"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing."
Enthusiasm? Ok.
"We will rise to this challenge"
By saying that it's a cancer? Or is the enthusiasm going to be displayed in a different way this time?
and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
I thought I'd never see the day!
We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Better opportunity now is it? Does this include opportunity for other companies to compete, or is Microsoft still going to make things difficult via it's proprietary file formats, or use its patents to hold Open Source solutions back?
And as for showing better value, security, etc., anybody could show that.
Will there be any credibility in anything Microsoft 'shows' people? There's been a lot of scepticism and doubts lately, centered around the 'selective' data that analysts (mostly funded by Microsoft) have 'shown'.
If the robot used to repair Hubble is anything like the ones used to poke around on Mars, does this mean that it will probably take it a month to tighten up a screw?
Obviously Sun wants to make money, and it's not going to do anything it won't benefit from; however, my point is about embracing Open Source as a mentality, not just a method of licensing applications.
Sun is more in favor of proprietary methods than open methods.
This is why many people don't see Sun's use of Open Source as meaning that it supports it.
Most people do most things to get benefits. Perceived or otherwise.
Obviously.
But imagine somebody who gave money to a homeless guy because it made him feel good, then he went out and mugged another guy because it gave him a 'buzz'.
The two actions are oposite to each other.
Would you say that this guy was doing this to benefit society, or just himself?
Open Source is about wiping away restrictions, not imposing them. Just because Microsoft has Open Sourced its installer app, does that make it pro-Open Source? There are far more factors pointing to Microsoft being against Open methods than for them. The same goes for Sun.
The point is that just because Sun is contributing to Open Source, it doesn't mean that it's dedicated to it in any way, there's a difference between using something and embracing it.
That's the point.
Sun prefers to be 'closed'.
Sun is out for what it can get, and seems to be willing to stomp on any of its friends if that will gain it a bit of extra cash and promote its proprietary methods.
Sun contributes to Gnome because Gnome is used in its proprietary Solaris operating system.
Think about Star Office, that's proprietary too. But how was Sun to get people using it? Making an Open Source version helped it spread, it could be considered a good marketing effort. If people want support, or proprietary extensions to Open Office, they'd buy Star Office.
Sun seems to only embrace Open Source when it can benefit from it.
Sun loves and promotes all things proprietary. Sun has openly bashed Linux to make its own proprietary offerings look good.
Concerning the lock-in, take Microsoft Word for an example. How many people can't use another word-processor because it doesn't read MS Word files correctly? That's an example of lock-in.
You mention support for Windows, note that Microsoft has extended its support for earlier versions of Windows mostly due to the fact that fact that users may defect to Linux.
Concerning upgrading or being left behind, lets take Microsoft Office again for an example:
When you're an MS Office user who doesn't have the latest version of MS Office, what happens when you need to read a file somebody has sent you in Word 2003 format? You have to upgrade your copy of MS Office, right? Maybe you don't, but many do.
To upgrade or get left behind isn't in itself a problem, it's when you have to pay for frequent upgrades where you have a problem. Needless 'superficial' upgrades to Microsoft's Office suite that cause incompatibility with older versions is different to incompatibilities due to a worthwhile overhaul of the application.
When you have to pay hundreds of dollars for something, you don't want to have to needlessly upgrade each year. Not for something like an Office suite. Just because Microsoft rakes in the majority of its cash from sales of MS Office, does this mean that Microsoft should try to force people to upgrade just to remain compatible with everybody else? Is this form of 'marketing' generous or thoughtful toward the end user? Or could this really be a way of forcing upgrades to maintain the cash flow?
Microsoft Office 2003 will not run on earlier versions of Windows. What about the people who will have to upgrade Windows to the latest version just to be able to run Office 2003? If you're desperate for compatibility then it could work out expensive.
Drop the attitude and find me an example of even one case of a virus that spread as a result of the fix being a forced upgrade.
What are you talking to me about that for? Go talk to Craig Mundie. Why? Read here. This is one of Microsoft's ways of marketing, making people feel guilt, making them believe that they should upgrade for the benefit of others.
Also, take a look at what Microsoft says of itself here. Read the bit at the end titled An "exclusive franchise".
Comparing your baker to a charitable foundation is comparing apples to oranges.
Compare your baker to Bill Gates. You can't have Bill without Microsoft. When Bill does something good, it reflects on Microsoft.
