There are areas of special importance for Microsoft, and for the Foundation. These areas are usually the ones that make the news.
There are always links between them:
Take India for example. Microsoft said that India was of "strategic importance". At the same time, Bill and the Foundation donated millions towards fighting AIDS in India. This was also at a time where Open Source was the talk of the town in India.
Microsoft was making a SPECIFIC push in India, and that's where its 'donation' went.
Now Microsoft is making a push in Africa, and amazingly enough, that's where its latest donation is going to benefit.
Poor nations are more likely to use Open Source software.
There was news about India becoming a big tech nation, and Open Source was also mentioned quite a lot. Microsoft saw this, and even admitted that India was of "strategic importance". The Foundation donated millions to fighting AIDS in India, right at the time Microsoft was attempting to get the Government away from Open Source and into Microsoft solutions.
Microsoft - Not Bill or the Foundation - is giving away software and training to Africa. This is occurring at the same time as Bill and the Foundation's donation to fight Malaria.
Microsoft has been focusing on the poor countries, such as India and Africa, and has been pushing its software there far more than anywhere else.
If the poor countries establish themselves on non-Microsoft solutions, that basically cuts out Microsoft for the future, which could be bad news if those nations get on their feet and start making good money - which is what is predicted.
Microsoft has only focused on the nations where Open Source is starting to take hold. First it was India, and now Africa.
I don't think that anybody can really determine the reason for Bill Gates contributing to humanitarian causes.
But, before you decide to claim him a saint, here are some things to consider:
1) Bill Gates is seen as Microsoft, and Microsoft as Bill Gates; the two are inseparable. If Bill, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, does something admirable, Microsoft shares in the glory.
2) Bill Gates doesn't offer this money anonymously, and therefore he's certain to have a reaction such as "Oh, Bill can't be a bad man, Microsoft can't be evil!"
3) Microsoft is still mostly portrayed in a bad light, and the misdeeds of the Beast are still fresh in everybody's mind. Microsoft could do with some positive press. Past experiences, where Bill has given money, certainly show that Microsoft comes out in a good light whenever Bill or his Foundation do something good.
4) We have seen, and we're still seeing anti-competitive practises from Microsoft. For example: Microsoft has in the past audited poor schools, attempting and succeeding to suck thousands of dollars out of them.
5) If you force a poor man to give you money, and then offer some of that money to another poor man, does that make you? I'd say it was more like guilt money.
The software maker will compete 'the good old-fashioned way, with innovation,' he said.
Innovation?!
That's not the 'good old-fashioned way' of Microsoft that we all know and love!
This type of thing (which occurred just the other day) is the 'old-fashioned' way:
"Microsoft Corp., already under government scrutiny over its behavior toward competitors, told manufacturers of iPod-like portable audio devices that under a new marketing program they would not be allowed to distribute rivals' music player software but pulled back after one company protested." - [more]
If an individual or a company produces software, and they are liable for any damages the software causes, what do you think is going to happen?
End users may end up in a situation where they either...
a) sign an agreement whereby they accept liability themselves, getting the product at a reasonable price - or free of charge.
or
b) pay the vendor an exhorbitant fee for some form of software insurance - which would be necessary to cover costs should the company have to recompense for damages.
Microsoft has claimed the cost of software is not an important issue in the developing world.
Just like the cost of food isn't important to those who want to grow up healthy?
even though he admitted that the average annual salary in the West African country is only $160 (£91).
Yes, I'm sure that Africans wouldn't mind starving for a few years, so that they can buy Microsoft's software - which I'm sure Microsoft would offer at a discount rate for the first year.
"It's not about the cost of the software, it's about how you take your expertise to people. We are sharing our expertise, particularly with governments in emerging markets. Cost is not the barrier here -- expertise is," said Holloway.
Most commendable. My hat is off to Microsoft, having ripped off those who can afford its software, it spends some of the excess on locking poor people into its proprietary solutions.
If Microsoft was to give everybody in Africa free PCs running the latest version of Windows, what would they do when they had to upgrade? And, if they couldn't afford to upgrade, what good would their expertise in an old, out-dated operating system do?
Microsoft seems to be getting right back into 'Linux is a cancer!' mode with this textual outburst of desperation.
The thing is, many Africans have time to spend learning how to use software, but they don't have money to spend buying software. Using Open Source seems the better option, especially when there is a need to keep up with upgrades.
I'm seeing more and more disposable products coming from the USA lately.
You watch on TV as yet another commercial offers a product that 'makes life easier' by helping to destroy our planet.
