Microsoft at the Tipover Point 824
David Gerard writes "In the wake of Microsoft's first flat quarter, The Inquirer brings us The IT Industry Is Shifting Away From Microsoft - Linux is being taken seriously, Microsoft is not trusted and our favorite monopoly is finding it harder and harder to compete with 'free.'"
Oh shit! (Score:4, Funny)
No, really, I wouldn't put it past them... Wonder what technology area they're going to monopolize next? Tivo looks prime for the picking...
Re: Oh shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
> You know what this means right? We've backed Microsoft into a corner, so now it's going to pull every dirty trick in the book to get it's profits back...
And this differs from their previous behavior, how?
Re: Oh shit! (Score:3)
Re:Oh shit! (Score:4, Funny)
Embeded systems in vaccum cleaners, aiming for the market of products that don't suck.
Re:Oh shit! (Score:4, Funny)
Their slogan will be "MS SuxDelux: So powerful, it'll suck the carpets right off your floors!"
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
For years, Microsoft was the classic "growth" stock. MS revenue and profit regularly posted double digit gains and beat analyst expectations. As a result, the value of MS stock soared into the stratosphere, making Chairman Bill Gates the richest man in the world based on the value of his Microsoft holdings, and making millionaires of many Microsoft employees. Growth companies don't pay dividends: they plow thier profits back into the company, and people invest in them because they expect the value of the stock to go up.
What happens when your company hits the limits of its growth? The dilemma MS faces is its own success. They own 95% of the desktop world. Almost everyone who _can_ use Windows and Office _does_ use it. They won't get continuing double-digit increases in revenue and profit from thier core business, because they've saturated thier market.
They've managed to narrowly beat revenue and profit estimates the past few years, but if you look closely at thier numbers, they _haven't_ done it from sales of Windows and Office. They've done it from gains in and returns on thier investment portfolio. MS has something like $49 billion in cash and short-term securities, and is getting an increasing number of complaints from investors that they ought to start returning some of that cash hoard to investors in the form of dividends.
Microsoft is in transition from a "growth" company to a "mature" company. Mature companies generate large amounts of cash, but _don't_ show tremendous growth. If it _doesn't_ show tremendous growth, the value of MS stock will drop out of the stratosphere, and folks whose wealth depends on the value of their MS stock won't be happy.
The challenge Steve Ballmer faces as MS CEO is to somehow support the value of MS stock while looking for huge new markets MS can enter and dominate to continue its growth.
So yes, you can look for MS to use any means it can to generate revenue and increase profits. But we didn't back them into a corner: they did it to themselves by becoming _too_ successful.
______
Dennis
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Interesting)
"What happens when your company hits the limits of its growth? The dilemma MS faces is its own success. They own 95% of the desktop world. Almost everyone who _can_ use Windows and Office _does_ use it. They won't get continuing double-digit increases in revenue and profit from their core business, because they've saturated their market."
Good point, but you are only partially right. MS has saturated the US market for sure. The world market is just starting up in many places, and if MS could count on similar success in China, Brazil, India and so on they would be able to run their ponzi scheme a lot longer. The existence of Open Source, finally has presented a barrier through which they will not pass unchanged. Had Open Source been more prevalent back in the OS/2 vs Windows days I'm not sure we would still have a Microsoft any more. As it is, thanks to their war chest, they still have an opportunity to mutate themselves into something else.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them do a merger with someone like Dell to get into hardware and with one of the remaining big consulting companies to try and become a body-shop powerhouse. That is, of course if the government will allow them to do it. They will lose to Sony and friends if they keep pounding on the consumer electronics door. With margins like they are used to they just don't have a chance. Really, with the exception of the dirty tricks they pulled to create the Windows and Office monopolies Microsoft's history reads like a comedy of errors.
Basically Microsoft needs to once again go head to head with IBM. If they can't manage to do so they will simply start to evaporate. I'm not too sure they will be able to change fast enough to make a difference. That $40B will go fast.
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses...
This is the real threat, and considering MS's history I really do think they'll try it. OpenOffice can open Word files? No problem, DRM them and poof, no more (legal) OpenOffice. Legal doesn't much matter to you and me, I figure that if I've bought the content I can bloody well open it on the platform of my choice; but legal does matter to corporate adopters. If they can't *legally* open the MS Word document sent to them, they'll leave Linux, its that simple. And, ultimately, legal does matter to us, if we're forced to run pirate than we are open to lawsuits, arrest, etc. The DMCA must be overturned.
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are forgetting something - making the classic American mistake. America != The World. In fact, America is a minority when it comes to population.
The world is techifying. The most populace countries (China, India) are quickly arming their preverbial IT armies.
Your stupid DRM laws won't apply to us, the rest of the World. We don't care for them. We'll buy non-DRM hardware and run non-locking software on top of it. The large hardware companies would be mad to turn against us since we outnumber you, ooo, by about 32 to 1 or so.
I know we (the rest of the world) are all not rich yet. But the balance of power is shifting - just check your outsourcing statistics.
There is only a small degree to which American laws can be used to consolidate Microsoft's position. Microsoft knows it cannot ignore the rest of the world because it is the bigger market and the future market is a global one. Microsoft maintaining a global monopoly is a whole other ball game and one they are starting to lose.
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope they are far enough in the road to general freedom, that even if the "regime" of China decides they want to go back to hard line Communism, they can't any more...
Re:Oh shit! (Score:4, Informative)
Horseshit. Every time I have been to China (last time 2000), everybody complains about the government, in public, all the time. The government doesn't care.
China still jails their citizens for the slightest criticism of government policy
Horseshit. Only the really vocal critics are jailed, and generally only if they are published.
The ones treated the worst right now are the Falun Gong people. But interestingly enough, they are not jailed. They are taken to mental hospitals, drugged and 'reverse brainwashed'. Despicable behaviour, but probably no worse than was done in Western societies until about 20-30 years ago.
regularly suppresses religious freedom by putting leaders of congregations in jail.
Yes. They still do that. Wish they did it elsewhere occaisonally too.
Their one-child policy (whatever the perceived need) takes away the fundamental human right of reproduction
All rights are granted by humans. There are no fundamental rights.
requires (REQUIRES!!) abortions in many, many situations.
Actually, it was more like economic pressure than force. Have more than one child and you lose your food coupons (which means you starve). These days prosperity is taking care of the one child policy all by itself in the big cities. In the country, peasants are still having more than one child
pay only the slightest lip service to international law and systematically, institutionally, defy legitimate and reasonable copyright and patent laws
Well, the Chinese invented gunpowder, paper and modern agriculture, so start paying the fuck up already.
Oh did you mean the European version of intellectual property rights where your rights are protected but fuck everyone else?
Re:Oh shit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Does China imprison people for organized religious worship? Yes.
Does China imprison political activists based ENTIRELY on words? Yes.
Does China force women to undergo abortions? Yes.
"In other words, your entire post is based off your grossly innacurate perception of another country."
