Gates: Open Source Kills Jobs 976
theodp writes "On the Malaysian leg of a whirlwind Asian tour, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates voiced his concerns over the growing goodwill towards open source, especially in Asia, emphasizing how damaging open source software can be. 'If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source. It is not something you do as a day job. If you want to give it away, you work on it at night,' he said. Gates, who apparently has never contended with the horrors of a VB upgrade, when on to say that '[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility.'"
More nonsense (Score:1, Interesting)
Open source kills Microsoft jobs, maybe. It creates jobs in Malaysia (or any other place where Gates is speaking, unless it's on his own corporate campus). It creates the vibrant, multifaceted, competitive atmosphere that made the computer world such an interesting and innovative place before the Microsoft monoculture took over.
Obvious quote (Score:2, Interesting)
-Gandhi
Out-Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Helping your neighbour kills jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
This is just Yet Another Stupid Argument against Free Software, which should disappear as quickly as the others.
In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
The invention of email and corporate intranets killed secretarial jobs.
Anti-smoking campaigns are killing jobs in the tobacco industry.
Hybrid cars are killing jobs in the oil industry (or will in the future anyway).
CD Baby threatens to kill jobs in the recording industry.
Should I go on?
Re:More nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
More nonsense from Gates.
He's on the losing side, but he still knows how to fight. Notice his sales pitch to the asian governments:
FTA:
In the case of software piracy, Gates said Microsoft is having "good dialogues" with Asian governments, one area being their loss of tax revenue "when people don't pay for software".
The obvious corollary to this is that if you're using free (as in beer) open source software then you aren't paying taxes either. The technological solution to both of this problem and the piracy one is the same: trusted (by Them not You) Computing.
Horrors??? Destroying Jobs??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Internet Explorer vulnerabilities make plenty of people hate computers, and stop using the Internet. What do you think having fewer customers mean??? More jobs???
Improving computing and the Internet as a whole CREATES JOBS. Microsoft crap KILLS JOBS.
Open Source can create jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
Smart and evil?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gates is showing once and again that he is a smart guy who will take any advantage he can to get what he wants.
I remember a settlement Microsoft made with some school district. But instead of sending a check to the school, Microsoft offered them computers with the windows operating system. By negotiating a settlement in such a way, it is like getting free advertising. Most people do not want to learn 2 or 3 operating systems, they just want one they know how to use. How many of those high school students went on to use Windows based PC's in college and beyond? I don't know the anwser, but I do bet some would have used Apple if they had Apple computers in their lab.
I think the problem with Gates and Microsoft is they are unethical. It is one thing to make a product and sell it, another thing to use strong arm tactics to force people to use it. It has been said many times, but my local CompUSA and Circuit City only sell computers with Windows on them. And what is worse, my Sony Vaio laptop came with Windows, but not the CD to install it as I wish. Instead it reformats the hard drive into pre-determined partitions. And I can not pick what programs to install from that CD, it installs everything as it was when I first turned the laptop on. Getting some of that unwanted software off the PC was real work. Yuck.
But there are things Gates can do to be more friendly. Don't force windows to want a whole drive all to itself. If I have drive, and want to have a small partition for linux, don't force windows to reformat that partition to ntsc or fat. Let it be. It is a pain to have to do everything after windows is installed.
I think Bill Gates is obsessed with controlling the entire market share for computer operating systems, and now is moving into media control with his DRM technology and windows media player 9. What people really want is choice. What Windows does is take away choice.
Also from the article, and this scares me:
Earlier, Gates talked about the contributions Windows has made to the Asian economy. "Windows has opened up opportunities for computers and chips to be built in Asia. This will continue to be true for [such] software in providing high-paying jobs," he said.
Can we expect many of these high paying jobs to leave the USA? Is this Gates master plan. Make the USA dependant on Windows based software, then move as much of the production outside the USA?
Also:
Gates said Microsoft is having "good dialogues" with Asian governments, one area being their loss of tax revenue "when people don't pay for software".
Does this mean Gates will want some terrif imposed on all software, then work out some exemption for Microsoft? He has proven to be smart and creative in making thinks work out the way he wants it to, and he has proven to be unethical. I would not be suprised if he tried to stifle competition.
Re:stupid argument (Score:1, Interesting)
In a capitalist economy open source software would cause the collapse of the programming industry if it became popular. The only thing saving us now is the fact that Open Source sucks and few people are willing to use an inferior product, even for free.
The software industry has to face up to the fac... (Score:3, Interesting)
This latter model is really scary, because they sell it to you as if it were a durable good, yet you don't really own it, because it's I.P. and they specify the ways you may use it.
Either it's a durable good, you buy it, you own it...
Or it's I.P. and the so-called durable good is media-only, replacable for cost-of-media, only.
IMHO, they've only been getting away with 'manufacturing software' because we've been on the front of the curve. Even now MS is finding that it's own worst enemy is its own installed base of 'durable bits' that customers see no need to upgrade, because it does what they need.
