Microsoft Responds to Leaked Memo 373
AbbeyRoad writes "CNN, has a
story on Microsoft's response the
internal memo previous leaked:
"Microsoft believes many of its efforts to market its products against Linux and open source are backfiring, according to a memo posted on the Internet. ... Microsoft declined to comment on the authenticity of the memo, and did not answer when asked if it believes its marketing against Linux and open source has been effective. ... Microsoft spokesman Jon Murchinson said: ''The document in question seems to suggest that the basis for evaluating products has been long-term customer value, and that's something we agree with. I think our marketing is geared toward that issue, toward long-term customer value.'' ""
And... (Score:5, Funny)
With the new licenses, the value increases every upgrade!
Re:And... (Score:2, Informative)
Long term customer value = how much money we can squeeze from a customer in their lifetime.
Long term value != a product that the customer derives value from for an extended period.
Re:And... (Score:4, Insightful)
"merely" funny? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Microsoft is using "long-term customer value" in the sense of long-term value from a herd of sheep. They are referring to the value *from* their customers rather than the value *to* their customers.
and forced upgrades are a problem all of their own (Score:3, Insightful)
Just today Oracle is taking some real heat for dropping support on old applications software. The reason is simple. Corporations want to upgrade when they want to upgrade and not at any other time.
Microsoft's pitch to pay a lot and upgrade often only assumes the expenses remain high relative to Linux.
And, having the source code available means that customers can even support themselves long after a company stops doing so. Anyone can maintain their version of Linux as long as they wish. Microsoft screws everyone by forcing the upgrade, making it too expensive not to upgrade or simply dropping support for older versions.
Open source brings with it some very real advantages over the long haul. With Linux you can upgrade every 6 months or so if you are so inclined. (And, many are.) Or, you can hold off until the need justifies the upgrade and you are good and ready. (And, again many corporations would prefer that.)
To bad that Microsoft forces higher prices whether or not you upgrade frequently. Frequent upgrades may sound better at times but that process comes with additional costs too mitigating and savings permitted by Microsoft.
The industry is better off the quicker Microsoft goes away.
planned obsolescence (Score:3, Interesting)
Trying to deal with an OS which is no longer supported by the vendor, or many software/hardware manufacturers, is just plain ugly. While I never liked 95, the cost of licensing 100+ machines just tends to be a bit prohibitive, when hardware, etc is also very expensive.
And it's not just licensing the OS, but accepting all the terms of the license agreements. We don't want to sell our souls to MS (or any other big corp) to save a few bucks. Thus, we are looking at alternatives, and open source becomes increasingly tempting solution, even though we know many will not be happy with such a changover into unfamiliar areas.
The point is, you're right. There is quite sparse "long-term" customer value, unless there are a lot of "long-term" payments being made. This isn't to say that everything should be free, or dirt cheap, but it shouldn't be as painful as it tends to be when done in bulk.
You also have to consider system requirements, and how much they have hiked for OS to OS. XP needs RAM, 2K isn't so bad but it can be a RAM pig too. Unfortunately linux desktops also tend to wallow in the mud unless fed something over 64MB as well (Gnome on RH8 runs, very slow in loading apps though), but at least you don't have to buy an OS and hardware too.
Re:And... (Score:5, Interesting)
In looking at TCO, the MS numbers begin to fail when you take into the constant cost of licenses, upgrades, re-deployments, re-porting custom software, constant re-training / recertification of staff to handle the "latest and greatest" versions of windows, etc. Many of these costs are hidden, but valid. If you look at any flavor of UNIX, they haven't changed much in how they work or how you interface to them.
It wouldn't be so bad if MS just continued to improve their core (kinda like every other OS on the planet does), but it seems that with every revision or so they replace core functionality, radically change
look and feel, interfaces, API's, management tools, etc. This costs business big money. It's that constant sprial of useless updates and repurchasing the same core functionality over and over again.
Many (most?) businesses were caught blindsided by the true scope of the problem, and many MS pundits STILL don't understand. It's easy to get caught up in the "ease of use" arguments, and the relativly low upfront cost (although the upfront costs is nowhere NEAR as low as it used to be.) Now, many businesses are stuck with proprietary MS based systems and face a potentially HUGE cost of migrating to other platforms. It's no wonder so many balk, especially in a down economy.
On the good side, businesses and governments world-wide are beginning to wake up and realize that MS's answer isn't as good as they were led to believe. They are finding that they don't have the flexability, reliability, or control that they want, and the price is much higher than they expected.
OK, so read the above carefully. In NO place did I say MS is bad, or that MS software is bad. I AM saying that if you buy into the MS paradigm, you are going to pay, and pay, and pay many times over for only incremental improvements in technology, and the true total costs of doing this is much higher than other competing systems.
Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)
MS announced that Office 11 won't run on Windows 98. What do you bet that Office 12 won't run on Win2K? History proves that MS changes the
So the answer to your question is "Microsoft." They are pretty good at forcing people to upgrade through planned obsolecence.
IMHO, not releasing sercurity fixes for some of their not-so-old products is a crime. Win98 is only 4 years old, Nt4 was sold as recently as 2 years ago. MS has made MORE than enough off those products to support them (from a security standpoint) for at LEAST 10 - 15 years.