If any part of YOUR post had pointed out inaccuracies in mine, I might consider you insightful like the person who moderated you. As it is, since you offer no facts it's just flamebait.
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Interesting)
What if big multinational corporations strong-arm governments to give in? This is why some countries have accepted large parts of the stupid US software patent system.
It will be an interesting fight.
This happens (Score:4, Interesting)
To quote from a recent article "NAFTA: North American Deal Dismal After a Decade" [commondreams.org]
NAFTA rules also limit each country's domestic policies to deal with issues ranging from environmental health and food safety to banking and truck safety regulation.
Under the unprecedented investor rights sewn into the deal, investors are allowed to demand compensation for "indirect expropriation", which has been interpreted to mean any government act -- including those directed at public health and the environment -- that diminishes the value of a foreign investment.
Following one such suit, the Mexican government was ordered in August 2000 to pay nearly 17 million dollars to a California firm that was denied a permit from a Mexican municipality to operate a hazardous waste treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive location.
Yeah, that's what everyone was so up in arms about it. Too bad the media only told you about some dumb kids who threw some bricks at a Starbucks. If you want to understand the sort of societal structures that underly this situation, I recommend the book Understanding Power [amazon.com].
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trusted Computing is subtle and insidious. If you have "non-DRM hardware" pretty much all that accomplished is that YOU get locked out. You can't run any of the new software. You can't use any of the new files. You get locked out of more and more websites.
Non-DRM hardware is like a speakerless computer. The "new enhanced" computer can do everything the old computer can do. There is no reason NOT to buy the computer that has free speakers (or DRM) attached, you can just leave the speakers (or DRM) turned off and it works just like a "plain" computer. Of course if you leave the DRM turned off you get locked out of all of the new software, new files, and new websites. Ultimately you may end up locked out of the internet.
As for other countries, either they adopt it or they get locked out of all sorts of things. I'm pretty sure they are also planning on having each country run its own "Root Of Trust". Most countries will absolutely JUMP at the chance to have that sort of power over all of the computers in their country. The Digital Imprimatur [fourmilab.ch] is a long read, but it contains an excellent description of how seductive Trusted Computing can be for any government.
I certainly HOPE that there is a massive rebellion against Trusted Computing, but do not underestimate the threat! They have a very very plausible route to conquering the world with this crap. In many ways it is exacly like Microsoft's notorious "Embrace and Extend" tactic. The new Trusted Computers will "embrace" ALL existing software and files and websites. It then "extends" new software files and websites. For anyone who goes along with the change everything "just works", all old stuff and all new stuff. Anyone does not go along with the change begins suffering more and more as they run into more and more "new stuff" that doesn't work. They get error messages when they try to instal new software. They get error messages when they try to open new files. They get error messages when they try to view a new website. They get error messages when they try to read E-mail. Error messages saying that they have "old" and "obsolete" hardware. Messages telling them they need to "upgrade".
Most people are not techies, they don't understand anything about Trusted Computing. They just want the damn computer to work. When they start downloading free music files and they get error messages about their hardware, they don't care why they are getting errors, they just want it "fixed" so it will work. They will choose the new "enhanced" computer because that is the only one that can play the free files. That is the only "fix" to be able to play all of the free music and stuff they will be offered.
-
Re:Oh shit! (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end, this may be what saves us all. Many people don't upgrade their hardware and software all that frequently. Businesses outside the computer industry also tend not to. The huge base of existing hardware that is not "trusted" provides a strong disincentive for any software manufacturer or website operator considering limiting access to "trusted" systems only.
In fact, if trusted computing succeeds, it will be through the opposite route: making non-trusted hardware and OS software effectively unavailable to the masses first and then rolling out websites and software that require this capability only after most users have the required hardware. This could take a very long time, given the slowing rates of hardware turnover.
Re:Oh shit! (Score:4, Interesting)
While Microsoft will continue playing typical Microsoft-games, Trusted Computing itself is "available to everyone". Someone can even make a Trusted Computing version of linux, open source code and all. That source code is ABSOLUTELY USELESS however - Trusted Computing defeats/destroys the GPL. If you try to change a single line of that code then it no longer works.
where copyrights are enforced in digital media and all related media.
No. DRM restrictions have some resemblance to copyright rules, and they are motivated by copyright intrests, DRM restrictions do not equal copyright restrictions. For one thing it exterminates Fair Use. For another thing DRM enforces any restriction the publisher cares to impose, restrictions with absolutely no coneection to copyright law, restictions such as DVD region coding and blocking out the fast forward button on certain parts of DVD's.
we will also get a completly trusted computing environment for banking...
Imagine two identical computers. One is "new hardware" and you are given a printed copy of your Master Keys. You put that peice of paper in your safety-deposit box in a bank vault. The second computer is Trusted Computing. The only difference is that Trusted Computing FORBIDS you to know YOUR OWN MASTER KEY. Both machines have identical hardware and identical capabilities. I defy you to tell me how "new hardware" (where you know your key) is any less able to protect you than the Trusted Computer.
The mere fact that you know something CANNOT reduce your computer's ability to protect you from viruses or worms or trojans or hackers or anything.
What Trusted Computing really does is take away your ownership of your own computer. If you know your master Keys then no one could use your computer as a weapon against you. They cannot lock you in, they cannot lock you out, they cannot enforce DRM restrictions - in particular they cannot enforce DRM restrictions which have absolutely no basis in law like blocking Fair Use and enforcing DVD region coding.
That is the central design feature of Trusted Computing - that you are forbidden to know your own Master Keys. You could get all of the claimed benefits of Trusted Computing with a system that lets you know your keys, but they don't want to let you have such a machine. The real purpose of Trusted Computing is to deny you ownership and control your your own computer, they will only give you a version carrying this poison pill.
-
Re:Oh shit! (Score:4, Insightful)
You forget that these countries are self sufficient in everything they need to maintain themselves. So they will never reach a point where they must inflate into infinity in order to pay for their imports like has been done in the united states with reguard to oil, (and some foods).
Re:Oh shit! (Score:3, Interesting)
It would only be illegal in the USA. The rights the DMCA tries to protect are intellectual rights in the binary realm. The approach avenue in this specific case is the access rights to the data.
Internationally, these rights are protected by treaties. Non of these treaties (yet!) works in a way the DMCA works. The treaties a
Not that real a threat (Score:3, Interesting)
It simply wil
Re:Oh shit! (Score:5, Informative)
> Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses...
In the near future we will have two kinds of platforms. One platform will be a fully integrated appliance that runs Windows in DRM-nightmare mode with BIOS lockin. These will be for those who just want a computer to type letters and check e-mail. They will use it like they use their microwave. Microsoft will take care of all updates and security configuration, and they will track your usage and use it for marketing purposes.
The other camp will be composed of business users, hackers, and those curious enough to want to do more with their computer than what the manufacturer tells them to. These people know the importance of firewalls and updated antivirus. The computers they use will not draconian DRM and BIOS locking (at least not in a way that isn't able to be disabled). They will likely be using an OS other than Windows, since Windows will require trusted hardware (except possibly some small business who use their work machines to do little more than they would do at home). This camp will likely run a Unix variant and Mac OS X (assuming Apple doesn't do something really stupid).
