Microsoft's Strategy Memos 465
jg21 writes "So Linux made it onto Steve Ballmer's radar screen at last? No mention last year, in his annual strategy memo, but this year there's sentence after sentence - summarized at LinuxWorld this morning - which means, I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company! Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"
This is news? Company A cares about smth strategic (Score:5, Insightful)
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments. They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux. While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM. We're talking come-to-your-business, customize-the-software, keep-you-running support, not 90-days-after-its-installed support that comes by default with a Microsoft solution. Sure, you can add MS support on top of things, but a shop with full MS kit and an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.
They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux.
Why do you think I'm an IBM shareholder?
While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
First off, most Linux developers don't code to make money, at least not off of linux; hell, Linus Torvalds was, up until recently, an embedded systems engineer. Linux and its applications are, by and large, hobbies for the developers; but, on the flip side, can you show me a *major* open-source software project where the core development team is all desperately looking for work? Being able to put 'Lead developer, OpenOffice' on a resume is a great way to get a job.
Second, IBM hires a lot of these people; one of the reasons they justify their support costs is that they can (a) offer custom code, and (b) give you, as a business, direct access to the developers if you need it. IBM making money off of Linux means *more* jobs for Linux coders, not less.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
On that we agree.
Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate (Score:3, Funny)
I am not familiar with your crap conversion methods. Is there a website where I can see the conversion? www.crapcse.se perhaps?
Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate (Score:5, Funny)
First, if we take 'a shit' to be the amount of effort required for an average european male to evacuate his bowels, precisely 2.5 hours after eating 451 grams (one serving) of Kellog's shredded wheat (plus or minus 5% for generic store brands), then we have a rather precise handle on what the phrase "I don't give a shit" means. Now. We'll call this the "metric shit". Taking a sample of 217 average adult male rats, the volume of excrement produced, on average, equals one metric shit's worth every week and a half. Given the average rat's metabolism, we find that a rat's body undergoes complete cellular mitosis roughly every fourty five weeks. Thus, a rat's ass is not, in fact, the same ass it had 11 months ago, and the timespan of a rat's ass is roughly 10.4 months. Thus, through its lifespan, one rat's ass produces (45 / 1.5) = 30 shits. Thus, we now know exactly what is meant by "I could give a rat's ass". Extrapolating further, this same sample of 217 rats was used to determine exactly how many rat's asses are required before a flying fuck is achieved (details classified to protect the experimenters' privacy from the prying eyes of the SPCA). It was determined that one flying fuck is, in fact, achievable after only 3 rats are airborne, in optimal conditions. The actual number is closer to 3.27 So, one flying fuck is equal to 101 shits, with a margin of error of 5%. This moment of science brought to you by 217 dead rats and a whole fucking lot of rock cocaine.
Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's pretty good Linux news and simply proves what the developers have been claiming all along. There is money to be made in giving away software.
KFG
P.S. In case you havn't gotten the news many Linux developers can't get a first mortgage and live in their mother's basement.
Here's the shocker though. Some of them have come to that "unfortunate situation" because they like the arrangement. They'd rather do that than work for HP or IBM. Peculiar, I know, but it's long been noted that creative genius types, no one really understands why, deprecate making money in order to better be able to persue their own creative muse.
Funny, isn't it, that they can't see that money is the only goal of real value? Geniuses are a peculiar lot, and one often wonders, if they're so smart, why aren't they rich?
Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate (Score:4, Interesting)
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same.
I don't think so, about the "little difference" anyway. I've worked for both larger and smaller companies as desktop, applications and server support for the last six years. I've never called for support from Mircosoft ever. Everything has always been handled in house. I have paid lots of licensing fees for servers, applications, and such. If we were to switch to Linux products, I would have to spend more time learning about and fixing Linux problems which is paid for by my salary but our overall costs would go down due to no need for licensing.
Applications support is a little different as we do pay the (server) application company support but they handle the OS of the server it runs on also and thus are the only ones to pay and call MS. Thus, I expect these applications to start switching over to Linux in the next five to ten years as there will be no licensing fees but support from the OS vendor will be the same. Not to mention that their coders would then be able to inspect the OS code to look for problems with their applications rather than be depenant on MS.
Hold on Steve, (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that Novell, Red Hat and IBM have a strenuous argument against this bit of cheerleading.