Yet at the same time, we haven't figured out how to turn software into a service model. I suspect a large part of the reason is that remnants of the manuracturing model blow the service model out of the water, here in the transition time.
Re:History is against him. (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare the number of jobs at all the propritary network companies vs. the internet. AOL/Compuserve/etc had jobs, but nothing compared to what happened after they all switched to support the open standards internet. Interesting that prices shot down and they still made loads of money. It was only once a few large companies are in control that profits dropped
How about the PC's itself. When it first came out, the main systems were Mainframes, Cybers, and Dec's. There were jobs, but nothing like what was created during the PC reveloution.
For that matter, Unix itself used to create jobs very quickly. During the 70's, 80's, and early 90's, all sorts of jobs were created. The system was basically Open and the companies had to follow each other. As time moved on, each company tried to differientiate itself and add proprietary parts so that they could get their profits way up. Once they had large profits, they were killing their own future. Think how cheap suns/hp/ibms use to be. Then once they became the big three, their prices became so high, that the desktop went to dos/win3.1.
Ms is currently maintaining high profits, but it is allowing linux to make major in-roads. Very shortly, it will be too late for MS to stop it, even with the coming attack via patents.
Worse than NeoCon lies... (Score:3, Interesting)
Gates sounds like Cheney continuing to go around saying Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked, despite massive evidence to the contrary.
I guess all those people working at RedHat, SUSE, IBM, et. al. are wondering why they don't have jobs...
I guess if Gates said the sun rose in the West, all the Microsopht fanbois would cheerfully ignore reality.
Free software is GOOD for economic activity (Score:2, Interesting)
Gates implies that anything that prevents the sell of a certain product (in this case commercial software) is necessarily bad for the economy, which is pretty obvious nonsense. After all, the money the potential buyer would have used to buy that product doesn't magically vanish because that particular transaction won't take place, will it? The buyer still has it and can use it to buy other products instead.
What matters is the net effect in the economic activity, and I contend that free software is actually good for the economy, because it gives small companies cheaper and more convenient access to the basic software tools they need, improving their chances of success.
What's better for economic activity and employment, having twenty more small companies succeed because of their savings in software, or having another million dollars in Gates's hands? The answer seems obvious.
OSS does kill jobs. Now, who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously the jobs destroyed will be MicroSoft jobs, and Oracle jobs, and SAP jobs, and the like: fewer people will be paid to make software. Perhaps many of the next generation programmers will become professionals of a different sort, but continue to program as part of OSS? Or whatever. Who know, and who cares? It's pure speculation.
My thesis is this: OSS will kill jobs, but that is not a Bad Thing(tm).
A common parallel example is getting rid of farm subsisdies in the US. It would absolutely kill many farming jobs (mostly small famers), lower agricultural prices (long-term), and invariably increase efficiency and competition in Ag. This is good for just about everyone, save a particular group of current farmers. At the end of the day, EVERYONE ELSE benefits, though. OSS development is the equivalent of taking a cash subsidy from current farmers, er, programmers.
So, please, saying that OSS doesn't kill particular jobs is both naive and dangerous. It OSS makes supporters look ignorant. A better position is that we have no obligation to support jobs that have effectively become "welfware" in the new OSS software economy.
May get attention, but not money (Score:2, Interesting)
MS FUD machine running on fumes, -1.
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
The entire Microsoft legacy is built around selling software (aside from some of the peripheral mouse|keyboards and SideWinder game devices (are they ever going to get around to supporting these again?).
Anyway, Microsoft's biggest fear is not losing money. It's becoming another IBM . Microsoft loves being in the pilot's chair and doing whatever they want to with practically no oversight (except the occasional lawsuit which they make go away). They don't pay dividends on stock (which Ralph Nader has been working on for years) - which provides them with $50B or $60B of ca$h in the bank, let alone the value of outstanding shares. They pretty much can work on whatever they want to, whenever they want to, and for whatever period of time, etc. They have any number of persons (or "IQ Points" as they used to call them, presuming there were "150 IQ Points" for each person (on average); e.g., "We need 3'000 IQ Points for this project." If you follow the common press (and read it tongue-in-cheek), it's obvious they have a lot of things down the road. When you assemble a dozen or two Ph.Ds in an an arcane subject and turn them loose, what could be happening? Certainly nothing now.
Back to Microsoft
Has Microsoft shown its vulnerability? You betcha. We all know Microsoft almost missed the Internet boat, supposedly striking WHG III during one of his Summer Sabbaticals where he reads and comes up with personal ideas when he returns with great insight as to what should happen next. When the architects of
My prediction?
This is finally the thing where Microsoft misses the wrong boat and spells the end of Microsoft pounding everyone else as though they were a hammer. They missed the boat because they saw it as a fad which had no chance of passing the real-world chance. "Who (and why) would subscribe to 'free' software? This is ridiculous. In the meantime, we'll continual making software for sale and when they come crawling back to us, we'll be there, passing the hat, and collecting their money."