Most other OS vendors charge customers an annual maintenance fee (generally about 20% of the purchase price) per year if you want to continue to get updates. IBM still maintains and supports OS's and HARDWARE for machines that are 25 years old or MORE - and they don't have NEAR the userbase of ANY windows product.
MS has other options too. Sell off support to some third party company. Let THAT company charge for, and provide updates for MS's old code. MS WILL NOT do that because it breaks their business model of forcing upgrades.
Now I'll go out on a limb here (I'm not an MS fan by any stretch of the imagination) but MS has every right to do this (yeah, I just said above that it should be a crime, but it currently isn't.) For the way they designed their revenue stream, it's the right move for them. I'll go further to say that anyone who buys MS products should be aware of this, and plan (budget) for this. It's part of your TCO. Note that you can actually go to MS Licensing v 6 and pay through the nose anually, but that still won't get you support for older releases.
Re:And... (Score:3, Interesting)
Where in the NT4 license agreement does it state that it will be EOL in 2? (I last bought NT4 in 2000) Win2000 was only 1 year old before XP came out. Please. At this rate, the lifespan for MS OS's will drop to 1 month in a few years. Yeah, that's a little silly, but so is MS's expectation that customers will replace a perfectly good OS every year just so they can keep their sales revenue up.
To answer your question, YES. I STRONGLY believe that OS manufacturers should continue to maintain SECURITY FIXES for their products for a MINIMUM of 6 years from last date of sale. Note that I did NOT state that they must be FREE (but that would be the Right thing to do IMHO.)
Why 6 years? That is a reasonable term that people can reasonably expect to be able to run their systems, get repair parts, etc. I would be in favor of letting companies out of that requirement if they release source allowing customers to maintain their own systems when they discontinue support.
Auto manufacturers continue to release saftey related fixes / recalls long after the next several model years cars are out. I just got a saftey recall for a 5 year old volvo as an example.
We have a real problem in the industry. Software almost always comes with no guarantees, warranties, etc. (rare case when they do is Very high end software with custom contracts.) Software companies have NO requirement to produce code that works at all. About the only thing they DO guarantee is that the CDROM is readable. I can't think of ANY other type of product that we buy where we would be willing to put up with the shoddy workmanship, instabilities, constant problems, etc. Hell, we have lemon laws for cars, why not software? It's obvious that the industry won't police itself.
I'm not letting ANYONE off the hook here. I think Apple needs to be better about this issue too. I think they have pretty much said "stuff it. Upgrade to 10.2" which is a paid update.
So what would you say if MS no longer offered ANY security patches unless you had a PAID subscription to Windows Update? What if they only released fixes by reving the OS therefore requireing you to buy the new version? These are all things MS COULD do. The percentage of people that would bitch and moan would be MUCH higher than it is today, which is why MS doesn't do that. People bitch and moan now, but only those that NEED to stay downrev for one reason or another. Patience however is beginning to wear out.
Re:And... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course if you LIKE getting hacked and your business doesn't depend any info stored on these old systems, then stay with the old stuff. No big deal to ME.
Re:And... (Score:3, Informative)
One of the differences here is that I can upgrade any part of my Linux systems that I want. My main Linux box is running RedHat 6.2, but with a 2.4.19 kernel, many many upgraded user-space tools, ext3 filesystem, updated glibc, rpm 4.x, etc...
With Windows you get all or nothing. If I want remote desktop on my Windows box, I have to upgrade all of Windows. I'm sure there are a few things in XP I wouldn't mind having, but I am sticking with Win2k until I see a reason to upgrade (so we agree for the most part
Another poster mentioned that Office 11 will not support Windows 98. If this is true (this is the first I'd heard of it myself), then this extends even further than the OS.
Unless a business did the upgrading by themselves (that is, without purchasing from RedHat), then I don't really see why it's so much cheaper.
Linux kernel and software upgrades can be rolled out pretty easily if you have a standardized base. A web host I used to work for runs a few dozen Linux servers, and most updates are scripted and automated. It takes the SysAdmin a day or three to fully test a major upgrade on his dev boxes, and once he's sure it's all going to work, he rolls them out to all of the servers in an hour or so.
This goes for kernel updates, library updates, Apache/other major software packages, etc. I believe they are running a RedHat 6.2 base as well, but again with most everything updated; it's practially a custom distro at this point.
While this isn't an "OS Upgrade" in the normal sense, updating the kernel and most major software tools accomplishes the same job, but can be better because you know exactly what is changing. How many times have you had to hunt for an option because the latest Windows version changed it's name or location yet again?
Anyway, granted server updates and desktop OS updates are two different things. There will be no user re-training with the server updates (for the most part)...
A Linux-savy IT crew isn't very cheap.
Neither is a competent Windows admin or team. Not just an MCSE, but one who really truly knows how to properly and securely run a Windows server. I think in the end, for the same level of competence, you come out about even here in either case.
Unless you count all the overtime the Windows admins spend fixing BSOD errors and
What the hell... (Score:5, Funny)
"I will see you back here next year, for a debate on our Halloween VIII memo, now in development." he proceeded to add.