You and I will run *nix/OS X at home, and our parents will send us e-mail on their Windows media centers (or better yet, Windows Embedded) that are plugged into their HDTV.
Chill out, deep breaths.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses... "
Ok, a bit of background. I wrote that story on the Inq that is the topic here, and as part of my job, I have been following the Trusted Computing/Palladium/whatever very closely. It isn't that bad. The technology is not evil, and it won't lock you out. The technology simply is.
Before you go blathering on and on about how linux won't run on it, or it will be a bitch for the average user to port, I hate to tell you, but Linux was up and running on a 'trusted' platform at IDF this fall. Intel wants it, IBM wants it, and so does everyone else. It is already there, don't lose any sleep over this any more.
That said, the whole idea is stupid, unworkable and won't achieve anything that they are aiming for, but that is for a totally different reason. If you want a great example of how people don't get it, go watch the fall '03 IDF keynote, it is probably on the Intel web site somewhere. You will understand how they missed the mark (A big wet kiss to the first person to link it in a comment).
Now, if you want evil, and I do mean evil, that IS meant to lock you out, look to EFI and the new bootloaders. That is where MS is going to try to cut linux off at the knees, or maybe already has. I am working on this story, but it is slow going. Be very afraid of EFI people.....
-Charlie
EFI? to cut Linux off? Maybe, or maybe not... (Score:5, Interesting)
EFI, short for External Firmware Interface can be described as BIOS on steroids, combined with MS-DOS. It's a programming API in firmware used specifically for low-level hardware configuration and bootstraping of OSes. It comes with a command shell that looks much like MS-DOS - it reads FAT filesystems, runs a TCP/IP stack, lets you manipulate files from the command line, set up scripts and execute programs. For the most part, these programs do things like boot OSes (from disk or network), splash screens & hardware configuration. I personally have seen Linux boot through a version of LILO hacked for EFI (though that was three years ago). It's much more flexible than the PC-style BIOS for such things. For those of you with Unix backgrounds, it's somewhat like the firmware in PA-RISC workstations that normally bootstraps HP-UX.
It isn't much of a stretch to suggest EFI can be used to set up Trusted Computing software or DRM, and even to lock out software that the Powers That Be consider to be undesireable, by running an initdrm program in the boot script just before it executes the hwconfig, splashscreen or bootos programs. As I said, EFI can be used for good or evil. EFI can be used for this, but doesn't have to be.
I personally doubt EFI will be used to cut off Linux, since a lot of the big players like HP and IBM have too much at stake to let themselves be shut out.
New Linux distro by microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New Linux distro by microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
MS might come out with a BSD derived OS though. They can do that without giving up everything. And Apple has, again, proved that it can be done by a commercial company. But don't look for MS to do anything that causes them to need to admit ANYTHING.
Re:New Linux distro by microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
The geek crowd would howl. The Mac crowd would crow. Consumers would see MS stray from Windoze and may decide to explore alternatives themselves. Their apple cart would truly tip then.
Still, they in a bind: The Inq does have an anti-MS edge to it, but the underlying problem for MS is true. Linux/OpenOffice hit hardest where their 90% profit ratio exists. Even it it doesn't translate into any actuall wins, it
Re:New Linux distro by microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember there are two Windows OSes, Server and Desktop. Linux has been eating away at the Server OS and looks like it's winning, but MS is still strong since they have AD and strong integration on the back end. That won't last long with Novell and Suse attacking it.
As for the desktop OS, people will still be reluctant to use anything but MS Office; OO may be good, but when it comes to documents which have been edited by dozens of people and have hundreds of pages with different formatting everywhere, only the same version of Word that created that document opens it without any errors. Even if OO does open it correctly, the cost of reviewing the document just once for formatting inconsistancies makes buying the same version of Word worth the price.
MS could port MS Office to Linux/BSD, which would ensure their cash cow continues to bring in money. But would they do it? Probably not since Office is about the only reason people don't desert Windows. And without the desktop Windows OS, the server OS loses a lot of the functionality.
They could build Windows on top of existing distributions; but then they lose control of plug and play, which would be the biggest complaint from users of Windows on Linux; people would blame MS for Linux's shortcomings when their brand new digital camera failed to connect properly. They could build their own distribution to have better control of plug and play, but then they'd have to release under GPL... I doubt MS would be willing to do that. To build a hybrid OS like Apple and keep it closed source would do nothing for MS since it's no different from what they have now.
So unless (until?) there's a shift in their thinking about Open Source, I think they're just gonna keep fighting (losing) the battle by adding new bells and whistles and spending a lot more money on the PR FUD front.
Snowball's Chance on this one (Score:3, Interesting)
The culture doesn't support it (Score:3, Insightful)
There's one important thing to remember here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record (Score:5, Informative)
-Charlie
Monkeyboy (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely! Microsoft Failing -- Hardly! (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, let's keep in mind, Microsoft is a heavily diversified company with an overwhelming monopoly to weild, and thye've taken losses in some very touchy areas -- especially the home entertainment business. Their business on a whole may be flat, but some parts of their business doing AMAZINGLY well.
In business, there is no single factor to bring down a company (well, besides money of course), but rather it's a aglomeration of tons of facts which balance the company. Even with Microsoft's "flat" quarter, they've got a lot of steam to pump other products up. Just look at their cash reserves.
Re:Absolutely! Microsoft Failing -- Hardly! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly possible that the market for MS products hasn't grown any since the mid 90s, when they saturated the market for everything they make money on, and so their trend of making more on paper each year has now caught up with them. This could be simply a result of the fact that you can't make any more money when you already have all the money.
It's also possible that their tricks have now been outlawed in such a way that someone would actually end up in jail, so now they have to report what they actually make when they actually make it. I wouldn't be too surprised if this were the case, since regulators and Congress have been really worried about companies doing exactly what Microsoft does not to maintain the appearance of slowly and steadily improving, but simply staying in business.
Or maybe Microsoft is actually at the end of their rope, and have avoided appearing this way due to their enormous assets and complex accounting, and will lose all their money next year. I wouldn't bet on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if this quarter signals that Microsoft will no longer be performing (in an earnings way) absolutely reliably in the future, which may shake the market's weird (from a technical standpoint) confidence in them.
Re:Absolutely! Microsoft Failing -- Hardly! (Score:3, Interesting)
Their two big profit makers are Windows and Office. Since 1/3 of their existing customers didn't sign up to their new Office licensing scheme, that means they are obviously planning to switch to something else (or they would have signed up for the new licensing since it would be cheaper if they weren't going to switch). Linux has already pretty much won in the server space. Goverments, schools, and business
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
On one hand, I'm breaking out the wine for a little celebration.
If true, it would certainly be time to break out the wine [sourceforge.net]!
Microsoft is its own biggest competitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft is its own biggest competitor (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just me. Entire companies of hundreds of machines have to consider
A) Do we NEED this or are we still productive?
