Microsoft Says IBM/Linux Their Biggest Threat 466
krypt0n0mic0n writes "An article at The Register shows that Microsoft sees IBM and Linux as the biggest threats to their market domination. Microsoft's Eric Rudder is quoted as saying that Linux is a "formidable" challenge and that "IBM is our greatest competitor. In the way they sell products and compete in corporate accounts." It goes on to say that they believe the NET server will be a challenge to these competitors."
the enterprise will determine who wins (Score:5, Insightful)
If they gain a significant foothold there, their control will be near total, and they'll
have a cash source with which to fund the ultimate destruction of all competetors.
Conversely, if Linux/Unix/Java win the enterprise space, Microsoft will have no new source
of revenue and the encroachment of deskop alternatives (OSX and Linux and BSD) will
eventually destroy their financial base.
It's important to ensure that the
that quality, truly open source, implementations exist on non-MS platforms. Whatever they
say, Microsoft wants to control the uptake of
really only run on their platforms. They're not producing a public standard for the sake of being
good corporate citizens. They're going to try to ensure that they're the . in
that would have gone Java will go their way on their software. There's no incentive to have
real competition in server platforms for
copies of windows, SQLServer, and Visual Studio.
Re:the enterprise will determine who wins (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true.
Conversely, if Linux/Unix/Java win the enterprise space, Microsoft will have no new source of revenue
This is true as well.
It's important to ensure that the
This is bizarre. It's not true, and it's too late.
Whatever they say, Microsoft wants to control the uptake of
real competition in server platforms for
copies of windows, SQLServer, and Visual Studio.
Well duh! That's also your goal as you stated in your first several paragraphs.
Come on, at least learn to be honest with yourself. Then maybe others will trust you.
Re:the enterprise will determine who wins (Score:4, Interesting)
of revenue and the encroachment of deskop alternatives (OSX and Linux and BSD) will
eventually destroy their financial base.
Sun needs to open-source Java in order to get the OpenSource community 100% behind Java. The SCP is simply not a large enough community to provide the depth of input needed to ensure Java evolves as quickly as
If Java became OpenSource, both Linux and Java would feed off each other. Suddenly, Java would benefit from the full support of the OpenSource community, and features would be added at a record clip. All the innovations that the Apache Foundation made to Java tools would be magnified substantially. A better compiler would replace javac, for instance.
Java would be more tighlty integrated into Linux, especially Swing and AWT. Not only would client-side Java dramatically improve, but so would the Linux GUI, as visual components could be assembled far more easily. Linux on the desktop would actually stand a chance. More client-side GUI applications would be written in Java, and hence would run cross-platform, removing much of the incentive for people to stick with Windows.
BTW, I realize that this will never happen. Sun is a commerical entity and has little reason to do this. Still, it's fun to dream
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that, so far anyway, the Free Software community hasn't given a fig for Java. They are perfectly happy with tools like Python and Zope, and Perl, and plain old C.
Free Software hackers have a lot of experience chasing someone else's specification, and for the most part it has turned out to be much harder than simply creating your own software from scratch. The canonical example is Motif. Lesstif was in development for years before it was even halfway useful. GTK, on the other hand, sprang into existence relatively quickly. Likewise Kaffe has been somewhat useful for years, without being something you would be able to use in production. Recently it would appear that they have completely given up chasing the new Sun specifications.
It's Sun's ball game to win or lose in this particular case, but Sun needs the Free Software community if they plan on beating .NET. Rest assured Sun isn't going to win over the Free Software hackers unless they release the code to their JVM. At the very least they need to release some specifications like Microsoft has done. Heck, there are quite a few hackers that are looking seriously at Mono, for crying out loud. Java hasn't done well in the Free Software world to this point, and it is likely to do much worse if a Free Software variant of .NET emerges.
If Microsoft developers and Free Software developers both end up developing .NET applications Java will go the way of the dodo.
Lots of Competitors now... (Score:2, Interesting)
Images from bad movies (Score:2, Funny)
Doogie puts his hands on it.
"It's... It's afraid!"
Crowd cheers.
Microsoft (Score:2)
Anyway, with that said, why wouldnt they consider Linux/IBM (why is IBM first in the headlines?) a threat, doesnt linux have the largest chunk of the server market?
Re:Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
depends which server market you are talking about.