Sources indicate that next year's halloween memo will require 20Gig for a full install, but will be available as a "web-service" for a small subscription fee.
holloween non-disclosure: (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft better be concerned (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Microsoft does produce a quality product, despite what the Linux-obsessed masses seem to think. It does have it's shortcomings, not the least of which being the price tag, but when it comes down to it, what Microsoft should be keeping in mind is that they have the edge when it comes to support and useability. Linux and Apache may well perform 10% faster, but an existing company typically has to hire a Linux admin to do that. Instead they can just throw money at buying a Windows Server License, IIS, and make a couple support calls to Microsoft to get it all up and running properly. If it ever breaks and the admin can't figure out the ridiculously simple administration tools, he can call Microsoft and have them fix it.
Sun does essentially the same thing, but is substantially more expensive, has less application support, and generally also requires hiring expert technicians. Microsoft products just do what they're supposed to do, and do them reasonably well. This is why Microsoft has the edge, it's EASY. MacOS might be a challenger if they had Enterprise level server support and hardware that didn't cost an arm and a leg, and third party support.
Lets face it, Linux has a long time to beat out Microsoft in Workstation land, and for companies that want to be able to hire any random Joe for pennies and not have to document every step of their network, Microsoft is more or less the only choice.
Interface, support, cost. The overhead to pay MS for software and support is less than hiring Senior UNIX Admins, and that's basically what it all comes down to.
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:2)
Thank you, random Joe.
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay.
How so?
It depends on your point-of-view.
You'd rather have non-experts running systems that your business depends on? All but the smallest networks require experts from initial network architecture to end-user support.
Microsoft products just do what they're supposed to do, and do them reasonably well.
Other options, such as OS/2, Beos, Wordperfect, etc. have all come and gone at Microsoft's whims yet they were all arguable better than MS' offerings. Microsoft's products do approximately what their marketing department says they do, but not nearly as well as advertised. It's pretty rare that I'm actually impressed by one of Microsoft's products after I get to use it.
This is why Microsoft has the edge, it's EASY.
Not really. Microsoft's current edge really is founded on their downright predatory business and marketing tactics over the past two decades.
The overhead to pay MS for software and support is less than hiring Senior UNIX Admins, and that's basically what it all comes down to.
It really depends on the size of the network. UNIX scales better in cost as the size of the network increases. Unless, of course, the company is locked into Exchange, for example.
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:2)
For some definitions of reasonable. For the definitions of customers who rely on their web services to be "always on", I'd argue that they do them pretty damn poorly though. Having experts on staff, for one example, helps ensure that you have someone who can aggressively resolve any issues that do arise. And if MSFT doesn't "need" any experts, then what are all these certifications they're always touting for?
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, Microsoft does produce a quality product, despite what the Linux-obsessed masses seem to think.
Linux-obsessed masses? What planet is this on? On my planet, Earth, nobody knows about Linux except a bunch of long-haired badly shaven socially-inept geeks (self included).
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
Only now do they produce some quality products. This can be attributed to the fact that they have buckets of money to pour into development. Money that can be extorted from other market segments that have no choice but to buy.
You don't think Microsoft spend $150 million improving IE just to give it away out of the goodness of their hearts? ($150 million according to trial testimony.)
You don't think, a few years ago, Microsoft was giving away Microsoft Money for free out of the goodness of their hearts? (Prior to giving up on the idea of killing Quicken and then trying to buy them instead.)
These are the classic tricks of the monopolist.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, people were saying that anybody, including Microsoft has a long time to beat out IBM in PC land. Now we have commodity hardware, and Microsoft, not IBM, makes all the profits. And it didn't take very long either. By 1985/6 the war was over. Things can have a way of snowballing. Microsoft seems to be very much on the defensive.
You mentioned support and service. Modern Linux distros are getting pretty darned good if you hadn't noticed. Now both Red Hat has announced their intentions to go after the desktop. SuSe, and others, too.
for companies that want to be able to hire any random Joe for pennies and not have to document every step of their network, Microsoft is more or less the only choice.
Trained chimpanzees for admins? No documentation? Sounds like either:
This is why Microsoft has the edge: It's a MONOPOLY!
With an already segmented market!
(Segmentation is another monopolist trick. Take an identical product, and at no cost, or tiny cose, turn it into multiple market segments. Hence, XP Home, XP Embedded, XP Pro, XP Advanced Server, XP DataCenter, XP Media PC, etc. Got competition in one segment? Crush it, subsidizing it by charging the other segments.)
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:5, Funny)
True, but you can't run a server or a decent desktop with just an intellimouse...
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I can go ahead and thank you for Nimda, Klez....et al. Yes, MS is just easy enough to get going...with swiss cheese security, a trillion buffer-overflow explots and general weaknesses. If you want to have any degree of security, I do believe apache is cheaper. In the short term, in the medium term, and in the long term. How soon until your network is melted from all the script kiddies and viruses killing it? A month?
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:4, Insightful)
I think your support argument doesn't hold up because at least Red Hat provides very reasonably priced support. I can't answer for Sun, though my experience with them is that everything they provide is expensive.