Re:Hold on Steve, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hold on Steve, (Score:5, Interesting)
This can be a good thing, for sure. One company goes out of business, but the whole thing isn't ruined. But there are true downsides to Linux; everything has its flaws. The thing that impressed me about this is that there are really no ``bad'' quotes here. Ballmer says that Linux is just the next new thing, a potential flash-in-the-pan (which, personally, I think may be right, if we aren't lucky)--and that Microsoft must win by responsibly offering a better product and better customer care.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re:Hold on Steve, (Score:3, Interesting)
In what sick and twisted world is it bad that we don't have a single body innovating in those critical areas?
As far as I can see, having multiple groups, whose interest isn't only in making money, or "maximising shareholder value" is a very very good thing for *everybody*. Bring on the
Re:Hold on Steve, (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that Novell, Red Hat and IBM have a strenuous argument against this bit of cheerleading.
Well, I took that to mean 'unlike Microsoft -- a central body for Windows -- there is no one single place that you can go for Linux (with the exclusion of all other sources). The list of companies you mention support this assertion, though I actually like having multiple vendors. It keeps the others more honest.
Microsoft leaders must be deeply frustrated with attacking Linux and OSS. It's like having a large private island and fighting the ocean around it;
The only tactics that they have left are to;
There's a lot of water, though, and all of is drinkable if not tasty.
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article: "We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Link at the bottom of the page: BREAKING NEWS: Microsoft *Was* Matchmaker Between BayStar & SCO [linuxworld.com]
A great gag for Steve Ballmer (Score:2, Funny)
why is this surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why is this surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, 8 servers. Now if you could just get your 500 workstations to switch from windows to linux, ballmer just might listen to you.....
Re:why is this surprising? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why is this surprising? (Score:3, Funny)
They know this will be seen. (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoo boy, is that a loaded statement.
Or maybe ol' Steve has realized to keep his damn mouth shut on these "all internal" memos because they have been publicly humiliated by them in the past. They know enough about PR to spread FUD in their "internal" memos now. Because they know they can't stop them from being leaked.
FACT: Microsoft plays dirty, and has since day one. [theregister.co.uk]
This is nothing new. This internal memo clearly shows that they c
Economics 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
which means, I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company!
You really think that 50,000+ people at MS had no inkling of this "linux" thing??
Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?"
Its called economics. He makes a memo to the public, its going to be about good stuff and non-aggressive. This isn't surprising for any company. You don't release public memos that state "Linux is our competition and this is how WE WILL CRUSH THEM!" No, they'll talk about the good things going about and such.
Kneejerk and overreaction, but that happens anytime someone at MS sneezes, doesn't it?
Re:Economics 101 (Score:2)
Shhhhhhhh!
Kneejerk and overreaction, but that happens anytime someone at MS sneezes, doesn't it?
Sadly, yes.
Re:Economics 101 (Score:2)
Just a bit sick
What we all really want to know is... (Score:4, Funny)
A question of support (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this fascinating. Ever tried getting support on an OEM copy of Windows? You can't. You have to call your PC Manufacturer - you're essentially calling the body responsible for reselling the product rather than the body responsible for writing it. Isn't this exactly the same as IBM?
Re:A question of support (Score:4, Insightful)
there is no 'center of gravity,'
a bit differently.
MS has a long history of killing off competition pulling from a bag of tricks...including buying the offending company.
Linux presents a rather different challenge. There is not some new niche innovative upstart to go stomp on. It is a decentralized, generally non-corporate entity.
My read is Steve is saying..."Until we leaders and strategists figure out how to defang this threat in the marketplace, get back to work and make sure our stuff works as well as it can." A solid leadership viewpoint really.
Re:A question of support (Score:3, Informative)
Off-topic comment: places like India *are* cheaper in regards to total cost-per-call. It's not nearly as cheap as everyone makes it out to be though, since "hidden" costs like having to build a telephone network in a third-world country from scratch are sometimes comven
Favorite Quote (Score:4, Funny)
This Ballmer quote sticks out in particular, and pretty much sums it all up:
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux ...
Re:Favorite Quote (Score:2)
badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger...
Re:Favorite Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironic, because it has always been Microsoft's strategy to get a piece of software on the market early, that is, when it's just "good enough," and worry about bug fixes, features, and ease of use two or three releases down the line.