Re:History is against him. (Score:1, Interesting)
1.) OSS means less jobs
2.) OSS means more costs of maintenance
Assuming the second correct, doesn't that mean that organizations are now employing more to maintain OSS instead of paying for proprietary software?
Re:you can't spend a penny twice (Score:1, Interesting)
I like to think of it as the next stage after the information age. We've had lots of ages - the iron age (when only the rich could afford lots of iron), the age of enlightenment (when only the rich could afford education), the industrial age (when only the rich could afford all the new manufactured goods), and then the information age (when only the rich had access to all the information). All of these past ages were brought to an end by the commoditisation of the last big thing - widespread iron availability, universal education, consumerism, and now the freeing up of information technology with open source software.
I don't know what the next age will be, but so far our race has never once moved backwards. All we have to fear are the luddites - and Mr Gates is looking increasingly like one.
History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Also interesting is that Cringley has often written about Microsoft's technology making "full employement" for msft technicians [pbs.org]. Interestingly, though, he thinks Apples kill more IT jobs than Linux.
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this important to say? Because from a text and technologic point of view it LOWERS the worth of the software. I think it's a psychologic thing, sortoff like propaganda, manipulation.
Selling software never happened with proprietary software, at least not in this very way it is explained to the common man ("buy XP for $100!"). Support contracts, licenses, those are sold. Or when Apple gets bought by Microsoft (example) then part of it is the ownership of some properties of Apple which including software (even FLOSS!).
Re:Isn't it ironic? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, they had to fire the 'computer reset gui' didnt they?
But, for the rest, I must agree. A fortune 500 company switching to Linux would most likely kill jobs at Microsoft directly, but save them at the fortune 500 company (or their customers if they pass on the savings). And that holds on any scale of the customer.
Given that Microsoft themselves is a large offshore outsourcer, the jobs killed at Microsoft may well be outsourced jobs to begin with.
We're all fed-up about overpriced low quality software. That's why open source has a good chance. If Microsoft wishes to keep making money, they 'll have to restructure themselves into a value-add company instead of a repeating overpriced old-junk selling company. In the end, that will be good for the economy, on all sides, Microsoft, their customers, and their tax collectors. But since it requires Microsoft to get off their soft cushioned butts, they chose to fight the impending change.
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:History is against him. (Score:2, Interesting)
>software. It is likely to be smaller though
There will be a market for making it as well. The only difference is that a company will not make billion of $$ for code written 10 years ago, and that is a good thing for everyone.
>Note this effect is even more greatly enhanced
>by the fact that the free software will not be
>taxed unlike proprietary software.
everything else people buy with the same money will be taxed the same way. govs will not loose their tax money that's for sure.
>A good parallel to this might be writing.
No a good parallel is engineering. there are no secrets there, yet not everyone can build a house.
Today, thousands of years later, people pay to build a house.
Software industry will not be destroyed and programmers will still be well paid. But the payment will be analogous to the actuall work done. A company like microsoft simply will not be able to make that kind of money any more by selling the same thing to millions of users. It's the nature of opensource: If millions of users need something there will be an opensource alternative.
Just imagine those 50 billions, now useless in MS 's pockets, in the market for new computers, new software, new programmers...
Bill Gates obviously doesn't understand economics (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, consider the following situation:
Microsoft employs 100 people to work on Internet Explorer and all of its problems. These individuals work 40 hours a week and are paid $50,000 a year. All is well. Microsoft has a team which works on fixing problems in IE, the team-member get paid, and customers get a security update in IE every blue moon or so.
Now, along comes another group, Mozilla. They give away source code to the gecko core and get a small group of volunteers to work on Phoenix for free. These individuals choose to do this in their spare time, off of the job. They produce a browser which is arguably superior to IE.
Now, lets say that Phoenix drives IE out of the market, and Microsoft thus has to can it's IE project, meaning the workers get fired. Is this a bad thing? Well, obviously MS and their employees don't like it. But it is still good for society over-all.
Previously, customers had to pay money to MS for a browser. Now, they don't. They can conserve the resources (money) that they would have spent on the browser, and spend it elsewhere, on their highest valued use.
And what of Microsoft and the workers? Well, either they can make their product good enough that people will pay for it over a free alternative, or they have to eliminate the product-line or sell it off to whoever will buy it. What about the former MS employees working on IE? Well, it is unfortunate for them, but no-one has the right to be employed. Certainly, consumers in such a case would have demonstrated that they aren't willing to pay a higher price for an inferior product.
If they are laid off, they can find jobs else-where, where their labor will go towards a use more highly valued by consumers than what they had been doing. This is simply the reallocation of labor from less highly-valued uses to more highly-valued uses, resulting in greater overall efficiency.
If any programmer here is going to complain, I would ask you this: Given two computer-systems, both of the same quality in your estimation, would you buy the one that is priced higher or priced lower? The answer is you'd buy the one that's priced lower. Now, why would you expect anyone to pay more for a product of the same or lesser quality, when they can pay less for a product of the same or greater quality? It is hypocrisy to ask others to pay more money for inferior products.
