"Linux is *the* threat," Says Microsoft 673
Ami Ganguli writes "Anybody who works selling Linux into large accounts should read this leaked MS memo on The Register. Show it to your clients as well. The good news is that Microsoft is scared. The bad news is that these guys play tough. On the other hand, I've worked with IBM sales before, and they're no push-overs either." And it appears that they want to go after the the City of Largo as well.
Linux isn't the threat. Customers are. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are. (Score:3, Interesting)
If Microsoft's people can walk in and convince upper management that their products can do the job cheaper than the Linux alternative, 9 times out of 10 they'll get the contract. Anything else would be foolish.
Don't go on about how you don't have to pay license fees for the OS and how this makes Linux a vastly cheaper alternative. Most people realise the fact that OS licenses, in the real world, are a minor factor in the total cost of ownership compared to maintainance, management and training.
It's time the community got together and came up with some significant financial and economic advantages associated with Linux and get beyond the 'free as $0' argument. Then Microsoft will have something to worry about.
Re:Linux isn't the threat. Customers are. (Score:4, Insightful)
When did Linux even have ground to lose? I find it funny when people say that Linux has "lost" or "is losing" "The Battle" (tm). It's not like they've been duking it out since the beginning of time. Linux-on-the-desktop is a relative newcomer to the scene, and despite the ups and downs of the various Linux companies, the number of Linux users has continued to grow steadily.
As far as I know, Linux has never lost any ground. But then, at this stage, there isn't really much ground to lose. Let's have this discussion again in 10 years when (let's make a hypothetical situation) Linux has 90% of the desktop market and Microsoft suddenly makes a comeback, pushing Linux to 89%. I would consider _that_ to be loss of ground, not anything going on presently.
clash of cultures (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux will always be there for anyone inclined to put it to use (unless it's outlawed as a terroristic tool). Windows will go the way of the dodo the minute Microsft pulls the plug.
Microsoft is playing a second neural circuit game based upon "territory", where for them to win, someone else has to lose. (And for them to lose, someone else has to win).
The people who truly get open source aren't even concerned with such matters. The develop what they have a need for -- and share the results with others. Everybody gains in that scenario -- except people who aim to profit by creating spurious shortages by controlling a resource.
Red Hat's Martketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Hat markets primarily to CFO's.
The basic issue is that people are migrating the majority of UNIX servers to Linux and Windows (Telecom being a major exception). Linux is picking up some of this market share and Microsoft does not like this. Microsoft has worked so hard to beat UNIX and when they win, along comes Linux to take away their prize-- server monopoly.
BUT-- businesses are no fools. Many prefer a heterogenous environment despite interoperability problems because it provides an exit strategy from a single-vendor solution.
Re:Ameritech tells the whole story (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been involved in enough IT architecture projects to understand that the technologies involved aren't always the driving factor to a project's success. Politics does a lot to aid or kill a project. And sometimes projects are labled as "wins" when those with inside technical knowledge know that it was really an utter failure.
Its very possible a Win2k solution managed to flourish where a Linux solution didn't. But its difficult to really get an honest picture of the case from an internal marketing memo from Microsoft.
No News Here (Score:4, Insightful)
No this is not a troll!
Re:No News Here (Score:4, Redundant)
Exactly. This is probably like every other motivational sales memo you've ever seen.
"[competitor] is the enemy. Make sure you never forget that, and focus on how bad they are and how good we are at [whatever we do]."
I don't see what the big deal is. Some middle-manager salesman guy writes that Linux is *the* threat, and all of a sudden this is MS' stance on the matter?
He's probably right, but that's beside the point.
Re:No News Here (Score:5, Informative)
Ian
It is news (Score:2)
Re:It is news (Score:3, Informative)
And he's practically admitted defeat -- he knows that customers trying rid themselves of expensive midrange stuff by doing a straight migration will find Linux the cheapest bet.* What he's going for is find places where these apps are being upgraded, rewritten, or replaced and make sure that Microsoft has their salesbots in there before the UNIX guys go forward with their solution.
All in all, I doubt he cares about 'legacy' apps. His real worry is that Linux migrations are an opportunity for Java and other cross-platform middleware to come into the picture.
(* Even Microsoft's migration of Hotmail made heavy use of Interix [UNIX] as a compatibility layer instead of rewriting the software to be Windows native.)
He didn't even write that... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, his quote simply said that "Linux is the threat" - no emphasis. Then, the register's article leads with the quote, adding a Nazi reference ("...memo to his Sales Brownshirts..."), and adding the "*the*" emphasis. Then, slashdot picks up the register's emphasis, puts it in the article title, and attributes it to Microsoft.
It's not news that slashdot and the register are anti-Microsoft, but they both lose credibility when they manipulate the words that they attribute as quotes from someone else.
Re:No News Here (Score:3, Interesting)
I submitted it, so I guess I'm biased. I agree that this isn't unusual. It's news because most people don't get to see how killer sales operations work (as I mentioned, IBM is also very agressive).
It's also useful for anybody who might be bidding against MS to have some insight into what they're up to. If you have a fortune 1000 client then it might be worthwhile to find out what their MS sales rep. has been up to.
Re:No News Here (Score:3, Funny)
Of cause the sales pitch avoids issues like licence lock in
bribery? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS-bashing Site? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you'll find that The Register is an everyone bashing site. They can be rather cutting and bitchy, but they are also pretty even-handed about it.
Re:No News Here (Score:5, Insightful)
And what tips did he give? Be observant and ask questions. Use your knowledge of the customer to tailor a pitch to them. Gosh, I've *never* seen *any* vendor do that. How awful.
As for linux being the big threat, whatever. If Larry Ellison ever scored a couple of big sale with his thin client product you'd see a near boilerplate e-mail sent out telling the sales staff to watch out for them too. And it would have the same sense of urgency as this memo did. That's just the way this aspect of business works.
Re:No News Here (Score:5, Interesting)
I did: Ameritrade tried to migrate to Linux servers & failed. And once the CIO left (obviously due to the failed migration), MS marketroids swept in & convinced them to go with Win2000.