If your baker was known as a nasty guy, people would be less likely to want to buy from his bakery - regardless of how good his bread was. On the other hand, if people know he gives out free bread, they could buy from his bakery because of this, showing their support.
The thing is, your baker probably doesn't need to give out free bread in order to help sales, but Bill Gates needs to paint himself as a nice guy, especially in this day and age. What better way to do it?
I'm not questioning the reason for his giving, rather, I'm questioning the reason for his taking - which doesn't seem to fit in with his 'generous' side. The two are contrary to one another, and they remain that way regardless of how I feel about Bill Gates.
Because commercials asking us to dream about our kids' future and asking us where we want to go today are the PINNACLE of strong arm marketing.
Try looking at this from a perspective.
Microsoft's commercials are great, they make you believe that Microsoft is your fairy godmother, ready to grant you your wish and make everything perfect. Microsoft makes you think you'll get a choice in where you want to go today.
Forget commercials, that's only a small part of Microsoft's marketing strategy. Look at the lock-in via proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols.
Look at the way Microsoft forces you to upgrade or get left behind. Even Microsoft applications produce files that have compatibility issues with older versions of the software that created them.
And what's with the blaming of loyal users for helping spread virii and causing all manner of problems because, good heavens, they haven't upgraded to the latest bug fix, oops, version of Windows?
Let me ask you this: my local bakery gives away bread to homeless shelters. Now, it's the baker's day old bread, he doesn't go out and buy a different company's bread. Is this a marketing ploy, or an earnest humanitarian effort?
Is your baker known for doing something illegal? Does your baker have a bad reputation? Do people always complain that his bread is stale?
If you answer yes to those questions, then yes, it's more than likely a marketing ploy!
If you answer no, then why are you comparing apples to oranges?
I think it's pretty stupid to call the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation a marketing campaign, for a couple reasons.
1) Microsoft already spends a lot of money on marketing. Everybody knows what Windows is. It's not like having it in the library is going to change people's minds when it's already everywhere else.
Yes, but Microsoft's marketing is forceful, it's pushing you to pay Microsoft money.
Giving out money to good causes for free is a way of marketing that doesn't make you look like a money-grabbing corporation.
Donating money makes you look good. That's something that Microsoft hasn't found any other way of doing.
2) To be honest, allowing them to USE Windows on a public terminal (probably locked down tight, or riddled with bugs) is probably a bad idea if you want them to love the OS.
Right. You actually disprove this theory by stating point number 3, below...
3) When my public library, and my local YMCA, ordered their computers, they ordered them with Windows. They didn't get money from this foundation -- so why did they waste money on Windows? Because they wanted people to acutally use the machines.
People usually have a preference to Windows because it looks and feels familiar to them, and they don't want to have to learn anything extra.
Most people have already become institutionalized to Windows, most people accepted that rebooting the machine more than once a day was normal, and that crashing was a regular occurance with 'computers'.
You even say yourself "Like it or not, people are comfortable with Windows, and some won't use anything else."
Who cares where the money is coming from as long as it is being put to good use.
I care, when the guy 'generously' handing out the money is also 'selfishly' forcing others to hand money to his company.
It's called being two-faced.
It's not the fact that he's giving away loads of cash to a good cause, it's the reason why he's doing it.
It sure makes him look good, right? Most people have a problem seeing bad in somebody that donates billions out of their own pocket.
When people see Bill Gates, they associate him with Microsoft. In their eyes, Microsoft is giving out the money, it makes both Bill and Microsoft look good.
It makes it hard for people to think negative about a company that does such wonderful things - even though it's not actually 'Microsoft' giving out the cash.
What a load of crap. Microsoft products cost no more than most commercial applications.
It's not the cost that's the point, it's the fact that the cash is sucked out of the public (e.g. via forced upgrades due to lock-in/out and various other factors).
Look at how Microsoft has treated poor communities in the past, forcing schools to perform expensive software audits, charging schools in the UK extortionate amounts, etc.
Software Assurance certainly wasn't for the benefit of the general public!
This is what I meant about sucking money out of the public. Cash flow dude, cash flow. Microsoft is dependent on a continual flow of cash, and Microsoft hasn't been bothered to offer anybody an incentive to upgrade except for getting left behind in an incompatible world.
Either way, most of Gates' fortune is tied into stock. That value does not come out of the public's pocket.
Where did Bill get the money to invest? Was he given it?
So, if I unnecessarily sucked billions of dollars out of the public (many of whom couldn't afford to pay me), then publicly gave a small amount of it to charity, would you take your hat off to me too?