I wouldn't be surprised if next thing, Bill Gates is going to file lawsuite against FOSS developers. After all, they are undercutting their competitors, and this is an evil anti-competitive strategy. Of course, if they price their products at the same price, they can be accused of collusion; and heaven forbid if they price them higher, then they're accused of price-gouging.
Re:History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better t (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny that you quote that. At my last job, we made the opposite change. Went from about 100 linux boxes/x-terminals to a 100 windows boxes. There were two of us techs, and our workload increased significantly. We no longer had time to work on "fun" projects that people wanted - web access to e-mail, trying new products, etc. We spent all of our time patching OSs, fighting viruses, and reinstalling hosed systems. Sure, we still used the same two techs, but I finally quit from the tedium of the job. It was no longer fun.
I think it all depends on what you want your IT people doing. Use windows, and they'll spend a lot of time fixing windows boxes. Use unix/linux, and there's a good chance that you'll be able to assign interesting projects that improve everyone's effectiveness and efficiency.
Half truths: The only way to FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of jobs, Mr. Gates? Point-of-sale software programming jobs seems to be the only possibility--a mere fraction of programming jobs out there--which just happens to be the business that you are in. It diminishes Bill's field and invigorates the industries that have anything to do with customization, localization, and face-to-face service and support.
"[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility or do that kind of integration [for seamless computing to work]."
"We certainly will have open-source apps that compete with and that run on Windows. But when it comes to a guarantee or having someone who stands behind your software, [open source] is typically not something done in a capital approach."
Hail, Prince of the Obvious! More obvious information: Microsoft doesn't exactly specialize in guarantees either. Open Source doesn't do all those things, but companies can. Bill's statment is like me saying that closed-source doesn't guarantee free croissants. Of course it doesn't, but Microsoft sure would if it meant keeping Linux out of Paris.
As for the integration thing, he's right. Open Source environments don't integrate like Microsoft does. And is probably better off for it. Isn't that what got us into all this IE trouble in the first place? How frenzied integration is somehow an advantage is a mystery to me.
He's stating a few half-truths and presuming that his fragment of the truth leads everyone to his MSFT-centric conclusions. He makes about as much sense as a Linux zealot might. His only advantage is that he knows the business vocabulary that will get the attention of the bureaucrats. That, and he's Bill Fucking Gates and what he says goes. Outside of Slashdot, the man is perceived as a technological messiah.
Re:Oh the irony. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes he will have to morph his company to a service one just like IBM did and I don't think he is too happy about that either.
Umm Mr.Gates it actually does guarantee that (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no guarantee in the propriatary world that there will be upward compatibility. The fact that you can migrate you data to the latest and greatest or God for bid an other vendors product is completly the will of the original vendor. Sure most of the time there is an upgrade path but if a product is discontinued their may not be. The data storage might be binary and it would be a massive under takeing to reverse engineer that data. Look at all the effort that it has taken to be able to import a word doc with reasonable accuracy for example. At least with OSS you can look at the source code to your old app and probably use the file/data access code from it in your new app or simply to create something new and simple that can convert using that old code to parse and writeout back out to some better know format. There are all sorts of very valid reasons why a closed source proprietary solution might be better, Gates needs to focus on those instead of spreading out right lies. The problem he has of course is the vast majority of those good reasons are decreasing in value to the average user as skilled people are becomeing more availible and the barries to entry on large scale information systems is shrinking daily.
Re:History is against him. (Score:2, Interesting)
The quality I _think_ you refer to is that of the user learning curve, availablilty of apps, i.e. NOT security or stability am I correct?
Generally it can be said that a good portion of the
It seems though, the majority fits into the latter crowd, which holds the MS market share stable.
Keep in mind also, Bill has billions to concentrate on any given project, and MS has been around alot longer than Linux, those combined will make the road harder for linux to traverse, if it is meant to be, and MS remains inflexable and unwilling to accept its role in the internet community as a team player, linux can overcome those odds in time.
Time will tell.
Re:History is against him. (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you think MS has been trying to do the last few years? The problem is, it's not easy to find new $1-2Bn businesses to replace ones that are eroding. See http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0422/040602_ news_microsoft.php for example. It's the classic inventor's dilemma. MS is too big to care about $100 million businesses, so they miss out on things that might grow later. And they missed the one thing that a few years ago would be big enough for them to care about by being too greedy (that being internet services on the order of .Mac and others).
Re:History is against him. (Score:3, Interesting)
While there will always be a market to customized software for simple things, eventually either one major type will take dominance (Winamp or iTunes for mp3's) or will completely collapse under the sheer amount of them. For an example on this, simply look at video codecs ranging from the horrid Realplayer codec, to the generally accepted Divx, to the more obscure Xvid along with new DVD designed codecs to add things such as different languages, subtitles, and DVD player like simplicities such as chapter skip/reverse, fast forward, etc... And yes, all these codecs and players are free (not to mention Xvid is open source). As it stands, no one seems to be able to establish a dominance in the mp3 software player or video codec market yet (Winamp is trying but not there yet and Divx has barely made Microsoft get serious against them.