Hoist by their own petard?
Re:Favorite Quote (Score:3, Funny)
What I find interesting is that Balmer refuses to say "Open Source software". I think those words have been banned from Redmond.
Uh...what do you expect? (Score:2)
A company sees a threat (and Microsoft seems to see threats hiding everywhere anyway), and says in internal memos that it needs to do something about it. They dismiss it in public.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but how is that any different from any other company?
competition for Windows: win-win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that one of the reasons that Windows XP is, quite frankly, vastly better than previous Windows incarnations is that Microsoft knew that someone was gunning for them. Remember--Bill Gates knows the power of the position of the underdog. He knows that young and hungry people can dominate the Big Guy. He did it himself.
Re:competition for Windows: win-win situation (Score:3, Interesting)
Right
Sea Change? (Score:5, Funny)
Damn! And you thought when they refocused on the internet it was serious!
This time they'll have to change everything about how they do business.
it sure is nice... (Score:2)
what more is there to say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do we need to keep debating this issue on slashdot? People have proved over and over again that Linux is better for some things that this M$ bozo dosn't understand.
Lets use our bandwith for something more productive.
Re:what more is there to say? (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows-phobes constantly tell about locking in on an operating system, but you know what? If that were true, everyone would be locked in on Honeywell and DEC hardware/software, since they were dominant not so long ago. Both proprietary and closed-source.
In fact, there's little value in "free as in speech" for someone in corp or even an individual. Five
Looks like the message seeped through at last (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. I'm glad they got the message at last. It's about time they ditched Windows and started working full time on Linux.
Linux folks - take note! (Score:5, Interesting)
Take from this article what you will, but be aware that if you try and provide many of the same services that microsoft is providing people won't have the arguement "but I need it to do this", and so, I must say, it should be fairly easy to set up a "central management Linux server" that can manage applications across a multitude of linux servers (That should be a key point in open-source!).
Just my own views.. Now please proceed to start bashing microsoft again..
Killer Line (Score:3, Insightful)
Better security: This comes, what....2 weeks after their biggest montly rollout of security patches for every version of windows?!
Better Value: Windows XP Full (home) edition: 264.99 at Staples.com. FreeBSD/Linux....0.00 Value? WTF?
Better Opportunity: A better opportunity indeed! For them to make more money, of course.
Someone ought to tell Balmer that the masses may be asses, but we're not quite as dumb as he thinks. That goes for him employees as well. 50 percent believe the lies; 50 percent know it's all bullshit.
Re:Killer Line (Score:2)
I know that Windows doesn't have a good history with security, but honestly I think lots of patches are a good thing because this means that for every patch that is one less way that my system can be compromised. If MS simply sat around and waited for working exploits in the wild, life could be very bad. However, having things patched now and in the future with SP 2, I thi
Re:Killer Line (Score:2)
Value != Cost
With Microsofts' profit margin on both Windows and Office being around 80%, the actual value of Windows is more like $53. When you compare how much software comes with a typical Linux distribution or *BSD, Linux and BSD should be valued at several times that amount. $200-$300 perhaps.
*cough* Bull shit *cough* Bull shit *cough* (Score:5, Interesting)
Because we all know Microsoft is well known and praised for their record of competeing in fair and responsible manners. Not to mention offering better value, security and opportunity.
There is a reason that they military considers XP "compromised the moment it leaves the box", and why high performance computing centers which need reliability and good cost/benefit rations never use Windows.
That's odd (Score:3, Insightful)
read me [infoanarchy.org]
Still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
When I read these kind of pronouncements from Bill and Steve, what strikes me is how much they still don't seem to "get it".
They talk about "free software" as is it was equivalent to, say, shareware. What they don't seem to understand is that the cost of it has nothing to do with its success, nor is it the principal reason it is a threat to Microsoft.
Personally I'm glad they don't get it. It means they are more likely to make strategic mistakes that could be their downfall.
Re:Still don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
I love seeing these "insightful" comments about how dumb Bill and Steve are.
Gates is only the richest man in the world, with Steve, Paul and others not too far behind. They didn't get to be that way by accident. Microsoft didn't turn out to be a multi-billion dollar worldwide company because nobody "got it". Not thinking like you slashbots and free software zealots is probably o
Re:Still don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree. I think they entirely did get to be that way by accident. It's an Accidental Empire, in fact.
