Gates: Open Source Kills Jobs 976
theodp writes "On the Malaysian leg of a whirlwind Asian tour, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates voiced his concerns over the growing goodwill towards open source, especially in Asia, emphasizing how damaging open source software can be. 'If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source. It is not something you do as a day job. If you want to give it away, you work on it at night,' he said. Gates, who apparently has never contended with the horrors of a VB upgrade, when on to say that '[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility.'"
whew... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
The entire Microsoft legacy is built around selling software (aside from some of the peripheral mouse|keyboards and SideWinder game devices (are they ever going to get around to supporting these again?).
Anyway, Microsoft's biggest fear is not losing money. It's becoming another IBM . Microsoft loves being in the pilot's chair and doing whatever they want to with practically no oversight (except the occasional lawsuit which they make go away). They don't pay dividends on stock (which Ralph Nader has been working on for years) - which provides them with $50B or $60B of ca$h in the bank, let alone the value of outstanding shares. They pretty much can work on whatever they want to, whenever they want to, and for whatever period of time, etc. They have any number of persons (or "IQ Points" as they used to call them, presuming there were "150 IQ Points" for each person (on average); e.g., "We need 3'000 IQ Points for this project." If you follow the common press (and read it tongue-in-cheek), it's obvious they have a lot of things down the road. When you assemble a dozen or two Ph.Ds in an an arcane subject and turn them loose, what could be happening? Certainly nothing now.
Back to Microsoft
Has Microsoft shown its vulnerability? You betcha. We all know Microsoft almost missed the Internet boat, supposedly striking WHG III during one of his Summer Sabbaticals where he reads and comes up with personal ideas when he returns with great insight as to what should happen next. When the architects of
My prediction?
This is finally the thing where Microsoft misses the wrong boat and spells the end of Microsoft pounding everyone else as though they were a hammer. They missed the boat because they saw it as a fad which had no chance of passing the real-world chance. "Who (and why) would subscribe to 'free' software? This is ridiculous. In the meantime, we'll continual making software for sale and when they come crawling back to us, we'll be there, passing the hat, and collecting their money."
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this important to say? Because from a text and technologic point of view it LOWERS the worth of the software. I think it's a psychologic thing, sortoff like propaganda, manipulation.
Selling software never happened with proprietary software, at least not in this very way it is explained to the common man ("buy XP for $100!"). Support contracts, licenses, those are sold. Or when Apple gets bought by Microsoft (example) then part of it is the ownership of some properties of Apple which including software (even FLOSS!).
Re:whew... (Score:5, Informative)
Many, many tech companies don't pay dividends on stock (albeit in a liot of cases because they've yet to see their first thin dime of profit), however MS *does* pay dividends. Their first dividend was 8 cents in early 2003 and more recently they paid 16 cents.
Minor dividends (Score:5, Interesting)
What are those savings for? To buy a small nation? To buy all the companies left in the software industry? To buy another industry? To buy favor with government officials? They're not spending it, so it's owed to investors.
Re:Minor dividends (Score:4, Insightful)
MS now has 50 billion USD, but "in their place" I'ld do the same. This money is a war chest to be able to fend off sudden changes in the industry, invest quickly in new opportunities, and to be sure they won't have a cash problem any time soon. It's not stupid, it is smart.
The only real problem we might have with Microsoft is their conservative nature. They are innovating, and making products better. But they also missed some opportunities because they were too conservative. They didn't see the internet coming, XML, open source,
Re:People think they can tell MS how... (Score:5, Insightful)
On a personal note, whilst I used to work 36 hour stretches at the drop of a hat (not at MS) and often did 24 runs and long weekends for the companies I worked for, I simply won't now. The ugly truth is that these stretches are always a result of poor project management, or a company trying to increase it's profits by understaffing projects. This is usually to stay "competitive" in the market. The managers would rarely ever pitch in on those weekend efforts :-/ Nowadays I work my contracted hours, and the project can be late for all I care. Bad management is someone elses problem, not mine - they can pay me for my loyalty, not exploit me for my naievity.
Business model (Score:4, Insightful)
They are missing the boat completely this time. It's partly from fear of becoming another IBM and partly from fear of abandoning what's worked so well for them for the past 20 years.
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather, they saw it as competition for "The Microsoft Network."
This represents the main problem facing Microsoft, and the stupid move they have done repeatedly: Rather than work with other people's standards, Microsoft has repeatedly tried to reinvent the wheel so that they get to be in the drivers seat. (And get to put up toll booths on the way, of course.)
Sometimes this works well (MS Word
THIS is where Microsoft will eventually screw up, royally. Microsoft will try to reinvent something fundamental to computing, for example, "TCP/MS" as a "secure replacement for TCP/IP (with mint sprinkles!)" and GNU/Linux + Apple will be there to smack them around for it. MS will either steadfastily try to force it, or change their tune too late, and they will start to lose clients because of it.
Re:whew... (Score:5, Interesting)
but you are WAY off about IBM.
Microsoft 'research & innovation' (if you are willing to call it that), has NOTHING on IBM. IBM is on the bleeding edge of MANY advanced engineering techniques, with really fantastic stuff in such fields like quantum computing and advanced materials (semiconducter).
MS is working on MS Bob. And reinventing Win32 as Avalon.
It's not just some research. IBM, every year for the last 10 years, has filed more patents then the next 10 companies/organizations put together. Sure, some of these are BS patents on rather silly things, but many are serious patents on products really worthy of patent protection.
IBM labs lets people loose to research whatever they want, really long-term stuff---Stuff that won't pay off for 20 years.
MS is worried about tomorrow. MS missing the boat means they are done for---they need to survive every generation.
IBM missing the boat means that they get to play again in round 2, round 3, and round 100.
I have a great deal more respect for IBM's research--- It is brilliant stuff, it is way ahead of its time, and it will change the world.
Scale, not growth. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure that it is so tied to growth. If it stops growing, but remains constant, then Microsoft's growth will come from new markets and will be slow.
