Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Businesses

Steve Ballmer on MS Server, Linux, Yahoo & More 261

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the embrace-extend-extiguish dept.
yorugua writes "Furniture trembled as Steve Ballmer was to be interviewed by InformationWeek. He then went on to talk about Linux: 'How does Microsoft beat Linux? The same way "you beat any other competitor: You offer good value, which in this case means good total cost of ownership," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says.', Embrace-Extend-Extinguish: 'We say when we embrace standards, we'll be transparent about how we're embracing standards. [...] If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Ballmer on MS Server, Linux, Yahoo & More

Comments Filter:
  • Frankly... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MadMidnightBomber (894759) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:37PM (#22605484)
    I'd rather NOT hear about Steve Ballmer's deviations. Maybe that's just me.
    • by Reverend528 (585549) * on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:55PM (#22605686) Homepage
      There are certain things that no man should ever do to a chair.
    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:01PM (#22605740)
      So he doesn't like to "connect" to "networks" the same way that you do; who are you to judge?
    • by exabrial (818005) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:05PM (#22605780)
      Aparently his version of TCO doesn't include buying completely new machines in order to run Vista. After all, Vista is only 1/2 as slow on the same hardware... I remember the day when your programs took more resources than the operating systems... those were the days.
      • by maird (699535) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:29PM (#22606044) Homepage

        Vista is only 1/2 as slow on the same hardware

        I had to ask...on what hardware is Vista twice as fast?

      • Aparently his version of TCO doesn't include buying completely new machines in order to run Vista.

        No one does bloatware like Microsoft! [youtube.com]

      • by Ash Vince (602485) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:04AM (#22607930) Journal

        Aparently his version of TCO doesn't include buying completely new machines in order to run Vista.
        A new machine is usually cheaper than single day wasted by a highly skilled member or staff. If you are taking about some executives then a single hour can buy a laptop.

        Where I work we used to have a large number of memory leaks in one of our applications code (written by someone else before I joined the company). I wanted to audit the code and fix them as that seemed like the correct thing to do. I was overruled and told to just go and put vast amounts of memory in each server running the application. Since the application in question was only intended to be used for a five year project and that is nearly up this was a sound financial bet, we never fixed the code, but we did fix the issue effecting our customers by the cheapest possible means.

        Since everyone out there is familiar with windows from their home machine Windows gets it's much lower TCO from the money saved by not having to train your staff in the use of a new OS. The occasional inconvenience windows throws at us is not enough to justify the loss in productivity of training all our staff to a new and unfamiliar OS.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BokLM (550487)
          A new machine is usually cheaper than single day wasted by a highly skilled member or staff. If you are taking about some executives then a single hour can buy a laptop.

          Buying a new machine is a lot of time wasted. And you're usually not buying only one machine.

          Since everyone out there is familiar with windows from their home machine Windows gets it's much lower TCO from the money saved by not having to train your staff in the use of a new OS. The occasional inconvenience windows throws at us is not enough
          • by number6x (626555) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @10:18AM (#22609602)

            You are absolutely correct.

            I worked on the project to train employees to go from Windows 95 to Windows NT 4.0.

            Then I managed a team that trained employees to go from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows XP.

            Now we are budgeting the employee re-training program for the eventual move from Windows XP to Vista.

            Each move has been much bigger and more costly.

            If you choose to deploy Windows as a desktop OS you guarantee a high cost of re-training employees 2 to 3 times a decade. The argument that a switch to Linux would cost too much because you would have to re-train employees with the switch is a joke. With Windows you also incur the cost of re-training.

            However the three top Linux GUIs (KDE, Gnome, and XFCE) are all highly customizable. Although they are upgraded and updated regularly it is easy for an IT department to deploy the upgraded interface in a way that minimizes the UI changes to staff.

            One switch to Linux could probably pay for itself by avoiding the high cost incurred by choosing Windows and the forced upgrade/re-training cycle Microsoft imposes on its customers.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by rtb61 (674572)
          You now how really really stupid that is. You see in every business I have ever been involved in, the only thing that counts is applications. The OS shoudl be invisible and have absolutely no impact upon productivity at all. Open applications and copy files, that is it.