B) Can we INSTALL this after we ou
They didn't sign up for the new license. (Score:5, Insightful)
#1. Open Source is part of the equation. It allows companies that do sign with Microsoft to get huge discounts.
#2. Other companies do not upgrade their old Microsoft products. But they may have problems getting licenses for those products in the future.
#3. Other companies have migrated all or a portion of their systems to Open Source products.
#4. Microsoft's other products are losing money.
It is a bit complicated. There isn't any single factor. And that is why Microsoft is having such a hard time dealing with it.
Re:Microsoft is its own biggest competitor (Score:3, Interesting)
Saturation (Score:5, Informative)
Revenue can't increase any more. The US market is saturated. Foreign markets can't afford list price or anything close, so Microsoft has condoned piracy up until recently, rightly figuring a stolen copy buys mindshare that a legitimate copy of somebody else's software doesn't. But with all their carping on piracy, and especially with Hollywood screaming about piracy, foreigners have been cracking down on piracy and turning to alternatives like Linux.
That's the cause of the flattening.
MS boxed self in corner (Score:5, Insightful)
Office and Windows rely on being ubiquitious to drive sales. Every free copy of Word that goes out there, every stolen copy of Windows, serves to cement Microsoft's monopoly in place. When people now have to think in terms of Windows and Word as a paying proposition, the relatively high prices for Windows and Office suddenly become a factor. Free is pretty good, but Sun seems to be making money off of "reasonably priced."
Re:MS boxed self in corner (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, all true, except for the "making money" part about Sun!
Re:MS boxed self in corner (Score:3, Informative)
LOL, Sun, the company that hasn't had a profitable quarter in 3 years, that is showing billion dollar losses every quarter for the last year? They are "making money" no, my friend they are losing and losing badly.
Diversify, diversify, diversify (Score:5, Insightful)
The "failed" products aren't a problem: that's exactly what big business is supposed to do. When you've got a product or two that bring in tons of money, you throw lots of money around trying to invent other moneymakers. You know that your main product or two will eventually run dry: that's no surprise, and that's why you continue to throw money at other ideas trying to come up with the next big moneymaker.
Most of these other sideline products (MSN, Xbox, smart phones) will fail. But that's not unexpected: most small businesses and startups fail. This is what big businesses do: fund R&D trying to come up with the Next Big Thing to replace their current revenue stream.
It's the same thing Microsoft did with Office: initially, they were an OS-only company. They got into Office because they needed to diversify, just like every big business did. Office started as a pretty crummy product that got routinely spanked by both WordPerfect and Lotus. But given enough time and enough money, Office became a profit machine. Microsoft is actually pretty lucky to have two dynamo products in the market at once.
Think of MS like 3M: could 3M survive simply by producing Post-It Notes? No, they have a huge amount of diversity and R&D running to find the Next Big Thing. The more products you throw at the market, the more chances you have of staying power.
Re:Diversify, diversify, diversify (Score:3, Informative)
Humorously that article on the Inquirer (which is notorious for such factless drivel) repeats an oft stated claiming that only two Microsoft products make money (which is something that is classic in the community -- repetition eventually is presumed to be proof). In reality two Microsof
Re:Diversify, diversify, diversify (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft says they spend 6.8 billion dollars in R&D, but they must count also software development for the "D" in R&D instead of counting as "production costs".
It's impossible MS spends more in R&D (6.8 billion) than IBM (less than 6.billion according to their own numbers).
Re:Diversify, diversify, diversify (Score:4, Insightful)
Another explanation could be that Microsoft really is interested in the fruits of this research but is banking them as part of a careful business strategy, so they can pull "innovations" out only when they're needed to shore up a sagging bottom line and no earlier.
It's hard to compete with.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Government agencies have been feeling the pinch and they really have no choice but to consider it.
I think I may have been the only person at my contract to be REALLY excited about the fact that we needed a lot of new functionality without having much money.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Pardon me (Score:3, Insightful)
Licensing 6.0 is a disaster, and so is Product Activation. At least we know that much.
Re:Pardon me (Score:4, Interesting)
Well to be honest, most articles on
Licensing 6.0 is a disaster, and so is Product Activation. At least we know that much.
Microsoft certainly took a hit with Licensing 6.0, they've admitted as much.(Which, BTW, is the secret to Microsoft's success... admitting failures and trying to correct them)
But Product Activation? Hasn't impacted Windows XP sales at all. In fact, one could point to it as evidence that Product Activation can work if done correctly.
Now Product Activation with Intuit's tax program, that was a disaster, and Intuit admitted as much.(again, another sign of a sucessful company) But then that's because they didn't implement it correctly.
Re:Pardon me (Score:4, Insightful)
You could get all of the advertized benefits AND eliminate all of the abuses simply by having access to your Master Key (Private Edorsement Key and/or Storage Root Key).
Lets say you had two absolutely identical computers. The first computer is "new hardware" and you have a printed copy of your keys. The second one is Trusted Computing and your keys are locked inside the chip. The "new hardware" gives you every claimed benefit of Trusted Computing, the hardware is identical with identical capabilities. There is no possible what that knowing your own key can reduce your computer's ability to protect you. You are still completely secure against malicious software and hackers because there is no way they can get at a printed key. You could lock that printed key in a bank vault, or even burn it if you like.
At the same time, knowing your own key means that no one can hijack your computer as a weapon against you. They cannot lock you in, they cannot lock you out, they cannot enforce DRM, all because you know your Master Keys.
Of course they refuse to sell you "new hardware". The sole reason they are spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars is to forbid you from knowing your own keys. The true purpose is to enable lock-in, lock-out, and DRM abuses.
When anyone advocates Trusted Computing we merely have to demand to be allowed to know our own Master Keys. They have no defense against that argument. You have absolutely every right to open your computer and read out your key with a microscope, and they canot prevent that. All Trusted Computing can do is make it a pain in the ass to get your keys to liberate your machine.
-
Charlie Demerjian (Score:3, Funny)
Although to be honest, I did expect this fellow to be a ranting flamer from the Inquirer article...
Reminds me of lines from Citizen Kane (Score:5, Insightful)
Write off Bill at your peril (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who installed one of the earliest versions of Windows 95 (look, I crave forgiveness, I was younger and being paid to do it, OK!) will remember that it didnt come with MSIE, instead it came with the Microsoft Network. Back in the early '90s (so went the script) the internet wasnt going to happen, instead we were all going to use paid online services like AOL and Compuserve. MSN was on the roadmap as Microsoft's entry into the market and in the MSdream it was going to sweep aside AOL and Compuserve lust like MSIE swept aside Netscape a few years later.
Of course, we know it didnt happen that way. If MS had been IBM we'd have seen them soldier on with the MSN dream and suddenly have to backpedal in about 2000 just in time to miss the dotcom thing and lose loads of cash. As it was they dropped the idea like a hot potato and changed the direction of the entire company in record time to embrace the Internet. It's an overused phrase, but the rest is history.