I've also never understood the "long way to go" for the desktop argument. Why is Linux so far away from the desktop? What can't you do in Linux that you can do with Windows? I run RH with Gnome and StarOffice. There is nothing I have run into that prevents me from using this as my everyday computer. The only argument against it is that it can't view proprietary MS media formats, that it lags behind deciphering quirky formatting in the latest Office documents. If your standard of argument for equaling MS on the desktop rests on those points, then you'll be disappointed as Linux can never reach that standard unless you think OpenOffice developers can anticipate the next round of formatting commands before the Redmond developers do. And don't even mention the "Joe Blow can't set up Linux" because you apparently never have had to set up a Windows business machine for a neophyte secretary (as well as having them completely relearn the OS when moving from 98 to NT). The "not ready for the desktop" argument has always sounded to me like a catch-all excuse for Linux not having much marketshare and not based on any technical or otherwise decent argument.
You haven't read the EULA for SP4 (Score:2)
Even more fun, just reading it is considered accepting it.
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree wholeheartedly. 2k has been FAR more stable than XP Pro in my experience. 2k is just about as stable as Linux is, and my applications rarely if ever crashed under it. XP on the other hand has totally locked on me on several occasions and frequently causes applications to crash...the same applications that never crashed under 2k.
That combined with the major speed hit over 2k and the DRM EULAs is enough. MS should've left out the bloat they added to XP...about the only useful new additions are superior Plug and Play and ClearType. Those are not worth the degraded stability and 30% lower performance IMHO.
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:3, Funny)
and this doesn't strike you as an operating system problem?
You really need to get out more...
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft better be concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be mistaken. According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 NEVER BSODs. And neither do XP, NT4, Me, 98, 95, WfW, 3.1, or 3.0 either.
On the other hand, Linux DOES freeze from time to time. Happened to me this afternoon. Had to go all the way to the neighboring cube and telnet to the machine and run top to see which X-windows application was eating 99% of the cpu time, and then kill -9 it. That's what happens when one develops real time applications under root. Lucky for me, Linux has the
Yeah, sure, Linux is something only those fanatics at
They didn't comment ? (Score:2)
That is the important thing here, that acknowledgement, cos all measures (legal) to gain market over your competition are ok.
Re:They didn't comment ? (Score:2)
Let me get this straight, because its an awfully confusing concept that can't be said by
All action to stiffle competition that isn't illegal is legal?
Wow, that just like, totally blew my mind.
(Of course, we wouldn't want to get into a debate about which actions are ultimately _good_ for MS or good for their competition, would we? Nah, its much more intellectually stimulating just to post, "Thats ok! Remember, its legal!" posts.)
Re:They didn't comment ? (Score:2)
My post, btw was not about this at all. It was about why its so hard for MS to publicly admit Linux as competition.
And also BTW, MS did not take any action at all, it just circulated an interal memo with proposed actions, so as far as i can see it can circulate almost anything in a memo and it be legal (with the possible exception that they plan to kill the president, which is a federal crime, even if its a joke)
2 Microsoft articles in a row (Score:3, Flamebait)
It's clear to me that, much like most modern elections, the second is indeed the case. Rather than attempting to promote Linux and Open Source as worthwhile competitors, Slashdot and its parent company insist on attacking Microsoft. This attack has multiple fronts: Apple, Linux, and BSD are all praised.
The clear bias is seen in the promotion of Apple: Apple is every bit as proprietary as Microsoft, even going so far as to monopolize their hardware market and filing numerous lawsuits to combat those attempting to mimic their 'look and feel', something that even Microsoft does not attempt to do.
I propose that this site state its purpose: does it exist to provide news, or is it merely attempting to blast Microsoft in a selfish, childish, jealous manner?
Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row (Score:3, Offtopic)
3. Most Slashdot readers feel passionately about Microsoft - one way or the other. Posting lame stories about MS make these people read
Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row (Score:5, Interesting)
Flame me however you may (not the poster, just anyone who reads these words), but I have to put food on the table somehow, and I have yet to find a way to do that with *NIX. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough (and that could very well be, but) I have an OK paying gig running an MS shop that is a 10 min drive from my house. That's pretty hard to beat.
Alhough I certainly do not feel passionately about Microsoft, they are the reason I have a good paying job. It's mostly because their OS is crappy and needs constant support, but beside the point. I have a good job because MS exists.
Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row (Score:2, Flamebait)
Linux and the various other nixes don't require the large amount raw manpower for maintenance that Windows requires, at least, not after things shake down. Therefore, a whole industry is threatened.
I know personally how hard it is to get a job right now. Perhaps it is time we start moving on to newer pastures? Most of the tasks necessary to run networks and machines will be automated or eliminated in the next decade, I'd guess. TCO issues will insure that. MS will survive, because of licensing. But our jobs will not.
Time to think of new things to do for a living. Sad.
Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe what you have is a slight case of Battered Admin Syndrome. The first indicator is a destructive co-dependency on the thing which beats your ass. It's not your fault, and in order to break the cycle of violence you have to stand up to the agressor here. We can't blame Cerf or the NSF for the current state of things, but we can finger a rather monolithic corporate abuser which has fostered and supported an environment of dependency with a cycle of licensing violence that has made it increasingly harder to be an admin when dealing with pointy-haired manager types. I have never heard of any company suing M$ for dammages because they make buggy software. No manager in their right mind is going to tell you that by saving them money and releasing them from license audits that you're causing problems. Nobody is going to value you less if you don't have to work as hard to make them happy.
In the end, it's up to you. Either the monoculture assmonkeys that hold you down have to understand the problem, or you will lead a quiet life of back-up, patch, and recovery desperation.