Biggest Threats? What about consumer benefits? (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought the systems were supposed to be useful, not just purchased. The headline shows corporate greed, once again.
I would like to see a headline like "Microsoft is concerned IBM and Linux may offer more consumer benefits".
Used to be (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Used to be (Score:2, Funny)
So is microsoft saying they are trying to kill puppies?
Re:Used to be (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Used to be (Score:2)
First they ignore you...
Second they laugh at you (puppy?)...
Then they fight you (cancer?)...
And then you win!
Seems like they got it in the wrong order though
Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between these two corporate giants is that they really are opposites of one another. You see, IBM -can- make good, rock-solid products...however, they couldn't market themselves out of a wet paper bag.
I can see how M$ would be threatened. If IBM learned how to market things, they could be a formidable player.
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft is about to Microchannel Architectur e itself? "The era of open computing has ended"
Maybe intel is doing the same with itanium...
There comes a time when the market can no longer sustain the over-ambitious revenue plans of monopolies.
old monopoly, new monopoly (Score:2)
No sooner had the computing industry cast off the yoke of the IBM monopoly, they took on the yoke of the Microsoft monopoly. They didn't learn.
This bothers me in another way, to compare it with politics. In the US we've had a culture of democracy that has survived for a long time. Hopefully the current challenge posed by money will be rebuffed again, like at the last turn of the century. But in other nations where there hasn't been a culture of democracy, they're having a difficult time adopting on. Indeed countries seem to keep falling back to strong-men ruling.
The computing industry grew up under the thumb of IBM. After casting off IBM, it promptly got under the thumb of Microsoft. The computing industry has *never* existed in a normal, fully competitive marketplace. Let's say we're getting ready to cast off Microsoft in the next few years. Intel has been second-fiddle to Microsoft as part of the WinTel duopoly for years, so is it now time for Intel/HP to take the driver's seat? Have we still not learned?
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:4, Interesting)
MS threatened to jack up their prices for W95 if they marketed their competition, and that would have been the death of their PC line. IBM was *forced* not to market OS/2.
It didn't make any sense why OS/2 was left to die at the time but it all came out in court documents later.
Happily, Linux being a kind of "public good" this is a real problem for MS this time around. No one set of thumbs to screw, nails to pull.
Cheers,
-b
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:2)
Now THAT would be a monopoly.
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:2)
I do appreciate your writing about Microsoft. When you spell Microsoft "M$", though, this is what I picture [penny-arcade.com].
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:2, Informative)
Or, if you want to be objective instead of bashing based on bias:
Software:
Win 2K (as mentioned)
SqlServer 2000
Exchange Server 2000
VS.NET
IE 6.0.2600 (gotta love that build number!)
IIS 6.0 (okay, this isn't fair because it isn't even out - but _I_ know that it rocks from experience
VS.NET (still needs work but is probably one of the most stable IDE's I've ever used)
Hardware:
MS IntelliMouse
XBox and peripherals (incredibly high quality, regardless of your console preference)
MS Joysticks (all of them)
OK... pretty much all MS hardware.
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:3, Informative)
Umm.. the Microsoft Sound System was a pretty big flop in its day. All Microsoft hardware does not belong on this list.
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:2)
Win 2K (as mentioned)
SqlServer 2000
Not as much experience with that, just as most front-end users don't have as much hands-on with that, but you could very well be right. I've not heard bad things about it.
Hasn't there been some huh-bub lately about the .NET framework?
Exchange Server 2000Enh...I'm not totally sold on it yet, but you're right, it's certainly far better than a sharp stick in the eye.
VS.NETIE 6.0.2600 (gotta love that build number!)
Fair enough...I haven't really seen or had much complaint about IE 6.0.2600, I'll certainly buy that.
IIS 6.0 (okay, this isn't fair because it isn't even out - but _I_ know that it rocks from experienceWell, then...how about a review of some flavor, if you're not under a NDS?
Hardware:MS IntelliMouse
XBox and peripherals (incredibly high quality, regardless of your console preference)
MS Joysticks (all of them)
OK... pretty much all MS hardware.
Hmm...I wonder...are these products out-sourced? (I certainly hope they're not made in China, considering all the trouble MicroSoft has with events that unfold for them there.)
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think IBM can't do marketing you've never dealt with them. They are masters of marketing, at least to business. You might be right that they don't know how to sell to consumers.