          Now unreliability and instability cause far more problems for everybody, becuase if your cant retrain a staff member or lack the competence to adjust the desktop layout and file structure to match what they are used to, well than you are ei

    • by jez9999 (618189)
      Don't you know? He wants to squirt you a picture of his kids.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Foofoobar (318279)
      Personally, I'd like pictures, film footage, skin samples and hair cuttings of Steves deviations. But thts just me. I'm build am army of clones to enter into the Chair throwing event in the 2020 summer Olympics in Iowa.
  • by Brian Gordon (987471) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:38PM (#22605494)
    He'll never live that down :D
  • by inflamed (1156277) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:40PM (#22605514) Homepage
    Microsoft will beat linux the same way they beat any competitor: by purchasing a rival (or in this partnering with Novell) and offering the same product with ten times the marketing force.
    • by thewils (463314) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:03PM (#22605762) Journal
      And the FUD, don't forget the FUD.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Not quite in this case. If you push with ten times the marketing and grab a huge lead, it's still linux. Thanks to the GPL it all has to be released. It's kind of like an elastic band. You can build a big lead (stretch the band), but the competitors will come up quick behind you because they have everything you do (snap back).

      Of course, this does not account for microsoft linux not following the GPL, etc, but in theory that's how it will go.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The GPL only applies to the Linux kernel. Microsoft could very well partner with a company like Novell and offer binary only packaged versions of their server software without having to publish a single line of code. If Microsoft really needed to hook into the Linux kernel they'd do what nVidia does which publish a gpl-licensed shim that loads a big proprietary binary blob into the kernel.
    • ...is do do away with the concept of CALs altogether, and sell their server OS for dirt cheap.
  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:40PM (#22605520) Journal
    If you're deliberately not complying with the standards, that's not really embracing them, is it?

    Though it's nice that they'll now start being up front about how they're introducing incompatibilities, as opposed to the quiet evil way they used to do it. Baby steps, I guess.
    • Is there some particular reason you actually believe him?
    • Their solution to not complying with the standards is to buy their own standards based on how they currently do things. Sure, they might not be the same standards everyone else uses, but they fully disclose that they use them. They even provide documentation on how to use these standards to interoperate with various black box products they produce.
    • One Small Problem (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bill_mcgonigle (4333) *
      Though it's nice that they'll now start being up front about how they're introducing incompatibilities, as opposed to the quiet evil way they used to do it. Baby steps, I guess.

      One small problem - they'll be transparently disclosing the deviations through patent filings.
      • Cool, Steve will let me know when the MS behemoth complete with millions of passengers comes rolling through, driving on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. Sort of like the obnoxious tour group leader on his way to Vegas who can't be arsed that people actually live and work in the neighborhood he's taking a shortcut through.

        Xix.
    • by ozbird (127571)
      For "embrace" read "rib-crushing bear hug".
    • by hey! (33014) on Friday February 29, 2008 @09:48PM (#22607340) Homepage Journal
      We have to be careful about the dishonesty here.

      There's nothing wrong with having things over and above, or alongside what a standard calls for. Almost everybody does this.

      What is wrong is selling people a product that supposedly uses a standard but does not interoperate with that standard. That isn't just deceiving the customer it's freeloading on the know-how and goodwill that went into the standard.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:41PM (#22605528) Homepage

    If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations

    And if we're threatening IP litigation through surrogates, we'll be transparent about setting up pipe funding to finance IP litigation through surrogates.

  • If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations

    Is he saying that Microsoft is filled with transparent deviants? We can be certain this doesn't refer to standards, given the problems with compatibility.

  • by Billly Gates (198444) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:43PM (#22605560) Journal
    Eventually it will believed to be true. I think even the liar will start believing it.

    Sadly many IT professionals believe Windows saves money because its an integrated platform. But ignore the reboots and being forced to buy alot more servers as Windows is not friendly with using one or 2 more apps on a single server compared to Unix.

    Oh and lets not forget about the blanket licensing fees. What is the average? $12,000 per year for licensing and support per desktop? Uh yeah thats true TCO.