Everyone has the capacity to be a Bastard Operator from Hell, some of us just don't have to work that hard at it.
Cheers!
Cynic! (Score:4, Funny)
But, hey, it's not like rehashing the same arguments for 1001th time is a statistically significant increase from 1000, right?
Can we start a long-overdue thread on "which OS, on which platform, is best?"
Perhaps Apple is Not Quite So Predatory (Score:5, Insightful)
You are implying that VA Software created the memo and leaked it to CNN?
It would seem that the article was written by a bona fide news source, and that it is onl;y being echoed here.
Fact is, the battle for market supremacy in the server room and on the desktop is of paramount importance to most of the readers of
Fact is, Microsoft itself created this "bad news."
You imply it is cowardly to post these articles rather than extol the virtues of the competition. Hmmm, I daresay that you are being cowardly for attacking the messenger rather than the message.
"Apple is every bit as proprietary as Microsoft, even going so far as to monopolize their hardware market and filing numerous lawsuits to combat those attempting to mimic their 'look and feel', something that even Microsoft does not attempt to do."
The most famous suit was the one against Windows, and Microsoft.
They lost, BTW.
"I propose that this site state its purpose"
I think they do.
Look upward at the banner at the top of the screen.
It says "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
I fail to see how this memo fails to qualify as exactly that.
Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row (Score:2)
Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row (Score:5, Insightful)
One great thing about Slashdot is cusomization. Almost everything is customizeable. That means that the Anti-MS zealots could choose to block every story except MS-related stories, effectively turning their Slashdot experience into the limit of what you're describing. They could then bash MS to their hearts' content.
Also, you could block out every MS-related story, and never see another one again. Why don't you just do that?
Belloc
Re:About Apple's "Monopoly" (Score:2, Informative)
Huh?
Apple's history of using lawsuits is scary. Note that they're more than happy to sue open source vendors.
reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm.. marketing and product development are two VERY different things, no?
Re:reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing is the process by which companies work out what the market wants, and how its products can meet that want. Good marketing - and no-one can deny that Microsoft are excellent marketers - is tightly integrated with development, so that customer demands can influence development priorities and technological developments can be pitched to customers. There should also be a lot of cross pollination, it's not uncommon for developers to do a stint as "pre-sales engineers" and marketers to do a stint as a "product manager".
Re:reality check (Score:4, Interesting)
Classic Business 101 concepts of serving customer needs may work on a local widget-manufacturing level, but organizations like Microsoft or Exxon or the old Standard Oil trusts have been working from a different playbook for over a hundred years. The similarities between classic marketing and what Microsoft does are disappearing. MS more or less has a say in who gets appointed to the heads of the DOJ, the FCC, you name it. They can annihilate any small company they desire with lawsuits, if it so suits them. They can sway, with some work, the direction that information technology will take in the future.
They are not all powerful -- witness Tablet PC's and Bob -- but the fact is, they no longer really need to cater to the market. The market increasingly must kowtow to them.
It's a classic dilemma of capitalism. Companies compete, some win, then the winners consolidate control, form cooperatives, and ultimately remove market forces that can hurt them. Even IT, with its mercurial nature, is not immune to this.
Off on a tangent -- the second reason, after threatened profits, that MS hates Open Source so much is a viceral hatred by Gates et al of the cooperative aspects of software development. It's akin to communism, as far a Gates and other really hardline neocons are concerned. It's an ideological nightmare for them.
Re:reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft picks some technology, convinces everyone they want it, and then when the industry catches up, MS has already moved on.
Re:reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Do not confuse marketing with sales. The purpose of sales is to answer the customer's questions about a product. It's inherently an educational process, where the customer is taught the answer to the question "why should I choose this product over a competitor's product."
Marketing usually solves a problem by making the product in a different color, or making the package just a bit larger and brighter so it catches the eye on the shelf. Sales solves the problem by putting the specifications for the product on the box, and giving the customers the information they need to make a decision based on the facts, not a warm/fuzzy feeling.
To push this thing over the top: Sales makes things that look like a FAQ that answers questions and educates people they call "customers". Marketing makes things that look like crack cocaine that bamboozles people they call "consumers".
OK, I'm done with that little rant now.
Re:reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, you are misunderstanding need. Consider: do people just want to keep their feet warm and to avoid slipping on the pavement? No, they want to look good and make a statement about themselves. Nike create a brand image, and people who buy their products do so because they want to associate themselves with that image. Look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. People always buy products that represent the lifestyle they aspire to. The fact that they are exclusive is a big part of that - otherwise you might as well wear cardboard boxes on your feet.
Re:reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
> want, and then develop products to fill that need.
That works if you want to make a reasonable amount of money, but if
you want to make trainloads of money, you have to find something you
can produce in large quantities cheaply, that other corporations will
be unable to exactly duplicate. That's the hard part. Then you hire
a bunch of marketing people to make everyone WANT this product, and
you're all set. Whether the product was something people really
wanted before your marketing people got to them is of only partial
importance. It does make the marketing job easier, but its impact
is not nearly as significant as you might think. With the right
marketing campaign, you can sell anything. I'm convinced you could
sell used dental floss with the right marketing. (That would not
be a useful business strategy, of course, because other companies
could readily produce lots of their own used dental floss to sell,
driving down the price to next-to-nothing, and then you could no
longer afford to pay your marketing people. The trick is to find
something nobody else can produce, so you can set the price where
you want it.)