Look at it this way. PCs came out in the 70s. They were hobbyist things, built by amateurs in their basements and garages. The big computing companies treated PCs with contempt. They didn't see the money to be made. So 2-person coops like Apple managed to make millions while nobody was noticing. Even when Apple made their first "big" PC - the Apple II - it was a small organisation but it still raked in billions.
IBM notices that money is being made in PCs, so they want a piece of the action, but they're still not "getting it". They don't understand that PCs are more than a fad, or a thing for a home hobbyist. They think the real money is in the corporate world (and it is) but they think the corporate model will always be mainframes + dumb terminals. Where do PCs fit in? Maybe small businesses, but surely that's all.
So the IBM PC is a neglected project. It gets limited time, limited budget, lesser designers, inferior managers, and so on. IBM didn't even put the effort into the IBM-PC they'd put into tape drives like the 3490. The PC was still a joke to them. They weren't serious about it.
So because IBM's not all that serious they're looking around to license a third party PC OS. Something cheap, already written, because almost certainly it'll be discarded in a year's time, right? That's what happens with all the other PC OSs back then. PCs have a short life time. Back then a PC was like a console today; you used it for a year or two then you bought a completely new one with new software. And IBM doesn't have enough in-house experience to write anything as small and featureless as a PC OS. They identify the 800lb gorilla of the day, CP/M, and try to get a license for that. But due to NDAs and one spooked wife of a CEO, that falls through.
Up until now we're running on facts, but now we're forced to speculate a bit. The manager of the IBM-PC project whinges to his boss that they can't license a PC OS from anybody. He probably even asks for money to fund an in-house project to write their own IBM-PC OS. The IBM CEO is on the same charity committee as Bill Gates mum (he is from a fairly wealthy family to begin with). The conversation probably drifts around to kids and Bill Gates mum mentions something about her son and his fledgling PC software company. Bingo. The IBM CEO asks to get in contact with Bill and this is where things get interesting.
Bill sees an opportunity and although he doesn't have a PC OS he knows where to get one in a hurry. He tells IBM that he can deliver and IBM is desperate (they're behind schedule and they still haven't secured a third party OS). IBM still isn't treating this project very seriously though, so they don't try and secure ownership of the PC OS. They just license the OS from Microsoft. That's the mistake. That's the accident right there. That's where IBM turned Microsoft from a miniscule company (smaller than Apple) into the world's largest and richest software company.
For some unfathomable reason the IBM-PC is wildly successful. Probably a mixture of reasons. It was the right time; PCs were rapidly being adopted by small to medium businesses. It was the right price; not too cheap so as to say "I'm a toy" but not too expensive so as to push customers towards Apple. It had IBM's name on it and all the excellent aspects of purchasing from IBM; worldwide support, plenty of addons, plenty of upgrade opportunities.
Bill Gates was lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time, and had the right product (sort of). He was also lucky enough that the IBM-PC exploded in popularity and that IBM didn't foresee that happening and that the contract with IBM allowed Bill to continue selling MS-DOS. MS-DOS became th
Re:Still don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the job of a salesperson. If they were being totally honest, they would say "yes, sometimes linux beats us. Here's scenarios where you should go with linux." But as company men, they have to be total cheerleaders. "MS Rocks! Linux Sucks! You company will go bankrupt and you will lose your wife and kids of you buy linux!" It's Orwellian and cult-like, but that's what the corporate world is like today.
Elephant (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would they talk about the one thing that is impossible to spin? The one important aspect of Free software that is dangerous to Microsoft is the one they cannot fight openly. They can't say, "We think Free software is worse than Microsoft's software because they base it on open standards, which inhibits innovation." The closest they can come is to declare open code dangerous to security.
By equating Free software with shareware, they are simply describing Linux, *BSD, Apache, et al as hobby-level software designed to be traded by children, like Yu-Gi-Oh cards.
I think they know exactly what they're up against. Gates and Ballmer may be all kinds of unsavory things, but they are not stupid. The first Halloween document proved years ago they understood the issues facing them.
They just aren't going to ask all their employees how Microsoft can destroy openness and sharing. That would be a bad PR move, I figure.
MS may "get it", actually (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT...