Ever heard the phrase 'rob from Peter to give to Paul'?
Bill Gates looks good by doing this. It confuses people when they see one side of him as a ruthless anti-competitive monopolist and another side as caring and considerate.
Obviously he's not considerate in all aspects, which brings into question why he's doing this.
It's not bad that he's doing good, it's the reason why he's doing it that could be bad - or the fact that he can only do good by first doing bad.
Your comparison is way off. There isn't a shoe company that has a monopoly and produces all of its own shoe-care products.
Imagine that there was a shoe-making company that had a monopoly.
Imagine that company also produced a wide range of shoe-care products.
Imagine all of its shoes were sold (included in the price of the shoes) with laces, polish, and other shoe-care products.
Would that be fair on the other product manufacturers?
Wouldn't that be anti-competitive?
"We think they need to strengthen the senior team to get people with experience and background in the legal issues," McGrath said. If SCO addresses BayStar's concerns, McGrath added, the investor is open to reversing its redemption request.
Hmm...
SCO has provided no evidence that it has a case, and doesn't appear to really know what it's doing.
BayStar obviously doesn't think the senior team is much good, which makes you wonder why it invested in SCO in the first place.
As BayStar sees the Intellectual Property issue as the only way SCO can survive, why has it taken a gamble, considering that there is no evidence that SCO even has a case?
Did Microsoft say, "Hey, invest in SCO", and BayStar blindly followed, without even researching SCO's claims?
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the Lindon, Utah-based company wants to resolve the issue but said it's not likely to make the three changes BayStar seeks.
SCO is blindly continuing as it has done from the start, kicking back and relaxing, just content to believe in its dreams.
"We think there are limited prospects of that business ever generating growing and significant revenue," McGrath said. "And we believe it is diverting resources from going where they would have the most value--the intellectual property process."
BayStar seems to be saying that SCO is dying, and this entire case is the only desperate grasp at holding onto life that it has. When you're desperate you'll do anything, which basically makes SCO's entire case a gamble that it can afford to take, seeing that it will lose anyway.
What did BayStar invest in this for?!
SCO doesn't expect to drop that effort, Stowell said. "Unix is our core business, and I don't see that changing," he said.
Outsiders can see that SCO's business is dying, but SCO is blindly pushing onward. Surely this reveals that SCO is ignoring any possibilities that it could fail in any of its attempts, but is carrying on regardless? Who would put anything into this company?
BayStar also has objected to SCO's vocal nature. Stowell stood by SCO's practices. For example, letters SCO has sent "were designed to educate the marketplace, and we will continue to try to educate the marketplace," he said.
Again, outsiders can see that SCO is doing no more than shouting out abuse like a little kid who's own foolish self-confidence makes him believe he is invincible. SCO is blind to how others perceive its actions, and how it reveals its weaknesses.
I wonder why BayStar ever put money into SCO? Nobody else is paying any heed to this case, people and their governments are still planning their moves to Linux and Open Source software.
If BayStar feels that SCO isn't doing enough to build up its legal case, surely that's admitting that it doesn't feel SCO currently has a good enough case? Why did BayStar take a risk on SCO?
It makes you wonder what Microsoft has been saying.
Microsoft has hired one of its worst enemies, the SuSE Linux salesman whose efforts led the city of Munich to adopt Linux and open-source software instead of Microsoft's products.
Does Microsoft think that this will really help?
SCO hired Boise, the lawyer that came through for Microsoft. Some ignorant people believed in SCO because of this.
After a while you find people coming to their senses (like the day after that smooth talking salesman cons you into buying something you didn't want, or like the day Baystar realized it didn't get the full story).
You can get the greatest salesman in the world, but there's no way that any smart guy will buy dog turd from him if he's promoting it as a snack.
Microsoft is a "learning organization, and one of the ways of learning is bringing in different ways of thinking,"
Learning? Isn't this a nicer sounding word for 'copying'?
What happened to 'Microsoft the innovator'?
Such moves can trigger lawsuits, however. Siebel Systems sued SalesForce.com in 2003 after Brett Queener moved to the rival company. Borland sued Microsoft in 1997 for hiring away dozens of employees. And SANgate systems lost a legal battle with EMC in 2001 to keep Chief Executive Doron Kempel, who came from the storage giant.
Yes, Microsoft loves to consider itself an 'innovator', but when it comes down to 'competing' with others, it would rather resort to buying out its competition or killing it off.