True there will always be a market supporting software, but for how long and how much support? Microsoft and Linux may be the old Nintendo and Sega of the OS war but what about 'the next big thing'? We all consider Microsoft products to be bad but by your logic, in the event that Microsoft should ever be 'defeated' and made open source, it'll continue to exist and be supported on the net even with new future OS systems. In this case we've made a deal with the devil where the devil wins even if he loses. We'll tear down 'the evil Microsoft' only to have it continue to exist on millions of computers with no more future updates against bugs and viruses leaving them insanely vunerable to hackers for years after their downfall.
Not spend money on closed source software? Goodie! Now send a letter to the boss of a multimillion dollar corporation explaining why they should switch to Linux and then give all its employees a pay raise in order to pass the net gain down. Whoopie. Unless your a small business owner whos barely make a net gain, saving an extra one or two thousand dollars a year (a full-time month or two's pay at minimum wage including taxes) isn't worth spending years of programming to understand how to use Linux without hiring a system operator for Grandma's Corner Cookies.
On this topic, Gates is right. Open source is bad in the long run. Sure it means things are 'supposedly' safer, less buggy, and cheaper. But in the long run, who do you sue when a hacker breaks into a financial bank insitution and withdraws a couple million dollars? Who do you point the finger at when the world's international travel system is down for 2 hours and causes dozens of potential plane crashes because some jackass launched a DNS attack? Who do you tell the government to blaim when the weapon designs of the new M6 carbine (fictional) is stolen because some hacker used a backdoor exploit that was listed 'to be fixed' but was exploited 5 minutes after it was listed on the net? Programming is STILL a specialized skill, otherwise we'd see John Carmacks all over the place, Duke Nukem Forever would be out already, and Bill Gates wouldn't be stupid enough to drive a gasoline truck into a napalm bomb.
Re:History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better t (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that the Mac, prior to OS X, is adequate for most company tasks, but has major problems of its own (remote manageability being the first, and technical things like memory management being a second). In the end it doesn't require just half the effort -- it probably decreases the efficiency of the IT department sufficiently to make it impractical.
With OS X, things improved on all fronts quite drastically. However....
I see no reason why OS X should take any less time than Linux to support and
Macs cost much more than Linux systems.
Secondly, I think you make an excellent point about maintenance of Windows vs Linux systems. Windows requires much more maintenance on average, and and by all accounts has more downtime than Linux.
My point of trying to get my customers to switch to Linux is that they become free to dream about how they want their computer to work for them, not the other way around.
Also, the people making the recommendations are not the ones whose jobs are at risk if jobs are to be cut.
Minor dividends (Score:5, Interesting)
What are those savings for? To buy a small nation? To buy all the companies left in the software industry? To buy another industry? To buy favor with government officials? They're not spending it, so it's owed to investors.
Re:whew... (Score:3, Interesting)
OSS == jobs, MSFT != jobs -- Here's why (Score:2, Interesting)
Open source software lowers capital barriers to market entry.
Proprietary software vendors will not create jobs for Americans:
So, ON THE WHOLE, OSS expedites job creation, MSFT et al. do not.When I had this discussion with MSFTie Rob Scoble, he wrote:
And I replied: Q.E.D.Re:M$ can be hiring more (Score:1, Interesting)
This results in a net loss on local, state, and federal (unemployment) levels.
As for MS employees - they're not called Microserfs for nothing. Word is once you rise high enough on the ladder, the breakneck pace slows and your job consists of ordering serfs around, much like Feudal Lords.
Library's vs Bookstores (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason is the same reason why Open and Closed Source software will always be around: value. Both software camps offer something of value.
The value proposition of close source generally offers idiot-proof installation with an army of monkeys taking support calls in case you get stuck.
Open source offers the opportunity to get your hands greasy under the hood, to make software do what you want. But you gotta have the time and desire to put into it.
Gates is not a fool, but he is a slave. He is forced to be the puppet that he is because Microsoft is a two trick pony (Windows and Office). His shareholders and his employees need him to defend the only solid revenue they got, because as history has shown he can't seem to make anything else work.
Closed Source Kills jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:History is against him. (Score:3, Interesting)
'some one fucked up', instead of 'Microsoft fucked up'.
Because I really doubt you'll be sueing Microsoft, right now when something goes wrong, do you ?
So how is that different ?
Ooh, I know:
you'll add, but they've already fixed it too, it won't happen again (atleast not that way).
Instead not you say: And Microsoft hasn't fixed it yet, we have come up with some kind of workaround, sort of.
ALERT! Amazon and Google steal jobs (Score:4, Interesting)
Scale, not growth. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure that it is so tied to growth. If it stops growing, but remains constant, then Microsoft's growth will come from new markets and will be slow.
The bigger problem is this: Microsoft has been so successful because no other proprietary software maker can touch them on scale. They can therefore leverage a huge economy of scale, sell their products at prices which make their competitors go bankrupt, and still make a profit. This works up to a point untill.....