You hear so many people complaining about how bad pollution is, yet they can't be bothered to wash out a duster, and they buy some disposable anti-static wipe - which the commercial shows being used once and then thrown away.
Even things that never required batteries/electricity are being changed so that they become battery/mains powered. What a waste of energy, what a waste of resources!
I'm no environmental activist, but I just can't believe how much pollution is occurring because people are lazy, and because businesses can't think of anything else to make a buck.
And, aimed specifically at Microsoft: Microsoft just seems to want to kill off yet another successful market because, as the article quotes, "Microsoft hopes it will help the company dominate home entertainment as it dominates the desktop computer market."
I've read Bill Thompson's articles before and he seemed quite sensible.
I'm quite shocked at this:
"I can't do anything when a company produces software that exposes my online banking details to any script kiddie with time to spare, because I've agreed a license that removes such liability."
Yes you can Bill...
1) Don't use any software. 2) Don't use online banking. 3) Don't keep any personal data on your computer.
No software can be 100% flawless!
If every software company was to pay up when a flaw within it was exploited we wouldn't have any software: existing software companies would go bankrupt and nobody else would risk developing any software at all.
"The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations." -- James Prendergast
How terrible!
But what about the poor taxpayers who have paid so much tax that they can't afford to buy the latest version of Microsoft office?
Is mr Prendergast suggesting that an IT Dark Ages is the way forward?
"Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making." -- James Prendergast
Competition?
Microsoft has always killed off that and, now that something new has struggled to get its head above the water, Mr Prendergast would like to see new competition killed off?
Innovation?
If it wasn't for the competition that Microsoft faces there would be no innovation - such as the bleak times of Windows 98 (that great and innovative successor of Windows 95).
If Microsoft was to add Open Document support to Microsoft Office there would be no problem. The question is: is Microsoft going to support this or is Microsoft going to attempt to maintain its anti-competitive monopoly?
If it costs so much for people to switch to an alternative there shall never be any competition in the Office Suite area; everybody would be forced to stick with Microsoft's proprietary formats. Is this fair?
If you have an MCSE certification it doesn't automatically make you competent to administer a Windows network.
I've had MCSEs call on me for help with simple networking problems.
I find that many qualified people just forget what they've learned. I even have the same people calling me up every once in a while, with the same questions, purely because they keep making the same mistakes.
It may just be coincidence, but, I find that the most incompetent MCSEs are those who go out of their way to tell you they're an MCSE. They seem to use it as an excuse for their incompetence - like saying "Well, I was smart once!"
There have been plenty of little kids who were told off by their parents for playing with matches in their room, and they probably thought their parents were mean, power-tripping, control-freaks, just out to spoil some good clean fun.
And if there are those who believe their computer at work is their responsibility: who pays for the time required to fix the computer when it goes wrong? The company, not the end user.
Microsoft knows that it can't stay top-dog forever, and rather than running a race against competitors that are equally as fit as itself, it prefers to shoot them and win the race.
Having competition means that Microsoft actually has to work for its money, rather than just giving its products an annual facelift to get people to buy them.
Competition is why we find Microsoft putting most of its resources into Windows Vista.
Competition is why we find Microsoft focusing on security. This is evident because everybody used to accept that Windows crashed and got trashed at the drop of a hat; also, nobody considered that computers didn't have to crash so frequently until we started seeing articles saying that Linux was far more secure and stable than Windows.
Microsoft is currently scouring any market that involves technology, and if there's an area that's making money, in dives Microsoft - either cloning and killing the competition, or buying it.
I don't see so much innovation coming from Microsoft as stifling of innovation.
Of course, a monopoly doesn't like competition. Even a small company doesn't like competition. 'Everyone' means consumers, the public.
That's a very interesting point you make; however, I could add that although many small companies don't 'want' competition, they don't go out of their way to prevent it like Microsoft does.
And, if companies don't like competition, why do we have conflicting messages from Microsoft that would lead us to believe otherwise?
"Microsoft welcomes competition because it drives innovation which benefits customers" - Microsoft (here).
If Microsoft welcomes (i.e. accepts with pleasure) competition, it should open up its file formats, APIs and protocols. That should certainly drive innovation, and certainly benefit customers.
The biggest threat to Linux is not Microsoft, but rather integration and interoperability issues among various Linux distributions and their applications.
Yes, this is an issue that needs to be resolved; but, to say that this is the 'biggest' threat is completely over-the-top.
I would say that the biggest threat to Linux is integration and interoperability between Microsoft and Linux/Open Source solutions.
Linux distributions don't use proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols. Microsoft can easily integrate with Open Source software. But if you're developing Open Source software that needs to integrate with Microsoft software, be prepared to pay up.