It's nice to see that Microsoft is still just as anti-competitive as ever. The leopard can cover itself in white paint, but the spots are still there underneath.
Fair or not, the customer doesn't care about the reasons behind their sound card not working. They just want it to work.
You're right there.
Having said that, for somebody as highly-esteemed as Fred Langa to 'deride' Linux by unfairly comparing its sound card support to that of Windows is not very good.
As many people have already mentioned, if the sound card manufacturers don't provide drivers, it's left to the Linux/Open Source community to write them.
Hardware support is usually not an issue with Windows, Microsoft has a monopoly whereby hardware manufacturers would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't provide Windows drivers.
Linux doesn't have a significant enough share of the desktop to give most hardware manufacturers an incentive to provide drivers, and many can't be bothered to provide information for anybody else to write them.
I'm a little scepticle about Fred, surely he should have mentioned things like this in his article? Maybe he didn't know this, but that would be like admitting he isn't very clued-up and hasn't done much research into the issue. For a highly-esteemed tech-guy this really doesn't look good.
As it stands, although the sound issue is a problem for many Linux users, the article reads almost like the biased FUDschpiel-filled articles written by clueless, ignorant, anti-OSS morons (naming no names). Is he offering constructive criticism, trying to prompt the Open Source community to fix the sound issues? Or is he bad-mouthing Linux?
Also, Fred complains about Linux tech support. Has he tried Microsoft tech support? It doesn't sound like it. Now that would be a good comparison for him to write an article about.
I think it would be interesting to find out what the tech support guys said that screwed his machine though. It would be nice to know if it was the support that was bad, whether he misunderstood something, or whatever.
The issues I experienced had already been discussed in articles on the Web before I tried it. These are widespread problems that had already been reported.
I managed to get the installation process started by booting via CD2 and performing various other tasks.
I had other problems during the install (all the same on three very different computers), which were also reported by others.
Maybe I should have filed bug reports, but when everybody is posting the same thing all over the Web, it makes you wonder if it's necessary.
Of course, if everybody decided not to report it because it was so widespread, nobody would report it. However, I very much doubt that Mandrake is so sheltered that it didn't read this stuff on the Web itself.
My gripe is that so many people reported that they couldn't get it installed, you have to wonder if the 'community' release was let out without any pre-release tests.
Think of all of the bug testing that didn't take place because people couldn't even install it.
I'm very pro-Mandrake, but I feel that the 'community' release could have been better tested before making it available, regardless of it's not being a full release.
It would seem that you have the 'community' release.
You should try the 'official' release, which this article is about.
Unfortunately for Mandrake, it decided to offer a pre-official 'community' release that was crap. Loads of people couldn't get it installed, even when booting from CD2.
Ok, it's more of a beta/rc release, but I think it was unfortunate for Mandrake to make such a big deal of the community release. Not only has it caused confusion by having more than one 'release' of Mandrake, but this appears to have frustrated many people who were checking out Mandrake, and could possibly put them off trying the official release.
Even though it was more of a release candidate than a full release, I was shocked myself at how terrible it was. I had problems installing it on a few different computers. I would have thought Mandrake would have at least ensured that the install process would be in working order.
I use Mandrake 9.2, I've used Mandrake for the past few years. I feel that it's something I can recommend to others if they're interested in Linux, regardless of how competent they are with computers.
Although the community release was terrible, I'm pretty sure that the official release will not have these problems. Put it this way, I'm sure Mandrake doesn't want to go into the red again.
So, companies that require 10 years experience in a particular field, what do they do if something is only just available? Do they wait for 10 years before hiring anybody to work in that area?
Experience using Windows isn't really worth much anyway. I'm sure we all know people that have used Windows since 95 was released and still hardly know how to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
You think he's got it hard enough with every foaming-at-mouth linux zealot tracing his every step
I find that remark offensive and unfounded.
I don't trace his every step, and I'm a foaming-at-mouth Linux zealot.
Ballmer says:
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing."
Enthusiasm? Ok.
"We will rise to this challenge"
By saying that it's a cancer? Or is the enthusiasm going to be displayed in a different way this time?
and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first.
I thought I'd never see the day!
We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Better opportunity now is it? Does this include opportunity for other companies to compete, or is Microsoft still going to make things difficult via it's proprietary file formats, or use its patents to hold Open Source solutions back?
And as for showing better value, security, etc., anybody could show that.