You guessed it.... Free Software.
The problem with FLOSS is that it spreads the cost of development more efficiently than even Microsoft's model. Therefore, it has a much lower critical mass than Microsoft. Hence as the software beginst to grow, it undermines the scale which makes Microsoft competitive.
I used to work for Microsoft. Personally I think that they are not agile enough to come out of this with their business model in tact because they are too successful. They cannot just move to greener pastures like, say, Intuit. There are no greener pastures.
They will survive no doubt, but not as the company they are today. Expect to see them go through an extremely painful transition resembling the finest medieval torture techniques.... What comes out may not resemble what went in....
WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
WTF???? I think you have immediately shown me you don't know what you are talking about.
I suspect that Linux and OS X have similar levels of stability given reasonable quality hardware.
But the bit about the CLI vs GUI strikes me as extremely odd, and suggests to me that you don't do any real administration of networks, servers, etc. Two points about it:
1) With X11-based systems (NOT OS X apps not based on X11), I can run them on any system and export the display to any other system. If I have to use GUI tools for administration (which I generally avoid), this means I don't have to walk down the hall to reconfigure a server which happens to be in another location (or drive across town, if they are in different buildings).
2) More importantly, although a GUI allows one to be more productive with things like reading reports, graphs, etc. it isn't so great for being productive while telling the computer to do something relatively complex. The reason is that the density of information which an admin can send to the computer via a keyboard is MUCH higher than can be had with a mouse. This allows for optimal administration, scripting, etc. but the computer cannot provide you with as much information as it can with a GUI. Therefore although GUIs are really nice for office apps, they are miserably inefficient at actual administration.
Every single cryptic arcane placed-in-one-spot-on-this-system-but-placed-in-a
If companies are going to avoid standardizing their platforms, then they get what they get. OTOH, with any sort of standardization, you don't have the problem you are suggesting.
Also, I have NEVER spent 4 hours trying to figure out how to edit the configuration of any software which I was even marginally familiar with. And restarting a service is really simple assuming people properly set up scripts for this in the init.d directory.
Also, what do you need out of a workstation?
Most employees need to run Word, Excel, Outlook (so I recommend Evolution and OpenOffice on Linux). WTF do you need 64-bit PCI busses for? Nearly all of this work is done in the CPU.
If I want a really rugged workstation (not a server), I usually budget about 1000 to 1500.
For graphics design or technical workstations you may need more hardware, but if you want you can be selective on these matters.
Regarding downtime, here are a few facts:
1) My firewall runs on an acer advantage, pentium 1, low-end hardware. Average time between reboots: 6 months to a year or more.
2) My intranet server runs a slightly modified Red Hat 7.1. Runs databases, email, intranet web servers, and jabber. When I was a hobbiest and used to play games on it I would reboot it at least once a week due to a bad video card driver. Now that I am running my business off it, I run it headless, and it is usually several months between reboots.
Re:Oh the irony. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see the Service|Product thing as being a big issue. Like IBM, Microsoft can really play it both ways. Furthermore, eventually the tech business will get another hit idea like The Internet, and MS will be there to get the upgrade revenues.
As far as all MS's revenue coming from Windows and Office, this is really a byproduct of them continually giving away the cow to get you to buy the milk. A lot of what makes up Windows/Office would be a seperate "middleware" product from someone else (for example,
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I've asked a lot of MS users about this, and so far every one of them has disagreed with you. Their answer is always of the form "The software I want/need is only available on DOS/Windows (depending on the year that I asked)."
So then I ask my followup question: "How many other kinds of computer systems did you look at?" And their answer is always the same: "None."
Invariably, MS users just know that software is only available on MS systems. They don't need to do any market research, because they already know the answer. There's no point in wasting time looking for something that doesn't exist.
There are, of course, lots of people who have done the obvious searches. They aren't MS users. They easily find alternatives, determine that the alternative is almost always of higher quality, and go with it.
But BillG and company (and IBM before them) have become rich betting that the great majority will never do even the slightest study of what's available. All it takes is a good-size marketing budget, and whatever you make will be the market leader, whether it's good or bad quality, because few people will ever look for alternatives.
Bill himself was in the enviable position to be able to use daddy's money to get into Harvard B-school, where he made the connections that allowed him to leverage an IBM marketing budget and do an end run against all those pipsqueaks who had demoed the viability of a "desktop" computer market. His marketing budget has remained greater than the total operating budget of all his competitors combined. So the great majority who just go with the "market leader" continue to buy from him, because they know there's no point at looking at anyone else's nonexistent software.
Anyway, try it yourself. Ask random MS users to name a single piece of software that runs on linux. I'll predict that, with very few exceptions, most of them will be unable to come up with anything at all. They have never looked, and they never will.
This shoots down the idea that they're buying based on any sort of "quality" determination. They're buying from the only software supplier that exists in their world.
