the hype". $60 billion US can buy a lot of PR and a boatload of TV. Fighting against the poster child of capitalism is not the way to go. Well?
+&x