My point? Dont write off Microsoft. They've stayed where they are by flexibility and they wont have lost that flexibility. It could be different this time of course because the flexibility of the OS movement is what makes it so cool, but I'll start dancing on Microsoft's grave when I see the headstone.
Inquirer article written by a fanboy (Score:4, Insightful)
For thirty years, Microsoft competed in a market that had essentially zero competition. Now, after having delivered fairly robust and stable systems (Windows XP and 2k), they are no longer selling to untapped markets. Of course their profits are going to taper off. This has absolutely nothing to do with Linux, BSD, Apple, or Sun. This has everything to do with classic market mechanics.
The article leads some fun 'rah rah' type cheerleading, but it misses the point. Are things changing for Microsoft? Undoubtedly. Are they solely or even mostly due to 'upstart' operating systems? Not a chance. I'd love it if some vertical apps (particularly EMR systems) were being written for Linux. But they aren't. Beating MS isn't going to be like overwhelming an enemy. It'll be more like digging Frenchman out of trenches, one inch at a time, in WWI. (Feel free to run with the analogy. I haven't got the time;)
Re:Inquirer article written by a fanboy (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they had a tons of competition. However MS usually was usually off creating new markets for their products, while the competition was maximizing profits in the old markets.
Despite the fanboyism of the editorial, it's a real point that now Microsoft is the one playing profit maximization, and others are off blazing new markets.
What a load (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, that article is a huge circle-jerk. Look, I like Linux. I use it every day -- for development. I use XP for my everyday apps, because it's a better tool for those.
Linux has almost no penetration desktop, non-server applications. Evidence? Coming right up. Note Google's usage breakdown [google.com].
Note that Linux ranks dead last, below Windows 95! Yes, we're talking about Google, which is the geek's best friend, which would have naturally higher numbers than many other sites.
Tipover point? XP ranks first at 42%! Yes, Microsoft's latest O/S (which the article seems to think is a dismal failure) accounts for almost half of all web access!
So in other words... (Score:3, Funny)
M$ is not necessarily competing with " Free" (Score:5, Interesting)
One article in the Inquirer isn't a death knell... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a feeling that Microsoft's slide won't be quick, nor complete... remember when IBM was supposedly going to fall into the ocean because they weren't able to compete with Sun, SGI, and HP in the UNIX market?
Functionally, the company can continue to generate revenue and remain "profitable" for a long time. If you look at Microsoft's strongest competitors in each business, how many of them can retain a lead on M$ for another 3-5 years while Microsoft tries to reinvent itself to boost profits?
IBM and HP each half-compete with Microsoft while shipping their products to their enterprise customers.
Sun and "The Linux Distros" (Red Hat, SuSE, etc...) all nudge Microsoft at the desktop level... although none of them may have the resources to survive a sustained competition with Microsoft. That said, Apple seems to thrive despite having a small market share because it has a loyal userbase.
Sony may have a real battle on its hands with the next generation consoles given that Nintendo's weakness and Microsoft's marketing muscle (and deep pockets) may give them a big boost to narrow the gap in marketshare.
And how is Palm weathering the Micro$oft assault on handheld operating systems?
Perhaps the most interesting thing will not be anticipating the inevitable downturn Microsoft will face, but to consider what form a "new" Microsoft will take when they try to claw their way back to the top? I have this gut feeling that X-Box and PocketPC create a new "low-end" strategy in markets where being the provider of an OS and a reference design can be very profitable.
Re:One article in the Inquirer isn't a death knell (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a severe skeptic of every technology company around, but have found myself engulfed by Microsoft as a Windows Geek because they just keep surprising me by not going totally braindead. (in spite of The Inquirer's article) Is it just me or didn't MS servers go from 10 percent of the market (LAN Manager on DOS or OS/2), to 20 percent (Novell ignored this), to 38 percent (where I thought they would peak), to 55 percent now? These Windows 200X Servers are pretty impressive examples of how the Borg has expanded through embrace and extend. In the meantime, Linux has been killing off the NIX'es and Novell to become the other big kid on this block. All the while, I have seen boneheaded move after boneheaded move by MS that tempted me to write them off, learn Java and Linux, and start looking for a job with "The Rebel Alliance". The phenomenal price hikes, the horrific defense they put on against David Boies and the Justice Department, SQL Slammer, Blaster, the refusal to backport Active Directory's Group Policies to pre-Windows 2X (Windows 2000, XP, 2003) machines, the forcing of Exchange customers wanting Exchange 2000 to deploy Active Directory (on Windows 200X Servers only), MSN, losing their lawsuit with Sun over Java, the threatened arbitrary defrocking of Windows NT 4.0 MCSE's (Microsoft Certified Sales Engineers :) )that was only averted four months from the deadline, and more. This company has committed about a zillion errors and it keeps coming back from them all smiling, profitable, and supremely confident like some sort of liquid metal-based Terminator soaking up shotgun blasts. Sixty billion in the bank will do that for you, I suppose.
What to make of this? An old friend long ago advised me that whatever IBM is doing, do the opposite. He has long been an MS guy and it has paid off for both of us. Will it go on forever? Extremely unlikely. When twenty year olds come to me these days asking for long-range IT advice, I recommend Open Source. You will learn more, you have the time to learn it, and it's not going away. If they need to learn MS later, it will be easy after Open Source. MS won't be going away any time soon, but eventually we will ALL perceive that IT is not just about desktops, servers, and mainframes. When it comes to money, we need to remember those cell phones, Blackberry's, PDA's, gaming consoles, set top boxes, supercomputers, Distributed.net, manufacturing control systems, routers, firewalls, and dozens of things that don't come to mind. When viewed in its' totality, this market has MANY big players. The winds of change are blowing and the devices are bypassing MS's chokehold on innovation in its markets. Adam Smith's invisible hand will crash right through MS discounts, Justice Department inaction, and legions of lawyers to bring us the computing solutions we need. A pox on Darl McBride!
This is because: Microsoft is NOT Free Market (Score:4, Insightful)
Wehn will people start to understand that Microsoft does not free market principles for it's success - it relies on a government granted monopoly called copyrights. There is a difference.
Re:This is because: Microsoft is NOT Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
So does open-source software.
The GPL would be meaningless if not for the copyright restrictions that apply to "free" code. And the terms of the GPL are all that prevents Microsoft from swiping the Linux source and creating an "MS Linux" loaded with trade-secret/closed-source "enhancements" (e.g. support for the full Windows API). How much embrace-extend-extinguish do you want?
Heck, without copyright protection, the incentive to keep source code under wraps would be much stronger, because it would be the only way for a developer to apply what he considered appropriate licensing terms (GPL, BSD, Artistic, proprietary, etc.) to his work.
Copyright isn't the enemy, and it's not the reason that markets don't remain "free". Ironically, it's more the lack of government intervention that's enabled Microsoft to cripple the free market in software.
Panic (Score:3, Interesting)
In the meantime...
Perhaps is time for shorting the stock. Bill certainly thinks it's, he has been selling stock like crazy. Check this site [vickers-stock.com] and ask for a insider report on MSFT (no direct link possible to the report).