Will there be any credibility in anything Microsoft 'shows' people? There's been a lot of scepticism and doubts lately, centered around the 'selective' data that analysts (mostly funded by Microsoft) have 'shown'.
If the robot used to repair Hubble is anything like the ones used to poke around on Mars, does this mean that it will probably take it a month to tighten up a screw?
Obviously Sun wants to make money, and it's not going to do anything it won't benefit from; however, my point is about embracing Open Source as a mentality, not just a method of licensing applications.
Sun is more in favor of proprietary methods than open methods.
This is why many people don't see Sun's use of Open Source as meaning that it supports it.
Most people do most things to get benefits. Perceived or otherwise.
Obviously.
But imagine somebody who gave money to a homeless guy because it made him feel good, then he went out and mugged another guy because it gave him a 'buzz'.
The two actions are oposite to each other.
Would you say that this guy was doing this to benefit society, or just himself?
Open Source is about wiping away restrictions, not imposing them. Just because Microsoft has Open Sourced its installer app, does that make it pro-Open Source? There are far more factors pointing to Microsoft being against Open methods than for them. The same goes for Sun.
The point is that just because Sun is contributing to Open Source, it doesn't mean that it's dedicated to it in any way, there's a difference between using something and embracing it.
That's the point.
Sun prefers to be 'closed'.
Sun is out for what it can get, and seems to be willing to stomp on any of its friends if that will gain it a bit of extra cash and promote its proprietary methods.
Sun contributes to Gnome because Gnome is used in its proprietary Solaris operating system.
Think about Star Office, that's proprietary too. But how was Sun to get people using it? Making an Open Source version helped it spread, it could be considered a good marketing effort. If people want support, or proprietary extensions to Open Office, they'd buy Star Office.
Sun seems to only embrace Open Source when it can benefit from it.
Sun loves and promotes all things proprietary. Sun has openly bashed Linux to make its own proprietary offerings look good.
This is why it's such a big deal to people.
Sun appears to be two-faced.
Concerning the lock-in, take Microsoft Word for an example. How many people can't use another word-processor because it doesn't read MS Word files correctly? That's an example of lock-in.
You mention support for Windows, note that Microsoft has extended its support for earlier versions of Windows mostly due to the fact that fact that users may defect to Linux.
Concerning upgrading or being left behind, lets take Microsoft Office again for an example:
When you're an MS Office user who doesn't have the latest version of MS Office, what happens when you need to read a file somebody has sent you in Word 2003 format? You have to upgrade your copy of MS Office, right? Maybe you don't, but many do.
To upgrade or get left behind isn't in itself a problem, it's when you have to pay for frequent upgrades where you have a problem. Needless 'superficial' upgrades to Microsoft's Office suite that cause incompatibility with older versions is different to incompatibilities due to a worthwhile overhaul of the application.
When you have to pay hundreds of dollars for something, you don't want to have to needlessly upgrade each year. Not for something like an Office suite. Just because Microsoft rakes in the majority of its cash from sales of MS Office, does this mean that Microsoft should try to force people to upgrade just to remain compatible with everybody else? Is this form of 'marketing' generous or thoughtful toward the end user? Or could this really be a way of forcing upgrades to maintain the cash flow?
Microsoft Office 2003 will not run on earlier versions of Windows. What about the people who will have to upgrade Windows to the latest version just to be able to run Office 2003? If you're desperate for compatibility then it could work out expensive.
Drop the attitude and find me an example of even one case of a virus that spread as a result of the fix being a forced upgrade.
What are you talking to me about that for? Go talk to Craig Mundie. Why? Read here . This is one of Microsoft's ways of marketing, making people feel guilt, making them believe that they should upgrade for the benefit of others.
Also, take a look at what Microsoft says of itself here . Read the bit at the end titled An "exclusive franchise".
Comparing your baker to a charitable foundation is comparing apples to oranges.
Compare your baker to Bill Gates. You can't have Bill without Microsoft. When Bill does something good, it reflects on Microsoft.
If your baker was known as a nasty guy, people would be less likely to want to buy from his bakery - regardless of how good his bread was. On the other hand, if people know he gives out free bread, they could buy from his bakery because of this, showing their support.
The thing is, your baker probably doesn't need to give out free bread in order to help sales, but Bill Gates needs to paint himself as a nice guy, especially in this day and age. What better way to do it?
I'm not questioning the reason for his giving, rather, I'm questioning the reason for his taking - which doesn't seem to fit in with his 'generous' side. The two are contrary to one another, and they remain that way regardless of how I feel about Bill Gates.