    If it were not for Microsoft already setting the standards for Office the corporate world would have abandonded them years ago. Linux is alot cheaper and has 1/10th of the issues if only it could the VB apps and Office.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blind biker (1066130)
      Mod parent up:

      nd being forced to buy alot more servers as Windows is not friendly with using one or 2 more apps on a single server compared to Unix.
      This is so true! And it has been true way back, already in the days of NT 4.0. Each box was a separate specialized thing, and people who migrated from NetWare or Unix realized that they had to do way more administration work on NT.
    • Interviewer: So... tell us about windows server 2008

      Balmer: We innovated ... innovated, the developers can then ... innovate, and when we're done with ... innovative testing and furniture distribution innovation. That's how we do business.

      I think they've got brilliant business and marketing knowhow - but somehow with all of their talent you'd expect more innovation. I guess it must be a sore point for them.

    • So, for our embedded systems, my software friend was telling me that it's about the availability of the support. That there are a billion more MS trained guys than Linux guys that they can have on site any time they need help.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by L0rdJedi (65690)
      Oh and lets not forget about the blanket licensing fees. What is the average? $12,000 per year for licensing and support per desktop?

      You got a source on that number? By my estimate, the cost is nowhere near that for any decent admin. It may be that high for non decent admins, but you have those in both camps (Linux and Windows), in which case your support costs are going to be high either way.
      • by Serapth (643581) on Friday February 29, 2008 @07:57PM (#22606760)
        That number is complete bullshit unless there are some SERIOUSLY major flaws at the company, or they have some pretty obscure needs ( military level security protocols, triple redundancy on everything they do, etc... ) that bloat the support costs.

        At the last company I worked, we were @ 750 desktops. Under our EA agreement CALS for XP + Office Pro + Exchange + Messenger + Sharepoint were under 1000$ per user. Actual desktop support was handled by two techs making 50K/year each, so I guess for 750 desktops would be 100,000 / 750, or say 133$ per user on average.

        Beyond desktop licensing, the only other costs I can think of are about 20 Win2K3 server licenses ( for various reasons ) at about 1000$ a shot, various 5 SQL server per proc licenses at 5K a piece and then Exchange server... not sure the cost there, but it was minimal as we were on CAL based licensing. So, from a server side of things, that adds another 20,000 + 25,000 == 45,000 in server licensing, meaning 45,000/750 = 60$ per user.

        So, we were looking at 1000$ + 133$ + 60$ or 1193$ per user for all servers, desktop software licensing and physical support!. Finally we had ( at our peak ) 4 net techs averaging say 60K annually and 2 dev/sql guys again around 60K per year. So even factoring IT staff into the equation into the formula adds 360,000K to the number, or 480$ per user.

        All thats really missing from this equation is connectivity charges, physical server costs, backup, utilities like hydro, etc... which you are going to have to pay regardless to technology you go with... otherwise thats a pretty accurate budget for running a 750 user IT shop using Windows tech.

        No where close to 12,000$, not even by a long shot.
        • by twiddlingbits (707452) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @01:07AM (#22608124)
          You are getting a discount for volume and a discount (CALS) for being 100% MS. Not everyone gets that deal.

          I don't think it's 12K/user unless they have one user and have bought one of everything at retail price, but I think your figure is a bit low. You DO have to add in physical server costs, backup costs, electricity, racks and floor space as well to get TCO.

          It's not just licensing, scalability kicks in too with large apps that use multiple servers. If it takes 12 servers to run the app with Win2K3 and SQL but only 8 with Lunix and a database such as MySQL then there is an instant savings of more than 33%.

          So the same techs at 50K each take care of 750 desktops and users, the 20 Win@K3 servers and the SQL servers? Thats a tremendous amount of work for two people. That number of servers really needs a dedicated sysadmin perhaps two or three depending on the expertise level of the admin and if 24x7 on-site is required. I've seen UNIX and Linux shops where they had one admin for every 150+ servers. The UNIX/Linux servers just don't require a lot of work. I know one business associate who has an old Sun Ultra-2 server that he hasn't had to reboot in serveral years.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      > Sadly many IT professionals believe Windows saves
      > money because its an integrated platform. But ignore
      > the reboots and being forced to buy alot more servers
      > as Windows is not friendly with using one or 2 more
      > apps on a single server compared to Unix.

      The real reason why MS Windows is poor as a server with more than 1 application running on it is that MS windows was never intended to be a "server". Its origins are as a desktop platform.

      The reason why programs are called "applications" on
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by adminstring (608310)

        Unix systems fundamentally expect multiple programs and multiple users - and, with the help of the X server, can even manage multiple graphical applications across a network.

        Windows fundamentally expects only one user, and that one user running only one application with the focus at any one time.

        Until that changes MS Windows will continue to have problems with multiple applications and with scaling. At this stage MS is still struggling to produce a headless multi-user/multitasking system that can run

        • Yes I know - in fact I have an NCD Thinstar on the floor next to me that can attach to that. However, in comparison the terminal server software rates poorly against X windows and is even far behind VNC. In fact the thin client itself (which uses WinCE) runs a lot better with that added on X server than it can with MS terminal server. IMHO they provided functionality is such a way that they could say it existed but hardly anybody ever bothered to use it because it was too much trouble and expense. What'
  • One page text only (Score:2, Informative)

    by akuykenda (994933)
    http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=206900810/ [informationweek.com]

    This way you don't have to see his ugly mug.
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:46PM (#22605598)
    Because, frankly, Debian is making my life easy.
     
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jez9999 (618189)
      If you want to develop with Visual Studio, C#, and .net, you pretty much need Windows Server. Unless you want to torture yourself getting it working with Mono.
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        Before anyone says, I'm talking about ASP.net, not just .net.
        • Before anyone says, I'm talking about ASP.net, not just .net.
          Like I tell everyone any time someone asks if I work with ASP... "An asp is a deadly snake that should be avoided at all costs. Look what it did for Cleopatra."

      • by asuffield (111848) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:53PM (#22606254)

        If you want to develop with Visual Studio, C#, and .net


        You've responded to a question of the form "I already have something to do foo. Why should I switch to this other thing?" by saying something of the form "So that you can replace your thing to do bar with this other thing". This is both irrelevant and circular, since you can just go right back to the first question again.

        (.net only looks impressive compared to the MS stuff that came before it. Compared to existing free software development systems, it's mediocre at best; there's nothing in there that the rest of us haven't been doing for five years or more)
        • by bendodge (998616)

          Compared to existing free software development systems, it's mediocre at best; there's nothing in there that the rest of us haven't been doing for five years or more)

          Please point out something like .NET! I've been more and more attracted to Linux in the past year or so (I'm now booted into Kubuntu ~80% of the time) and I would love a replacement for C#.

          Everything I've tried either takes too long (I'm more writer than coder by trade, I just need to made widgets now and then) or has an unbearable IDE. C# has great IDE's (I like SharpDevelop), wonderful libraries (.NET), and it's very, very fast to work with (I made a widget to fix a small, specific problem in less than a

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            You're talking about desktop apps, I think. If that's the case, I can suggest KDevelop and Qt, but I have no idea how good they are, and there's always the licensing fee if you produce anything commercial.

            Of what I have worked with:

            • Eclipse rocks for Java development. It's probably decent for other things, too -- I haven't used it for much more than editing JavaScript (VERY different than Java) since college.
            • Kate is decent. It has some very cool features, and some really horrible and twisted ones. It's a
      • So... you're saying that if you want to use Microsoft technology, you have to use... Microsoft technology? Any other insights you'd like to share? Is water wet? Is gravity still defining "down"?

        If you want to use a proper, portable language that has open implementations, there's much to be said AGAINST Windows, and very little for it.
  • by renrutal (872592) <renrutal@gmail.com> on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:46PM (#22605600)
  • Really? (Score:4, Funny)

    by bhunachchicken (834243) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:46PM (#22605606) Homepage

    "How does Microsoft beat Linux? The same way you beat any other competitor: You offer good value"

    So what were Vista, Zune and the Xbox 360 all about then..? ;)

  • If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations.
    And we'll patent them. Thanks, Steve, but no thanks.
  • by Joce640k (829181) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:48PM (#22605622) Homepage
    They wouldn't need to mess around with protocols, etc.