Once again: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mickeysoft will generally have to shift away from inhouse all-in-one lock-in concepts only to a more service oriented businessmodel if they want to stay numero uno for another decade.
The problem Mickeysoft has, is that it clearly underestimated it's power, clutching to that now deprecating classic businessmodel of theirs instead of seeing what was coming up with the rise of Linux/E/KDE/Gnome/uNameIt. Every single one in the industry I know is gonna switch to OSS when their current stuff isn't sufficient anymore. Everybody, exept for some Mac oriented designers. And they have 'switched' with OS X allready. In this part Steve Jobs is still the entepreneur he was 20 years ago, seeing the light befor the majority of his customers do. Whilst Billy G. just seems to feel a little overconfident in Windows and not grasping a clue about the rest.
Now there are to much people out there that have heard of Linux and OSS. 3 years ago that would have been different and MS could have incorperated a Unix/OSS concept of business themselves and everyone would have thought Linux is a new M$ thing. I guess it's to late for that now.
So much for being a big, bloated, inflexible and greedy corp. I couldn't care less if M$ shrinks to a normal company due to it's own bloat and blind self-confidence. On the contrary. That's the best that can happen to humanity.
Trusted Computing -- MS Knight in Shining armor (Score:3, Interesting)
Not So Fast My Friends... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their doom has been forecast many times, yet it seems that they always rebound stronger and more profitable than ever before. Until they have shown YEARS of decline, I for one refuse to believe any reports of their death, much less serious injury.
To wit, they seem to have a palpable strategy in place to combat Linux. Basically, it is their hope that the questions of IP will slow adoption long enough for them to lock their corporate customers into the Windows 2003 server,
Remember that Office 2003 is actually a salvo in the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy -- their XML formats are just proprietary enough to make that so, given the inertia that they have with the largest installed office-suite base as well as (frankly, like it or not) the most functionally integrated package on the market. Add to that the B2B interaction of sending Word, Powerpoint and Excel files and their strategy very well might work once again.
Windows Server 2003 and it's embedded technologies promises much of the same.
I say all this not as a Microsoft apologist but simply as a realist. While I strongly prefer Linux both on the server and on the desktop, the fact remains that there is much to be done, very much indeed, before it will topple the likes of a Microsoft.
Re:Not So Fast My Friends... (Score:3, Interesting)
For one, the ability to easily rearrange the "K" menu by dragging items around doesn't exist nearly the way it is in the Windows Start menu. I often rearrange the shortcuts Start menu little by little to follow the way I work, and KDE simply requires a more tedious way of doing it.
I've gotten used to right clicking the task bar for task manager but now the closest equivalent is just deeply buried in t
Re:Not So Fast My Friends... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that if Linux is to really have inroads into the desktop market, the desktop has to standardize. Sure I can train my wife to use KDE, but what if she goes to work and they use Gnome, or what if she works on a Sun SPARC and uses CDE? It would be nice to get things more standardized.
In fact its this very reason why I run fvwm2 as my window manager under Gnome at work (I dumped metacity), because I use Linux at work/home, and a Sun SPARC Ultra60 at school, and the Sun doesn't have Gnome/KDE, and I'm a user of that system, not an admin (I take classes, not admin the network). I can run FVWM on Linux/Sun/HP-UX/SGI/BSD/AIX with little effort in compilation (doesn't require Gnome/KDE libs, et al), and have a common desktop that looks, feels, and behaves the same accross *nix platforms.
My boss at work uses RedHat9/KDE/sawfish on one machine and Fedora1/Gnome/metacity on his other one. I use Fedora1/Gnome/fvwm2 on mine. Another co-worker uses Knoppix/Gnome/metacity. All of our desktop window management systems behave differently. I have a hard time using my boss's computer because the windows management behaves differently than mine, et al. So how can I teach my family all of this? I can't. Thats why some sort of standardization would be helpful.
I do, though, give up some functionality that metacity or sawfish has. But I don't want to have to learn how to use X different X11 windows management systems. Thats partly what Microsoft does have going for it. I sit down at a WinNT/Win95/Win98/WinME/Win2000/WinXP machine and the windows management is the same. There is always a "start" menu, and its organized (by default) in the same way, and its easy to change some of its behavior - you change it the exact same way regardless of what version of Windows you are on.
The author can't even count... (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft only started breaking out the seven subunits about a year ago. During each of the quarters since then, three units -- not two -- have made money: client, Office, and server and tools. More than that, MSN (you know, the horrible money loser?) made money last quarter, and shows no signs of slowing revenue growth. That's four of seven making money, not two.
The author of the Inquirer piece would like to lump the two OS divisions together, but that makes no sense: F/OSS systems don't compete against the client yet, only against the server and tools segment. Revenue in that segment is growing faster than the segment. That's not being beaten by Linux; it competing solidly, despite a price disadvantage.
Worse, for the author's thesis, the handhelds division is hardly "losing money fast" -- instead, it's losing money at a constant rate, with its revenues more than doubling each year. If current patterns continue, that division will be profitable in the current quarter or the next quarter. That's not clearly going to happen, but it certainly doesn't seem unlikely.
That leaves two divisions not making money: Home and Small business solutions. Those are both new businesses for Microsoft, and they're both businesses where Microsoft expects to lose money for about a decade, just as it did with servers, with MSN, and with handhelds.
But, hey, the story predicts the death of the internet...I mean, the death of Microsoft. SO we've got to front page it to give Magee and
wishful thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, the author says that Microsoft refuses to change, but they have a history of doing just that. They followed Apple's lead on GUIs. They went from poo-poo-ing the internet to become one of its chief exploiters. One of their key corporate virtues is a distinct lack of NIH (not invented here) Syndrome; many of their key products were originally developed elsewhere (DOS, IE, PowerPoint, WebTV, FrontPage, VisualBasic, SQL Server), or are direct copies of other companies' products (Pocket PC, Ultimate TV, Windows).
Granted, they've shown a certain unwillingness to overhaul their systems at the cost of backward compatibility (like Apple has peridoically done, with the transition from ][ to Mac, from 68K to PPC, from MacOS to OSX), but don't mistake that for obstinance.
Does the MS platform really lock you in? (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I don't get is the myth that if I operate a MS OS I'm locked into Microsoft software and paying MS eternally for updates etc. I just went through the software I use daily and while most of it runs on Windows XP, none of it's by Microsoft. Here's the list:
Acrobat (Adobe)
Agent (Forte)
Eudora (Qualcomm)
Ghostscript (AFPL/OSS)
GSView (Ghostgum)
Mathematica (Wolfram Research)
MikTeX (OSS)
Mozilla (OSS)
Octave (OSS)
Paint Shop Pro (JASC)
PuTTY (OSS)
Winamp (Nullsoft)
Notice especially how many great open-source or otherwise free packages there exist in fields that Microsoft haven't got anything to offer. Then why do I constantly read on /. that MS have a complete monopoly on software like nothing else was available?