It's in their best interests if those who listen to them (Microsoft employees, Microsoft salespeople, businesses that take Microsoft's word as gold) don't "get it". As long as they can make it sound equivilant to shareware, as long as they can d
Nothing to see here... (Score:3, Informative)
The only time the two meet is if it suits the Suits.
Rack up another halloween document, and lets worry about the more important task of getting Linux onto desktops and into homes.
Microsoft's Linux strategy in three words or less (Score:3, Funny)
Listen to his analysis and grow from it (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes our greatest critics are also our best sources of constructive criticism, if we would just be willing to listen. Not all of it is legit, but some might be.
MS approach (Score:2)
-----
We are working with partners to make it possible for Microsoft customers to manage UNIX, Linux and Mac computers in conjunction with Systems Management Server 2003, and to manage hardware devices such as desktops and servers through solutions that update hardware-based software components using the same familiar interfaces that an administrator would use to update software applications.
-----
Look for MS sponsored Linux "remote administration tools" (aka trojans) and an effor
Re:MS approach (Score:2)
Actually, it looks like sound decision to have their 'systems management' app actually able to manage other systems. SMS 1, as I recall, had Mac and possibly OS/2 plugins.
Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better* (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry Steve, but that's now quite how it is. Linux and OpenOffice are seen as Stable, Secure, *Better* alternatives.
Re:Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better* (Score:3, Interesting)
I am playing devils advocate here but why, in every press release of companies who migrate to Linux, do they only mention licencing costs?
I have never seen a press release from a company who has said "we moved to linux on the desktop because its better", normally its "we moved to linux on the desktop because of concerns about the pricing of Microsoft licences".
ps. Note to mods hovering o
Re:Umm, not quite Steve. We find them *better* (Score:4, Interesting)
FUD, even internally! (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny how MonkeyBoy even feels the need to spin some FUD internally.
Why is it an "illusion" of support? You pay IBM for support, IBM provides you support. Where's the illusion?
As for a center of gravity... I guess no one has told MonkeyBoy the good news about OSDL [osdl.org].
What I'd like to see... (Score:3)
I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo? (Score:4, Interesting)
We are working with partners to make it possible for Microsoft
customers to manage UNIX, Linux and Mac computers in conjunction with Systems
Management Server 2003, and to manage hardware devices such as desktops
and servers through solutions that update hardware-based software
components using the same familiar interfaces that an administrator would
use to update software applications.
*end of paragraph*
This seems friendly enough to me. They plan to "work" with Linux. That is a new strategy!
Re:I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Today they integrate Linux support into their management software. Tomorrow they expand and patent the API. Next week there isn't a single IT manager that knows anything about Linux administration unless it's done with MS management tools. Next month MS starts to price the Linux management plugin at a higher and higher level to "support the cost of integrating with Open source developers". If it works they'll profit and network administrators will continue to favor using MS OS because of "bugs and inconsistencies between Linux distros and the MS Linux management plugin". If they're aggressive and companies balk at the increased price then they'll switch back to MS in order to secure administration tasks.
Simple.
Re:I don't work for microsoft and I got the memo? (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't an internal memo (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it is just a written statement to get the competative juices flowing. MS is a big well funded company with a lot of very smart people. If they get those people motivated they will be able to do some pretty amazing things.
Development (Score:4, Funny)
the latest new thing (Score:5, Interesting)
It's only been around since the 1960's.
In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows.
Microsoft's constant "advancements" are actually on reason I don't like Windows that much. UNIX did a pretty good job 30 years ago, and it still does.
Nothing unusual or sinister (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux has been on Microsofts radar screen for a long time now. Bill Gates has mentioned it several times, as have several other Microsoft Execs.
Microsoft also has linux boxes in most of it's labs, and I know quite a few MS employees are are real fans of Linux.
I guess, that 50,000-plus more folks around the world now will be aware of open source...he sent it to everyone in the company! Interestingly, in his public-facing CEO memo, distributed the same day as the internal one, Ballmer in contrast mentions Linux just once. What is it that conjurers call this, ah yes - distraction strategy?
I'm sure that Ballmer is well aware that his "Internal" emails to all employees are always published. This was no surprise to him. He probably didn't mention it in his customer facing letter because he figured Linux didn't need to advertise it.
I'd also be quite surprised if Microsoft isn't well on it's way to having Office and mabye some Backoffice products ready to run on Linux. They can still make plenty of money with their other products if/when Windows continues to lose ground to linux.