I'd like to know a little more about this failure. We need to learn from the mistakes made here, in order to improve Linux. (And when those Win 2000 servers start breaking, for the next person to come up with a better Linux/BSD implementation.)
Geoff
Sense of entitlement (Score:5, Funny)
"EVERY propritary Unix server out there is a Microsoft sale waiting to happen, gosh darn it! Every time one of those faithless IT people swaps in a Free Unix to replace a proprietary Unix... they're STEALING our sale! That's money taken from OUR pocket! Linux is to blame for the tattoos on my ass! EVERY TIME ONE OF YOU BEARDED, TEE-SHIRT-WEARING HIPPIE SCUM BOOTS Linux, MICROSOFT CHILDREN GO HUNGRY!!!!!"
MS has been saying this since 1998 (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, you're right: it's OLD news for most long-time
Re:No News Here (Score:3, Insightful)
We do need to keep vigilant, however, for when MS may abuse their monopoly position in order to extend their markets. If MS changed an internal protocol that failed to allow SAMBA or other file server software to intermingle with established desktop machines, and used that to say "Well, you can't use Linux and MS solutions in the same place", there would be trouble.
This, however, is nothing, but does at least reflect that Linux is no laughing matter at MS. How's the mantra go? "First they laugh at you, then they compete with you, then you win"?
Right Right Right! (Score:5, Informative)
It does make a great platform for stressing where Linux has shortcomings again though. Linux calendar apps which support multiple users still seems like a weak area. I have yet to see anything that resembles MS Project on Linux, which would prevent even the technically inclined PHB's who'd be interested in trying the OS from giving it a shot. I think we should also leverage the Linux strengths by tieing all the remote administration potential of the OS into some GUI apps which could be used to propigate configuration changes and software updates across hundreds or thousands of machines on the LAN, possibly using broadcast packets. Updating an entire web server farm with a click of a button would be a pretty compelling feature and Linux is more that capable of it.
We don't have to write those customers that Microsoft has claimed either. We should be out there talking to them and asking them what they would like to see in Linux. Ask them what the OS needs for them to switch to it. Such feedback would be very valuable for enhancing this OS.
Re:No News Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why this is newsworthy..
Well, you've been reading Slashdot too long if you don't think this is newsworthy.
The Register thought it newsworthy, and I agree.
The reason is that the news is different. We're not talking about the typical sales pep drive where company X tries to beat company Y. No. Here we're talking about where Company X is attempting to drive out A Movement. That's different.
Not to mention the news worthiness of anything that Microsoft is doing. After all, they are the world's single largest software company and their product is placed on over 90% of computer desktops worldwide. And, recently they have been involved in some court proceedings where the outcome of those proceedings could have far-reaching effects on the company and on computing in general.
So, yes, it is newsworthy.
Replace UNIX with Windows 2000? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Replace UNIX with Windows 2000? (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't seen these guys work. They'll find somebody in the company to be their internal advocate and they'll keep feeding that person FUD, while building personal relationships over golf, dinner, etc.
Did your company just get a new CIO, CFO, CEO, Manager IT, whatever? Microsoft, IBM, HP, etc. all know this and have already offered him dinner at a nice restaurant. They know that they don't need to convince the techies, just a few well-placed managers.
...and still we talk about microsoft again. (Score:3, Insightful)
I refuse to believe that those 'memos' escape microsoft non-intentionally.. it just sounds suspect.
just my
Re:...and still we talk about microsoft again. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, we are talking about MS, but we are also talking about Linux in the same breath, and not in that conversation-ending kind of way.
It seems that something so unassuming, so unpretentious (unlike their programmers) as Linux, is kind of like water. It will get into every crack, crevice, and nook, freeze in the winter and destroy us all =)
Open Source Monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
- The Coming "Open Monopoly" [slashdot.org] by timothy with 171 comments on 09:24 AM -- Sunday October 28 2001
- Software "Open Monopoly" [slashdot.org] by Hemos with 284 comments on 01:49 PM -- Wednesday October 24 2001
There is the possibility that Microsoft could face a situation where it could not embrace and extend and where it can not control that market, cannot monopolize it. Thus the efforts to outlaw open source:-
MS Wants To Outlaw Open Source: "Threatens" the "American Way" [slashdot.org] by Hemos with 1169 comments on 02:53 PM -- Thursday February 15 2001
There are two basic ways to get ahead in this world.One is to build things up. The other is to tear things down.
The problem comes when you view the freedom and success of others as an attack on your success. While any exercise of power will use both, when someone goes psycho or nuerotic on the second, then you have a real problem.
It comes down to Microsoft being afraid of the freedom of others, or specifically certain people in MS are afraid of the freedom of others. Marketroids, etc. I'm willing to cut the coders some slack.
Since the company is the vision and living embodiment of the vision of Bill Gates, not him.
Tatoos? (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you team -- that's one less tattoo Mandy and crew will need to get.
What kind of weird marketing practice is this? Have they take to branding and torturing the sales staff to help inspire them?
Tattoos?
Good luck, MS (Score:2, Interesting)
Not too easy competing with free, is it?
They can't cry foul too hard though, since the relative cheapness of their platform and OS is one of the major elements that brought Wintel to the dominant place in the market...
Re:Good luck, MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck, MS (Score:3, Interesting)
I would amend that statement:
Not to easy competing with Free, is it?
It is not the cost of the OS that matters but that there is an extremely large developer community working to make it better AND develop the kinds of application-building environments that Microsoft evengelizes. This helps to reduce the total cost and time to market. Whether Linux is there yet is a good question, and people like myself say it is, but the point is that it will continue to accellerate into other markets (desktop, etc.) and therefore is THE threat to Microsoft's very business model.1
I doubt Microsoft is really bothered. (Score:3, Insightful)
Enter Linux.
Linux is not remotely a threat on the desktop - as long as it has multiple different GUI's and window managers and toolkits and all the rest, and a lack of a decent browser or office solution, it always will not be a threat.
On the server end, Linux is more of a threat, but Microsoft has never had a big slice of this market anyway. If anything FreeBSD is a greater threat than Linux in this arena, as it is better performing.