And BTW, when I originally came up with that explanation, I was not
thinking of MS. I was thinking of McDonalds. There are other fast
food joints, yes, but McDs employs creative use of trademarks and
customer perception to make sure that none of the competitors can
really deliver quite exactly the same product in the eyes of the
consumer. That said, Microsoft is another example of the same phenomenon.
Is it just me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me.... (Score:2)
Yes, this is true, but in depth analysis as to whether or not a story is a duplicate is even more difficult than simply determining if it is a simple duplicate or not. So, given that Slashdot often features obvious duplicate stories, them posting a duplicate that's not so obvious is to be expected.
Besides, it's interesting to see the further analysis people here have done a few days after the initial release.
Oops, re-phrase it quickly (Score:3, Insightful)
That was supposed to be: .... toward long-term shareholder value.
Another memo leaked (Score:2, Funny)
or is that long term customer security?
Advocacy howto (Score:4, Insightful)
Organizations refine their marketing all the time. And incidentally, Linux and open source in general is the #1 threat to Microsoft... and also to Sun. I don't doubt there is a similar pro-Solaris, pro-SPARC, anti-Linux, anti-Intel memo within Sun's sales organization.
Re:Advocacy howto (Score:2)
Well ... yes, actually. Let's take a look;
Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
Nope! Doesn't sound like MS.
Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
Nope again! MS have declared war on Linux, declaring OpenSource S/W to be like a 'cancer'. And so on ...
Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
Phbbbt! :%s/Linux/Windows. Can you believe they'd say that???
There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.
*ahem* And so on ... you get the picture!
Re:Advocacy howto (Score:2)
From the article:
So it's really just Microsoft's version of the advocacy howto.
Re:Advocacy howto (Score:2)
Re:Advocacy howto (Score:2)
This is probably true, but Sun, at least, can dispense with a little pride by actually marketing Linux-based products. I'm sure things like the LX50 server and Sun Linux pain the SPARC-advocates, but the public wants something other than SPARC at the really low-end. At least be thankful that Sun is listening to the market rather than trying to bludgeon it like Microsoft does.
Re:Advocacy howto (I care) (Score:5, Insightful)
To state the obvious, Sun isn't Microsoft. Microsoft is a convicted, predatory monopolist. They have the money and the power to completely ruin OSS, as soon as they figure out how to do it. Don't think they aren't trying.
OSS isn't a company they can buy. It is difficult to sqaush something that is intangible and revolutionary. This is interesting to me because I love OSS, GNU/Linux in particular. I don't want to see it go away, and I want to know what Microsoft thinks about it, and what their strategies are. I want everyone else to know this too, especially the people who are able to fight against Microsoft.
OSS is immortal (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft really wants to compete with Linux they'll release the source to Windows. Eventually I think they'll do just that but not until they think they've pumped every dime out of Windows they can. Having Windows opensourced would of course benefit their competition also but as with most OSS projects the original owner of the code carries the big stick. Everyone else is free to split their own trees.. resell.. etc but if the original owner is selling it themselves then they'll get 90% of the business. Also they'll have a better chance at selling their apps, hardware, and support.
I believe that is one reason Linus does not sell a Linux dist. RedHat is not the first Linux dist but it's been doing it a long time and has had the most solid business of the different dists so it usually gets a large majority of the business.. but does not corner the market because Linus doesn't work for them.
Microsoft may bully some countries, the US included, into a protection racket for their software but in doing so would probably cause a backlash from many businesses.. even those currently using Microsoft products. Companies may like Microsoft software but having their choice forcible removed would give them reason to turn against Microsoft the company. So really I can't see DRM and such as a real stick for Microsoft to beat Linux up with.
So look for M$ OpenWindows one of these days. Microsoft is slow to pick up on trends but once they grasp the way the wind is blowing they play the game well. You can't compete with the community that makes your software and the community that uses your software when there is an alternative. They'll have to change their business model to stay in business but once having done so they'll no doubt execute the change better than most others and probably come out stronger for the change.
They'll probably follow a MacOS path of porting Windows to FreeBSD with some semi-open UI layer though my guess would be they'll be more likely to use KDE/Gnome as their base than start from scratch. Then they'll keep the applications commercial as long as they can.. slowly releasing layers of source as those layers are no longer profitable. I think Office will follow not to long after Windows as OSS because competition is strong there. That is one reason for their current XML push for file formats. I think they'll focus on the entertainment and business markets. Games have little direct OSS competition because large portions of them are more art than code. Games have a somwhat short profit lifetime so even if an OSS alternative comes out eventually Microsoft would have earned the profits from the game already. Vertical business apps just aren't very fun so most OSS devers don't make them. A few businesses release their own but usually they don't want to release anything that gives them a wedge over their competition.
If only.... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder how Palladium is supposed to stop cut-n-paste though...
Re:If only.... (Score:3, Funny)
you can cut text. The text will then be sent to an M$ server where it
will be "scanned" for correctness and inappropriate words (such as Linux)
will be removed. From there the "corrected" text will be sent back to your
PC where you can paste it for $0.25 (US).
Re:If only.... (Score:4, Informative)
Surely you jest. Given that the software controlling a box can be trusted to do the vendor's bidding, they could do anything, including stopping cut-n-paste.