(In the mainframe world, the same situation still exists, with "IBM" for "Microsoft" throughout.)
I have a job BECAUSE of open source (Score:4, Interesting)
Because of my exprience in Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl and various other technologies, I have a job at a company that uses these technologies exclusively. And the company is able to be competitive because it doesn't have to pay all of those licensing fees that would have to be paid if we used Windows Servers running IIS, ASP, SQL server, etc...
And of course, the entire internet runs on technologies that are open to everyone, http, tcp/ip, ftp, ssl, etc... many businesses would not exist if not for open source technologies.
Long live open source.
Re:Obvious quote (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you realise how many govt departments in Australia are using Open Source? What are they going to do, legislate against themselves?
I'd rather see the IT people in each country developing skills in open source, building and installing their own solutions, rather than teaching a bunch of drones neater handwriting so they can make out cheques to Microsoft.
It's a bit like the auto industry - many countries build their own to (a) keep the jobs local and (b) cut down on the river of cash flowing out of the country.
Re:Gates is right (Score:1, Interesting)
Here's where that argument falls apart (Score:1, Interesting)
If a business uses a machine, a tool, a process, or software, then it becomes part of the cost of doing business. If then can do something cheaper, then they will do it, because it means more profit. The guys who were using horses got rid of the horses when steam engines came out. The steam engines got thrown out when diesel engines came out. Etc etc.
All normal progress.
If a business tries a new tool, product, service, or piece of software, the expectation is that it will improve productivity. If it does, then it will be embraced. If it does not, then it is abandoned. Progress is rarely measured in smooth changes, but in fits and starts as people understand what is best and what doesn't work.
I'm being painfully obvious, because you seem smart, but are missing the point here.
If a business uses Linux (for example), and they find it saves them money, they will use it. If it turns out to be inferior to Windows (or Solaris, or SCO), then it will be abandoned.
So Microsoft only need worry about Linux if Linux really is inferior. If it is superior, then MS better worry.
Do you see why MS's argument is a false one? If I write an OS that is crap, but give everyone $50 to use it, will I win the OS wars? Probably not. Because its not worth it.
If I write an OS that is as good as windows, but make it cheaper, is that a threat to MS? You betcha. In fact, the more Gates et al protests, the more I think they're really worried about Linux and its cousins.
If I ran MS, I'd use some of that $60B in the bank and serve my customers better. Maybe write an OS that is geared towards making the customer's life better? They seem to be obsessed with XBox and Windows DRM. How does that make the core Windows OS better for its customers? Seems like MS is intent on trying to screw its customers these days. Maybe that's why they're worried.
Re:Scale, not growth. (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft relies on their programs being a commodity, while OSS transforms software into a tool to achieve other goals.
On another note, I suspect that MORE jobs would be created if each customer ware required to deploy OSS solutions (or to have a vendor do it for them) rather than pay a few hundred Microsoft people to write the code that runs on millions of customers' systems.
I interviewed the unix administrater at a local university as part of some report I had to write this year, and he told me how he takes code from the net, debuggs it for his architecture/configuration, and deploys it on the school's webservers. That's his whole job! And this job wouldn't exist if he was using Microsoft's generic offerings.
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather, they saw it as competition for "The Microsoft Network."
This represents the main problem facing Microsoft, and the stupid move they have done repeatedly: Rather than work with other people's standards, Microsoft has repeatedly tried to reinvent the wheel so that they get to be in the drivers seat. (And get to put up toll booths on the way, of course.)
Sometimes this works well (MS Word
THIS is where Microsoft will eventually screw up, royally. Microsoft will try to reinvent something fundamental to computing, for example, "TCP/MS" as a "secure replacement for TCP/IP (with mint sprinkles!)" and GNU/Linux + Apple will be there to smack them around for it. MS will either steadfastily try to force it, or change their tune too late, and they will start to lose clients because of it.
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
but you are WAY off about IBM.
Microsoft 'research & innovation' (if you are willing to call it that), has NOTHING on IBM. IBM is on the bleeding edge of MANY advanced engineering techniques, with really fantastic stuff in such fields like quantum computing and advanced materials (semiconducter).
MS is working on MS Bob. And reinventing Win32 as Avalon.
It's not just some research. IBM, every year for the last 10 years, has filed more patents then the next 10 companies/organizations put together. Sure, some of these are BS patents on rather silly things, but many are serious patents on products really worthy of patent protection.
IBM labs lets people loose to research whatever they want, really long-term stuff---Stuff that won't pay off for 20 years.
MS is worried about tomorrow. MS missing the boat means they are done for---they need to survive every generation.
IBM missing the boat means that they get to play again in round 2, round 3, and round 100.
I have a great deal more respect for IBM's research--- It is brilliant stuff, it is way ahead of its time, and it will change the world.
Depends on your perspective. (Score:5, Interesting)
From my point of view, it's Microsoft that's bad for the job market.