The bigger problem is this: Microsoft has been so successful because no other proprietary software maker can touch them on scale. They can therefore leverage a huge economy of scale, sell their products at prices which make their competitors go bankrupt, and still make a profit. This works up to a point untill.....
You guessed it.... Free Software.
The problem with FLOSS is that it spreads the cost of development more efficiently than even Microsoft's model. Therefore, it has a much lower critical mass than Microsoft. Hence as the software beginst to grow, it undermines the scale which makes Microsoft competitive.
I used to work for Microsoft. Personally I think that they are not agile enough to come out of this with their business model in tact because they are too successful. They cannot just move to greener pastures like, say, Intuit. There are no greener pastures.
They will survive no doubt, but not as the company they are today. Expect to see them go through an extremely painful transition resembling the finest medieval torture techniques.... What comes out may not resemble what went in....
Re:Scale, not growth. (Score:5, Informative)
SNIP
I interviewed the unix administrater at a local university as part of some report I had to write this year, and he told me how he takes code from the net, debuggs it for his architecture/configuration, and deploys it on the school's webservers. That's his whole job! And this job wouldn't exist if he was using Microsoft's generic offerings.
This is interesting. One of the real benefits I have noticed from my job is that the life of the network or systems architect becomes more interesting with OSS than with proprietary off-the-shelf-software (POTSS).
With POTSS, people more or less build networks using recipie-like instructions. While you *could* do that with OSS, it usually doesn;t happen. The reason is that suddenly the business hass access to *a lot* more capability for the same cost (including man-hours) and so you end up with people whos whole job is to build systems by stringing together lots of little pieces. This approach is also the UNIX paradigm, even with regard to proprietary software, though that usually only exists at the high-end.
What OSS does is bring the Power if high-end computing systems within reach of smaller players. This is why it is so powerful and why I think that it will win out over the long run.
I assume you are not trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you say that? I suspect that a good many programmers are hired to maintain projects such as Apache. In the end, I suspect that there are as many programmers paid to work on the Linux *kernel* as there are in Microsoft working on all of Windows.
Also, I suspect that ESR is probably right in that the vast majority of software development occurs exclusively for in-house line of business apps. Of course in the context above, most of the Apache programmers are probably hired to maintain it as a line-of-business app.
I don't see most of the programming jobs go away anytime soon.
Add this to the fact that most of the USA's (I live there, so it is relevant in this way to me) "export" is actually intellectual property.
How much of this is software? There is a BIG difference between exporting a copy of Windows and a VCD of Matrix (most of Asia at least uses VCD's for such). Yet they are both intellectual property exports. And secondly, what makes you think that most of this work can't be outsourced? Of course, with movies, it won't be because people expect them to be set in the US, Australia, etc. and you can't just move that to India and expect a seemless transition. But the programming jobs not only can be outsourced, but they are being outsourced.
At the same time, OSS increases competition from abroad in that the code that you write will be and is used by your competitors to get a leg up on you.
This is why my company uses the GPL for everything we do. If a competing project were to come out, they could not legally use our code without giving us access to it or paying us royalties. But you are right. This is a problem.
Also, aside from a few well supported projects, many projects (just check Sourceforge) do not get updated or bug fixed that often. What I've seen in the OSS field (aside from the few well supported "glamorous" projects) is that initially, there is some interest in the application so it is kept up to date.
How is this different from buying software from a small proprietary software house except that you would not even have the option of hiring someone to fix the program later?
Most OSS advocates seem to think that there is or will be some magical job market or product that they will come up with that will keep them fed. In truth, this is a very optimistic prediction.
Sure, it is optimistic. Approaching any hobby with the idea that it will create a job for you is optomistic. Just the way it is.
On the other hand, if you approach it as a business, then you have to look at it very carefully, evaluate the very real traps that OSS poses (IMO, the traps of making proprietary software are just as big or bigger), and carefully formulate your strategy. In this case, you work hard to create your job.
My company (http://www.metatrontech.com) has contributed a number of open source applications. We do this for a number of strategic reasons. But they all boil down to "how can we create a market for our services?"
These services include support, programming, and many other sorts of work. Open source works, but not all work can be done by hobbiests. Indeed, it works best when we are paid to do it.
One final point. You seem to feel that programming is somehow a commodity which can be shipped around the world with no ill effect. In that case, I am not sure that anything you have said about OSS does not go for proprietary software as well. You might want to look at the outsourcing trends at the moment and ask if your job might be next.
In reality, outsourcing our jobs to India might be argued to make great long-term global economic sense (a more affluent India can afford to buy more American products), and it works great as a cost-cutting measure, bu
Re:whew... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, they don't see the truth because they don't WANT to see the truth. Redmond is in severely deep denial of the reality that FLOSS is taking over, that the paradigm has already shifted and that all that is left is the shakeout which follows. They will fight, kick and scream, because they see the market as territory they have conquered, and they aren't about to give it up without a fight. A more accurate analogy is that the market is a vein of ore that is quickly depleting and they need to find new prospects instead of chasing the poor prospectors from the surrounding area and cracking the whip on their serfs.
No one at Redmond is going to see or say that the Emperor has no clothes. They get paid too much money not to bolt on the rose colored glasses. (welding helmet?) So don't accuse Microsoft of being clueful. If they were, we would have seen some evidence of it by now.
Round of applause, that man! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a little more subtle than that. I suspect that what really led them into their current financial box-canyon is Bill setting his stamp on all of the original participants, and the next generation inheriting that, and so on. This is a thing which happens a lot in network marketing: your more enthusiastic "downline" tend to act/think/look more and more like you as time passes. Role modelling writ large.
Read Bill's original "open letter to hobbyists [blinkenlights.com]" and you can quickly see why Microsoft is as it is today. All of the markers are laid down in that one short letter, including the kind of blindness we're describing here. Key line:
Of course, in FOSS he has his answer. He just doesn't want to see it. I leave you to consider his now-sidesplitting closing line in the context of ex-Microserfs and there comments here about MS whipping the people they have rather than hiring enough to get the job done at a humane pace:
History is against him. (Score:5, Insightful)
This comes up again and again. The basis of it is the idea that if people write their own software then there will be no market for others to sell it to them.
This seems true in general, but there are three important points.
The software industry has to face up to the fact that programming is no longer such a specialist skill. A good parallel to this might be writing. It was once quite mystical to the majority of the population. But I think we can all see that our world has benefited from the skill not remaining the part of a small guild or group.
And yes, I have read the article already (I'm a subscriber). Billy Gates seems to be falling back to his old tactics of targeting schools with US$20 million in cash grants in Asia. Can't see it working myself.
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux and it's software ilk are merely a sign of the times. They're "good enough" and they're cheaper than the stuff they now replace. Linux is the future.
Now go buy a Mac!
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Funny)
Buggy whip makers were put out of work by the automobile. But the smart buggy whip makers turned to making sex toys. Sex always sells!
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Funny)
-nod- Microsoft suffers from the same problem - there's just no market for their buggy products anymore.
History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Also interesting is that Cringley has often written about Microsoft's technology making "full employement" for msft technicians [pbs.org]. Interestingly, though, he thinks Apples kill more IT jobs than Linux.
Re:History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better t (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny that you quote that. At my last job, we made the opposite change. Went from about 100 linux boxes/x-terminals to a 100 windows boxes. There were two of us techs, and our workload increased significantly. We no longer had time to work on "fun" projects that people wanted - web access to e-mail, trying new products, etc. We spent all of our time patching OSs, fighting viruses, and reinstalling hosed systems. Sure, we still used the same two techs, but I finally quit from the tedium of the job. It was no longer fun.
I think it all depends on what you want your IT people doing. Use windows, and they'll spend a lot of time fixing windows boxes. Use unix/linux, and there's a good chance that you'll be able to assign interesting projects that improve everyone's effectiveness and efficiency.
Re:History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better t (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that the Mac, prior to OS X, is adequate for most company tasks, but has major problems of its own (remote manageability being the first, and technical things like memory management being a second). In the end it doesn't require just half the effort -- it probably decreases the efficiency of the IT department sufficiently to make it impractical.
With OS X, things improved on all fronts quite drastically. However....
I see no reason why OS X should take any less time than Linux to support and
Macs cost much more than Linux systems.
Secondly, I think you make an excellent point about maintenance of Windows vs Linux systems. Windows requires much more maintenance on average, and and by all accounts has more downtime than Linux.
My point of trying to get my customers to switch to Linux is that they become free to dream about how they want their computer to work for them, not the other way around.
Also, the people making the recommendations are not the ones whose jobs are at risk if jobs are to be cut.
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:History is against him. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I've asked a lot of MS users about this, and so far every one of them has disagreed with you. Their answer is always of the form "The software I want/need is only available on DOS/Windows (depending on the year that I asked)."
So then I ask my followup question: "How many other kinds of computer systems did you look at?" And their answer is always the same: "None."
Invariably, MS users just know that software is only available on MS systems. They don't need to do any market research, because they already know the answer. There's no point in wasting time looking for something that doesn't exist.
There are, of course, lots of people who have done the obvious searches. They aren't MS users. They easily find alternatives, determine that the alternative is almost always of higher quality, and go with it.
But BillG and company (and IBM before them) have become rich betting that the great majority will never do even the slightest study of what's available. All it takes is a good-size marketing budget, and whatever you make will be the market leader, whether it's good or bad quality, because few people will ever look for alternatives.
Bill himself was in the enviable position to be able to use daddy's money to get into Harvard B-school, where he made the connections that allowed him to leverage an IBM marketing budget and do an end run against all those pipsqueaks who had demoed the viability of a "desktop" computer market. His marketing budget has remained greater than the total operating budget of all his competitors combined. So the great majority who just go with the "market leader" continue to buy from him, because they know there's no point at looking at anyone else's nonexistent software.
Anyway, try it yourself. Ask random MS users to name a single piece of software that runs on linux. I'll predict that, with very few exceptions, most of them will be unable to come up with anything at all. They have never looked, and they never will.
This shoots down the idea that they're buying based on any sort of "quality" determination. They're buying from the only software supplier that exists in their world.
(In the mainframe world, the same situation still exists, with "IBM" for "Microsoft" throughout.)
Oh the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
It gives me warm and fuzzy feelings to see the same argument now being made against them. Not just in databases but virtually every other product they make too.
Oracle survived but lost a lot of market share to SQL server and I predict the same will happen to MS.
Re:Oh the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
Open-source databases may not be heading for big iron any time soon, but Linux is now the fastest growing platform for RDBMS hosting. And I'm not just talking about MySQL either: it's now the vendor-preferred platform for both Oracle and DB2.
Windows is hardly growing at all for database servers. MS can talk all they want about the bigtime, but right now their efforts in that direction have yet to pay off. Meanwhile they're being squeezed at the lower end, and more and more new deployments are on a platform that SQL Server will never, ever run on.
Another good example (besides IBM) is Apple. In the 80s, they stopped making "the computer for the rest of us" and concentrated on making $5000+ workstations. They survived just fine with lots of cash in the bank.
I believe you're thinking of "Steve Jobs", not "Apple". Apple was a goddamn basket-case by the early 90's.
The software industry has to face up to the fac... (Score:3, Interesting)
This latter model is really scary, because they sell it to you as if it were a durable good, yet you don't really own it, becaus
It may kill jobs... (Score:5, Funny)
Jobs: Open Source will kill Gates. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Proof that open source kills puppies... (Score:5, Funny)
2) Giving something away for free is anti-capitalist.
3) Anti-capitalism is Communism!
4) Communists don't think like you and I do.
5) You or I would never kill a puppy.
6) As neither of us would kill a puppy, and communists don't think like you or I do, communists will kill puppies.
7) Therefore, Open Source Kills puppies.
8) Hence: Chewbacca.
(It's satire people...)
Visual Basic generates jobs (Score:5, Funny)
stupid argument (Score:5, Insightful)
this is like saying "volunteer work is causing unemployment for people who wish to do the same work for pay"
open source doesn't create jobs but the ultimate end result will benefit mankind as a whole. gates either knows nothing about economics or is really trying to push some BS onto us.
Re:stupid argument (Score:5, Insightful)
"volunteer work is causing unemployment for people who wish to do the same work for pay"
I have nothing worthwhile to add to what you said, but I just want to let you know I'm going to steal that analogy and use it every chance I get.
You've just shot down every argument against Open Source in a single sentance. Quite Beautiful.
Re:stupid argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source would force you to become a service and support company though. So I must thank you for that part.
Also if Open Source sucks why is it that 90% of major internet shutdowns are due to Windows viruses? Open Source componets don't fail, like windows does. They aren't bug free, but serious probelms are taken care of in hours, instead of weeks or months.
Just remember CERT destroyed your arguement when the IIS
Re:stupid argument (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that one volunteer electrician only makes one paid electrician unemployed, while on the other hand, one open source developer has the potential to put hundreds of developers out of work.
Look at that statement from a different point of view: Closed source has the potential to drain hundreds of brains from the available work force, by making them all spend their time doing the same thing that could be accomplished by one open source developer.
We could "create" a lot of road construction jobs if we just tore up and rebuilt all of our roads every year, too. Oh, wait...
Society as a whole is best served by maximizing the useful labor from each individual, not by creating enough busy work to keep everyone occupied. If open source significantly reduces the overall demand for paid developers (which I don't really believe will happen, BTW), then that just increases the number of smart people available to do other work.
It's a tough break for people who have to learn to do something new, but programmers certainly aren't the first to suffer that (c.f. manufacturing automation) and we should have an advantage, given that we're used to needing to continually educate ourselves to keep up with the industry.
Re:stupid argument (Score:3, Insightful)
In capitalism, whomever can make the goods at the lowest cost is gonna get the business. If you can't compete, you shouldn't be making those goods.
To give unefficient businesses, either through government subsidies or law, guaranteed income is a bad thing. You waste resources that could be put to something else while the competition can do the same job using less resource
Re:stupid argument (Score:5, Funny)
That's why I leave my grocery cart in the parking lot rather than return it to the store!
Volunteer Work and Unions (Score:5, Informative)
Sad as it is, some unions do use that argument. There is a nearby state park that has unionized maintenance workers. It is a several thousand acre park, which, due to budget cuts, only has two full time maintenance employees. Both guys work hard (maintaining roads grass, trash, buildings, etc,) but there is only so much two guys can do, and the parks trails are in terrible shape. Not just in need of mulch or stone, but washed out or nearly impassible due to overgrowth, downed trees, etc.
Some local businesses offered to donate tools and materials and some local Sierra Club (et al) members offered to volunteer their time to get the trials back into shape. Since it is a public park and is currently not useable for hiking by the public, I thought that was a great gesture from the community. Can you guess what heppened?
The state union told them to go stick it somewhere. Despite the fact that the two employees couldn't and wouldn't work on the trails - which is part of their job description - they wouldn't let anyone else do a "union job."
So the trails are still crap, now two years later.
Re:stupid argument (Score:4, Insightful)
This one statement strikes Microsoft's fight dead in its tracks.
You may find these quotes thought provoking:
"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don't ever apologize for anything."
-- Harry Truman
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
-- Winston Churchill
"Without a doubt, psychological warfare has proven its right to a place of dignity in our military arsenal."
-- Dwight Eisenhower
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
-- GK Chesterton
No Jobs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding jobs getting lost, I also agree. The problem is NOT as big as Gates says atm, but if OSS becomes much more popular in the future, it will be a problem for software engineers. You devalue your own profession.
Re:Gates is right (Score:5, Informative)
Your '80s DOS program will probably run fine under Linux as well. In both cases, the 16-bit environment runs in a VM.
Re:Gates is right (Score:3, Informative)
While in some cases true, this is not always a bad thing. Interface changes allow progress. Linux would not be anwhere near where it is today if developers were afraid of breaking interfaces.
Re:Gates is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source software reduces the amount of duplicate work solving the same problem over and over again. This is good for society because it lets developers get on with creating something new
This may have been true about ten years ago when a mediocre computer was $2000, but its not really true anymore. Anyone who wants a computer can easily get one these days (unless maybe in the third world). If you can't afford a new one, find someone who wants to get rid of an old one. Anyways, a large part (sometimes the majority if you build it yourself) of the price of a computer is software, so your argument that free software doesn't help poor people is flawed.
There is a bigger issue here: how does society function when there's not enough useful work to go around? I don't think abandoning OSS is the solution, though.
-jim
Re:Gates is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true. While it may inflate your ego, it does not *only* do that. To even attempt that claim is just silly.
You may think you are doing a good thing but companies which can afford to buy application software would buy software as a matter of regular business and treat it as a business expense.
Yet now that they don't have to spend money on a commercial product, they can spend more money on R&D, improved product design, etc etc, or just pocket it as profit for shareholders. Whatever happens, the company has become more economically efficient.
If you create Application software which replaces software produced by smaller companies as closed source, you eliminate the following jobs: programmer, various support staff at the company, executives, advertising jobs, sales clerks, delivery/shipping jobs as well as all of the trickle down jobs in the community.
So what? If a company is being outcompeted, then it is supposed to die. It is just asinine to suggest *not* being productive in order to save a company. As for those shipping jobs/etc, they will just need to move on to another company (perhaps one that is now viable as it doesnt have to spend money for a closed-source software package).
Oh and that non-software company that saves money with open source will most likely will not buy support from you and the principles will pocket the money instead of creating even Mc Jobs to support it.
Have anything at all to back up that claim? Or are you just spewing bullshit to try and support your point?
Why not contribute to society instead of contributing to its problems by putting more people on the street?
Again, eliminating a company that is unable to compete is *not* the same as putting people out on the street. Efficiency and wealth are not zero-sum games.
I completely agree that more people should do the type of volunteer work you mention. To suggest that contributing to open-source projects is bad, however, is just flat-out wrong. Arguing that open-source development is "stealing jobs" just shows an incredibly poor understanding of how capitalism works.
-Ted
Out-Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Open Source doens't guarantee upward compatability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source doens't guarantee upward compatabil (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also worth noting that when MS breaks compatibility, you're pretty much doomed because it's closed source. When something open source breaks compatibility, if there's a way to alter/filter/import data to make it fit, you at least have the options of writing code to do it yourself, or paying someone independent to write it.
Wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely he has just said that open source is more efficient.
If fewer people are having to be employed to do something, that must mean that the process of sharing and having standards is working more efficiently. Surely that's more economical for a business, as they're having to fork out less for these things.
What he's advocating is creating a false economy of software and 'technology' by having a hideously ineffective development and business process.
Or is that an oversimplified concept of economics?
Upward compatibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
The invention of email and corporate intranets killed secretarial jobs.
Anti-smoking campaigns are killing jobs in the tobacco industry.
Hybrid cars are killing jobs in the oil industry (or will in the future anyway).
CD Baby threatens to kill jobs in the recording industry.
Should I go on?
Interesting, considering... (Score:5, Informative)
Horrors??? Destroying Jobs??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Internet Explorer vulnerabilities make plenty of people hate computers, and stop using the Internet. What do you think having fewer customers mean??? More jobs???
Improving computing and the Internet as a whole CREATES JOBS. Microsoft crap KILLS JOBS.
Software is now a tool (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, that's the benefit of open source, people getting together to make tools and software that can help everyone.
Gates doesn't get it, because his software isn't really made to be used, it's made for future obsolecense so that people will buy the next version.
Oh, he's so wrong it's pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source helps an economy, especially a developing one. It helps people learn about their computers by giving them the tools to understand how to make them operate. It helps them grow tech skills. What, no paying programming jobs any more for them to take? Well sure there will be jobs. There are plenty of businesses that need in-house custom software (often built in conjunction with open source tools or foundations). Those programming skills learned will come in handy. Or perhaps they will join a growing software services company, where knowing how software works will prove most useful.
The Microsoft model is to create an economy where people have to shovel money to them, and individuals don't get to see how their software really works. Yeah, they can get jobs programming yet another VB (sorry, C#...sorry, .NET) report for management. But it's not the only way to go. The open source way leads to an increasingly tech literate population, and creates its own jobs. And oh yes, in this model not all the money gets shoveled back to Redmond. That's why Microsoft is squawking, but that's only natural. Doesn't mean anyone has to listen to Bill, though. After almost three decades of his self-serving words, we know better.
Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Please (Score:3)
Oh that's rich! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill Gates and Microsoft are involved with a lot of charities. Should they stop contributing to them because the good will prevents people from going out and earning the money for themselves? By Bill's argument, Microsoft should never give away an educational copy of Windows or Office to a school or university - after all that's a copy of software a competitor could sell to that institution.
But wait it must be okay, because they can write off their contributions for tax breaks. That's good for the economy.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to give away their time and effort they can do so and you just have to deal with it. You can't have it both ways.
Bill is right! (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it ironic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does Open Sourced Software kill jobs? Ask any Linux based web hoster if they killed any jobs when they chose an OSS operating system over Windows. Ask any Apache web server hoster if the OSS web server they chose killed any jobs. Notice that Linux and Apache software dominates the web servers out there according to Netcraft's survey. Thus we logically can conculde that OSS creates jobs based on the shear volume of Linux and Apache systems out there.
Notice that most people who get outsourced or laid off are Microsoft Software users. Thus we can logicaly conclude that Microsoft Software kills jobs.
So Bill Gates has it backwards, Microsoft Software kills jobs, not OSS.
Allways the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
"Linux has a greater TCO than windows systems! use our windows systems and you need less admins and coders! And you don't need so well trained admins and coders, you can outsource the jobs!"
"Linux and open source will take away your jobs!"
Of course, Gates is just hoping that your Boss hears the first message and you (and the goverment) hear the second message.
Smart and evil?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gates is showing once and again that he is a smart guy who will take any advantage he can to get what he wants.
I remember a settlement Microsoft made with some school district. But instead of sending a check to the school, Microsoft offered them computers with the windows operating system. By negotiating a settlement in such a way, it is like getting free advertising. Most people do not want to learn 2 or 3 operating systems, they just want one they know how to use. How many of those high school students went on to use Windows based PC's in college and beyond? I don't know the anwser, but I do bet some would have used Apple if they had Apple computers in their lab.
I think the problem with Gates and Microsoft is they are unethical. It is one thing to make a product and sell it, another thing to use strong arm tactics to force people to use it. It has been said many times, but my local CompUSA and Circuit City only sell computers with Windows on them. And what is worse, my Sony Vaio laptop came with Windows, but not the CD to install it as I wish. Instead it reformats the hard drive into pre-determined partitions. And I can not pick what programs to install from that CD, it installs everything as it was when I first turned the laptop on. Getting some of that unwanted software off the PC was real work. Yuck.
But there are things Gates can do to be more friendly. Don't force windows to want a whole drive all to itself. If I have drive, and want to have a small partition for linux, don't force windows to reformat that partition to ntsc or fat. Let it be. It is a pain to have to do everything after windows is installed.
I think Bill Gates is obsessed with controlling the entire market share for computer operating systems, and now is moving into media control with his DRM technology and windows media player 9. What people really want is choice. What Windows does is take away choice.
Also from the article, and this scares me:
Earlier, Gates talked about the contributions Windows has made to the Asian economy. "Windows has opened up opportunities for computers and chips to be built in Asia. This will continue to be true for [such] software in providing high-paying jobs," he said.
Can we expect many of these high paying jobs to leave the USA? Is this Gates master plan. Make the USA dependant on Windows based software, then move as much of the production outside the USA?
Also:
Gates said Microsoft is having "good dialogues" with Asian governments, one area being their loss of tax revenue "when people don't pay for software".
Does this mean Gates will want some terrif imposed on all software, then work out some exemption for Microsoft? He has proven to be smart and creative in making thinks work out the way he wants it to, and he has proven to be unethical. I would not be suprised if he tried to stifle competition.
What jobs? (Score:5, Insightful)
what really kills jobs at microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, Open source has slowly been catching up to where microsoft was 5-10 years ago. This would ordinarily be a devastating disadvantage, even for a software package that doesnt need to make money but the problem is that when microsoft's products matured, they also became commoditized- since microsoft's products havent become any more compelling in the past 7 years, microsofts existing products compete with the old ones and 7 year old open source software competes successfully as well.
The end result of this is the "cost cutting" measures that microsoft is undertaking now. It will mean a lot less "new development" for microsoft products, and a lot more outsourced maintenance contracts to fix bugs in existing ones. The real cause to blame for unemployed microsoft developers is microsofts fear of breaking into new markets and trying different things to make use of those developers. They would rather defend the rotting carcass of Office and Windows than go off boldly in search of fresh meat.
Let's make an important distinction (Score:5, Informative)
- Copyrights: open source software is still copyrighted as much as closed source software. He can't be talking about this sort of intellectual property.
- Patents: can also apply equally well to open or closed source software - indeed, some people call for software patents to explicitly include source code showing how the claimed "invention" is implemented.
- Trademarks: not really relevant; they're concerned with brand names and don't depend on if one chooses to share the underlying source code to a program or not.
- Trade secrets. Ah. We might be onto something here! Yes, something isn't a secret if you share it openly. Gee whizz - who'da thunk that?!
Yes, what Gates is saying is that you can't have trade secrets if you have open source software - only that's far too obvious a statement to make and any audience would see straight through it. So he uses the meta-FUD term "intellectual property" instead. What a sham. As with the RIAA and MPAA, what Microsoft really needs is a law that forbids circumventing an "effective" business model...
Open Source Kills Jobs (Score:3, Funny)
Oh no! Poor Steve Jobs. We always knew Open Source would be his downfall, but could not have known it would literally kill him.
Bill's a victim of his own success (Score:5, Insightful)
Then of course there's the cost issue. Who the fuck can afford Microsoft licenses? Even American businesses, who have a lot more cash than Asian consumers have been bitching about the cost of MIcrosoft licensing, especially when it has become blatantly obvious to even the dimmest of PHBs that most new Microsoft products add little in the way of useful functionality but do succeed in introducing incompatible file formats and siphoning cash off to Redmond.
Then of course there's Microsoft's arrogance in offering crippleware such as XP starter edition and XP home. Explain to me what the differences are between these products and XP pro again (other than registry hacks to turn features off, missing DLLs and different packaging). Explain to me why I can't buy a CD with an installable image at retail and have to purchase OEM copies of the OS or deal with Microsoft's fucking annoying upgrade copies. Explain to me what the new version of Office does that I couldn't do with Office 98. Fortunately for me my step-bro works at Microsoft, so I can get the software through him for cheap, other than this, or getting educational discounts I can't see how anyone affords buying Microsoft products or why anyone would continue to do so.
I have RTFA and then RTFA again (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I have RTFA for the third time... I am having trouble with the "killing" part. IMHO this reads as Gates saying: "People work on open source in their spare time as a hobby." Nobody has yet posted righteous indignation about their occupation being called something done in their spare time and not relevant to the economy.
Plus the article was covering Gates' talk on open source and piracy. Clearly, with open source there is no such thing as piracy because you can do what you want with the software. It is when you try to sell the open source software (not present it as part of a service) that you get into trouble. I think we all get the diametric opposition part already.
Finally, -Bill Gates bashed open source- surprise! Next article.
FLOSS reallocates jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source results in jobs being transferred from Software companies to End user companies.
He's right on one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right - it doesn't. I'd say it guarantees it evenly with the way Microsoft guarantees it - if you just happen to have the correct version of the correct software, you'll have upwards compatability. If you chose the wrong end of the fork, then you're screwed.
On the other hand, Open Source, by definition, allows unlimited forking. And if there's a compatibility break between versions, you can be sure that someone, somewhere is going to start up a backwards-compatability fork, or write a backwards-compatibiltiy patch; if the problem is enough to bug you, it's probably enough of a problem to bug other people. And, if there's no backwards-compatibility fork available, you can always Do It Yourself, or put up a note on the proper mailing list, letting people know that the demand is out there, and asking if anyone else has the same need/desire.
With propritary software, the user is basically under the company's control. Unless you're a huge corporation with massive buying power and enough pull in the management level of Microsoft, all you'll wind up with is a "You're screwed, buy our other newer, more expensive software."
Overall, I'm pretty sure Open Source Software is more compatible, and that there's more old versions of software available to reduce the need for backwards compatibility.
Bogus Microsoft claim... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do I say? Tough shit! Adapt or die Microsoft! Open Source is good for the economy in general. It's just not good for YOUR economy!
... but bundling & dumping creates jobs! (Score:4, Funny)
-- Greg
Bill Gates obviously doesn't understand economics (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, consider the following situation:
Microsoft employs 100 people to work on Internet Explorer and all of its problems. These individuals work 40 hours a week and are paid $50,000 a year. All is well. Microsoft has a team which works on fixing problems in IE, the team-member get paid, and customers get a security update in IE every blue moon or so.
Now, along comes another group, Mozilla. They give away source code to the gecko core and get a small group of volunteers to work on Phoenix for free. These individuals choose to do this in their spare time, off of the job. They produce a browser which is arguably superior to IE.
Now, lets say that Phoenix drives IE out of the market, and Microsoft thus has to can it's IE project, meaning the workers get fired. Is this a bad thing? Well, obviously MS and their employees don't like it. But it is still good for society over-all.
Previously, customers had to pay money to MS for a browser. Now, they don't. They can conserve the resources (money) that they would have spent on the browser, and spend it elsewhere, on their highest valued use.
And what of Microsoft and the workers? Well, either they can make their product good enough that people will pay for it over a free alternative, or they have to eliminate the product-line or sell it off to whoever will buy it. What about the former MS employees working on IE? Well, it is unfortunate for them, but no-one has the right to be employed. Certainly, consumers in such a case would have demonstrated that they aren't willing to pay a higher price for an inferior product.
If they are laid off, they can find jobs else-where, where their labor will go towards a use more highly valued by consumers than what they had been doing. This is simply the reallocation of labor from less highly-valued uses to more highly-valued uses, resulting in greater overall efficiency.
If any programmer here is going to complain, I would ask you this: Given two computer-systems, both of the same quality in your estimation, would you buy the one that is priced higher or priced lower? The answer is you'd buy the one that's priced lower. Now, why would you expect anyone to pay more for a product of the same or lesser quality, when they can pay less for a product of the same or greater quality? It is hypocrisy to ask others to pay more money for inferior products.
I wouldn't be surprised if next thing, Bill Gates is going to file lawsuite against FOSS developers. After all, they are undercutting their competitors, and this is an evil anti-competitive strategy. Of course, if they price their products at the same price, they can be accused of collusion; and heaven forbid if they price them higher, then they're accused of price-gouging.
Half truths: The only way to FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of jobs, Mr. Gates? Point-of-sale software programming jobs seems to be the only possibility--a mere fraction of programming jobs out there--which just happens to be the business that you are in. It diminishes Bill's field and invigorates the industries that have anything to do with customization, localization, and face-to-face service and support.
"[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility or do that kind of integration [for seamless computing to work]."
"We certainly will have open-source apps that compete with and that run on Windows. But when it comes to a guarantee or having someone who stands behind your software, [open source] is typically not something done in a capital approach."
Hail, Prince of the Obvious! More obvious information: Microsoft doesn't exactly specialize in guarantees either. Open Source doesn't do all those things, but companies can. Bill's statment is like me saying that closed-source doesn't guarantee free croissants. Of course it doesn't, but Microsoft sure would if it meant keeping Linux out of Paris.
As for the integration thing, he's right. Open Source environments don't integrate like Microsoft does. And is probably better off for it. Isn't that what got us into all this IE trouble in the first place? How frenzied integration is somehow an advantage is a mystery to me.
He's stating a few half-truths and presuming that his fragment of the truth leads everyone to his MSFT-centric conclusions. He makes about as much sense as a Linux zealot might. His only advantage is that he knows the business vocabulary that will get the attention of the bureaucrats. That, and he's Bill Fucking Gates and what he says goes. Outside of Slashdot, the man is perceived as a technological messiah.
Umm Mr.Gates it actually does guarantee that (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no guarantee in the propriatary world that there will be upward compatibility. The fact that you can migrate you data to the latest and greatest or God for bid an other vendors product is completly the will of the original vendor. Sure most of the time there is an upgrade path but if a product is discontinued their may not be. The data storage might be binary and it would be a massive under takeing to reverse engineer that data. Look at all the effort that it has taken to be able to import a word doc with reasonable accuracy for example. At least with OSS you can look at the source code to your old app and probably use the file/data access code from it in your new app or simply to create something new and simple that can convert using that old code to parse and writeout back out to some better know format. There are all sorts of very valid reasons why a closed source proprietary solution might be better, Gates needs to focus on those instead of spreading out right lies. The problem he has of course is the vast majority of those good reasons are decreasing in value to the average user as skilled people are becomeing more availible and the barries to entry on large scale information systems is shrinking daily.
One more for the list .... (Score:4, Funny)
-- Bill Gates, 2004
"You shouldn't get overly paranoid thinking that Microsoft's a broad competitor and it's not possible to work with us."
-- Bill Gates, 1997
"The Internet? We are not interested in it"
-- Bill Gates, 1993
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time."
-- Bill Gates - OS/2 Programmer's Guide 1988
"The next generation of interesting software will be made on a Macintosh,
not an IBM PC."
-- 1984
"640 Kilobyte ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981
"Microsoft programs are generally bug-free."
-- Bill Gates, on code stability, from Focus Magazine
Compatibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the last 7 versions of Word are 100% compatible, I'll kiss Gates ass on the Capitol steps during the Inauguration on Jan. 20, 2005.
Lets revise
Completely true statement! (Score:4, Insightful)
Open Source kills [Microsoft] jobs.
ALERT! Amazon and Google steal jobs (Score:4, Interesting)
And why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is wrong with losing jobs, so long as something is done to keep the general public's standard of living up? Everytime you lose a job to progress, that's less work that needs to be done. The problem with people is they can't think of a society in any other terms but economic. All anybody wants to know is how to get more money. Nobody ever asks the more important question behind that: how do we improve our standard of living?
So do we stop all hobbyists... (Score:4, Insightful)
Quick, stop everyone taking snapshots at a wedding because the wedding photographers will go out of business! Video cameras too! The MPAA is under threat! Movie sales will plummet as everyone watches home made flicks.
Stop everyone from learning to paint, because it will starve already starving artists.
Stop anyone from learning to cook, or cooking meals at home, because the chefs will go out of business.
Every kid in a garage band, quick arrest them before they put pro musicians out of business. (Ok there are a few people who might want to stop the crappy garage bands granted).
We need to license these things now before its too late! People may actually find fulfilment in their lives outside of work! Stop the madness.
What's the argument here? That MS is so bad it can't stand competition from dedicated hobbyists?
I have a job BECAUSE of open source (Score:4, Interesting)
Because of my exprience in Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl and various other technologies, I have a job at a company that uses these technologies exclusively. And the company is able to be competitive because it doesn't have to pay all of those licensing fees that would have to be paid if we used Windows Servers running IIS, ASP, SQL server, etc...