Note also the complete lack of Office of any kind. I rarely need a word processor, and if I do there's Wordpad or KOffice and whatever spreadsheet it comes with on Linux. Oh, I guess I use WMP or RealPlayer (blegh) occasionally.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Microsoft Lock-In (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, well, there's your problem. You read Slashdot. You know of alternatives to Microsoft junk and are willing to seek them out. The vast majority of people are not, and will use just what comes on their machine.
The best examples of Microsoft lock-in are Outlook/Exchange and ActiveX. If you want to use Exchange to its fullest potential, you'd better have all Windows machines in your organization, or forget it. The Mac version was shit until late 2000. In Outlook 8.2.2, attempting to accept a meeting invitation would crash a Mac. Things got better when Outlook 2001 came around, but even that still doesn't do certain things like (IIRC) voting buttons. Now if you want OS X-native Exchange connectivity, you need Entourage. But Entourage does a shit job at it. It doesn't speak MAPI, instead relying on other protocols (IMAP, SMTP) for everything-- protocols that are typically turned off in most organizations, who won't turn them back on due to security concerns and whatnot. And the Windows version of Outlook is like the Roach Motel for your data. Ever notice that Outlook will happily import data from about a dozen different competing products, but that exporting data out of Outlook is a major pain in the ass? Think that's not intentional? That's lock-in. Make it painful to try to use or switch to something else.
Then there's ActiveX. A Microsoft concoction designed to appeal to lazy developers. They develop stuff in ActiveX, and if you want to use it on a non-IE browser, you're SOL. That's lock-in.
Bottom line: Microsoft products play best with other Microsoft products, and grudgingly if at all with other products. If you want cross-platform capability, you're better off with Linux or OS X-- those platforms MUST interoperate very well so they'll be adopted into Microsoft strongholds. Microsoft stuff doesn't HAVE to work with anything but other Microsoft stuff.
Here's another example of tacit Microsoft lock-in: the Snap Server applicances. Yeah, they run some Unix variant. Yeah, they provide Windows and Apple file sharing, or a reasonable facsimilie thereof. But here's something you need to know about it: files touched by Mac clients don't get their Windows backup flag set correctly, so Windows backup software can't tell what do put on tape when a differential backup is run-- Mac-changed files don't get backed up. The Snap people know, and they don't care. What's implied is that if you want everything to work right you should get rid of your Macs.
Re:Does the MS platform really lock you in? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft doesn't have to or care to get into the text-terminal emulation business, they have NetMeeting and XP's RemoteDesktop.
Windows Media is used by a fair number of people, but yeah, a lot of normal people still use Winamp. Though microsoft always needs a couple tries before are able to dominate a market.
Microsoft doesn't have an answer to Photoshop, but that could easily change at any point.
And the mathematical stuff isn't used by a ton of people, so you could similarly ask why Microsoft doesn't have great MIDI sequencing or circuit layout tools, but microsoft is more interested in software that further their goal of world domination. Or they don't want to get into niche tools, or, I dunno. :)
Faint criticism is almost praise. (Score:5, Informative)
In one sense, the Enquirer article seems correct. In another sense, by not naming the really serious problems with Microsoft products, the article almost praises Microsoft.
For example, "Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows XP have crippled file systems." [slashdot.org] The file system cannot copy some of the files that are necessary to the operating system. Microsoft provides no way of making functional backups of its newer operating systems! (Yes I know about Sysprep and NTBackup and third-party methods. Microsoft technical support agrees with my statement.)
Microsoft uses proprietary file formats. You can't reliably work with your intellectual property created with Microsoft products unless you pay Microsoft money!
Microsoft can change the license terms to which you are bound after you have made your purchase and agreed to the terms!
Who was using the more than 60 serious security vulnerabilities found in the last two years in Microsoft products before they were fixed?!!! Foreign governments? Your competitors? Hackers?
What is the Microsoft Burn Rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
since they have 40 to 60 billion dollars in their kitty, how long will they take to burn through all of their cash reserves, even if they never sold another product ever again say, from Jan 2004?
This page using data from 2001 [about.com] shows total (yearly?) liabilites to be in the range of 3 to 4 billion dollars.
So it may take a while for MS to burn through all of its cash, unless it gets hit by a massive government fine, an act of god, or something equally unlikely,
Security, starting again (Score:3, Funny)
Can you say ".NET" ?
Packaging the message (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, there are still a great many IT people and users who still believe that Microsoft defines IT these days, and it will take years for the views expressed in the Inquirer article to catch up with them. I view this as a normal process, and I often see that perception lags progress by 18 months or more.
My most serious problem with this article is that I cannot show it to any serious business clients; the article shows almost nothing but contempt for them as a whole, and they will (wrongly) take that as a reflection on the Linux community; the editorial choices made indicate that the author is very blatantly pro-Linux. This tends to reinforce the perception that Linux and OSS folk are rather anti-business, playing into the hands of FUD spreaders.
We need this message delivered, but with better packaging, primarily since it will be more effective. Note that packaging and presenting is perhaps Microsoft's greatest strength, and we would do well to improve our packing as much as possible, although we certainly don't need to follow Microsoft in this regard.
Vendors already making the move... (Score:5, Insightful)
If one thing in that entire chain fails, the entire chain fails.
But by going with tools and apps that are cross platform compatible, I can mix and match with no worries. The development community is much more vast and mixed as well and any problem I can possibly conceive has usually been solved. By choosing tools and apps that give you options, you have a greater fklexibility for development.
This is one reason why whenever I we decide to purchase new software or apps, I ALWAYS evaluate open source projects first and actively promote them to the company; I have been asked if this is contradictory to our companies nature since Microsoft is our biggest client and my response has been 'We run Microsoft on every desktop here in the compny as well as on numerous servers. Do they honestly expect EVERYTHING to be Microsoft?'
Fact remains that Microsoft decided early to be a desktop company and never really put a decent effort towards servers until recently... which is a little late in the game. They realized that by getting businesses to buy in to their product, the could get software developers to buy in and then consumers. But they focused on the desktops of the business, not the servers (as shown by their weak effort put into Xenix which was later sold to old SCO and currently owned by the new SCO).
Linux has always been server side and as such has a ddistinct advantage; they are attacking the problem from a top down perspective. Get it on the servers and then onto business desktops. Once the worker spends 8 hours out of nearly everyday with Linux, Windows will be seem awkward and unstable to even the most computer illiterate luddite. Software manufacturers will realize that businesses use Linux for desktops as well as servers, lose their fear of the GPL and realize that you can make closed source software for open source systems.
Once Photoshop is released for Linux, that will herald the day of the Linux desktop and Microsoft will truly be scared.
Get Ready, Folks (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, start expecting to see exploits coming out a lot -- there's simply going to be more people attacking as well as using.
Security problems are bound to happen. It's going to be up to us to prove that we can respond faster and more professionally than Microsoft. Get ready!
Re:Get Ready, Folks (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, start expecting to see exploits coming out a lot -- there's simply going to be more people attacking as well as using.
We've been hearing that for about 4 or 5 years.