    But they already admitted that lock-in was necessary to stave off competition - in the famous "Halloween documents".

    Bill Gates also said that open file formats and interoperability could be the death of Windows.

    So this is all just spin. What's really going to happen is delays, obfuscation, API churn... and as many other spanners in the works as possible while still "complying" with the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

  • This is why they should be feared.

    its one thing to run a business and want to do the best you can, but its another to operate under the premise of extinguishing everything in sight as your primary goal.
  • From the man.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MLCT (1148749) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:50PM (#22605638)
    ... who called Linux a "cancer". Somehow I imagine what he has to say about Linux is neither going to be informed, balanced or interesting, just more deluded BS from the king of deluded BS.
  • by roman_mir (125474) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:03PM (#22605756) Homepage Journal

    Take something like SharePoint alone. It's a big deal.
    - only if you don't care about actually using your documentation for anything useful. For useful development WIKIs are much better.

    The quality of the databases, that's a big deal.
    - Agreed, that's why Oracle takes presedence. DB2, Postgress are later in line. SQL server of-course runs on Windows platform and who in their right mind want's that kind of a db server?

    The availability of tools, of Visual Studio and .Net and the ability to build bespoke applications, those are all part of the value and the total cost.
    - those are wonderful proprietary tools I don't like using. Visual Studio was ok when I last used it (versions 4 and 5) and even .Net is quite powerful. I prefer open standards though, something that can't be locked down and something that I can extend myself. So I admit, I like Eclipse better, also it doesn't need Windows to run.

    And I think we've done a good job. In the areas where we haven't done a good job, we'd have less share. We have a smaller percentage of the market, for example, in high-performance computing. That's about 40% of Linux business. We really didn't enter the market with what I would call an engineered, high innovation, high-value-add offering until last year. Now that we're in the game, we're gaining share in the high-performance computing work load. So in a sense, the old formula: Keep the prices low, keep the innovation high, keep the total cost of ownership low.
    - keep license fees coming.
    • Agreed, that's why Oracle takes presedence. DB2, Postgress are later in line.

      Do you have enough experience in both DB2 and Oracle to give good reasons for DB2 being "later in line" than Oracle?
      • by roman_mir (125474)
        Yes, I do. I've used Oracle and DB2, DB2 at a check processor and 4 major Canadian banks, Oracle with many other firms, including Bell ExpressVu, Hydro One, ADP, AT&T Canada, Xerox, Coke Canada.... plenty. In fact I would say they are about the same really, it depends on the DBAs and developers to get either one doing what they are supposed to do, however Oracle is a more used database from my experience and thus there is more knowledge around it in the world, so for me actually this question is not a
  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:04PM (#22605764) Homepage
    Just let them state that they intend to continue with their undermining of standards, compatibility and other dirty tricks against 'partners' and other 'Microsoft Friends(tm).' Let them state that they are willing to take huge losses against just about every activity they are involved in and that these losses, which are propped up by their abusive monopoly, are designed to keep any competition down and prevent them from becoming a threat.
  • by enjerth (892959) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:10PM (#22605826)
    What does ownership have to do with anything? Ownership of a great license? Because if I remember correctly, you don't actually own the product.

    Technicality? Not if the restrictive/intrusive license is your biggest objection to the product.
    • by pembo13 (770295)
      It's only a technicality if you consider armed BSA agents busting down your door a technicality.
  • by VoxMagis (1036530) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:14PM (#22605874)
    Maybe I'm daft, but I'm not seeing this statement in this interview, although the original post seems to imply it's there.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't LIKE Ballmer, and I'm no MS fan (as I type this from my Ubuntu desktop with Firefox, etc. etc. etc.) I just think they do their own damage, we don't need to add to it.
    • He says they'll be more transparent when they are embracing a standard, and the deviations (extentions) they use to compete (extinguish) with linux. Different words, but the basic meaning is the same.
  • TCO? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pionzypher (886253) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:19PM (#22605932)
    I thought we had moved past this and on to the fear of possible litigation for use. TCO is pretty damn easy to debunk. A few years ago I set up a little intranet server with LAMP and some scripts to retrieve and parse data that was scattered all over the place. Add in some ModbusTcp stuff and it was chugging along. Our instrument tech, who was working on a similar line gave us crap every day. The worn lines of "It's only free if your time is free", "linux is an OS for people mad at microsoft", "It's a hacker OS" and the wonderful "Microsoft knows how to do enterprise software, they make it easy". My answer was the simple one... It was free. I don't have a budget for this project, and this works. Forget arguing the deeper issues. It works and it didn't touch our budget.