This is an oversimplification, but IBM started falling apart when they tried to enter the consumer market, and rebuilt itself by re-focusing on big business. They managed to keep a foot in the consumer market by selling parts to OEMs.
The bottom line for Linux is that we don't need to worry about making it in the 'enterprise' anymore - IBM will take care of that. We're missing have a credible champion on the consumer side. Sony could do it, as could AOL, but neither has taken the plunge.
Re:Good old Way-Back Machine.. (Score:2)
Actually, Microsoft would require you to purchase 3 tons of sand right now along with that bottle of water you desperately need, and then require you to order another ton of sand for every additional bottle you want.
, IBM -can- make good, rock-solid products...however, they couldn't market themselves out of a wet paper bag.
IBM's marketing actually is pretty good, at least when they market to medium-large businesses. The marketing to small businesses and consumers was atrocious. I'd say IBM's product limitations are more due to a deliberate decision to leave their enterprise products almost opaque, in order to create more opportunities for their consulting and services organizations. I mean, WebSphere is a fucking nightmare to set up and maintain--this late in the game, they must have deliberately decided to leave it screwed up.
But is it housetrained? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But is it housetrained? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But is it housetrained? (Score:2)
makes you feel like that poor zookeeper, Friedrich Riesfeldt. [darwinawards.com]
Re:But is it housetrained? (Score:3, Funny)
And windows is expensive like a child who becomes an infant again every two years.
It costs you a fortune, craps all over, you spend all two years struggling to train it to feed itself and properly dispose of its waste, then it reaches the terrible twos, and becomes an infant all over again. There's no way to win in that game.
To die by the hand that feeds you. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:To die by the hand that feeds you. (Score:2)
Re:To die by the hand that feeds you. (Score:2)
So, I am certain that there is a small contingent of IBM that is more than glad to steal Microsoft's market share and give them a big serving of ass pie while they're at it.
Or maybe it's just me....
This *is* a surprise, I must say. (Score:2, Funny)
In further news, the sky is blue.
Re:This *is* a surprise, I must say. (Score:3, Interesting)
Two words: desktop OSX.
Want more words? iMovie, iTunes, iPod, Final Cut Pro, Apple's recent acquisition of Emagic (Logic Audio) to produce yet another i-something and possibly also a DAW version of FCP, Cocoa, shipping developer tools with the OS, Appleworks, falling demand for Microsoft Office on OSX showing that people are actively considering alternatives even to that...
I guess it depends which 'market domination' you mean. IBM/Linux may well be a threat on the server space, where they do not already have market domination. Apple is hitting them right in the desktop, where they already HAVE market domination which Linux is basically unwilling to directly attack.
Apple itself would be just as much of a problem IF they had 97% of the desktop market, but in this situation, they are absolutely deadly to Microsoft, and due to decreasing interest in Office for OSX, increasingly immune from Microsoft's private pressures and threats.
Want to see a serious threat to MS's desktop market? Wait to see if the antitrust case truly slams Microsoft. If, and only if, Microsoft takes serious damage and blood is in the water, then you may see Apple suddenly spring a complete OSX environment (with a complete set of apps to go with it, and you'll pay for it, too) on x86.
They are positioned to execute a total blitzkrieg attack on the Windows desktop monopoly, but only if Microsoft is gravely injured by antitrust action. If Microsoft isn't harmed, you won't see any of this: too risky unless the situation is ripe for a really startling change, like to 50/50% virtually overnight. Apple cannot do this if it'll only cannibalize its own hardware sales. Also note it'd be the most wildly copied piece of software around...
This is speculative- but the bottom line is, this (planted?) article is notable in what it does NOT say. Isn't it interesting that as OSX takes off and shows signs of being a tough market for Microsoft to even sell into, an article is published that pointedly relegates the threat of Apple to beneath mention? Sure, the Desktop is dominated by Microsoft, and that can never change. Unless it does- and it is...
D-U-H! (Score:2)
This really isn't news. Just MS admitting to it (after everyone else already knew it).
Re:D-U-H! (Score:5, Funny)
Routers story: Microsoft announced today they are changing one of the business plans of one of their departments for a limited amount of time in order to better compete with linux.
----SLASHDOT FILTER ACTIVATED----
MICROSOFT, THE SCURVY DOGS OF REDMON, HAVE ADMITTED UTTER DEFEAT!! EARLY THIS MORNING, BILL GATES HIMSELF, THE HIVE MIND OVERLORD, WAS DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO THE STREET WHERE HE WAS JUSTLY AND FAIRLY BEAT TO DEATH BY 20 SCRAWNY, PALE TEENAGERS. THIS IS A GREAT DAY INDEED FOR LINUX FANS, AND LET IT BE KNOWN SUCH IS THE FATE TO ANYONE WHO MAY CHALLENGE OUR O.S.
WORD IS BOND!
Re:D-U-H! (Score:2)
At first I thought you were correct, but did you read the article at all? Slashdot title: Microsoft Says IBM/Linux Their Biggest Threat. The Register title: IBM and Linux our biggest threats - Microsoft. So how did Slashdot filter this story? Here are some snippets from it:
Eric Rudder, senior vice president developer and platform evangelism, set the tone. "IBM is our greatest competitor. In the way they sell products and compete in corporate accounts," he said. .NET enterprise servers, called IBM and Linux a "formidable" challenge. "It's not just IBM alone, it's not just Linux alone," he said.
Paul Flessner, senior vice president
I understand that you are trying to be funny, and Slashdot DOES have a tendency to do this. But at least do it on an article where you have a leg to stand on.
continued growth (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has to become a major player in enterprises services. If they don't they won't be able to sustain their past growth rates. The OS is rapidly becoming a commodity, now that win 2K is stable enough that that most people don't need to upgrade ever again. Win 2K already does what most people want and more, so the only way to continue to grow is new markets.
That everyone already knows. Microsoft is doing all these interviews to paint a picture that .NET really is ready for the enterprise world of 24/7 computing. Back in 98 MS commissioned some company to prove SQL Server was good enough to run the NY EX, but everyone in the RDBMS business knows Sybase ASE run the stock market. Is it possible that if MS can't get it's act together with .NET, that they have reached their peek?
Re:continued growth (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that is what I said about Windows NT4. I liked it (once I understood it), and thought this is all I need. However hardware evolved and in came Plug And Play devices and later on USB (and AGP, but that was supported by the graphics card manufacturers). Both were never added to Windows NT4. Why is completely beyond me, but it all makes sense. To have those feature you need Windows 2000. Don't underestimate the evolution in hardware: if your OS doesn't support it you will need to upgrade. That is exactly what will happen in the next iteration of Microsoft operating systems. It's just a matter of time.
Re:continued growth (Score:2)
I don't know about the "ever again" part, but I agree is that W2k pro is by far and away the best OS that MS has produced so far. That's why I found it very interesting that Dell (and I assume other retailers) have been forbidden from offering 2k on home systems since March. XP is now the only OS they'll sell you. Hmmmm...I wonder why?
-B
Re:continued growth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:continued growth (Score:2)
Cancer
I've heard the human race called a cancer to the Earth before, but this is the first time I've heard Microsoft called a cancer to the economy.
A version of windows for the Power4 chip? (Score:2, Interesting)
If true, it would make sense that the Power4 is one of those chicp.
IBM/Linux? (Score:4, Funny)
Formidable Challenger? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before everyone gets overexcited and declares a victory of some sort, let's examine possible Micro$oft motives for saying this. It helps them "prove" that they are not a monopoly. By definition, monopolies don't have "formidable challengers."
I have a hard time believing that this (and anything statements from M$) are anything but strategically thought out ways to further line their pockets.
No, their not just being "frank."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Formidable Challenger? (Score:2)
Seems like a terrible waste to spend all that time ranting about something that will be thrown out by anyone with half a brain, doesn't it?
The biggest enemy to Microsoft is... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The biggest enemy to Microsoft is... (Score:2)
Remember the trial... (Score:5, Interesting)
proposal makes perfect sense. MS has been pushed aside in the onslaught of the IBM/Linux OS machine.
While the sarcasm light was on, let's face it, MS announces nothing that does not benefit them directly. If they are claiming IBM/Linux is a threat it is because they need to be seen as having a competitor.
Now the question remains "Why?"
Re:Remember the trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, implementation always costs money. GNU/Linux is no different from any other operating system in this respect. But why is nobody in the media pointing out that *implementing and maintaining Microsoft software is similarly time consuming* and that, over any reasonable period of time, it's *at least as costly* as Linux? By allowing these constant references to "Linux being free like a puppy", and by not responding with incredulity, we're aiding Microsoft. It might seem obvious to you and me that the spin is silly, but journalists appear to be buying into it -- and so will potential users who are already frightened by the concept of arcane shells and incompatible office documents.
The true benefits of Linux need to be restated - as well as being 'free', it's also robust, powerful, usable. I'm concerned that these concessions by Microsoft are really just new forms of attack upon Linux - attacks that are potentially more damaging than the previous tactic of ignoring the operating system completely, since they play to the concerns of non-technical users (and management).
Thousands of happy Linux users can -- and must -- attest to the fact that Linux just works better for a large number of tasks. The ideas that it's more difficult to use well and involves more effort and money to deploy successfully are simply untrue, at least on the server market.
because don't always choose the best solution (Score:2)
So if you have two solutions, one based on Microsoft, perhaps not the best tool for the job, but it has some TCO numbers to make a decision, and you have another solution based on Linux, with great technical data but no long term financials, then guess who wins?
I think nearly all TCO studies have flaws, but like it or not, it's a big factor for enterprise decision makers.
Hopefully, now that analysts are doing TCO on linux solutions, this will all change.
Re:Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft is free like that first hit of heroin served in shiny comfort at your local Microsoft distributor, where they cater to your comfort and play soothing muzak. Your Microsoft rep will make sure that any questions you have will be answered promptly at a low per-question service charge, and Microsoft's cadre of highly trained accounts management professionals will be happy to explain the Microsoft Dosage Assurance Policy whereby you can lock in access to your heroin under easily explained terms.
Right, time for me to make this one an anonymous post, I think.
Re:Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? (Score:3, Informative)
especially the ease of use issues. I tried to run Win 2k server, its at least as difficult to understand as Linux, and in my opinion more so, because they hide everything behind wizards, so you never *really* know whats going on. Furthermore, I manage and maintain over 50 linux servers spread out from Phoenix, AZ to Salt Lake City, UT. I could never do this type of remote management with windows. Not ever. Well, I could but it would cost my clients a whole lot more, as I'd be flying to Phoenix ever other day... I used to work in an office with 8 win 2k servers, and 100 clients... we had an IT staff of 5 full time plus 5-10 techno-savvy employees from other departments would help us out with supporting their department's IT needs part time... for 108 machines.. now I'm managing 50+ servers, from my house, by myself... I'm quite sure the latter is cheaper. (Not to mention the $50,000 in licensing fees my clients would have had to pay to MS)
Re:Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
If there's going to be a real TCO study to compare, say, W2K and Linux, someone's going to have to pony up the cash to IDC or Giga or some other similar market research firm to do the leg work. It's gotta be a big firm with plenty of credibility in the market for the TCO numbers to mean anything to the enterprise.
Who's gonna pay? RedHat? IBM? The UnitedLinux group?
It's also worth pointing out that Linux might not come out ahead in a TCO study. It almost certainly isn't on the desktop, where training and support issues will be highlighted by interoperability problems across the enterprise. Even if the study is focused on server solutions, you still have to compare apples-to-apples. Are you comparing, say, web services? If so, are you running the gambit of Linux/Apache/MySQL as compared to W2K/IIS/SQL Server? If it's network services, then you're talking Linux/Samba compared to W2K, right? Nobody in TCO research cares *only* about the OS -- because the OS has no relevant *total* cost. TCO is focused on cost to solve some generalized need.
Bear in mind that Linux knowledge is more expensive to hire than MS knowledge. Everybody's brother-in-law is an MCSE. But finding readily available OSS implementation experts can be very difficult for a corporate HR group. Sure, you can go out and learn from the source code & discussion groups easily enough, but then you're talking 6 months of *training* someone to be an expert.
Any IT solution is an ongoing support expense, and it's certainly true that license cost is a trivial aspect of enterprise TCO. Microsoft isn't making a typically falacious claim there. It's just that the comparison is very, very difficult. And it might just turn out that the support, training, and integration efforts involved in the real world of corporate computing add up in favor of MS. Until the OSS generation of CS students hit the marketplace, at least.
Linux being free like a puppy (Score:2)
Re:Why do they get away with their TCO nonsense? (Score:2)
Well how about,
"Windows being free like a wife"
Does that work?
IBM Linux Presentation (Score:4, Insightful)
He made a big deal about how much money IBM spent on linux development, and how they made it back within a year.
He also said that they were going to port *ALL* of their products to *ALL* of their hardware lines at a point in the futire.
Think of the implications of this. You can buy an eleventy thousand dollar site lisc. for Microsoft Whatever 2004 and a support contract with Microsoft, or you can buy a $40 copy of RedHat linux and a support contract with RedHat.
That is quite a competitive standpoint for linux in general...
Re:IBM Linux Presentation (Score:2)
There may be hidden costs to Windows, but don't act as if there are none to Linux. Depending on a company's needs, converting to Linux may be prohibitively expensive.
Can you say 'embrace and extend'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can you say 'embrace and extend'? (Score:2)
THIS is why so many software developers hate MS.
Re:Can you say 'embrace and extend'? (Score:3, Informative)
Open up! (Score:2, Insightful)
M$, open up some of your source code. That might help.
Re:Open up! (Score:2)
" -- "We need to build a vibrant and healthy developer community. That's the lesson Linux has taught us. Having people to help. Knowing where to get questions answered," Rudder said. --
MS, open up some of your source code, with a non-restictive and free license, please. That might help."
Poisoning (too strong a word, but none other will do here) the OSS talent pool with closed, proprietary IP will not do us any good. Niether will disparaging remarks - keep it to the playing field, please.
Soko
I thought.... (Score:2)
In Related News: (Score:5, Funny)
Duh...
Who else makes OSs for PC architecture.
IBM name change (Score:5, Funny)
Death by laughing... (Score:2)
Wait, hasn't that already happened?
"greatest competitor" != "great competitor" (Score:2, Interesting)
It is good to see IBM and Linux getting recognition for the quality/low cost services they provide.
It's a good step for linux, but a long way to go
proxy
They still don't get the "Free" part, do they? (Score:5, Funny)
However, Flessner articulated Microsoft's response to Linux. "Linux is free like a puppy. It looks free but when you get all the pieces around it, it doesn't work out so free. There's a lot more than I/O and memory management to make up an operating system."
Whereas Windows is like a puppy that you can only take to one vet when he gets sick, and it is the same vet everyone else is taking their puppy to. And the vet has a very busy schedule, he is deaf and blind, and tells you that the puppy got sick because of something you did. Even though the vet sold you the puppy knowing he was sick. And the medicine he finally gives you for your sick puppy to cure his barfing gives him the shits.
What a dumbass analogy. They still don't get the concept of Free vs free, do they?
Libere, Gratis, Linux [cafepress.com]
The Problem With Microsoft... (Score:2)
Its like this wannabe punk rocker from around my parts who showed up in a BMW whining about how his parents just wouldn't buy him the Jag.
Why do so many corporations have such a hostile view of peaceful cohabitation in the marketplace, even among direct competitors? I mean, if you're churning billions of dollars through your coporation ever year, and making your CEO and founder the richest man on the planet in the meantime, doesn't that signal that you're in a good place and you don't necessarily need to release the hounds on everybody who comes tiptoeing across your lawn?
And we believe M$ this time because ... (Score:2)
Keerist, why this lame acceptance as nonto ni verdad when everything else they say is a pack of lies?
For the record, I do my utmost to avoid M$ products, because (a) they are buggy as all get out, (b) they are like working with a straight-jacket (do it their way or no way), and (c) their business ethics suck major toad warts. But it's kind of annoying seeing all the bashing that goes on most of the time, then this where suddenly their word is gospel.
BS (Score:2)
Microsoft's real biggest threats come from the inertia of their own installed base (that they're beating into submission with Software Assurance 6) and from potentially adverse legal rulings against them.
IBM/Linux is a certainly a plausible-sounding competitor.
While I love Linux, open source, etc., I don't kid myself for one minute that MS is quaking in its boots about IBM and Linux.
It's more along the lines of a PR statement (one that some Linux zealots will go along with) to make it sound like:
Re:BS (Score:2)
Did you even try reading the article? In future, please read articles before posting crap here. Oh wait, are you one of the Slashdot editors?
Real simple..... (Score:2)
They scream as loud as they can "LINUX AND IBM ARE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM!". In one very quick and slick move they have created a competitor that really is not one, but on the surface looks huge and has teeth. The much touted Linux OS, and the big bad IBM has come together to give us a run for our money. I can hear it now "See we are not a monopoly, see we have to do all this evil things to be competitive!".
This gives them a nice trump card to play in court, and in the public eye.
