Slashdot Log In
Microsoft's Strategy Memos
Posted by
michael
on Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:05 AM
from the enforcers-sent-after-linus dept.
from the enforcers-sent-after-linus dept.
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This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
why is this surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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.
Parent
Favorite Quote (Score:4, Funny)
This Ballmer quote sticks out in particular, and pretty much sums it all up:
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux ...
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.
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.
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.
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..
*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.
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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
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].
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.
Parent
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.
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)
Parent
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
Parent
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Bugfixes? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:what? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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
Parent
Re:Competitive Challenge ? (Score:5, Insightful)
By being better.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent