Journal lpret's Journal: Why the OSS Community hates Microsoft (part II) 5
In economics, you can sell one of two things: a product or a service. Or, if you're being really terminalogically correct, goods or services. Now, a good is defined as something concrete that you own -- such as your shoes. A service is defined as a job or task done for you. Usually, in modern times, we reward these goods or services with money. Or sometimes we return the favour with our own good/service.
Of course, we've seen some mutations of the two -- when you lease your car, it's a service of sorts, but it provides you a good for defined period of time -- perhaps long enough to be considered a good. Or when you buy a cellphone, you don't need just that good, but also the service that goes along with it.
Now that we've defined a good and service, let me explain where Microsoft comes in. Microsoft sells it's programs to companies. That's it. They're now starting to move into the consulting business, but historically they have dealt with selling software, and once the company has that software -- good luck. Even worse in regards to individuals who don't even get the sales pitch -- just a big sign in a CompUSA.
Now, contrast that with the Open Source community. They see software as tools to complete a task -- easily built to tailor fit a company's wants and needs. Therefore, there must be workers to work with those tools.
So, it's inevitable to see why the OSS community hates Microsoft -- MS relies on their products (which at this point may be somewhat comparable) which infringe on the OSS's livliehood as programmers. Do you follow? Basically Microsoft is saying that it's products are just as good as you, the programmer. So understandably you're pissed.
Oh, poor confused soul... (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't. Microsoft made a killing selling 'product' after 'product' that 'Just Works!', but didn't. Sometimes, their software got worse with each release, just to keep us guessing. Eventually, people caught on. Maybe software shouldn't be a 'product'? Maybe software can't be a 'product'? Maybe there is something inherently wrong with the concept of software as a 'product' instead of just Microsoft's implementation of it?
Then came Linux. Linux is definitely not a 'product'. The funny thing is, it seems to work better than the 'product' that we were told would 'Just Work!' Maybe Linux should be a 'product'? That's it, we'll turn Linux into the 'product' that Windows was supposed to be!
Microsoft saw the crayola on the wall. Suddenly, Windows NT was going to be a 'stable product'. It was going to 'unify' the business and consumer operating system 'products', stability and usability in one 'product'. No, wait, consumers don't really want a 'stable product', they want the crap that is Windows ME. But, don't worry, Windows 2000 will 'unify' the business and consumer operating system 'products', we promise. Well, maybe XP will 'unify' the, oh, nevermind, we don't really want to do that after all. We really just want to continue charging businesses a higher price and use everyone else as free beta-testers.
Now that Windows 2000 has been stable for a couple of years and does most everything a person would expect of an OS, it is almost the 'product' that Microsoft has been promising for almost a decade. Now, though, Microsoft wants to change the terms. Windows is no longer a 'product'. It is now a 'service'. Now we get to pay Microsoft *not* to fuck with their 'product' that we have already paid them to create several times over. Now we get to pay for the privilege of continued use of this awe-inspiring 'product' that 'Just Works!' but isn't really a product at all. And, maybe if we're lucky, some day this innovative operating system 'product' will come pre-packaged with a Microsoft-brand computer so that we won't have to have any of those annoying 'third-products' getting in the way of our enjoyment of Microsoft 'products'.
You are right that there are people who use Linux and hate Microsoft. You are wrong about who those people are and what their motives are. A lot of them have never coded a line in their life. Most of them were formerly in charge of babysitting Microsoft 'products' that were supposed to 'Just Work!' and instead required rotating-shift supervision by people whose only real job was to re-start services when they mysteriously died and apply weekly patches that 'Didn't Work!' either.
We are mad because the Microsoft vision of the future has humans serving computers (and everyone serving Microsoft), not the other way around. Movies like 'Terminator' and 'The Matrix' didn't follow the invention of the Apple or the twenty years of Unix development that preceeded it. Movies in which the central theme is the enslavement of mankind by computers are a new phenomenon brought on by the marriage of Microsoft's fucked-up business ethics with the capitalist wet-dream of computers as an investment and administrators as maintenance personnel.
I think you meant something else... (Score:2)
That missing 'o' makes a big difference.. "terminology" is what you were looking for, and I'm not sure why but that really cracked me up. Terminal.. Microsoft... Linux, just funny.
Good write-up though, enjoyed it.
If that was true... (Score:1)
Re:If that was true... (Score:2)
The multiple versions of Adobe keep on adding functionality. I wouldn't feel insufficient working with a 5-year-old version of Photoshop, but a 5-year-old version of Windows is just near useless. Apple and Adobe put out working products the first time, and added features as desired. Microsoft put out software with all t
More to it than "product vs service" (Score:2)
By examining the situation closely you'll see that Microsoft DOESN'T sell software as a product at all. Its software operations are in fact service operations and have been basically since Gates and Allen peddled BASIC to Robertson. They don't sell boxes of software--never have. MS provides a LICENSING AND DISTRIBUTION SER