Because commercials asking us to dream about our kids' future and asking us where we want to go today are the PINNACLE of strong arm marketing.
Try looking at this from a perspective.
Microsoft's commercials are great, they make you believe that Microsoft is your fairy godmother, ready to grant you your wish and make everything perfect. Microsoft makes you think you'll get a choice in where you want to go today.
Forget commercials, that's only a small part of Microsoft's marketing strategy. Look at the lock-in via proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols.
Look at the way Microsoft forces you to upgrade or get left behind. Even Microsoft applications produce files that have compatibility issues with older versions of the software that created them.
And what's with the blaming of loyal users for helping spread virii and causing all manner of problems because, good heavens, they haven't upgraded to the latest bug fix, oops, version of Windows?
Let me ask you this: my local bakery gives away bread to homeless shelters. Now, it's the baker's day old bread, he doesn't go out and buy a different company's bread. Is this a marketing ploy, or an earnest humanitarian effort?
Is your baker known for doing something illegal? Does your baker have a bad reputation? Do people always complain that his bread is stale?
If you answer yes to those questions, then yes, it's more than likely a marketing ploy!
If you answer no, then why are you comparing apples to oranges?
I think it's pretty stupid to call the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation a marketing campaign, for a couple reasons.
1) Microsoft already spends a lot of money on marketing. Everybody knows what Windows is. It's not like having it in the library is going to change people's minds when it's already everywhere else.
Yes, but Microsoft's marketing is forceful, it's pushing you to pay Microsoft money.
Giving out money to good causes for free is a way of marketing that doesn't make you look like a money-grabbing corporation.
Donating money makes you look good. That's something that Microsoft hasn't found any other way of doing.
2) To be honest, allowing them to USE Windows on a public terminal (probably locked down tight, or riddled with bugs) is probably a bad idea if you want them to love the OS.
Right. You actually disprove this theory by stating point number 3, below...
3) When my public library, and my local YMCA, ordered their computers, they ordered them with Windows. They didn't get money from this foundation -- so why did they waste money on Windows? Because they wanted people to acutally use the machines.
People usually have a preference to Windows because it looks and feels familiar to them, and they don't want to have to learn anything extra.
Most people have already become institutionalized to Windows, most people accepted that rebooting the machine more than once a day was normal, and that crashing was a regular occurance with 'computers'.
You even say yourself "Like it or not, people are comfortable with Windows, and some won't use anything else."
Windows is the 'safe' option. Nothing more.
Who cares where the money is coming from as long as it is being put to good use.
I care, when the guy 'generously' handing out the money is also 'selfishly' forcing others to hand money to his company.
It's called being two-faced.
It's not the fact that he's giving away loads of cash to a good cause, it's the reason why he's doing it.
It sure makes him look good, right? Most people have a problem seeing bad in somebody that donates billions out of their own pocket.
When people see Bill Gates, they associate him with Microsoft. In their eyes, Microsoft is giving out the money, it makes both Bill and Microsoft look good.
It makes it hard for people to think negative about a company that does such wonderful things - even though it's not actually 'Microsoft' giving out the cash.
Why hasn't Bill given this money anonymously?
What a load of crap. Microsoft products cost no more than most commercial applications.
It's not the cost that's the point, it's the fact that the cash is sucked out of the public (e.g. via forced upgrades due to lock-in/out and various other factors).
Look at how Microsoft has treated poor communities in the past, forcing schools to perform expensive software audits, charging schools in the UK extortionate amounts, etc.
Software Assurance certainly wasn't for the benefit of the general public!
This is what I meant about sucking money out of the public. Cash flow dude, cash flow. Microsoft is dependent on a continual flow of cash, and Microsoft hasn't been bothered to offer anybody an incentive to upgrade except for getting left behind in an incompatible world.
Either way, most of Gates' fortune is tied into stock. That value does not come out of the public's pocket.
Where did Bill get the money to invest? Was he given it?
So, if I unnecessarily sucked billions of dollars out of the public (many of whom couldn't afford to pay me), then publicly gave a small amount of it to charity, would you take your hat off to me too?
Ever heard the phrase 'rob from Peter to give to Paul'?
Bill Gates looks good by doing this. It confuses people when they see one side of him as a ruthless anti-competitive monopolist and another side as caring and considerate.
Obviously he's not considerate in all aspects, which brings into question why he's doing this.