However, MS will always have a big place of the server market for as long as they produce a system that is easy to use. Not everyone can afford £60,000 a year for a Unix export, especially small businesses, to keep a server running. MS ensure that a boss can do such things part time - this has really driven the internet revolution, by opening access to the internet to many who would have been cut out by a skills shortage before.
All in all, I can see that MS are wary of Linux, but in truth they have nothing to worry about, as the two OS'es operate in different spheres, and don't really compete at all except in the minds of unthinking Linux apologists and Windows Advocates.
Windows will always have 95% of te market, MS need have no fear of that. The only way Linux will threaten this is if they start behaving in a more proprietry fashion by gearing things at the consumer and not at the Linux Geek.
Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered. (Score:2, Offtopic)
The latest Mozilla is more than decent.
Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered. (Score:3, Insightful)
That Linux is making vast inroads at the server level is undeniable, but whether this by itself threatens Microsoft's OS hegemony is very, very arguable.
However, with Microsoft seeding the public with the tantalizing possibility that maybe - just maybe - Microsoft no longer possesses the bone-crushing arm-twisting power of its former monopoly, they decrease the vociferousness of MS backlash and, more specifically, of DOJ remedies. Wouldn't breaking up Microsoft be silly if Microsoft no longer dominated the marketplace ?
At this point, Microsoft can do no better than suggest that it has serious competitors. This may well be the rationale behind this (supposedly leaked) memo, just as it may well be the rationale for Microsoft supporting Apple with its cash infusions and now more recently with Office X.
Don't believe everything you read.
Re:I doubt Microsoft is really bothered. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its all personal preference, but I'm finding the browser and office apps sufficient on Linux now. And they're improving. They may or may not be the best available - but then, "best" is only one of many factors in the IT industry. The biggest challenge may very well be nailing the moving target for office automation - MS Office data formats.
*BSD may be a better performer - but we've already touched on the fact that doesn't mean everything. BSD doesn't have marketing buzz around it. IBM isn't supporting and pushing for it. And that's probably a shame - BSD deserves more credit for where it is now, and where it'll be in the future. But in the end its a moot point. BSD represents the same threat to Microsoft that Linux does. They both provide a route to Intel-based hardware without Microsoft. There are a lot of businesses that can't afford ANY kind of dedicated IT expertise. Heck - even major governments and corporations out-source. That's why IT has a thriving consultant / out-sourcing industry.I've found a rather nice consultant market supporting small businesses. Especially ones that started up their own internal IT and now need help. Running reliable network services requires more than finding somewhere to go clicky-clicky.
In some cases, I've helped stabalize their Windows environment. Build up missing pieces. Sometimes missing pieces include Linux (or *BSD) solutions - including web/gui admin tools. Sometimes Windows machines get replaced by Linux. In the end, its about providing a reliable infrastructure. Windows or not - that takes some knowlege.
If we assume the leaked letter is accurate, then the whole idea of the two OS not competing is already proven to be false. And its not too great a stretch to believe the letter could be true. Both Linux and Win2k provide viable server solutions on commodity hardware (even if it might be slightly more specialized server versions of that hardware). Once you hit that hardware, a major price point is hit. All you've got left to argue is licencing and support contracts. And in the end, that gets swalled up in marketing. You're talking desktop. As this article is covering the server side, I'm tempted to say its missing the point (as is all the other desktop talk). But it does touch on some interesting themes.The first is that Microsoft (like other tech giants such as Intel) know how volatile the tech industry is. They've profited by it. And they're paranoid that they'll fall victom to it. In short, current dominence does not guarentee the future. Enter .NET.
We all know Microsoft is investing heavily in .NET and there are probably many reasons for this. In short, if Microsoft is going to have a future .NET is going to be it. So .NET needs to be successful. The more Windows servers out there the better. As Linux gains ground, the more impact it will have on the success of .NET. The future is far from certain for Microsoft.
Linux could use some consumer-targeted improvements. But that doesn't have to happen at the expense of the "Linux Geek" or flocking to a proprietry stance.
Linux is usable today.
On the desktop, power users should have no problems. Complete novices should also have no problems assuming that the system is preconfigured (they would trip over either Windows or Linux if they had to do their own installs) and suitable applications exist (email, web browsing, etc). Its the desktop middle ground that will find Linux a challenge - perhapse more challenge than what they would get in return for the effort.
On the server (where this article is really focused) Linux is a viable competitor. It provides services and hardware support that makes it attractive. It has invaded the space previously held almost solely by Microsoft.
Linux Compete Team (Score:4, Funny)
Oh! I volunteer for the Penguin Attack force[tm]. Can we have laser beams?
--
Rasher - use it in new amazing ways.
Is the reverse true? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is the reverse true? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say no. It may be argued that Microsoft may be a threat to RedHat, Mandrakesoft, Caldera etc. but they could never be a threat to Linux.
Linus would continue to maintain the kernel, GNU would remain hairy, and ESR would remain mouthy no matter how much ground Microsoft may take from us.
The only way Microsoft can threaten Linux is with crap like the SSSCA. Even then they can't use it to kill Linux, they could only force it out of the USA.
Re:Is the reverse true? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Is Microsoft *the* threat to Linux?
Yes. Linux is cutting off Microsoft's air supply. Microsoft will do everything in its power to kill Linux.
And it won't be sufficient, for them, to merely get Linux out of businesses; as long as it merely exists they will continue to see it as a threat. So expect them to continue throwing money at businesses, OEMs, governments, etc., and to continue "oops"-breaking standards. But most of all, expect them to lobby for laws that will break the OSS paradigm under thinly veiled concern for IP, security, etc.
After the DoJ cave-in it should be obvious that the only way for non-MS products to survive is to proactively destroy Microsoft. Unless you're vested in MSFT, you should be doing everything legal + ethical toward that goal (though there's no reason to suppose that MS will hamstring itself with the "legal + ethical" bit).
Re:Is the reverse true? No.. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the parent poster brings up an excellent point. Microsoft is, in fact, everything I've described above. While obviously limited in their technical innovations, they have proven to be extremely tencacious and creative in coming up with practices that kill anything they perceive as competition.
They'll try with linux. They'll try to shape their contracts and the law. They'll try to shape public opinion. They'll try technical trapdoors. They'll try anything they can. That's how MS works: use any means necessary to kill anything competing.
And anybody who is interested in making choices about what kind of software they use should care
Re:Is the reverse true? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Whatever happened to Linus saying Linux doesn't care what MS does?
I'm not Linus.
His sentiment is laudable, and I too subscribe to a live-and-let-live policy wherever others are willing to play by that same rule.
But Microsoft isn't willing. They have a long history of paranoia about having any other product competing in, or even adjacent to, their 0wn market space, and an equally long history of killing off those products by fair means or foul.
Idealism is nice, but realism contributes more to survival. Beat your swords into plowshares and you'll find yourself plowing for new masters.
Re:Is the reverse true? (Score:5, Interesting)
But if we look at Free Software in the broader sense, the answer is that even Microsoft is not powerful enough to crush the Free Software community. It might be harder than before to use Free Software (because you cannot access some content on the Web, or you cannot use certain hardware), but this would only result in a return to the level of, say 1995.
Of course, there are threats to the Free Software community. The most dangerous one is abolishing the general purpose computer, i.e. a computer on which you decide which software you run and install. Abolishing the general purpose computer is certainly on the agenda of the copyright industry (look at all these copy prevention schemes), but it is not something Microsoft can do alone.
Why Win2K instead of XP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Win2K instead of XP? (Score:5, Informative)
simple (Score:2, Redundant)
And of course as we all know, Linux is a server OS, and isn't ready for the desktop
Re:simple (Score:2, Informative)
I've heard the server will be named
Re:Why Win2K instead of XP? (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Once XP has been thoroughly tested/debugged/patched, they can send out their salesmen to explain/make up critical reasons to upgrade. This will make them more money.
Any questions?
They are talking servers, not workstations ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The memo says nothing new, actually. Companies are shifting from expensive proprietary platform (SUN, HP, IBM) to commodity PC, which now have enough horsepower for most of the common tasks tasks low-middle servers are purchased for.
Without Linux, the 100% of these shifters would have gone in the arms of Microsoft. With Linux, they have to fight harder to get some of them.
All this was already true two/three years ago, but now Linux is more recognized, also thanks to some advertising effort mainly sponsorised by IBM, and PHBs don't frown (much) anymore when their techs are proposing Linux-based solutions.
This is why Linux it is considered _the_ threat for MS on the server market.
Re:Why Win2K instead of XP? (Score:2)
Because they're not competing on the desktop, but at the workgroup / data center level. This is clear in the article, why they are inventorying server rooms and competing with Sun, who don't have a much of a workstation presence outside specialist markets (engineering, finance, etc). Windows 2000 is the main server OS produced by Microsoft. I don't even know if there are plans for a server-optimized version of XP, possibly not, since the strategic objective of XP is to get the consumer market onto an NT kernel.
Re:Why Win2K instead of XP? (Score:2)
2 options and it doesn't look all stupid too.. you get a normal (as in Win2k looking) start bar and windows.
MS OpenMemo (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, and be sure to CC the person who leaked this memo!
Re:MS OpenMemo (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft - its own worst enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but if the Halloween documents were truly leaked intentionally for that purpose, it may have backfired on Microsoft pretty badly. A lot of people started taking Linux more seriously after those documents were released - Microsoft basically was seen to acknowledged Linux as a serious competitor, apparently in private and not just as a courtroom claim.
From a marketing perspective, this sucks for Microsoft. This latest memo does something similar. The more frightened Microsoft gets, the harder they squeeze to "eliminate" Linux, the more customers will slip through their fingers. I presented at a meeting yesterday in which I explained to two CEOs - one of a business with 300 employees, and one with annual revenues in the billion dollar range - why we were moving some of their key in-house applications away from Microsoft development products, and they were nodding in agreement. They've heard the news stories. Microsoft can no longer fight the bad PR, except by becoming a genuinely responsible company (and how likely is that?)
It's sort of funny to see the memos plaintively wondering why clients are moving to Linux. I suppose it's tough for Microsoft to admit the truth to itself: "because our business practices suck, and customers are sick of us!"
interpretation (Score:2, Interesting)
*shrug*
Catch-22? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the good news is that it shows GNU/Linux is gaining in popularity, enough that it is now "the long term threat against [MS'] core business" but -- do we want Microsoft using its substantial influence to retard the development and implementation of GNU/Linux and related free software? This basically a direct assault by MS -- look at the language they're using: "wins against Linux", "Linux Compete Team", etc.
The free software community seems to be in a bit of a sticky point right now. We can no longer be completely ignored. However, the bigger we get, the more attention and fire we're going to get, and we're not really equipped to defend ourselves yet. It would nice to suddenly be the same size as Microsoft, to have that much power and influence, but the only way to get that influence is go through this very impenetrable gauntlet. It's a real Catch-22.
Look at what happened to, say, Napster. When no one had heard of it, it was great. Then the meme started to spread, and more and more people adopted it, and it eventually trickled all the way into mainstream news. And as it broke onto the mainstream, the RIAA immediately caught wind of it (well, they'd probably caught wind of it earlier, but didn't need to take action against it until it was getting too popular) and shut it down. It's sort of like underground bands that steadily gain in popularity for their genuine talent, then suddenly use that popularity as a wedge to sell-out and become yet another generic pop group.
Maybe GNU/Linux would be after all as a purely underground software phenomenom. Then the people who really need a free operating system can make use of it, without attracting fire from biased mainstream news outlets or monopolistic evil corporations. Maybe it's time to stop trying to position the growth of Linux as a "good" thing -- after all, you don't see ISO groups writing up Warez Advocacy FAQs, do you?
Of course, there's really nothing we can do to STOP people from adopting Linux. It's just part of the cycle of things. The underground, real coders start an operating system (remember, DOS and Windows were the new kids on the block once), it gradually spreads to more and more people, it starts getting compromised by the mainstream, the underground jumps ship, the platform soon dies without the support of the underground, and the underground begins its work anew.
To continue the MP3-sharing-software analogy, look at how Napster was abandoned in favor of Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Now everyone knows about and is using them. So the RIAA sues them, and they've started to crack down. Now we'll have a bit of a "dead" period, but soon they'll be another wave coming out of the underground.
It's all cycle.
Re:Catch-22? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no comparison with Napster.
Napster was blatantly illegal and deserved to be shut down. It was just a warez site for music.
If people were trading free music that would be different. Some artists produce free music and it is up to the public what they choose to listen to.
Re:Catch-22? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing: free software is immune to Microsoft's normal kind of attacks. They can't buy it out, and although they can out-market it, the best and original Linux marketing was all word-of-mouth. Microsoft can't destroy free software as long as there remains one free software developer. They can only hope to contain it by competing on the basis of price and features. And competing with something that's free will eventually sap their strength, one way or the other.
Unix (Score:4, Insightful)
And the worry is not to do with TCO and administration and operations, areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast). It's the porting of existing applications, which is perceived to be easier from Unix to Linux than it is from Unix to Windows. But remember that you can buy tools (MKS Toolkit for example) that make it very easy to do, and that Rogue Wave et al sell APIs that make it easy, and that in a world of Java/EJB, the virtual machines on Windows are very good indeed - often faster than VMs from the same vendors on Sun.
So what I'm saying is, Microsoft are taking Linux seriously, like they take *all* existing and even potential competitors. And, my general feeling from reading sources like
Re:Unix (Score:4, Insightful)
areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)
According to whom? MS? I think not, as these OSs grow they are also growing in bloat, stability may be increased, but the ratio of people needed to babysit those machines is far greater than *nix. Also the overhead of running those system means that you need more hardware to achieve desired performance. Neither is a big TCO plus. For large scale systems, I don't know of anyone who's pushing MS for TCO reasons. They're simply not viable
areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)
WHAT?!? Which VMs are you speaking of? We justified migration to Linux based solely on speed tests (very basic tests) of Java on MS vs. Linux and Sun. Sun on SPARC wasn't really fair given HW differences, but Solaris and MS on Intel were neck and neck with Linux outperforming both by a comfortable margin (which suprised me all around).
I haven't seen many J2EE deployments on MS. Developed - yes, deployed - no. Why would someone want to? You develop something that runs on multiple plaforms and then deploy on the Lowest Common Denominator. Why?
I agree with you on the *nix front though. I think that much of the growth of Linux has been at the expense of lower-end *nix systems. The word is that Linux may not be eating away much at MS server numbers.
However, I've had 3 projects in the last 1.5 years replacing MS solutions for J2EE on Solaris and Linux, so I think there is migration which will catch up to MS at some point. This is not a battle to be won overnight...
Grow or Die (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that Microsoft is in a "Grow or Die" mode right now.
They have finally saturated the desktop market. They are trying to sustain growth in that sector, but doing so generates more and more bad PR as they crack down on the license terms.
In looking for areas in which to grow, the server market has become a primary target.
The problem for Microsoft is that you can only pull the wool over their eyes for so long - eventually, everyone is going to realize that what they are charging for can be had from other vendors for free (with higher quality as a bonus).
This fact will become even more aparent with UNIX releases tailored to run Win32 binaries (aka Lindows, etc.).
Regardless of how much marketing they throw at this issue, they can't change the fundamental truth behind it.
In a related vein, I heard a rumor that Microsoft is threatening the states that won't settle in the antitrust case with reduced licensing at high prices - supposedly some universities have been called and threatened with cutoffs or price increases.
I really hope that Microsoft tries this. I would wholeheartedly approve of the state and/or federal goverment throwing a few million dollars at developing alternate Win32 platforms.
Another MS internal memo... (Score:2, Flamebait)
To: Brian Valentine
Subject: Sales team motivation...
Brian,
I'm concerned about a lack of motivation on the part of our sales team in really pressing the benefits of XP, .NET, and the evil of Linux on our customers. As you know, Linux is the threat to our business, and we need all the wins we can get.
That's why I think we need to take a more agressive stance in our internal communications with our sales people. Starting today, I'm authorizing you to initialize Operation Ink. The main thrust of this operation is:
Please make sure that all staff are made immediately aware of this new corporate policy, Brian. I mean it. Don't make me subject you to "discipline".
-WG
Re:Another MS internal memo... (Score:3, Funny)
Question: How do you recognise a MS salesperson in 2003?
Answer: By the painful look on their faces whenever they take a seat.
Funny, funny Brett (Score:5, Funny)
*cough* reliability *cough* (Score:5, Informative)
god knows i've seen countless articless there where they've just been entirely wrong.
What's the fuss, Gus? (Score:3, Interesting)
MSFT didn't get where they were today by ignoring rivals and pretending they don't exist so I don't see why this memo should come as a shock to anyone. Frankly, what would have surprised me is if there were no internal emails flying around concerned about the growing popularity of Linux and how to tackle it.
This just in... (Score:2, Funny)
...Linux may well be a threat to M$, but according to this article [bbspot.com], a bug in Microsoft's new operating system could lead to actual physical harm of its users.
Marketing, marketing, marketing (Score:2, Insightful)
What's to be learned from this? That if you want Linux out there instead of MS, then you're going to have to market it. Whoever is selling Linux based solutions will need to be just as tenacious and aggressive as a MS marketer can be. No laying down just because Solaris/AIX/HP-UX/etc to Linux is a "natural" migration -- it's clear that MS will make it seem unnatural, slow, error prone, etc. After all, if they can sell IIS over Apache (and web service is one of Linux's strengths), they can certainly do it in other areas as well.
IBM's marketing department has been aggressive for decades. And I know most small firms don't roll over and play dead easily either (or else they wouldn't be in business long), but this is a good reminder that there's competition out there.
Treating Linux Users like a Disease (Score:5, Funny)
1. Carriers --> the pre-installed masses out there who love the OS and tote it everywhere they can. You can't cure a carrier with the M$ vacciene, because they're stuck with the disease for life, for free, and don't even understand that its a problem, because they typically show none of the symptoms.
2. Infection Vectors --> You can also spot evangelists, who might not be the best users or carriers around, but they sure do love to spread the word, show the symptoms of the "disease" of Linux, and make serious threats to Microsoft's soverignty.
3. Symptoms --> Ranting about Emacs vs. Vi, BSD vs. GNU, wearing funny tee-shirts, or having epileptic fits about free software costing literally nothing at work, at home, during spare time, on dates, etc. People who do not learn to tame these symptoms can end up becoming terminal geeks, even if they are recovering Windows users.
Which is probably why Microsoft sales people have to spot the companies with even a single Linux user, because they KNOW Linux will spread if left untreated.
adventures in marketing (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Scott Adams was right when he placed the sign: "Two Drink Minimum" above the entrance to Marketing.
Hey (Score:3, Interesting)
Fess up Linus, you wrote this, didn't you?
For those of you trying to push Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you try to simply show them a desktop, you may lose.
I need to show them how one fairly cheap server can handle remote desktops with all the neat features using a bunch of crap PC's. I need to show them how it will be much LONGER before they need to upgrade their PCs to run new applications. I need to show them that, instead of upgrading all 20 pc's in their network in a few years, they will only have to add a new server (and even keep using the old one as well).
And I need them to actually SEE this working, because otherwise they don't buy it.
Then I show them how, oh, you have expansion plans? Well when you add 20 more staff, with this system, you don't NEED to spend a couple grand on each person for a computer.. you can buy terminals from so-and-so and just drop them in.. and they will simply work.
Not Yet (Score:3, Insightful)
My main point is that I've just started to get into Linux and I really like it so far, but it's a pain in the ass to get everything working. I have a 6 month old Gateway with a P 4 and all widely used hardware, so the latest distros of RedHat or Mandrake should have no problem with it, but they do. I can't get my soundcard to work, my USB HomePNA device, and other stuff I probably haven't gotten to yet. I'm sure I'll figure it out, but I have a background in computers, it shouldn't take that to get a computer to work. That's the main problem right now with Linux, it's just not that easy to get everything up and running. On the other hand, the main advantage of Linux is that once it is running, it doesn't stop.
Not talking about the "Average Joe" (Score:3, Interesting)
> select what they want, install, reboot, and EVERYTHING works.
The type of installation we are talking about is one like mine, where there are 60,000 desktops. This is where Linux could be a threat to MS, think of 60K WXP and Office XP licences to keep track of. Think of the number of servers you have to keep up to provide file and print. Think of the effort you need to implement and maintain PDC/BDC or Active Directory. Moving that from Windows to Linux could really cost MS a packet.
Windows ain't that easy, either! (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I recently upgraded vmware on Linux, which required me to change my video driver, because the vmware code for the video adapter changed. (Please note that this example works just as well when you upgrade video cards.) When I rebooted with the upgraded video device, my machine would hang. Apparently it's critically important to first tell Windows (98) that the video device is 640x480 standard VGA. It took several reboots to remove the offending adapter driver and get the machine working again.
(BTW - on RH Linux, when I install a new video adapter, the on-boot hardware detection routine notices and asks me to configure it. One boot cycle to fully functional X windows. If I didn't need to power down to install the card, it would have required 0 boot cycles!)
2. I recently acquired a Kensington USB video camera. Kensington no longer manufactures such devices, and has produced drivers for '95&'98 only. Users with 2000 or XP are simply out of luck. While I have a '98 machine on which I can use the camera, if I want to "upgrade" to a later version of windows, I'll need to buy new hardware.
(BTW - Interestingly, on RH Linux I was able to get the camera working just fine with xawtv. Here a device is not supported by the manufacturer, no Linux drivers have been produced, and the free software geeks reverse engineered the functionality and produced drivers, then gave them away!)
Don't even get me started on how dang complex all of this stuff is! My sister just got a cable modem and wants to set up a network so her kids can share the internet connection with her. She needs a firewall, proxy server/NAT solution, LAN adapters, cabling, ad nauseum! None of that is trifling, regardless of OS. (For her I'm recommending a dedicated device for firewall and a local consultant to assist with configuration.)
WRT your problems, have you had the opportunity to seek assistance from any newsgroups/mailing lists? I'm not sure that I can be of great assistance, but I'm willing to try. Please email me if you are interested.
Re:Not Yet (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, for the average person there is no need for anything but a default installation. Honestly, as a user of both Windows and Linux and a computer person, I haven't really needed to do that much to windows, and when I have it has been because of a specific piece of hardware or software and I've had instructions on what to do. I'm not really sure about how to play with the registry or anything, but I've never needed to either.
These Linux is hard to install arguments are a red herring. It's true that most users could not install Linux without help, it's also true most users could not install Windows without help.
I would have agreed with this if it were win98, but only somewhat. Windows for me used to always be a pain in the ass to install. But, someone gave me a free copy of Win2k a while back, and when I installed it I had to do absolutely nothing. There were no prompts, nothing. It just installed without a hitch, which I've never had from microsoft before. I assume XP is as polished on the install. Of course, its a purely default installation, but at least it was no problem.
I think a top priority for linux needs to be supporting hardware and making it easy to install new hardware. I think its easy to use linux, but sometimes getting the system configured for a new piece of hardware is a several day process for me involving a lot of web searching and frustration. It shouldn't be that way.
sales people (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is, who's going out and pushing Linux like this? In my experience, sysadmins "sell" Linux in their organizations, not an external sales force. Unfortuntely, it's often the case that an external "expert" is more respected than any member of staff.
OK, Marketing it is then. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Linux needs a large advocacy site or two that specifically does these things:
1. List companies/organizations that have switched to or are created new uses for Linux.
2. Allow those companies to post their own progress reports, the good and the bad.
3. The linux comunity could provide anything from advice to development support for these companies.
4. Advocates could point to this site as a Linux testamonial and direct rebuttal to the same type of stories that MS uses. By showing the good and the bad it displays honesty (Which MS can't do) and by showing support activity, they see that there really is good support, and that bad senarios can be corrected with enough people available at your fingertips.
I know lots of this type of support is available through news groups and other channels. I suggest this specifically as a commercial/sales type operation. It should be big and well advertised and pointed directly at the corporate officer, with specific examples of problems found and solved. This is MS home territory. Lets get the battle off our terf and onto theirs.