Competition creates a win-win situation for everyone.
So, why doesn't Microsoft make its file formats, APIs and protocols open and free (as in beer)?
Why is Microsoft constantly in trouble for anti-competitive practices? The only conclusion I can sensibly come to is that Microsoft doesn't like competition.
No. I know about Microsoft's reasons why the name 'honeymonkey' came into existance - the project has been going for a while now. The name honeymonkey doesn't make sense. It sounds absurd. I've never heard of a honeymonkey.
I find the image of a monkey made of honey, and people going after it, quite worrying.
If Microsoft had made sense, the project would be named "Monkey Swinging Around Holding A Honeypot", or MSAHAH. Perhaps it could have been be the 'Roaming Honeypot' project?
then you changed your tack
No. I always maintained that the name honeymonkey was silly, and didn't make sense. I still do.
Yes, the idea is nice, but the name sounds extremely lame.
Oh, so a honeymonkey goes swinging around does it? You say that almost as if it's normal for honeymonkeys to swing around.
I can't imagine that there is any real attraction, seeing a monkey swinging through the trees, whereby people would line up to attack it. And how does it mix with honey?
I suppose that if you dunk the monkey in honey then some people may want to grab it and suck it - only if they're ravenous, I would have thought.
Slashdot Mirror
There are areas of special importance for Microsoft, and for the Foundation. These areas are usually the ones that make the news.
There are always links between them:
Take India for example. Microsoft said that India was of "strategic importance". At the same time, Bill and the Foundation donated millions towards fighting AIDS in India. This was also at a time where Open Source was the talk of the town in India.
Microsoft was making a SPECIFIC push in India, and that's where its 'donation' went.
Now Microsoft is making a push in Africa, and amazingly enough, that's where its latest donation is going to benefit.
Poor nations are more likely to use Open Source software.
There was news about India becoming a big tech nation, and Open Source was also mentioned quite a lot. Microsoft saw this, and even admitted that India was of "strategic importance". The Foundation donated millions to fighting AIDS in India, right at the time Microsoft was attempting to get the Government away from Open Source and into Microsoft solutions.
Microsoft - Not Bill or the Foundation - is giving away software and training to Africa. This is occurring at the same time as Bill and the Foundation's donation to fight Malaria.
Microsoft has been focusing on the poor countries, such as India and Africa, and has been pushing its software there far more than anywhere else.
If the poor countries establish themselves on non-Microsoft solutions, that basically cuts out Microsoft for the future, which could be bad news if those nations get on their feet and start making good money - which is what is predicted.
Microsoft has only focused on the nations where Open Source is starting to take hold. First it was India, and now Africa.
this guy is a saint
I don't think that anybody can really determine the reason for Bill Gates contributing to humanitarian causes.
But, before you decide to claim him a saint, here are some things to consider:
1) Bill Gates is seen as Microsoft, and Microsoft as Bill Gates; the two are inseparable. If Bill, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, does something admirable, Microsoft shares in the glory.
2) Bill Gates doesn't offer this money anonymously, and therefore he's certain to have a reaction such as "Oh, Bill can't be a bad man, Microsoft can't be evil!"
3) Microsoft is still mostly portrayed in a bad light, and the misdeeds of the Beast are still fresh in everybody's mind. Microsoft could do with some positive press. Past experiences, where Bill has given money, certainly show that Microsoft comes out in a good light whenever Bill or his Foundation do something good.
4) We have seen, and we're still seeing anti-competitive practises from Microsoft. For example: Microsoft has in the past audited poor schools, attempting and succeeding to suck thousands of dollars out of them.
5) If you force a poor man to give you money, and then offer some of that money to another poor man, does that make you? I'd say it was more like guilt money.
Things need to be put into perspective.
"We are in the best position we have ever been in," he [Bill Gates] said.
Microsoft must thrive on pressure, what with threats all around forcing Microsoft to work the hardest its ever worked.
Then again, the competition is giving Microsoft some great ideas to copy.
The software maker will compete 'the good old-fashioned way, with innovation,' he said.
Innovation?!
That's not the 'good old-fashioned way' of Microsoft that we all know and love!
This type of thing (which occurred just the other day) is the 'old-fashioned' way:
"Microsoft Corp., already under government scrutiny over its behavior toward competitors, told manufacturers of iPod-like portable audio devices that under a new marketing program they would not be allowed to distribute rivals' music player software but pulled back after one company protested." - [more]
If an individual or a company produces software, and they are liable for any damages the software causes, what do you think is going to happen?