It's not bad that he's doing good, it's the reason why he's doing it that could be bad - or the fact that he can only do good by first doing bad.
Your comparison is way off. There isn't a shoe company that has a monopoly and produces all of its own shoe-care products. Imagine that there was a shoe-making company that had a monopoly. Imagine that company also produced a wide range of shoe-care products. Imagine all of its shoes were sold (included in the price of the shoes) with laces, polish, and other shoe-care products. Would that be fair on the other product manufacturers? Wouldn't that be anti-competitive?
It seemed to me that they were probably both thinking "Man, I bet I look really dumb wearing this."
"We think they need to strengthen the senior team to get people with experience and background in the legal issues," McGrath said. If SCO addresses BayStar's concerns, McGrath added, the investor is open to reversing its redemption request.
Hmm...
SCO has provided no evidence that it has a case, and doesn't appear to really know what it's doing.
BayStar obviously doesn't think the senior team is much good, which makes you wonder why it invested in SCO in the first place.
As BayStar sees the Intellectual Property issue as the only way SCO can survive, why has it taken a gamble, considering that there is no evidence that SCO even has a case?
Did Microsoft say, "Hey, invest in SCO", and BayStar blindly followed, without even researching SCO's claims?
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the Lindon, Utah-based company wants to resolve the issue but said it's not likely to make the three changes BayStar seeks.
SCO is blindly continuing as it has done from the start, kicking back and relaxing, just content to believe in its dreams.
"We think there are limited prospects of that business ever generating growing and significant revenue," McGrath said. "And we believe it is diverting resources from going where they would have the most value--the intellectual property process."
BayStar seems to be saying that SCO is dying, and this entire case is the only desperate grasp at holding onto life that it has. When you're desperate you'll do anything, which basically makes SCO's entire case a gamble that it can afford to take, seeing that it will lose anyway.
What did BayStar invest in this for?!
SCO doesn't expect to drop that effort, Stowell said. "Unix is our core business, and I don't see that changing," he said.
Outsiders can see that SCO's business is dying, but SCO is blindly pushing onward. Surely this reveals that SCO is ignoring any possibilities that it could fail in any of its attempts, but is carrying on regardless? Who would put anything into this company?
BayStar also has objected to SCO's vocal nature. Stowell stood by SCO's practices. For example, letters SCO has sent "were designed to educate the marketplace, and we will continue to try to educate the marketplace," he said.
Again, outsiders can see that SCO is doing no more than shouting out abuse like a little kid who's own foolish self-confidence makes him believe he is invincible. SCO is blind to how others perceive its actions, and how it reveals its weaknesses.
I wonder why BayStar ever put money into SCO? Nobody else is paying any heed to this case, people and their governments are still planning their moves to Linux and Open Source software.
If BayStar feels that SCO isn't doing enough to build up its legal case, surely that's admitting that it doesn't feel SCO currently has a good enough case? Why did BayStar take a risk on SCO?
It makes you wonder what Microsoft has been saying.
Microsoft has hired one of its worst enemies, the SuSE Linux salesman whose efforts led the city of Munich to adopt Linux and open-source software instead of Microsoft's products.
Does Microsoft think that this will really help?
SCO hired Boise, the lawyer that came through for Microsoft. Some ignorant people believed in SCO because of this.
After a while you find people coming to their senses (like the day after that smooth talking salesman cons you into buying something you didn't want, or like the day Baystar realized it didn't get the full story).
You can get the greatest salesman in the world, but there's no way that any smart guy will buy dog turd from him if he's promoting it as a snack.
Microsoft is a "learning organization, and one of the ways of learning is bringing in different ways of thinking,"
Learning? Isn't this a nicer sounding word for 'copying'?
What happened to 'Microsoft the innovator'?
Such moves can trigger lawsuits, however. Siebel Systems sued SalesForce.com in 2003 after Brett Queener moved to the rival company. Borland sued Microsoft in 1997 for hiring away dozens of employees. And SANgate systems lost a legal battle with EMC in 2001 to keep Chief Executive Doron Kempel, who came from the storage giant.
Yes, Microsoft loves to consider itself an 'innovator', but when it comes down to 'competing' with others, it would rather resort to buying out its competition or killing it off.
It's nice to see that Microsoft is still just as anti-competitive as ever. The leopard can cover itself in white paint, but the spots are still there underneath.
Fair or not, the customer doesn't care about the reasons behind their sound card not working. They just want it to work.