The Soviet Model (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps history will repeat itself. Microsoft may self-destruct in an orgy of paranoia, internal purges, attacks on enemies (imagined and real), and the technological equivalent of show trials.
--Mike Perry
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog/
Linux is not better because it's free (Score:5, Insightful)
The rule is "Faster, Cheaper, Better" always wins. Cheaper by itself is not the whole answer.
Balmer is an asshat (Score:3, Insightful)
* If I bought a support package from a company like RedHat, I can call and get phone support, the same way you do with M$ products.
* There are dozens if not hundreds of IRC channels where linux sysadmins hang out and are more than happy to answer questions.
* Another easy trick is to use google to search for your error message. Chances are you'll find the mailing list archives of a LUG, where someone's already solved the exact problem you're experiencing.
* Join your local Linux User Group. Or if your city doesn't have one you can join the one in the nearest major city.
* Email the developers who wrote the software you're having trouble with. (try that with M$)
* Check the 'bugzilla' section for the package or distro you're using. There may be a solution already available.
* Troubleshoot the source code and fix it yourself.
* Pay your local linux h4x0r to come over and fix the problem.
Microsoft is still big, but they're definitely scared. Open Office is an excellent replacement for MS office, and works well for what 95% of the users need it for.
After reading a few posts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Will the childish attitude of about 50% of the posts on these subjects ever decrease?
When is this "M$ is the bad guy RAA!!" paradigm going to vanish? It's certainly not useful to stereotype everything they do as bad, considering they're so successful (funny how often people utterly ignore that).
Do we need a news story every time someone at MicroSoft says the word "Linux" ?? Look at the icon for the story no-less, more childish proddings at MS.
Take a step back... breathe... don't be an a-hole... and realize that charging for software is not a sin... (and closed software has it's uses too)
The point being, we need to get rid of this win/lose, us/them mentality. It's not helping anything. I believe many people have to take a step back, and try to be more humble, rational individuals.
Start realizing that you can learn some valuable, positive lessons from Microsoft is one thing (such as what it takes to be successful on the desktop).
Start realizing that Microsoft can be your best friend if they're given enough time. They have some of the most skilled software designers/engineers around, so they have HUGE HUGE potential. I believe a big problem they do have is they're a massive massive object, and they need time to gather the "inertia" to change. So why not help them instead of belittling them? Wouldn't you rather have a company the size of MS making good software for you (and swallow your pride if you have to actually trade money for goods and services).
Likewise, I think the Linux community (just picking Linux to put a name on the alternatives) also has incredible potential, but that potential has to be directed somewhere useful, not utterly purile and pointless discussion about who is better, and blinding themselves to other viable options just because they're held by Microsoft (or some other big corp).
Micrtosoft IS the bad guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft IS the bad guy. They have frequently released very poor quality products, which have been fixed only by pressure of competition. They have manipulated markets and used financial might to stifle competition. They corrupt standards and 'embrace and extend' to kill off technologies they don't like. They are predatory and arrogant and seem to just not get that what is best for the consumer is NOT what is best for Microsoft.
Re:After reading a few posts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not, and I agree that that is bad.
When is this "M$ is the bad guy RAA!!" paradigm going to vanish? It's certainly not useful to stereotype everything they do as bad, considering they're so successful (funny how often people utterly ignore that).
As soon as MS abandons the bulk of the bad business habits that have earned it the bad reputation that it has.
I believe many people have to take a step back, and tr
Answer: As long as you keep coming here! (Score:3, Insightful)
What is ridiculous isn't
A
Ballmer underrates Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh come on Steve, you achieve that magnificently with Windows. Your huge range of different versions of Visual Basics and Basic languages for Office for example, requiring major code re-writes between versions of Access. While we wer migrating to VB6, you teased us with VB.Net along with the delights of yet another rewrite of code. The API changes between Windows 95 and ME, between NT 3.51 and 4.0 kept us highly amused and on our toes. The huge range of networking protocols you forced us through while the poor non-commercial people stuck with boring old reliable NFS. We played along with Windows for Workgroups and NETBIOS for years, then as we were getting used to Domains under NT you switched over to Active Directory. We though we knew what HTML was supposed to do until you showed us how you knew better with Internet Explorer. Now you want to change it all yet again with Longhorn.
Now I know what you mean by 'innovation': repeatedly re-inventing the wheel and forcing us to pay for it.
Key Paragraph (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one area that open source and Linux need a little work in. We have a lot of really great coders, but we are lacking in the diversity of people who actually know various fields very well. A perfect example can be taken from the Windows world itself circa 1994. Back then, I was an audio engineer coming from the Macintosh world. I was beginning to look at the PC as a possible option. What I found after a lot of research was that there were many limitations within Windows 3.1 to multimedia and audio in particular. A few PC based friends of mine were making recommendations that I look at the Turtle beach products, Zefiro accoustics (for hardware), S.A.W. and the like. I wound up trying quite a few of them and settled on Cakewalk Pro Audio. It worked, as well as you could expect a Windows based audio/MIDI sequencer to work, at that time. These days, things on the Windows platform have improved tremendously. Sure, they aren't Macs and still don't work as well as Macs for professional audio, but they work about 98% as well.
What happened? Microsoft was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the fact that not everyone looks at a computer as a "business tool". For some of us, a computer is a creative tool, which is as far away from business as you can get. Artists are a pretty small market, but they can be a lucrative one. And that's what made Microsoft pay attention. They actually got creative types (real artists and musicians) together with engineers and made *some* of the needed changes to the OS to improve the multimedia subsystem. Again, the Mac is MUCH better at this than Windows, but the disparity isn't as big now.
Unfortunately, in the Linux world, we still have mostly coders who like to play at being "artists" on the weekends. This is NOT a slam. I would qualify that I'm an artist who likes to play at being a "coder" during the week. What's needed are more people who can bridge the gap between the coders and the people who use the applications. This is something that most coders are loathe to accept. "Let the user dictate how the app works!? Nonsense!!" It ain't pretty, but there are some key areas of knowledge that coders just don't have the expertise in. And this applies to more fields than just art. How many coders truthfully say that they can understand and relate to the needs of their users in a very intimate way in the following fields/careers:
1. Accounting
2. Law (IANAL anyone?)
3. Playwriter
4. Journalist
5. Librarian
The point? A computer is no longer a "business tool", it's a "life tool" and needs to be viewed as such when applications and the OS are being designed. This is the point that Ballmer made in his own hamfisted way of "us vs. them". The reality is that the open source/free software community needs to include more than just coders in the development cycle.
Is your project working on a multitrack audio editor? Then get some professional audio engineers to review your project and make suggestions. In exchange for their expertise, maybe you can offer to set up a system with your application. Are you starting to work on a new application to batch process graphics for print? Then open your project up to non-coders with professional print backgrounds who can tell you if your project is useful or not.
This doesn't have to be the "free-for-all" nightmare that most coders envision. You can restrict what kind of non-coder gets to participate in the development cycle based on their experience in the field and how many useful contributions they have made after a period of time. You will also need to let more people like me into the development cycle.
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Open Source community would be better served by not spewing this FUD, and it _is_ FUD, and instead concentrating on the real problems with MS such as the monolithic nature of their development and important security problems caused by the monoculture of their monopoly (enough monos for you?).
Open Source and Free software are very important, but they'll get the attention they deserve faster if they concentrate on their positives and not on the made-up negatives of Microsoft.
TW
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit,
It took MSFT 6 months to fix that SSL bug ? Integrating a freaking browser into the kernel ? And this is good for businesses because
The ONLY reason for running MSFT software is because everyone else runs it. Its obviously not cheap, not trust worthy, not secure by design
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:4, Interesting)
Adobe Premiere
Adobe After Effects
Cool Edit
DVDLab
all four have no equlivaent in linux. Nothing NADA. there is no video editing app that exists for linux that is anything like or powerful as Premiere... and that is sad because Premiere is considered a toy on the Video editing Biz. After Effects... NOTHING AT ALL CoolEdit.. Sorry, I've tried the linux apps.. I tried really damn hard. Until these developers drop their affinity for every shiny lib out there it's pretty darn useless to someone that doesnt want a music/audio ONLY workstation. JACK and ALSA integration sucks giant brown bananas.
DVDLab. there is absolutely nothing under linux for DVD menu and ISO fabrication. no I dont want to spend 6 weeks hand writing text files, I want DVDLab alike or Scenarist alike tools.