Now just in case you have been living in a box, allow me to point out that the market share for Internet servers is already larger for Linux than for windows, especially when it comes to the high-visibility targets, i.e. webservers.
Pray, where are all the exploits? On my last count, the ratio was roughly 10:1, and that is counting only remote exploits against server services (i.e. ignoring all the Shatter attacks and Outlook or IE holes).
So, we've been hearing this for years, with no indication that there's the slightest bit of truth to it. Please troll off.
Microsoft Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Best article I have seen about Microsoft. (Score:4, Insightful)
As one reader here wrote that some websites or servers will not work without the seal of "owned by MS" in the future, it is already here. There are some sites now that will not work with any other OS and browser other than Windows and IE. Can you guess where the content creation tools that made these sites come from?
Even the MS page to lodge a complaint against it for the anti-trust case only works under Windows and IE....which if you are running those, you will be less likely to complain. Good idea I guess....but proves the case against them.
Microsoft will reap what it has sown and it could not happen to a nicer bunch!
All about credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to tell em its free but they'd give me the look that Ive fallen for a nigerian scammer or havent read between the lines, or stealing software.
Nothing in life comes free... I got that twice as I was setting up the firewall. They also needed a big company behind the software regardless of my opinion of its stability. IT experts around the globe understand and respect opensource operaring systems, but companies as a whole cant put their trust into Linux. Microsoft is a face. It has an address and everyone knows that address. There are phone numbers to call and people to threaten should things break. You cannot call a kid in a garage and threaten him.
So companies like RedHat leaving out desktop users and focusing on business are doing Linux a favor. They're doing IT technicians in those companies a favor by allowing them to use what they trust in most. Once you have every institution use a Linux or BSD server as a redundant firewall or file server... other applications for it will spring up, and that tide, Microsoft cant go against.
Re:Let me get this straight, you are telling me.. (Score:4, Interesting)
But Microsoft still is strong in the Desktop market. Soon KDE 3.2 [kde.org] will be released and as Linux quickly matures on the desktop I don't see a reason why it will not be the default plattform in the enterprise desktop market.
Only software patents [ffii.org] can stop Linux now, but today software patents and patent privateers harm Microsoft (eolas, SPX ecc.). But Microsoft performs well in the armsraise [slashdot.org].
Sure, Microsoft will die away. It's only a matter of time.
Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)
To be accurate you have to say that Microsoft has *never* actually created anything new. They are not innovators, they are remarketers of existing technology. Period. If you look at the history of the company, they have purchased, stolen or borrowed everything they have. Bill Gates didn't "invent" DOS, he bought it. He didn't "invent" Windows. He didn't "invent" Word or Excel or Powerpoint or Access or Front Page or... Remember Word Star, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, etc. ? Those were all forerunners of the Microsoft products and they were all better. The reason Microsoft took over was because they had the marketing behind MS-DOS and once they had their stranglehold on the OEMs with that it was just a matter of time before the rest happened. IBM REALLY screwed up there. Digital Research had a better DOS but didn't have the marketing at the time.
My point is that Microsoft has not done anything that someone else didn't do first or even better. It's too bad IBM didn't have Bill Gates in their marketing department. We'd be much better off than we are today.
Oh wait - we have Linux now so maybe not!
Re:Serious Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: More like the calm before the success storm (Score:3, Funny)
> This is the beginning of a growth period for Microsoft that is on a whole different scale than the last one.
No, I don't want to buy your MSFT.
Re:More like the calm before the success storm (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes,
Will is lead once again to MS growth? I don't know, it certainly could, but it just seems like too little...
Re:More like the calm before the success storm (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll agree that there is no free IDE that can throw up a GUI as quickly and as well as MS [VisualBasic .NET Whatever]. The underlying programming language (VB) sucks big ones, but the GUI maker is supurb, no doubt. I'd be damn happy if there were a GPLed GUI maker
Re:The Inquirer? PLEASE. (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost saving will frequently make a choice that popularity ignores. Thus the tipping point isn't anywhere near the point of "equal popularity". It's a lot cheaper to choose Linux. And with the price of computers dropping, the cost of the OS and Office Software can be more than the cost of the computer. Not even counting the cost of keeping track of the licenses. Or the cost of the file formats becoming incompatible. Or the cost of...
Whether we are actually near the tipping point is arguable. Claiming that we aren't because most people "prefer" MS software is...at best misleading.
P.S.: Do you really put more faith in the stories from the major media? I have to believe that you've never been on the scene of something that you later saw reported. The major media deserve NO more credence than the Weekly World News. That they are a trifle subtler doesn't give them more credence, it merely means that they fool a larger fraction of the people.
Star Office vs. Office (Score:5, Insightful)
Apache serves my web pages for the same reason - does what we need and it's way cheaper than IIS. IExplorer is so prone to attack that we use Firebird instead. Firebird also has a few features like pop-up blocking and tabbed windows that I wonder why anyone sticks with Explorer.
Re-reading your post gave me a distinct sense of Deja-Vu. Back in the late 70's, early 80's, IBM was pretty dismissive when it came to the Apple II. IBM just couldn't imagine that these desktop computers would amount to much. What IBM, and apparently you, failed to realize is that most businesses have pretty simple needs that can be met dozens of ways. When that's the case, price becomes an important factor.
Re:Just more typical Linux Loser BS (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point he was making was that big customers can show MS that they are assessing technologies such as Star Office and Java Desktop, and immediately be offered huge discounts. That must have at least some effect on MS's bottom line.
And I'm not sure why you were modded "Troll" for making some reasonable points... oh, hang on, this is /.
Re:Not such a bad thing (Score:5, Interesting)
At least as far as I can tell, the "old" Bill Gates Microsoft is pretty much gone. That's the MS that valued universal adoption over vertical lock-in. That MS commoditized technology, priced things cheap, let people pirate them like crazy, and used it's muscle to get it's stuff everywhere possible.
(Whether or not the old MS was "good" is debatable. They certainly seemed like it coming out of the war with IBM in the early 90s, not so coming out of the war with Netscape.)
The "new" Ballmer Microsoft is trying to go Up Market and become a new mini-IBM. They don't really try to compete on price, they compete on a the level of integration they provide. Their new tier of products really only have value add when combined with other MS products.
Microsoft probably no longer cares if Office has a 95% marketshare or not. They are probably only really interested in Office customers that use all the network groupware, collaboration, and security functions. Much like IBM in the old days, if you aren't interested in becoming an end-to-end "Microsoft Shop", you aren't a very valuable customer anymore and you can go use StarOffice.
So "MS 2003 server" runs itself? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not likely (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tipover point? (Score:4, Insightful)
> company with pocket change...
Which would accomplish precisely nothing he couldn't accomplish by starting his own distribution. Buying up Linux companies would just encourage the founding of more Linux companies.
> I put a little more credence into what financial
> analysts are saying...
Well, of course. Just look how well they predicted the dot-bomb crash.
Someone is paying those analysts for those opinions. It isn't you and I. I wonder who it might be?