And of course, the entire internet runs on technologies that are open to everyone, http, tcp/ip, ftp, ssl, etc... many businesses would not exist if not for open source technologies.
Long live open source.
So why is it ... (Score:5, Informative)
Funny thing is that these jobs have been paid for mostly by non-US companies who are trying to get out from under the thumb of either IBM or Microsoft (or both). And they're hiring Americans like me to help them do it.
A big selling point has been that N years from now I can guarantee that the software will still run and they'll still be able to read all their files. They've learned the hard way that this isn't always true with proprietary systems.
And I can easily explain to them how they can verify that there are no hidden tricks (trojans, backdoors, etc) in my code or in any of the lower-level software. Neither my code nor anything in "the system" can be sending their data off to some stranger's data warehouse. Granted, they'll have to keep around a staff of unix/linux geeks, who will both study the code and monitor the appropriate online fora. But they don't need to hire as many such geeks as they have on site now to keep their IBM/MS stuff running, so even that's a win.
Maybe eventually we'll see the day when all software has been written and no more is needed. But I suspect that day's still a long way off. And the world is growing more and more dependent on smaller and smaller computers to keep everything running.
So for the forseeable future, they'll still need lots of people who understand that, no matter what managers or marketing people say, 2+2 is always 4, not 5 or 3.95 or something desirable. (Except when it's 3.99999999998 of course, but any true geek will understand that, too.
So I'll predict that people with the twisted (i.e., logical) minds required by programming will continue to have jobs until long after all of us are gone.
Of course, we may all have to move to India or China, as the patent system shuts down software development in the Western world.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
* Head of the republican national party criticizes John Kerry
* Donald Trump names another building after himself
* GAP spokesperson lauds the success of NAFTA
* Bill O'Reilly accuses Michael Moore of being "un-American"
* Humvee automaker claims proposed fuel consumption standands are a danger to society
* Larry King interviews Martha Stewart's pool guy and asks the tough questions everyone's dying to know. Chlorine or Bromine?
* Clear Channel Communications questions the integrity of smaller radio radio stations insisting, "They don't have the resources to report news according to established journalistic standards."
* Consensus at 2004 annual meeting of Zoologists confirms: "Bears do shit in the woods."
Guarantee Mr. Gates? What 'Guarantee' is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to ask the question: Will Microsoft guarantee its software in any way or provide indemnification to end users against claims of infringement?
Depends on your perspective. (Score:5, Interesting)
From my point of view, it's Microsoft that's bad for the job market.
Solution: Hire the open source programmers. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always thought that setting out to design and code up a project from thin air is a big risk. Much better to find an open source project that is nearly what you want, and hire the team who produced it to turn it into the product you want.
A viable open source project already has most of the risk removed because you know it works and you know it's wanted.
This would solve the problem caused by the two opposing forces; companies like microsoft who want to charge for software, and programmers who have too much time on their hands, who write open source projects to add to their portfolio.
Face it, a lot of open source projects are started by programmers just looking to get some credibility and get a real job. Everyone has to have an incoming for food, shelter and whatever.
Makes sense... (Score:4, Funny)
... if you don't think about it.
I'm a developer running my own business, so In a manner of speaking I do not have a job, not being employed by anyone. So perhaps he's right ;)
Re:More nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
More nonsense from Gates.
He's on the losing side, but he still knows how to fight. Notice his sales pitch to the asian governments:
FTA:
In the case of software piracy, Gates said Microsoft is having "good dialogues" with Asian governments, one area being their loss of tax revenue "when people don't pay for software".
The obvious corollary to this is that if you're using free (as in beer) open source software then you aren't paying taxes either. The technological solution to both of this problem and the piracy one is the same: trusted (by Them not You) Computing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Same for the democrats. Just because somebody votes for candidate B that makes them a fascist nazi? Or a sadistic killer? or a religious warmonger bent on genocide of non cristians?
All I can say is that people working doubletime to divide this country have been very successful. The radio and TV stations which broadcast hate filled programs hour after hour must all be delighted.
After 9/11 the country was united. That lasted for about two weeks now we are back to being two countries who hate each other again.
Re:Poor Bill (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously; just because india won during a point in history when the british empire was already declining does not mean that it is set in stone that open source is going to win against MS, the patent system and all of the legislation and dirty tricks that MS and Intel can buy.
The battle is by no means certain, and I believe that it's not unconcievable that open source will be (for all practical matters) legislated out of america (and probably western europe and australa as well). Which, as an american (who does NOT have thousands to funnel towards anyones campaign coffers) troubles me deeply.
So drop the pithy crap; the situation is a LOT more dire than your hippy-dippy sentiments take into account.
Re:Obvious quote (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you realise how many govt departments in Australia are using Open Source? What are they going to do, legislate against themselves?
I'd rather see the IT people in each country developing skills in open source, building and installing their own solutions, rather than teaching a bunch of drones neater handwriting so they can make out cheques to Microsoft.
It's a bit like the auto industry - many countries build their own to (a) keep the jobs local and (b) cut down on the river of cash flowing out of the country.
Re:Obvious quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jobs: Open Source Kills Gates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What Gates Really Meant (Score:3)
Re:Some Questions about People? (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Joy uses the Network (it's the Computer!)
Steve Jobs' entire evil overlord alpine command center runs on NextStep
Linus uses FreeBSD (but on a Transmeta)
Kevin Mitnick uses no OS, he's not allowed to
Richard Stallmann bangs two rocks together in binary, but they're free rocks!
Dr. Phil runs Microsoft Bob (tm) (it cares)
Oprah uses UGoGirlnix
Martha Stewart uses OS/390 over a VT100 at the prison library
Michael Moore uses Windows (it's also bloated and stupid)
George Bush uses an etch-a-sketch
John Kerry used to use a Mac but his chin kept hitting the touchpad