Demand for FOSS does create jobs... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fujitsu will be paying developers on the Postgresql project to develop additional features for the open source database.
http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/01/0
And that is just an example of open source developer jobs created due to the demand for open source software. I could give you lots of examples where open source software is creating new companies and jobs in various industries around the world because the free part of open source software makes the entry point much easier for those who are interested in entering the market.
burnin
Re:Bill's a victim of his own success (Score:3, Interesting)
pssssst! pssssssst, hey buddy! only SUCKERS acutally pay for microsoft software.
I haven't spent a dime on MS software, ever. And I never will! I realize that companies are in a different boat, w/r/t liability and licensing, but that's why companies will move to linux in droves over the next 5 years. It's like this: Right now, MS Office 2000 applications suite scores about 98 points out of 100. I personally have encountered one or two things I can do with OO.org that I can't do with Excel or MSWord, but there are LOTS of things that work just fine in Excel and Word that don't quite function correctly in OO.org. So let's say OO.org is at 80% today. But... there's nowhere for MSOffice to improve, because it's "good enough" now, and has been for the last 4 years. There is no rational reason to upgrade to MS Office 2003, ever.
OSS will keep getting better, and MS software will stay at about 98%. Eventually, OO.org will be at 98% too... it's just a matter of time. The bean counters will do the math, and demand that the IT guys justify the MS tax for the nth Office upgrade... and there won't be any clothes on that emperor, folks. I know, I know, preaching to the choir, but it used to be a question of if and now it's a question of when.
Re:Scale, not growth. (Score:2, Interesting)
I see it more like this: Microsoft relies on commoditizing hardware, to make way for higher premiums on software. This is why FLOSS scares them so much.
They're about to get Delled. FLOSS commoditizes software, to the point where you have so many choices and so inexpensively. Microsoft's whole backbone is software, and if that gets commoditized, there goes their lunch. Damn right they'll lash out at FLOSS.
Solution: Hire the open source programmers. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always thought that setting out to design and code up a project from thin air is a big risk. Much better to find an open source project that is nearly what you want, and hire the team who produced it to turn it into the product you want.
A viable open source project already has most of the risk removed because you know it works and you know it's wanted.
This would solve the problem caused by the two opposing forces; companies like microsoft who want to charge for software, and programmers who have too much time on their hands, who write open source projects to add to their portfolio.
Face it, a lot of open source projects are started by programmers just looking to get some credibility and get a real job. Everyone has to have an incoming for food, shelter and whatever.
Late post but . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
It may very well be to "compete" with Open Source, in the same way they "competed" with Netscape.
Microsoft may very soon drastically reduce the price of it's products in order to smother Open Source products. Imagine the next version of Windows and/or Office costing $50 (or less!). They don't need to make money now because they have tens of billions to live off of in the meantime. In the meantime, the fact that Open Source software is more or less free becomes glossed over by the fact that the Microsoft products that everyone is so familiar with are now so cheap. Microsoft is going to smother Open Source with bags of money.
I owe my job to open source... (Score:1, Interesting)
Four years later and I'm still developing in open source technologies - It's a niche market in South Africa (Dont know about the rest of the World) and a lot of people desire open source developers.
Open source has funded my car, home and lifestyle - And I'm earning good money for a 21 year old.
Re:Scale, not growth. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source. It is not something you do as a day job.
I think the people at RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla Foundation, etc. might take exception that this view.
[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility or do that kind of integration [for seamless computing to work]
And MS software does?!?
We certainly will have open-source apps that compete with and that run on Windows. But when it comes to a guarantee or having someone who stands behind your software, [open source] is typically not something done in a capital approach.
Read your EULA recently? MS EULAs explicitly say that they're not responsible for anything going wrong and they are liabel for only up to the cost of the software.. What's different about opensource?
Windows has opened up opportunities for computers and chips
Because opensource software obviously doesn't run on these computer things...?
one area being their loss of tax revenue "when people don't pay for software"
Ok, fair point, you can't tax people on something that costs no money... You can tax on the services provided though - all those hosting companies that use Linux to run their servers are making the governments money in taxes. But hang on, doesn't MS say that Linux has a much higher TCO anyway? So this isn't even a problem.
Service or Manufacturing? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean a lawyer doesn't manufacture contracts, does he? He provides a service.
Similarly, I provide a service by writing code (which is a contract with the computer).
We don't (directly) pay for laws. They are made by our governments. Sometimes, they are even made by lawyers working pro bono (ie, free). Laws also are modified over time (maintenance).
These are direct parallels to programming. So, why do people say coding is manufacturing but law is a service?
And do lawyers complain that somebody else making laws that they use reduces their jobs to a support role?
(BTW, do people say that lawyers working pro bono are destroying jobs?)
More free time for the Mac guy with OSX (Score:3, Interesting)
I've already discussed with the boss, the idea of setting up a small video production lab and getting some training in video editing. My workload is light enough that I can now take on other projects. Cool!
Re:Open Source and piracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Never would happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course the prices could be dropped to $30 and Microsoft would still make a tiny profit, but a company with such a huge market cap making almost no profit will not survive long operating that way.