This is SPIN for the judge (Score:5, Informative)
Then in a secret meeting between Microsoft's attorney (a former Reagan appointee) and the lead attorney for the DOJ (a current appointee), a deal less restrictive than accepted prior to the trail was accepted without the state's knowledge.
This is an op-ed piece supplied for the consumption of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. As we start to enter the 60-day review period, this will give Microsoft more leverage to indicate they do have competition and the deal is fair. Of course, the exclusions put into the deal also ensure Open source will not be considered a legitimate third party to receive any advance notice or right to information.
In addition, they can force those who do have 'the right" to sign non-disclosures, under the guise of ensuring security, and sue anyone attempting to provide access to open source. Then they begin legal action against anyone who uses the information to enhance open source.
While it may make us "feel good" to know we are considered a threat, we are not. A threat is something you do not have a solution for. They have a solution and it is about to become a legal document by which they can exclude all open source from access.
Consider how far we could push Linux, BSD, etc... into an environment where merely communicating with the existing NT network would be considered illegal. A simple API change we cannot mimic or duplicate and they can tie it up in court for years. The mere specter of such possibility will keep us out of many shops.
Now is the time to re-read Ralph Nader's letter [cptech.org] and create your own. Keep it specific to the agreement, factual and polite. This will become a legal document, not an editorial or slashdot forum. Revise, reread, and revise some more. When the 60-day period begins, print it off, and mail it. Start working on it now to be ready when the time comes.
Note to editors: can we put up a forum where people can post their letters for comment?
Is it real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Brian Valentine exists at Microsoft, he's the Senior Vice President of the Windows Devision [microsoft.com]. Would he address his colleagues in such a way? Why not.
JB Were's web site is partly dysfunctional, so not much information on this one. The City of Largo has just succesfully migrated to KDE desktops at the end of August [consultingtimes.com]. It's a bit hard to believe that they switch again after such a short time, and that his wasn't addressed in Valentine's memo at all (maybe it's about the servers, who knows, but then things would be really, really bizarre). Ameritrade has already been a Microsoft customer [microsoft.com].
So, if this one is faked, it was faked in a much more credible manner than the previous NTs.
Linux Isn't the Threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Having salespeople trying to win business in the fractionally tiny sliver of the leftover 10% of the market "people who are migrating from unix to linux" is freaking lame - what about the rather hefty and lucrative segment "people who aren't migrating to XP because it doesn't offer anything compelling"?
Microsoft should be spending its billions generating new demand, not trying to take its 90% market share to 92.5%. Where are the golden oldies, like voice recognition, speech synthesis, handwriting recognition, not to mention all the crazy stuff that no-one's dreamed up yet? Where are the VR interfaces, massive dataset visualisers, database filesystems, all built to smash my machine into whimpering shards and only run on XP(tm)?
The only killer app driving upgrades seems to be games, and MS seems to be further stagnating that by shifting games like Halo to the XBox. If a PC version of "uber-Halo" required a P4 2Ghz & Windows XP, gamers from here to Osaka would be selling their livers to get on board, economic downturn or no.
So Linux? A tiny dot in comparison.
shut up man
Planned obsolescence (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, except those hardware companies also make money from planned obsolescence. Dell in particular. Their motherboards seem designed to limit expansion possibilities. Particularly in regard to memory. IDE controllers that don't support big drives, etc. Why would a PC have an upper limit on RAM expansion that is only 2 times what the machine ships with? (i.e. back in 1995, a 32MB machine limited to 64 MB. A recent machine with 128 MB limited to 256 MB. etc.)
In contrast inexpensive machines built by mom-and-pop shops (my Linux machine at home) typically have 768 MB or higher RAM limitations, and that was three years ago.
Surely I'm not the only one to notice this trend in PCs?
Referential findings on microsoft.com (Score:3, Interesting)
As I read the Halloween information at the site indicated above, I decided to re-read the "Linux Myths" page at Microsoft.com. I had read that one before in its entirety but I wanted to refresh my memory once more. As it turns out, the "Linux Myths" page is either missing or has been moved. So I searched using their search facility.
Entering "Linux Myths" into the search text box and "OK" I waited and waited for a response and eventually, the page came up with a header but a blank body portion of the page. "An error?" I thought to myself. I tried again with the same results. Then, I searched only "Linux" with the same results. Finally, I wanted to test the search to see if it was broken. I searched "Office 97" and was immediately given a long list of document references from the search. The search is not broken, it appears to be blocked!
Is reference information regarding Linux blocked at Microsoft's site intentionally? Maybe someone could test that.
Installability (Score:5, Interesting)
I work as a IT person. In the last two months I have done ~10 linux and ~10 windows installs.
Total problems that caused install to take more than 2 hours with WinNT/98 - 6
Total problems that caused install to take more than 2 hours with RedHat 7.1/7.2 - 1
I'm not the average person, but if you just want to pop a cd in and go, redhat is MUCH better than any MS OS has ever been (although I haven't been able to try the XP install).
Linux: Bill Gates Best Friend (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll believe Linux is a serious threat when Bill Gates tries to crush it like a bug.
No offense, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Can we call these the Turkey Documents?
ameritade.com = Linux/Apache (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/illuminata/linrfpt4.
" Ameritrade, one of the largest online brokerages, provides its primary web access through Linux--a substantial commitment given its 1.5M clients execute over 100K trades per day, for which security is an absolute. Ameritrade is also one of the fastest-loading homepages on the Web."
a netcraft query shows they are running
Server: Stronghold/3.0 Apache/1.3.12 C2NetEU/3011 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.4 OpenSSL/0.9.5a mod_perl/1.22
sounds like they still have some linux left in them.
City of Largo Still Seeing Penguins (Score:5, Informative)
leaked memo' and wanted to let those interested know that in no way has our roadmap changed.