You're right there.
Having said that, for somebody as highly-esteemed as Fred Langa to 'deride' Linux by unfairly comparing its sound card support to that of Windows is not very good.
As many people have already mentioned, if the sound card manufacturers don't provide drivers, it's left to the Linux/Open Source community to write them.
Hardware support is usually not an issue with Windows, Microsoft has a monopoly whereby hardware manufacturers would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't provide Windows drivers.
Linux doesn't have a significant enough share of the desktop to give most hardware manufacturers an incentive to provide drivers, and many can't be bothered to provide information for anybody else to write them.
I'm a little scepticle about Fred, surely he should have mentioned things like this in his article? Maybe he didn't know this, but that would be like admitting he isn't very clued-up and hasn't done much research into the issue. For a highly-esteemed tech-guy this really doesn't look good.
As it stands, although the sound issue is a problem for many Linux users, the article reads almost like the biased FUDschpiel-filled articles written by clueless, ignorant, anti-OSS morons (naming no names). Is he offering constructive criticism, trying to prompt the Open Source community to fix the sound issues? Or is he bad-mouthing Linux?
Also, Fred complains about Linux tech support. Has he tried Microsoft tech support? It doesn't sound like it. Now that would be a good comparison for him to write an article about.
I think it would be interesting to find out what the tech support guys said that screwed his machine though. It would be nice to know if it was the support that was bad, whether he misunderstood something, or whatever.
Sheesh. You'd have thought they'd come up with a name that's a little more interesting than "D".
No, I'm not going to suggest that it should have been called "Rupert".
It seems a bit sad to think that the Higgs boson detector has been demoted to a record player.
I never got to install it.
The issues I experienced had already been discussed in articles on the Web before I tried it. These are widespread problems that had already been reported.
I managed to get the installation process started by booting via CD2 and performing various other tasks.
I had other problems during the install (all the same on three very different computers), which were also reported by others.
Maybe I should have filed bug reports, but when everybody is posting the same thing all over the Web, it makes you wonder if it's necessary.
Of course, if everybody decided not to report it because it was so widespread, nobody would report it. However, I very much doubt that Mandrake is so sheltered that it didn't read this stuff on the Web itself.
My gripe is that so many people reported that they couldn't get it installed, you have to wonder if the 'community' release was let out without any pre-release tests.
Think of all of the bug testing that didn't take place because people couldn't even install it.
I'm very pro-Mandrake, but I feel that the 'community' release could have been better tested before making it available, regardless of it's not being a full release.
It would seem that you have the 'community' release.
You should try the 'official' release, which this article is about.
Unfortunately for Mandrake, it decided to offer a pre-official 'community' release that was crap. Loads of people couldn't get it installed, even when booting from CD2.
Ok, it's more of a beta/rc release, but I think it was unfortunate for Mandrake to make such a big deal of the community release. Not only has it caused confusion by having more than one 'release' of Mandrake, but this appears to have frustrated many people who were checking out Mandrake, and could possibly put them off trying the official release.
I'll bet he tried the 'community' release.
Even though it was more of a release candidate than a full release, I was shocked myself at how terrible it was. I had problems installing it on a few different computers. I would have thought Mandrake would have at least ensured that the install process would be in working order.
I use Mandrake 9.2, I've used Mandrake for the past few years. I feel that it's something I can recommend to others if they're interested in Linux, regardless of how competent they are with computers.
Although the community release was terrible, I'm pretty sure that the official release will not have these problems. Put it this way, I'm sure Mandrake doesn't want to go into the red again.
In case you're asking for real...
I wasn't. Honest!
My point is really: If they want to hire somebody clued up, you'd think that at least the people doing the hiring would have a clue themselves!
So, companies that require 10 years experience in a particular field, what do they do if something is only just available? Do they wait for 10 years before hiring anybody to work in that area?
Experience using Windows isn't really worth much anyway. I'm sure we all know people that have used Windows since 95 was released and still hardly know how to use it.
Hey man, every year is the year of the penguin for me!
People are ceasing to be led around like sheep, they're actually starting to desire freedom, like China for example.
Who would want to be tied to proprietary (e.g. Microsoft) solutions forever due to lock-in/out via proprietary file formats, protocols, APIs, etc.?
It used to be a case of, if it works, stick with it. Now it's a case of, look to the future, it's inevitable...
I think people are starting to get some sense. Freedom is worth something. This new way of thinking is what can give the penguin more power.