End users may end up in a situation where they either...
a) sign an agreement whereby they accept liability themselves, getting the product at a reasonable price - or free of charge.
or
b) pay the vendor an exhorbitant fee for some form of software insurance - which would be necessary to cover costs should the company have to recompense for damages.
Microsoft has claimed the cost of software is not an important issue in the developing world.
Just like the cost of food isn't important to those who want to grow up healthy?
even though he admitted that the average annual salary in the West African country is only $160 (£91).
Yes, I'm sure that Africans wouldn't mind starving for a few years, so that they can buy Microsoft's software - which I'm sure Microsoft would offer at a discount rate for the first year.
"It's not about the cost of the software, it's about how you take your expertise to people. We are sharing our expertise, particularly with governments in emerging markets. Cost is not the barrier here -- expertise is," said Holloway.
Most commendable. My hat is off to Microsoft, having ripped off those who can afford its software, it spends some of the excess on locking poor people into its proprietary solutions.
If Microsoft was to give everybody in Africa free PCs running the latest version of Windows, what would they do when they had to upgrade? And, if they couldn't afford to upgrade, what good would their expertise in an old, out-dated operating system do?
Microsoft seems to be getting right back into 'Linux is a cancer!' mode with this textual outburst of desperation.
The thing is, many Africans have time to spend learning how to use software, but they don't have money to spend buying software. Using Open Source seems the better option, especially when there is a need to keep up with upgrades.
I don't think this affects anybody's perception of Microsoft.
I'm sure we all know that Microsoft will do just about anything to dominate a market.
The fact that so many people believed it, without question, goes to show what people really think of Microsoft.
I'm seeing more and more disposable products coming from the USA lately.
You watch on TV as yet another commercial offers a product that 'makes life easier' by helping to destroy our planet.
You hear so many people complaining about how bad pollution is, yet they can't be bothered to wash out a duster, and they buy some disposable anti-static wipe - which the commercial shows being used once and then thrown away.
Even things that never required batteries/electricity are being changed so that they become battery/mains powered. What a waste of energy, what a waste of resources!
I'm no environmental activist, but I just can't believe how much pollution is occurring because people are lazy, and because businesses can't think of anything else to make a buck.
And, aimed specifically at Microsoft: Microsoft just seems to want to kill off yet another successful market because, as the article quotes, "Microsoft hopes it will help the company dominate home entertainment as it dominates the desktop computer market."
I've read Bill Thompson's articles before and he seemed quite sensible.
I'm quite shocked at this:
"I can't do anything when a company produces software that exposes my online banking details to any script kiddie with time to spare, because I've agreed a license that removes such liability."
Yes you can Bill...
1) Don't use any software.
2) Don't use online banking.
3) Don't keep any personal data on your computer.
No software can be 100% flawless!
If every software company was to pay up when a flaw within it was exploited we wouldn't have any software: existing software companies would go bankrupt and nobody else would risk developing any software at all.
"The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations." -- James Prendergast
How terrible!
But what about the poor taxpayers who have paid so much tax that they can't afford to buy the latest version of Microsoft office?
Is mr Prendergast suggesting that an IT Dark Ages is the way forward?
"Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making." -- James Prendergast
Competition?
Microsoft has always killed off that and, now that something new has struggled to get its head above the water, Mr Prendergast would like to see new competition killed off?
Innovation?
If it wasn't for the competition that Microsoft faces there would be no innovation - such as the bleak times of Windows 98 (that great and innovative successor of Windows 95).
If Microsoft was to add Open Document support to Microsoft Office there would be no problem. The question is: is Microsoft going to support this or is Microsoft going to attempt to maintain its anti-competitive monopoly?
If it costs so much for people to switch to an alternative there shall never be any competition in the Office Suite area; everybody would be forced to stick with Microsoft's proprietary formats. Is this fair?
If you have an MCSE certification it doesn't automatically make you competent to administer a Windows network.
I've had MCSEs call on me for help with simple networking problems.
I find that many qualified people just forget what they've learned. I even have the same people calling me up every once in a while, with the same questions, purely because they keep making the same mistakes.
It may just be coincidence, but, I find that the most incompetent MCSEs are those who go out of their way to tell you they're an MCSE. They seem to use it as an excuse for their incompetence - like saying "Well, I was smart once!"
: )
It's interesting that you already have decided that you must upgrade. Why?
Microsoft's mind control techniques.
You should know all about that...
: )
There have been plenty of little kids who were told off by their parents for playing with matches in their room, and they probably thought their parents were mean, power-tripping, control-freaks, just out to spoil some good clean fun.
And if there are those who believe their computer at work is their responsibility: who pays for the time required to fix the computer when it goes wrong? The company, not the end user.
since Massachusetts is MS's customer, I feel MS's response is unreasonable
You'd certainly think so, seeing how Microsoft is bending over backwards to help Newham Council do everything it requires.
Perhaps Newham should ask for Open Document support?
Microsoft knows that it can't stay top-dog forever, and rather than running a race against competitors that are equally as fit as itself, it prefers to shoot them and win the race.
Having competition means that Microsoft actually has to work for its money, rather than just giving its products an annual facelift to get people to buy them.
Competition is why we find Microsoft putting most of its resources into Windows Vista.
Competition is why we find Microsoft focusing on security. This is evident because everybody used to accept that Windows crashed and got trashed at the drop of a hat; also, nobody considered that computers didn't have to crash so frequently until we started seeing articles saying that Linux was far more secure and stable than Windows.
Microsoft is currently scouring any market that involves technology, and if there's an area that's making money, in dives Microsoft - either cloning and killing the competition, or buying it.
I don't see so much innovation coming from Microsoft as stifling of innovation.
I think the point is that Microsoft can no longer continue to shut out Linux and block all interoperability with it via anti-competitive actions.
Microsoft is having to integrate due to customer demand, customers are really forcing Microsoft to stop acting as if Linux is insignificant.
And then? Google will still display the copyrighted material that other sites stole from the original copyright holder, so nothing won.
Ah, but the site's owners would discover the benefit that Google had given it, and would certainly notice a slowdown in traffic.
It's more of a revenge attack than a preventitive measure.
Perhaps google should completely remove all references to the site from its search engine database, and ensure that it never gets listed again?
Of course, a monopoly doesn't like competition.
Even a small company doesn't like competition.
'Everyone' means consumers, the public.
That's a very interesting point you make; however, I could add that although many small companies don't 'want' competition, they don't go out of their way to prevent it like Microsoft does.
And, if companies don't like competition, why do we have conflicting messages from Microsoft that would lead us to believe otherwise?
"Microsoft welcomes competition because it drives innovation which benefits customers" - Microsoft (here).
If Microsoft welcomes (i.e. accepts with pleasure) competition, it should open up its file formats, APIs and protocols. That should certainly drive innovation, and certainly benefit customers.
Or is Microsoft lying?
The biggest threat to Linux is not Microsoft, but rather integration and interoperability issues among various Linux distributions and their applications.
Yes, this is an issue that needs to be resolved; but, to say that this is the 'biggest' threat is completely over-the-top.
I would say that the biggest threat to Linux is integration and interoperability between Microsoft and Linux/Open Source solutions.
Linux distributions don't use proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols. Microsoft can easily integrate with Open Source software. But if you're developing Open Source software that needs to integrate with Microsoft software, be prepared to pay up.
Competition creates a win-win situation for everyone.
So, why doesn't Microsoft make its file formats, APIs and protocols open and free (as in beer)?
Why is Microsoft constantly in trouble for anti-competitive practices? The only conclusion I can sensibly come to is that Microsoft doesn't like competition.
One analyst foretells the impending doom of Linux and Open Source software.
Another analyst predicts that Linux and Open Source shall thrive.
Yet another produces figures that reveal the demise of things Open Source.
Another produces figures that back up the growing use of Open Source software.
One wails in horror at the 'fact' penguins shall be extinct by 2019.
Rob Enderle predicts that SCO shall topple Microsoft next Tuesday.
Another analyst predicts the culling of analysts within the next year or so.
Perhaps the Copyright Office doesn't have enough cash to pay a competent Web developer to create its site?
He had to explain the article to you
No. I know about Microsoft's reasons why the name 'honeymonkey' came into existance - the project has been going for a while now. The name honeymonkey doesn't make sense. It sounds absurd. I've never heard of a honeymonkey.
I find the image of a monkey made of honey, and people going after it, quite worrying.
If Microsoft had made sense, the project would be named "Monkey Swinging Around Holding A Honeypot", or MSAHAH. Perhaps it could have been be the 'Roaming Honeypot' project?
then you changed your tack
No. I always maintained that the name honeymonkey was silly, and didn't make sense. I still do.
Yes, the idea is nice, but the name sounds extremely lame.
Oh, so a honeymonkey goes swinging around does it? You say that almost as if it's normal for honeymonkeys to swing around.
I can't imagine that there is any real attraction, seeing a monkey swinging through the trees, whereby people would line up to attack it. And how does it mix with honey?
I suppose that if you dunk the monkey in honey then some people may want to grab it and suck it - only if they're ravenous, I would have thought.