If a document, say, Haloween XI, is available only in Word 2005 Palladium Edition, and the document is marked, "only allow copy/paste if License XY288273JJw8999 is in place", then you can bet they darn well will stop cut & paste. In fact, they could allow copy, and selectively enable paste. Even in non-Palladium applications. The "untrusted" app must make system service calls to obtain the contents of the clipboard, which would come back as:
Heck, they could even stop screen snapshots. Certian rectangular regions of the screen could just be blacked out in the screen snapshot. Only a trusted signed app could gain access to the raw unblocked pixels. The app would not be signed as trusted unless it withstood scrutiny to ensure that it didn't leak protected content. (i.e. a hypothetical Photoshop Palladium Edition might be able to edit a raw screen snapshot, but only if it preserved the licensing conditions of those raw pixels, and didn't allow viewing, copy, paste, etc. unless the condition "only allow copy/paste if License XY288273JJw8999 is in place". If Phosothop saved protected content, then only another "trusted" application could open it. That application could edit it, but would still enforce the license restriction of the content, now in the form of pixels. A non-trusted OCR program, for instance, could not open the document. The OS simply wouldn't allow it. But a trusted OCR program, duley signed, would enforce the digital rights restrictions and transfer them to the saved OCR'ed text file. (If it didn't then the OCR program would never have gotten "trusted" status under Palladium.)
I hope this information is useful and answers your original doubts that Palladium could stop cut & paste.
Basically there is a trusted and untrusted side of the fence. Once data exists on the trusted side, only trusted applications can manipulate that data. The data itself carries tags (or scripts?) that enforce the digital rights restrictions. If Microsoft were to develop a really flexible design for expressing the digital rights restrictions, then a piece of data could be tagged such as: "do not allow people with green hair to read this content.".
Truly amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya don't say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee, I always thought name-calling would be a sure way to win over customers. There's no way it could possibly backfire and cause consumers to look at other options, of course not. If company A appears scared shitless of company B, there's no way company A's customers would take a closer look at B's product, right? No way, won't happen.
Legal arguments on the other hand still could cause damage. Support the EFF [eff.org] today!
Long-term value?!?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they'd have better luck in NYC (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe Microsoft would have better luck in their campaign against Linux if they systematically vandalized the whole of NYC with Pro-MS/Anti-Linux stickers.
They've never that before, right? It's bound to work and probably won't cost them more than $50 or $60 in fines.
Running through the Truth Filter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: I wasn't aware of this memo existing because I'm just a PR Weasel, and totally out of the loop, but just in case this is a real memo then I'd better praise it before I'm selling French Fries.
Seriously though - if it wasn't authentic, they would have vehemently denied it was authentic in a way to discredit Eric Raymond.
Where's the Source? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Where's the Source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cubicle Nomenclature (Score:2)
If anyone doubts (!)
How many Microsoft employees do you think belong to or lurk
(When I did visit the "campus" a while ago, the private offices [with doors!] looked pretty comfy, though there was bit of a stale smell in the air.)
Re:Where's the Source? (Score:3, Funny)
s/marketing/products/G (Score:5, Funny)
Now if only their PRODUCTS were geared towards long-term customer value, maybe they would be having more success.
From the post... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I can't comment on the marketing, but the products certainly are. In the long-term, I put a lot of "value" into MS products once I as a customer have become dependent of them (think Exchange server and upgrade costs).
That's not a Response. (Score:2)
The comment they made has zero really to do with the actual memo itself, and goes on some OJ-Defense-Teamesque Red Herring that is avoiding the entire case at hand.
It's really simple actually:
1) Avoid the subject, and show the world how great you are by not letting them see how bad you are (Security through Obscurity)
2) ????
3) Profit.
Something tells me they're just going to continue munching on their foot till they bite themselves in the ass here.
Allright.... (Score:3, Funny)
.
Some advice... (Score:3)
So, if one day, your girl friend says she heard a rumor that you have been seeing her best friend,
DON'T REPLY "I will rather not comment on the authenticity of that rumor"!!!!!!!!
You might as well post pictures of yourself with the friend on your front door.
What M$ should have done here from a PR STANCE is-Say no, this is a forgery OR acknowledge the memo is the work of a remote, misguided outpost of a big corporation that has no official stance on Free software
OR, maybe tell the truth...nahhh
Re:Some advice... (Score:3, Insightful)
They also cannot simply claim that its a forgery or a fake, they tried the denial approach before (ie. the BSD TCP/IP stack issue) and it blew up in its face.
Better to just say no comment and waiut for it to blow over.
pseudo open source (Score:2)
Sounds like they are trying to reap some of the benefits of having open-source code while maintaining complete control of their ip. I doubt that will work out for them either.
Who to sue? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Linus.
2. Developers who wrote IP violating code.
3. Red Hat / SuSE / Debian / Mandrake / other distros.
4. Companies selling Linux-based devices e.g. Tivo.
5. Companies deploying Linux in their workplaces.
6. Cowboyneal.
Basically what I'm asking here is this: If Linux were found to be in violation of someone's (MS's) IP, would it be illegal to sell/distribute Linux or just to "consume" it?
Re:Who to sue? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be Red Hat, with their 200 million in the bank. Small change for a company like MS, but at least it could pay the legal fees if they won, and take down the largest pure play Linux company.