Ho well....so much for that idea.
Too bad VA is no longer a "Linux" Company (Score:3, Insightful)
With the support of BIG BLUE, they might have a chance. When I read this article, the demise of LWN, and from Forbes.com (ala slashdot feed) ' "Other firms such as TurboLinux that had filed for IPOs eventually canceled their plans. The Nasdaq Composite has shed three quarters of its value since March 2000, and for the Linux stocks, the fall has been even harder. Cobalt and Andover.net are gone, swallowed up by Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) and VA, respectively. VA itself now sells for under a buck per share, and founder Larry Augustin last week gave up the CEO job (he's still the chairman). His firm has changed its name to VA Software, and its media contact person declined an interview request for this story "because we're no longer a Linux company." ' I wonder wher the focus is.I ask why are the root and fundamental Linux proponets hitting the pavement and knocking on doors?
IBM is choosing Linux, and doing what other companies have failed to do: Compete directly with MS on their terms...with MONEY. This competition is at the server level, but in time perhaps with adequate funding and a focus on applied resources, perhaps inroads will be made in the next few years to challenge Microsoft on the desktop. Microsoft now sees this threat, and recognizes that IBM has a new tool in their arsenal to take on MS. Bundling pieces of Linux in their corporate high dollar solutions is a fiscally prudent move. Additionally, with the fundamental state and nature of OSS the IBM team has a wider variety of Eyes & Hands on developers that are providing pro bono service. Definitely a great bullet for promoting this type of integration with the bean counter!
So what does this boil down to? IBM has a recognized threat to MS server market. The ball is in the hands of IBM to push this, or the path to the Linux desktop will meet the fate of OS/2.
Just my
You have to be kidding right? (Score:3, Insightful)
#1. InterDev - They can hire 3 point and click monkeys to one coder that knows java well.
#2. Older code - They don't want to change what they use now. They would require whole coding projects to start over scraping what they have.
#3. The Lead Developers would cry, because they are not near as productive in (c, c++, java, php) as they are in vb, vbscript, and InterDev.
#4. Problems, they already have 99% of them worked out on nt40/2000 in their environment. They know it, they love it, they don't want to change it. They don't want the headache of changing code, OS, and all the problems and man hours that go with it. Just to have a "free os". They don't have the programers, they don't have the talent, and they don't have the downtime to do it.
#5. No one likes change.
#6. The CIO is a SQL/IIS old school user. You can't change 3000 hours of programing in ASP/SQL/XML into PHP/MySql/PERL/XML/CGI and not have a huge huge cost. More than anything you will ever see in savings from a system os. Plus you get all the problems...again.
Then again, what do I know I am just a gimp.
The man from MS said. (Score:2)
Buffer overflows? Charging enormous amounts per seat ? Subscriptions? Stuff like that?
The Innovator's dimemma all over again ... (Score:2)
How long until banks with a few hundred (US) or thousand (US/Canada/rest of the world) branches, meaning they they already have Unix boxen (NOBODY runs SERIOUS, mission critical apps on M$,) realize that their apps can run for less TCO (M$ ain't free./ it ain't even cheap,) on Linux boxen?
Is M$ scared? (I can smell the scorch marks in Redmond's short from here in NYC.
Bully Gates will retire from a company as morallt and fiscally bankrupt as Enron, WorldCom or Data General. Its a good thing he's not leaving a thing to his kids.
Must not be a threat anymore. (Score:2)
Who ELSE could vie for "biggest threat"? (Score:2, Funny)
This is like bragging about climbing the "tallest" mountain in Kansas.
Opinion Piece: Time to go for the kill.. (Score:2, Interesting)
And yet, ironically, the Open Source community seems to have somewhat fallen asleep in the midst of the imminent success of our dream: a world dominated by free, open, community-built software where the user / consumer no longer gets screwed at every opportunity. Now, I'm not talking about the major projects where developers have kept up their excellent work. But it's many of the sidelines projects that have ground to a halt. And somehow it seems as if folks aren't 'scratching their itches' as much these days. What happened to the break-neck progress we were making on all fronts? I have a growing list of needed feature-adds, bug fixes, new apps, etc. that is now impossible for me to keep up with on my own. And many are seemingly abandoned projects.