    Three years later, we've now moved a separate workstation over to linux for all of our operator functions such as data entry and trending.
    End result... He's still working on implementing the reporting aspect. He pulls much of his data from our DB and is no longer quite a hardline about sticking with a single vendor. He's beginning to look at RT linux solutions for the next iteration of our embedded MCS system. Wow, hell of a tangent. Yeah, MS should leave the TCO alone... It's simply too easy to just set something up in a back room and let the technology prove itself.
  • Oh, not TCO again. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:25PM (#22606006) Journal
    I wonder why I had never heard of TCO until relatively recently (measured in years), and in terms of a comparison of Linux to Windows.

    I now know: becuse TCO is a meaningless measure which is not used in the real world. The real world measure used is ROI (return on investment).

    As a silly example, a windows box might have 50% of the TCO of a Linux box. If it does nothing useful then it has a vastly smaller ROI.

    That said, it's a somewhat dubious claim that windows does have a lower TCO.
  • by kbonin (58917) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:26PM (#22606016) Homepage
    A very illuminating Microsoft Confidential presentation from the antitrust discovery process. If you're in a hurry start with the slides at page 9. This is what he should have been asked about...

    Comes-3096.pdf [groklaw.net]
  • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:31PM (#22606060) Homepage

    OK. You "offer a good value". Let's ignore how tough it is to offer good value compared to something really cheap, how do you compete with free? Consumers can't judge "free" properly, the Consumerist just posted about that [consumerist.com] the other day. Wouldn't that make competing with Linux even tougher? As it gets closer and closer to acceptable for most people (and it's WAY better than it was 2/4/6+ years ago) the free thing makes it even worse for MS.

  • by AftanGustur (7715) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:34PM (#22606094) Homepage


    First they ignore us.

    Then they laugh at us.

    Then they fight us.

    Then we win.


    Unfortunately for Balmer, the world just continues laughing at him.

  • value (Score:3, Funny)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:37PM (#22606122)
    If I had a nickel every time Ballmer squeezed in the world 'value' into a sentence, I'd be a very valuable person.
  • good luck (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nguy (1207026) on Friday February 29, 2008 @07:00PM (#22606312)
    Well, Mr. Ballmer, if you think that adding even more crap to Windows is going to make Windows appeal to Linux users, go right ahead.
  • Translation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by asuffield (111848) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Friday February 29, 2008 @07:04PM (#22606358)
    Stripped of all the gibberish and delusions, Ballmer's statement comes down to this:

    We're going to beat them by being better than them


    As corporate visions go, it is fairly typical, and (as usual) completely missing the point. You don't get better by saying that you're going to get better.
  • 'How does Microsoft beat Linux? The same way "you beat any other competitor: You offer good value

    He makes some sense here. This is how markets are supposed to work, when competition exists. The existence of a FOSS Operating System does happen to provide competition to the "marketplace". Imagine the shitball we'd be rolling in without FOSS competition (or Mac OS).

    But the scope Ballmer and his company operate in is limited. Software isn't just something that "offers value", to be "traded" in a "marketplace".
  • His lips moved ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Friday February 29, 2008 @07:49PM (#22606698)
    Embrace-Extend-Extinguish: 'We say when we embrace standards, we'll be transparent about how we're embracing standards. [...] If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations.'

    Liar.
  • by binaryspiral (784263) on Friday February 29, 2008 @08:39PM (#22606986)
    You all are slipping... this is way to much fuel for the flame wars not to have at least double this many posts.

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West

Working...