Of course, IBM might just have a problem with that little strategy, and has the muscle to beat MS into the ground, or at least cost them a lot of money. I could see IBM buying Red Hat just to avoid the precedent should MS win.
Red Hat knows this, which is why you don't see NTFS in their kernels, or MP3 players in their distro, things like that. They know they are the nearest deep pockets in a lot of these cases.
Re:Who to sue? (Score:2)
>> 3. Red Hat / SuSE / Debian / Mandrake / other distros.
[*snip*]
#3 - Most likely of all - they're directly profiting from the sale
Really? Debian is directly profiting the sale of Linux? Nobody told me that! I want my share!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Is it my impression (Score:2)
Maybe it has something to do with the "view changes" option in Microsoft Word?
How many have noticed? (Score:5, Interesting)
The paradigm is unique to the industry I think.
the correct link to original memo (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft's achilles heel is communicable (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft believes many of its efforts to market its products against Linux and open source are backfiring
The way I see it, the greatest strength of free software is that the people involved have not traditionally been greedy in their pursuits. Conversely, greed is Microsoft's achilles heel. Even if stroking the egos of those involved in open software is unintentional, the movement will most likely fail if the community acquires a lust for something other than making high-quality software available to all, without discrimination.
That being said, I ask why we care (within reason) about what Microsoft says about Linux, be it good or bad?
Re:Microsoft's achilles heel is communicable (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Microsoft's very existence is an impediment to creating quality software. If for nothing else than that you're required to implement whatever brain damaged 'standard' Microsoft has foisted off on everybody for interoperability reasons.
And in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And in other news (Score:3, Insightful)
These are probably just DNS servers operated by one of their isps. It's kinda hard not to use *BSD or Linux for something like a DNS server that needs absolutly no other configuration than network and bind. Very cheap setup. Just hardware and bandwidth.
Authenticity of the halloween docs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source v. M$ (Score:2)
It comes down to a matter of perspective. M$ is attempting to make as much money as possible. That is their basic business goal. If they can get people to use an inferior product by market dominance than they will do so. Especially if such a tactic is cheaper (and thereby more profitable).
What about Linux? Since it is open source its free, so its goal, by definition, cannot be to make as much money as possible. So the goal of the open source use of linux is to make the best operating system possible.
Regardless then, of what M$ may do, Linux will continue on. Its proponents and those who utilize it will not simply stop using it because M$ hires another class of marketers, they don't care. It will continue to be refined, it will continue to be free, there will still be those attempting to make money off of it, but it will remain, at its core, an effort to do something right.
It is my humble belief, therefore, that M$ will not be able to ever rid itself of Linux. It is fighting a war with itself. Linux is not fighting a war of survival with M$ it is merely attmepting to improve itself. M$ must continue to make money and Linux, as a free workable OS, is a threat to that. M$, however, is not a threat to Linux.
My $.02
Re:Open Source v. M$ (Score:2, Insightful)
M$, however, is not a threat to Linux.
Tell that to the guys who earn a wage from linux coding, supporting linux, all the rest. If Microsoft stuff gets to the point where linux alternatives aren't viable for companies and the like, there goes a lot of linux support down the drain.
Yes, linux won't die because there'll always be the hackers and free-time coders, but without the support of large, money-making organisations that's where it'll stay.
Phil, just me
Please stand by (Score:4, Insightful)
And now that they have their marketing all fixed up to be a long-term customer value, they're ready to address the long term value of their products -- please stand by for Bill Gates to announce Microsoft's "Value Computing" initiative.
Microsoft Fails to "Get It" (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh Microsoft, you don't get it, let me count the ways.
Bad-mouthing Linux doesn't work. It fails because people _like_ Linux, and Linux _works_. What else can you say? Trying to tell people that a free operating system has a higher cost of ownership than their product which costs hundreds or thousands of dollars makes Microsoft look foolish. Arguing that "you'll need to pay people to maintain it" is almost laughable.
Microsoft, the life cycle of your products is deplorable. It used to be that businesses were willing to cede that due to hardware advances, they'd have to replace office PCs every 3-5 years. That's no longer the case. The office staff will hardly tell a difference between a Celeron 800 and the new Pentium 4 machines. So, businesses are finally going to get some realistic life out of the investment. However, Microsoft still wants to maintain the same life cycle of their operating systems. Even worse, if you don't fit into their upgrade schedule, you have security problems that are likely to be unresolved as your version of their OS retires. Microsoft, people are understanding that the insecurities of your operating system _work in your favor_ to promote the obscenely short life-cycles of your product.
Microsoft fails to understand that their money grab in licensing changes, their unmitigated gall at calling their customers thieves via the BSA and many other ways of annoying the IT managers through-out the world has -- Microsoft, get ready for the clue here --
_alienated customers_!
That's right. Microsoft, take a long hard look at the likes of large monopolistic phone companies and see why people will opt for something that's not necessarily better, but tolerable in order to eliminate the intolerable dealings with Microsoft.
Needs a Tuneup (Score:3, Funny)
There goes their marketing against Linux back-firing again.
Re:Agent Smith (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Quick, one more evil Bill (Score:2, Funny)
Re:All these leaks.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Could be disinformation. They say the best lies have some of the truth in them.