What happened to the faith in the Open Source model? Why aren't programmers in the US going after careers doing Free Software? One would think now is as good a time as any, especially with the industry in a rut and jobs so scarse! It's so blatantly obvious and yet hardly anyone is taking up the opportunity. For Open Source to win the day, we need to become the next generation of consultants--a new breed that actually supports the software because they can with the code.
Listen and listen well: Software is NOT a PRODUCT. People need to get over that idea and realize it is an outdated model from the prior tech boom. So if you're a geek looking for a job doing programming, that means you shouldn't be looking for a "software company" in the traditional sense. Instead, look for service-based companies that get paid to scratch the itches of their customers. Or start your own consulting firm with some buddies. Get connected in your local community and then move outwards according to capacity. Start organizations to coordinate development of needed free business software. I can't even begin to count the number of businesses I've heard of that are thoroughly fed up with the proprietary custom packages they use currently. The market is there for the taking!! It's time to go for the kill!
I/O and memory management. (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation, they accept defeat on I/O and memory management efficiency and go on to claim that an OS needs a good flying madonna to be complete?
Talk about changing the topic of discussion.
Re:Microsoft business plan (Score:2, Redundant)
2. Avoid antitrust investigation/litigation
3. Profit (using anticompetitive methods)
Re:Microsoft business plan (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
Gartner did the work for me (Score:3, Interesting)
Following that incredible success story, a linux development team has been started and they are working on SAN connectivity issues now. The age of M$ computing as a server solution is coming to a close. They 0wn the desktop still but I don't support those
Re:Gartner did the work for me (Score:2)
If you haven't implemented the real solution to your problem by implementing a security policy across the board, you really haven't changed anything.
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
I'm just amazed how many "upgrade to XP, upgrade to XP, never mind the costs upgrade, trying anything else wouldn't be fair" - comments I see when somebody states that he is running Win9x.
Yet, I agree that the next Windows webservers will have a hard time. Not really because of the track record, more because they don't offer any additional value for their price tag.
Re:I don't think so (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Manager stupidity (Score:2)
Re:Manager stupidity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Cartago delede est.
Of course, some people call me an extremist...
Re:Biggest, maybe... (Score:2)
The community wrote loads of software, from IP-stack to KDE in short time, Microsoft needed much longer to create Windows and they still had to rely on OSS code for IE and their IP-stack.
Linux is backed by IBM, Sony, HP and pretty much any other IT-company on the planet with combined revenue of several 100 billions per year. Microsoft has only 20 billions per year, which is a lot, but still not much compared to giants like Sony and IBM alone, never mind about their combined strengh.
Now, who is Goliath and who is David?
Microsoft is afraid - and because of very good reasons.
Re:Biggest, maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has a lot of branches that make losses and their stubbornness concerning XBox (it's so clear that it won't topple PS2, yet they keep pumping money in it without the remote chance of getting it back) will cost them fortunes.
Also, the community has ported Linux and the BSDs to tens (hundreds?) of hardware platforms, while Windows failed on everytime they tried something other than x86 (PPC, Mips, Alpha and IA64 in a few years, you will see it)
Microsoft is in a strong position because they control the OEMs. However they charge a bigger percentage every year, it's really just a matter of time until the Microsoft-tax becomes unbearable and OEMs start jumping ship - wait, Walmart already sells Windows-less PCs.
In addition to that, only 35% [billparish.com] of their money come from product sales, the rest is gathered through financial tricks and tax deductions with gullible investment money being Microsoft's single most important source of money.
As soon as investors start asking questions (we just had Worldcom, remember? And Enron of course) this whole scheme might topple over and Microsoft will lose most of it's income and WILL START MAKING LOSSES. Also most employees will be pissed because THEIR income (which consists mostly of stock options) will only be a fraction of what it used to be. Microsoft is a house of cards and if XBox or Worldcom doesn't crush it, something else will. It's just a matter of time, it won't work much longer.
See Bill Parish' page [billparish.com] for more details.
Re:Biggest, maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that's a long ways out, but you're crazy if you think Microsoft isn't taking the long view on this.
Calling me crazy won't make any of your wild claims true.
Fact remains that XBox is a typical SHORT-TERM design. An Off-the-shelf design. (Low development costs, high production costs) If you want to know how a long-term design looks, look at PS2.
Re:bet your ass.. (Score:2)
the next computer revolution is going to slap you upside the head and you wont know what hit you...
Re:Emphasis: Sales (Score:2)