We were contacted by Microsoft, and they asked questions about how we have deployed Linux and what issues are keeping us from using more Microsoft products. We expressed concerns about licenses, and about the number of people that can be run on Windows in a centralized environment on the same hardware (about 1 to 5 compared to Linux) and how many more people we would have to hire if we moved in that direction. We had a short meeting with them to review the XP product line and see it running in person. We have some stand alone PCs that are running at our library for patrons and at some point those machines probably will be running XP, so we wanted to check it out. We also run some Citrix/WTS products on NT and wanted to review what their plans are for the future to ensure we can continue to run those programs.
We are still seeing Penguins for almost everything running here and in fact there are 3 servers sitting 15 feet from my desk that are spinning RedHat 7.2 right now and being prepared to enter production.
Nothing has changed...and we certainly appreciate those people that cared enough to drop us a line.
Dave Richards
City of Largo, FL (Yes, "City of Progress")
Systems Administrator.
Ghandi (Score:3, Insightful)
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
Microsoft has clearly stepped through to the fighting.
MS Wants To Set The Rules - Don't Play By Them (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the wrong strategy. This is playing by the rules Microsoft want to set. How about we follow the lead Linus sets and just do our thing and improve over ourselves, and not worry about what MS think.
If peoeple are wise and insightful enough to use Linux over other solutions, let them reap the benefits. Otherwise, lets not waste our efforts cramming success down peoples' throats. If they want to suffer with Windows, let them. We'll still have the superior operating system, and their increased costs will enact Darwin's laws.
We will lose if we play Microsoft's game. They have it rigged against us. Concentrate on code... write software, not marketing pamphlets.
When did this become a fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that Ghandi quote that people who take Linux a bit too seriously love? The one that begins "First they laugh at you..."? The wisdom behind those words is that once you become an active participant in a so-called "battle" of this type, then you have lost. The quiet revolution is one that eventually bubbles to the surface because it is _honest_. People going about their lives, doing what they believe in, is a powerful thing. It is more powerful that calls to arms and out-and-out zealotry. In fact, the latter often tends to get people away from what it was they believed in in the first place; they get swept away by the grandeur of the "war," and no longer represent their original ideals.
Linux was interesting when it was the honest bubbling up of what was perceived as a better solution by some people. Now that there has become obvious and pointless fighting between Linux users and Microsoft, it isn't Microsoft that has lost...it is Linux. All this energy devoted toward hating Windows, talking about Microsoft, putting down XP, and as a result a large, large segement of Linux users have become these aimless zealots who don't even know why they use Linux any more other than to crush Microsoft. And as such, Linux has lost.
Salesmen speak a strange language! (Score:3, Interesting)
if you see Linux and/or IBM in there with it, then get all over it. Don't lose a single win to Linux.
Someone should tell that guy that if you lose, then it's not a win. It makes no sense at all to say that you "lost a win".
Unless, perhaps win means Windows. If their customers lose their win, that means that they REALLY win.
If I become a salesman someday, I'm going to play stupid head tricks with my fellow salesmen. For an experiment, I'm going to see if I can get everyone to say "come on and let's win the FUCK out of it." That would be funny.
very funny misconception (Score:3, Interesting)
MS being fearful of linux/gnu/gpl is as silly as being afraid of the ground doing damage to the foundation of a house. Trying to dig the dirt away to protect the foundation.
Linux/gnu/gpl is a natural evolution of common open computer science/industry/application that is only comming into focus now because MS's distraction (which started with Bill Yelling Piracy) is being seen for what it is, a distraction of what would have otherwise beter evolved.
There is no way to stop this evolution, it's been held back long enough. And to add to this, IBM has begun to recognize the need to openly move towards auto-coding techniques - autonomic computing [ibm.com] and an open source bridge tool eclipse [eclipse.org]
As a matter of genuine computer science and the core of autonomic computing there are the NINE action/function constants [mindspring.com]
In short: MS is trying to battle what is in essence genuine computer science, the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of how we use abstractions. Inherently MS will lose, for even it has to use these in the distractions and distortions it tries to create.
The fact this direction is being called linux is perhaps a distraction from the GNU effort which is in fact just a label that is being used to identify this open source direction.
Re:Link to Article (Score:2)
1. Microsoft's largest competition is from a 'free' (beer) product. Would you invest in a company that was competing with something that is free? Whether Linux is as good as Windows or not it a moot issue because Linux is free and Linux continues to get better.
2. Linux has no sole entity. Microsoft doesn't know how to effectively deal with Linux because it's not a company. It's a type of product that is beginning to gain significant market proliferation.
Basically, MS needs to either lock people into using its software before it's too late (XP is pissing people off) or it needs to constantly stay one step ahead of OSS (which is starting to get difficult).
What can they possibly do? I believe that better public relations would be a start. Now that Windows2000/XP is actually a nice operating system, they can focus on removing peoples ideas that software will constantly crash. Of course, at my work Excel 2000 on Windows 2000 still constantly crashes, but they have to fix that.
Not scared. Annoyed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they are forced to offer discounts to win companies over Linux ( even though I don't doubt they plan to get back the discount money as soon as the curtomers are hooked).
Loosing money is annoying for _any_ company.
I bet that also in SUN and IBM there were (are?) people annoyed by Linux growing popularity.
Re:This is lame (Score:3, Insightful)
Transparency in business is almost always a good thing, I don't think it's a coincidence that the world's richest countries tend to be the ones with the most open financial systems and strongest lwas against corruption/monopolistic practices/insider dealing.
Taken to it's extreme, you could even make the argument that a company should make public *all* of it's dealings. That would make for a far, far more competitive economomy if the only way you could get ahead was by providing better products and services at a lower price. Best practice would spread much faster, fraud and corruption would be much harder and the endless political wranglings in organisations would be tempered by the need to behave decently and operate with a much fairer distribution of information.
Maybe I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here, but I think there are areas where privacy and the restriction of information flow can be a very bad thing. Business might just be one of them.
Re:Observation... (Score:3, Funny)
It wouldn't surprise me if the clam-heads have infiltrated MS middle management. We know they control hollywood and the IRS, and controlling the OS on 90% of the world's computers would certainly be an aim of those power hungry hypnotised wierdos.
The scientologists are quite scary, what with their little fleet in international waters and their mountain full of weapons...