Linux Video editing is crap and has been for 5 years. Cinerella stinks, MainActor is utter crap, and Kino is for little kids making a home movie. also without effects tools like After Effects or Boris Red you are STILL stuck with wintel or having to get a MAC and kiss flip off the entire intel world.
I guess that is my answer. Serious Art or Media work is to NOT be done on an intel based computer.
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:3, Interesting)
While cost is definitely an issue with the average consumer, security and trustworthiness aren't even secondary. The SSL bug you mention was never even noticed by 99.9% of users.
"Black & Decker makes the best toaster, therefore all other appliance companies are worthless!"
Hamster
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately it was a Microsoft provided one that was loaded durring install (and cause the installer to crash).
It worked out though; I swapped to linux and managed to break my computer game adiction :)
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally scrapped the XP load, and loaded Linux, which told me, immediately, that I had a RAM fault. Pulled the DIMM, and the problem went away.
Not that hardware is windows' problem, but from the error messages that went with the BSOD, I spent twice as much time as I should have had to trying to isolate it. They're getting better, but if something goes wrong it's still BSOD city.
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:3, Redundant)
If that's not stability on older hardware, I'd like to know what is.
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:2)
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:5, Insightful)
By being better.
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:2)
OK, quite laughing. I said "theoretically." I don't think they have a prayer of converting this theoretical possibility into a reality, but it doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics. The studies which have claimed to show this have all proven to be seriously fla
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:2)
Price is only one factor in a customer's purchase decision. The final decision is based on total percieved value (in micro-econ you call this utility but don't analize where it comes from).
Microsoft just needs to increase the percieved value of their product relative to Linux based solutions. The real question is who in marketing messed up and didn't see Linux comming and work to make changes in the upcomming product offerings to avoid the errosion of percieved value (and hence the worth of
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Free != Better
Free doesn't necessarily equate to better, but I'd challenge you to swap Apache for a proprietary web-server. In certain cases, free (beer, speech) leads to a better product - that's why we're here [slashdot.org], right?
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what if that $40,000 car broke down everyday, or required a bi-yearly upgrade to keep working (especially with it's hood welded shut). Or it was only available in hideous Yellow, and you can't change the color?
And that I think is the crux of the argument. It's not so much about being free (as in beer), it's about being free (as in speech). That's why IBM is doing well with consulting. Once IBM is done customizing your software, you get to keep your software forever.
With MS, you give them a check every other year, and that's it. With XP (and likely later), you don't even own the OS. MS can shut you down anytime they wanted to if they felt like it.
The argument becomes less about Free (as in beer) software is better. It is for some, but the freedom (as in speech) is where the benefit is. And the freedom is what companies like. The huge benefit to companies is that they keep the SW. If they make no changes, and it works forever, they can port it to the new systems a lot easier. That means in the long run, lower TCO since you don't need to retrain and lower TCO since you aren't paying upgrade fees.
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Free (beer) not therefore better" is true.
"Free (speech) not therefore better" is something I'd take issue with. The property of liberty is far more important than the price you pay for the software. The actual freedom to modify, redistribute, incorporate into your own work, and treat software as speech.
The comparison here would not be "buy cars vs walk for free" or "buy/rent houses vs live in the park." I think a good comparison would be "Freedom vs. Slavery."
So, if you value Freedom, you go for Free, and you may have to pay for it.
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if we had a facotry that produced cars for free? And the factory was easy to duplicate, and the cars could be improved upon by anyone, and thoes improvements would could be availaible to all the other car owners for free.
Software is deferentant than material goods - the cost of duplication is almost nill and for that reason GNU/Open Source so
Re:what? (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks for the association! (Score:2)
Who needs Microsoft's FUD machine when we have overselves to make us look evil?
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I must admit, I just loved this quote:
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
As if Microsoft knows how to compete in a fair and responsiable manner. There's no proof of that in the history of the company. And they will NEVER put their customers first because to them, protecting the Windows monopoly is FIRST. I also like how they will compete by 'showing' that their approach is better. Not making it better, but SHOWING it's better. If he said they were going to make sure their approach was better then I might believe they were ready to actually compete. But then again, Microsoft is a marketing company before it is a technology/solutions company. The retoric in this memo shows this.
IMHO.
Not much new here really. Microsoft has already validated GNU/Linux as a threat over 2 years ago when they publicly stated it's existence.
LoB